Sitting of 27 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petition from Lambeth, for legislation to lie upon the Table.
  DIN, NIZAM.
  Petition of Nizam Din, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition from Strood, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES, TAXATION, &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Hornsey, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONGESTION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the Acts dealing with Congestion in Ireland (Report, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 16, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and Hayti respecting Nationality. Signed at Port-au-Prince 6th April, 1906. Ratifications exchanged at Port-au-Prince, 16th October, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 17, 1906).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Germany respecting the Boundary between British and German Territories from Yola to Lake Chad. Signed at London, 19th March, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Increased Wages in Dockyards
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now give definite particulars of the various increases, so
  1392
  long promised to the employees in His Majesty's dockyards, and the date when such increases will take effect?
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Detailed instructions are being communicated to the dockyards to-day.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the anxiety among those engaged in the Royal Dockyards to know the allocation of the increase in wages, the total of which was annonnced before the recess; and whether he will be able to issue the new schedule at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Detailed instructions are being communicated to the dockyards to-day.

  French and German Naval Shipbuilding Programmes.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names of the battleships building in France and Germany, or sanctioned by the respective Parliaments of those countries on the 30th November, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The names of the battleships building or sanctioned on 30th November, 1905, are as follow:—Germany—Building:" "Loth-ringen," "Deutschland," "Pommern," "Hannover," "Q." "Schlesien." Sanctioned: Of the eighteen battleships sanctioned by Fleet Bill, 17 are "substitute ships," and one additional to be known till date of launch as "S." Otherwise they are unnamed. France— Building: "République," "Patrie," "Démocratic," "Justice," "Liberté," "Verité." Sanctioned: "A. 15," now "Danton," "A. 16" now "Voltaire," "A. 17," now "Condorcet."

  Failure of Longford Potato Crop.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the potato crop this year is a total failure in County Longford; and whether he will direct the Board of Agriculture to prepare a Return at once of the areas most seriously affected, with a

  1393
  view to providing the same with new seed before, the season for setting comes again.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received Reports from both the Local Government Board and the Department of Agriculture to the effect that the potato crop in Longford, though under the average, is not a total failure. The Local Government Board have not, so far, found reason to fear that the partial failure of the crop in Longford will seriously affect the condition of the people. The circumstances of the people will, however, be carefully watched, with the view of considering whether any special measures of relief may be necessary.

  Treatment of Female Salvationists at Widnes.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the treatment of two female members of the Salvation Army by the Widnes police, who forced them to wash in the presence of three police officers, notwithstanding protests made by the women.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) On making inquiry into this matter I am informed by the chief constable that the detention of these prisoners in police cells was due to their having declined to surrender themselves at the police station at a time when they might have been taken straight to prison. It is true that when at the police station they washed their hands and faces in the presence of two constables; but they made no complaint or protest about this, but, on the contrary, thanked the police for the consideration that had been shown them.

  The British Exhibits at the Milan Exhibition.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the British Executive Commissioner to the Milan Exhibition will furnish a Report as to the results of this Government's participation, and if a detailed statement will be published dealing with the expenditure of the £10,000 appropriation given by the late
  1394
  Government, and what steps were taken by the British Commission to have Irish industries adequately represented; if any Irishman was a member of the Commission, or if Ireland was represented on the international jury of awards; if a Return will be given as to the number of Irish industries represented; if the nomination of jurors was made with a due regard to fitness; if those who acted as jurors were British subjects and connected with industrial enterprises; if it is the intention of the Government not to make further grants for exhibition purposes until after a Report is made by the Commission appointed to report on the subject of exhibitions; and if the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed by the President of the British Commission for the Milan International Exhibition, Sir Albert Rollit, that a Report as to the results of the Government's participation and a detailed account and statement dealing with the expenditure of the £10,000 Grant-in-Aid has been kept and will be furnished to the Government by the Commission in due course. Measures were taken by the Commission to secure an adequate representation of Irish industries. The Commission communicated with the Department of Agriculture, etc., Ireland, and with all the leading Irish industrial houses, and approached a large number of firms through the personal good offices of the Italian Consul-General at Dublin and the Consul at Belfast; they also employed a leading firm of exhibition agents to endeavour to gather a representative Irish exhibit. The success achieved was only very moderate. The Commission paid all expenses connected with the Irish exhibits, with the exception of those of only one exhibitor. The following Irishmen (and possibly others) were members of the international jury:—Admiral C. P. Fitzgerald, A.I.N.A., Mr. J. Sebastian Barnett, teacher. But in the nomination of juries the principle of nationality as within the United Kingdom was not followed, and in most cases was not known. The Irish industries and business houses, etc., represented, included:— Carpet - making and rope-spinning — Benada Abbey Technical and Lace

  1395
  School, Tubbercurry, county Sligo; St. Louis Convent, Carrickmacross, county Monaghan; Youghal Lace Industry, Youghal, county Cork; Dun Emur Guild, Dundrum, county Dublin; the Belfast Ropework Company, Limited, Belfast. The nomination of jurors was, of course, made with full regard to fitness. Of the forty-two jurors for Great Britain thirty-eight are known to be British subjects; one (if not two) of the others is an Italian expert long

  JURORS.

  Admiral C. P. Fitzgerald, A.I.N.A.

  T. E. Gatehouse, P.R.S.E., A.M.I.C.E., M.I.E.E.

  Editor, Electrical Review.

  E. H. Godfrey

  Royal Agricultural Society of England.

  F. D. Green

  Merchant and Shipowner.

  D. Otto Hehner

  Consulting Chemist, Public Analyst.

  A. E. Hight, A.M.I.C.E.

  Indian Public Works Department, (retired).

  E. J. Hill, A.I.N.A.

  Consulting Engineer.

  Sir Thomas Brooke Hitching

  Common Council City of London, Alderman L.C.C., etc.

  Fred King

  Assistant Manager of Lombardy Light Railways.

  J. Q. Le Pelley

  Merchant.

  E. St. J. Mildmay

  Barrister.

  H. R. Miller

  Assurance Agent at Lloyds, Director of United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association.

  A. Nathan

  Director of Ironworks.

  Edward P. Nathan

  Mechanical Engineer.

  G. R. Palmer

  Director of Palmers, Limited.

  A. P. Parker

  Mechanical Engineer.

  Charles Pavia

  Juryman Earl's Court, 1888, Edinburgh, 1890; President of the Italian Jury, Earl's Court, 1904.

  M. H. Rafferty

  Egyptian Civil Service.

  W. F. Reid, F.I.C., F.C.S.

  Consulting Chemist, Technical Adviser to the Aero Club.

  Sir Albert K. Rollit, D.C.L., L.L.D.

  B. J. Rose

  Civil Service, Commercial Intelligence Department, India Office.

  C. de G. Sells, M.I.C.E., M.I.M.E., M.I.M.A.

  Consulting Engineer.

  J. D. Stuart Sim

  Civil Service, Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.

  C. M. Stanley

  Merchant.

  Captain A. S. Thomson, C.B.

  Trinity House.

  C. E. Town

  Commercial Education Department, London Chamber of Commerce.

  L. Harrison Townsend

  Architect.

  J. H. Towsey

  British Consul, Milan.

  J. B. Wimble

  Shipowner.

  Dr. Yoshioka

  Japanese Commissioner, Technical Expert in Fisheries.

  resident in England, who may have been naturalised (inquiry will be made on this point), and one a Japanese expert. Practically all the jurors were connected either directly or as experts or otherwise with industrial enterprises. At the present time I am not in a position either to say that no grant will be made for exhibitions pending the Committee's Report, or that, when the Report is received, it will be considered necessary to lay it upon the Table of the House.

  JURIES

  A. M. Alexander, M.I.C.E.

  Managing Director of the Thames Iron Works.

  Percy Bennett

  Commercial Attaché, Vienna and Rome.

  J. Sebastian Barnett

  Teacher.

  A. C. Campbell

  Vice-President of the British Chamber of Commerce in Italy.

  H. Canziani

  Civil Engineer.

  Rev. H. T. Cart

  Clerk in Holy Orders.

  E. D. Carver

  Merchant.

  T. Howard Colls

  Builder.

  Conrad W. Cooke, M.I.E.E.

  Scientific Expert.

  R. G. Corbet

  Press Correspondent.

  Captain L. S. Denny, K.D.G.

  Underwriter at Lloyds.

  George Davidson

  Merchant.

  Suggested Naval Station at Hobart, Tasmania.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government will consider the desirability of utilising Hobart, Tasmania, as a permanent naval station.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I have nothing to add to my reply to a previous Question from the noble Lord on 5th November.

  The Colonies and the Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies 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 the Crown Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, as soon as the Merchant Shipping Bill is passed the Secretary of State will communicate with the Colonial Governments on the question of applying some or all of its provisions in the Crown Colonies.

  American Cotton Trust.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the decline in American cotton due to an organised bear raid in options and futures on behalf of American and British gamblers on the United States and Liver-
  1398
  pool Cotton Exchanges, the American planters have started a trust scheme, under the name of the Southern Cotton Company, with an authorised capital of £2,000,000, with the privilege of increasing it to £20,000,000, in order to fight these capitalistic syndicates as well as for cornering cotton; and, if so, will he say what steps the Government intends to take to checkmate this American trust, in view of its effect upon the Lancashire cotton and allied industries, and the thirteen millions of workpeople directly and indirectly dependent upon them.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have seen reports to the effect that a scheme is being organised in America by persons interested in the Southern Cotton Association to regulate the price of cotton by means of storage and gradual sale. Developments in connection with the scheme will, of course, be carefully watched, but the Board do not understand that the Lancashire cotton trade are at present greatly alarmed.

  Wages of Irish Customs Outport Watchers.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way to increase the minimum wages of the outport watchers of His Majesty's Customs in Ireland to 24s. a week, with fourteen days' annual leave and full pay during illness.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The wages and other conditions are the same for the watchers at outports in Ireland as in Great Britain, and they are thought to be quite adequate for the work.

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools— Recommendations of Departmental Committee.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any provision will be made in the Estimates for the forthcoming financial year with a view to carrying out such of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Provision of Funds for Reformatory and Industrial Schools as do not require legislation; and whether, in the case of the recommendations affecting day industrial schools, an early opportunity will be taken to amend the law in the direction required.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) This Report is still under consideration, and I cannot make any announcement at present with regard to it.

  Child Insurance and Child Mortality.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any legislation under consideration in reference to child insurance and child mortality will also deal with the subject of death certification generally, on the lines recommended in the Report of the Select Committee of 1893.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I fear I am not in a position to make any statement with regard to legislation of the kind referred to by my right hon. friend, but I doubt whether the subject of death certification generally would be germane to a Bill whose object was to place restrictions on child insurance. I understand, however, that my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board thinks that such a Bill might properly deal with the registration of still-born children.

  Arming of Battleships.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what ships are armed with the 12-inch gun, mark X; also on what date this mark was finally adopted by the Admiralty as the standard 12-inch gun; and further, whether the guns of this class now mounted in the "Dreadnought" were originally destined for the armament of
  1400
  one or more of the ships now under construction or completing for sea.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is not considered desirable in the public interest to give information as to the particular mark of guns supplied to ships.

  Religious Tests for Teachers—Name of Training College.
  MR. WARDLE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability of directing local education authorities to omit the question from their forms of application for head and assistant teacher-ships which seeks to ascertain the name of the particular college in which the applicant was trained, seeing that such training colleges are mainly of a denominational character, and the question partakes of the nature of a religious test.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I think it would be undesirable that I should attempt, in the manner suggested in the Question, to fetter the discretion of local authorities as to the steps they may find it desirable to take for satisfying themselves as to the educational qualifications of candidates for teaching posts in their schools. To know something of the educational record of the candidate while he was a student in a training college is one of the most useful means available for gauging the candidate's powers of work and intellectual attainments, quite apart from religious questions.

  Contracted Out Schools—Compensation to Teachers for Decrease of Salary.
  MR. WARDLE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the event of a school being contracted out of the supervision of the local authority, and the teachers of such a school declining to serve under the managers of that school at a less rate of remuneration than that provided by the local authority, will such teachers be able to obtain compensation for loss of employment, and, if so, from whom; and whether, if they continue to work under the managers of such school for a lower salary than that provided by the scale of the local authority, they will be able to obtain compensation from the local authority for such loss of salary.

  1401
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to the Question would seem to depend mainly upon the action taken hereafter by the Board of Education under the two concluding lines of Section 5 (4) of the Bill, and I would ask the attention of the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 24th July to the hon. Member for Christchurch.† But in any case it would be highly improper for me to pronounce an opinion now as to the probable decision of the Board of Education in the event of such a question arising for decision as that suggested by the hon. Member, which, under Section 27 (2) of the Bill, the Board of Education would have to adjudicate upon hereafter judicially.

  Milk Warranty.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of "Watts v. Stevens," and what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the hardship imposed upon milk vendors by that decision, since when they have been obliged to protect themselves by insisting on a warranty with each churn of milk obtained from the farmers.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The attention of the Board has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers, but they are advised that the decision does not render it necessary that each churn or consignment of milk should be accompanied by a warranty. The Board do not think that farmers will experience any practical difficulty in furnishing written evidence of warranty sufficient to satisfy the requirements of milk vendors consequent on the recent decision.

  Expenses of Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst the ratepayers in the Dublin metropolitan district respecting the charges levied for the support of the Dublin metropolitan police; whether he is aware of the disproportion which exists in regard to the ratio of police and the
  †See (4) Debates, clxi., 1021.
  1402
  population and of the expense in Dublin as compared with cities in Great Britain; and whether he will inquire into this matter and arrange that the control and payment of the Dublin metropolitan police shall be managed by the local authority as it is in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I was not aware that there is any general dissatisfaction among the ratepayers in the Dublin metropolitan police district in regard to the charges levied for the support of the Dublin metropolitan police. The charge may, no doubt, be higher than that in many cities in Great Britain, but I understand that even in these cities the ratio of police and population to expense differs widely, and it would, therefore, be impossible to make a comparison between Dublin and these cities generally. I am informed that the Dublin metropolitan police is modelled on the similar force for London, the Acts of Parliamen relating to it being based upon those affecting London; and neither of the forces is under local control. No change in the system could be effected without legislation, and I am not prepared to say that the change suggested by the hon. Member is desirable.

  Revision of Voters' Lists at Bray and Rathmines.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the revision of the voters' lists, which took place at Bray on 22nd September, the sitting opened at 10.15 a.m. and the court was occupied until 12.20 reading the jurors' list; that during this time claimants and voters who had been objected to came into Court and many had to go away without being heard; and that the lists contained 2,916 names and the number of objections to be considered was 774, exclusive of official objections; and whether he will arrange that due time will be given next year—at least two days and one night sitting—to properly revise this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have referred this Question to the county court Judge, who informs me that the revision sessions at Bray took place on

  1403
  22nd September. There was a day sitting, which lasted from 10.15 a.m. to 5 p.m., and a night sitting from 6 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. The county court Judge states that by the close of the night sitting the cases of all voters and claimants who were in attendance had been disposed of, and he has no reason to believe that any claimant had to leave without being heard. He publicly expressed his willingness to continue the revision on any subsequent days if necessary, and was prepared to give as many day or night sittings as might reasonably be required. The political parties were represented by solicitors and agents, and no suggestion in favour of an adjournment was made to the Judge, who understood that all parties were satisfied that the revision should close. The question as to the number of sittings to be arranged is one for the county court Judge to decide, but I gather from his statement that he is prepared to arrange as many day and night sittings as may be necessary to dispose of all the cases.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused in the Rathmines revision court this year; and whether, seeing that nearly one-half of the voters in South Dublin reside within the Rathmines polling district, that in the other half of South Dublin five revision courts are held, and in addition a portion of South Dublin is revised in Bray, and three revising barristers are employed in this work, he will arrange that at least another revision court shall be established next year in Rathmines.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have not been made aware that any inconvenience was caused in the Rathmines revision court this year. I have no information as to the number of voters in the Rathmines polling district, but, taking the population as a basis, the ratio of the voters in Rathmines and the remainder of South Dublin would be as two to five. Five revision courts in addition to Rathmines are held in South Dublin, and ten revision courts in North Dublin, and three assistant revising barristers are employed to assist the permanent revising barrister in the revision for the whole
  1404
  county. The permanent revising barrister informs me that the establishment of a second revision court at Rathmines would, in his opinion, be inconvenient to all persons engaged in the revision. The matter, however, is one for the decision of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and if any of the persons interested desire the establishment of an extra revision court, they should proceed by memorial to the Lord-Lieutenant, when the matter would be fully considered.

  Irish Land Purchase Applications.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether applications under The Land Act (Ireland), 1903, for the sale of properties to tenants, and which have been lodged as far back as November, 1904, have not yet been declared or dealt with; whether, if this be so, what is the reason for the delay which has taken place; and whether he will cause immediate steps to be taken to ensure a decision being announced at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that all applications lodged by vendors up to November, 1904, by which proceedings were originated before them for the sale of lands under The Irish Land Act, 1903, have been considered by the Commissioners, and, save as to two cases, the Commissioners have, in their discretion, provisionally declared, or refused to declare, the lands to be separate estates for the purposes of sale. As to the two cases excepted, in one case no purchase agreements have been lodged by the vendor, and in the other the map which accompanied the originating application did not correspond with the map originally furnished by the vendor to the Commissioners. In the latter case the vendor has been repeatedly requested to explain the discrepancy, but up to the present has failed to do so.

  Turbary Bights on the King-Harman Estate at Linear.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick M'Keon, a tenant on the King-Harman estate at Linear, has been

  1405
  refused the sale of his holding unless he would accept same without the turbary rights to which he is entitled; whether he is aware that M'Keon has been for years deprived of turbary on this property; and what action he proposes to take, seeing that the estate is now before the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate upon which Patrick M'Keon's holding is situate appear to be pending before them.

  Sale of the Macauly Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the present position as regards the sale of the Macauly, North Longford, estate; whether the inspection has yet been concluded and the schedule approved; and what action the Estates Commissioners have taken to preserve the turbary rights of the tenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to trace any proceedings for the sale of the estate in question.

  Irish Poor Law Commission—(Government Action.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Longford, Granard, and Mohill Boards of Guardians have passed resolutions approving of the recommendations of the Vice-Regal Commission on Irish Poor Law, and calling upon Parliament at once to give effect to the same; and what action the Government propose to take, and when.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received resolutions to the effect stated, but, as I have said in reply to previous Questions, the Report of the Commissioners will require very full consideration, and I do not anticipate that I shall be in a position to state the intentions of the Government on the subject for some time to come.

  Purchase of the Dopping (Derry Cassay) Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any offer has been made to the Commission to purchase the Dopping (Derry Cassay) estate in North Longford; if the Commissioners have approached the landlord with a view to a sale which will include the restoration of the twenty-five evicted tenants on this property; and, if not, will they now undertake to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.)—The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate mentioned appear to have been instituted before them. The Commissioners have not yet been able to inquire into the applications of the evicted tenants, but this will, of course, be done.

  Sale of Colonel Digby's Estate at Ballinacuna, County Westmeath.
  MR. SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, some months ago, negotiations commenced between Colonel Digby, of Ballinacuna, Moyvore, county Westmeath, and his tenantry for the sale of his estate to them; that a bargain was effected, but that, owing to the landlord's refusal to reinstate some evicted tenants on his property, the sale has not been completed; that the evicted farms are now let on the cloven months system to a large farmer who refuses to restore them to the evicted tenants, although he was offered full compensation for any loss or improvements on the lands through the Estates Commissioners; and if he will bring this case before them, with a view to a sale of the lauds amongst the poorer tenants and the restoration of the evicted tenants to their old holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been instituted before them, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations which may be proceeding between the landlord and tenants. The Commissioners have, however, received applications from five evicted tenants for

  1407
  reinstatement on the estate, and have referred these applications to their inspector for investigation.

  Preservation of Lough Erne Fisheries.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangements have been made with the Conservators of Fisheries in the Erne district for contribution by the Crown, as the owner of the bed and soil of Lough Erne, towards the preservation of the Erne Fisheries.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the local Board of Conservators are in correspondence with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with a view to securing the Commissioners' co-operation in the protection of the Lough Erne Fisheries. The Commissioners have asked that the Conservators should put forward a definite proposal on the subject, and the matter is to be further considered at the next meeting of the Conservators.

  Sale of the Crosbie Estate, Ballyheigal.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the agreements entered into by the tenants on the Crosbie Estate, at Ballyheigal, were filed with the Estates Commissioners; and when will the lands 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 June, 1904. The vesting of the holdings in the tenants 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 a holding.

  Untenanted Land on the Estate of Lindsay Talbot Crosbie, at Ardfert.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what amount of untenanted land is on the estate of Lindsay Talbot Crosbie, at Ardfert, the tenanted portion of which has been sold to the tenants; and whether the untenanted land has been offered to
  1408
  the Estates Commissioners in conjunction with the sale of tenanted land; and, if not, will he say why this has not been done.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the property to which the originating application refers includes 849 acres of untenanted demesne land which the vendor desires to sell to the Commissioners and repurchase from them. The application also sets forth certain portions of the townlands of Ardfert, Ballinprior, and Scrillagh, which the owner does not propose to sell, by reason of their consisting of a village, rabbit warren, with gamekeeper's residence and land attached thereto, and a private residence respectively. The Commissioners have not yet come to a decision upon the application.

  Sale of the Estate of R. E. Longfield, at Fort Middle, county Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the agreements signed by tenants on the estate of R. E. Longfield, at Fort Middle, in the county of Limerick, have yet been lodged; whether two tenants on the estate who have refused to accept the terms of purchase will be bound by the action of those who have purchased, without their holdings being inspected by the Estates Commissioners; and when will the lands be vested in the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements in respect of this estate were lodged with them in August, 1905. The Commissioners will, in due course, inquire into the cases of the tenants who have not signed purchase agreements. An inspection will take place, but the Commissioners are not at present able to say when.

  Excess Staff of the Veterinary Department of the Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to check the influx of redundant clerical hands

  1409
  into the Veterinary Branch of the Irish Agricultural Department, seeing that the number of persons at present on the staff seriously in excess of that actually required; and can he say whether the present Committee of Inquiry into the affairs of the Department will take special cognisance of the Veterinary Branch with a view to locating the responsibility for this anomaly.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that no influx of the character indicated is in progress. The clerical staff of the Veterinary Branch was some time since strengthened by the addition of five junior clerks, and by the transfer from another branch of a clerk formerly connected with the Veterinary Branch. This augmentation was rendered necessary by a general increase in the work of the branch, together with developments in connection with the enforcement of sheep-dipping and the regulations as to horse importations. The Department do not consider that the staff of the branch possesses any unnecessary margin of strength. If a substantial permanent decrease of the work of the branch should occur, a corresponding reduction in the staff will be made. I am not aware that the question of the number of junior clerks employed in a particular branch of the office is one which would engage the attention of the Committee of Inquiry.

  Pay of Colour-Sergeant in Militia and Line Battalions.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, according to the Army regulations, a colour-sergeant receiving 3s. 6d. daily pay in a line regiment can be, without his own consent, posted to be colour-sergeant of a Militia staff, and thereby have to serve at a lower rate of pay than he would get in his own battalion; if so, are colour-sergeants posted to Militia battalions by way of punishment; and how much less pay per day would a colour-sergeant posted to the Militia receive under the present regulations than if he were allowed to remain in his own battalion.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A line colour-sergeant is liable to com-
  1410
  pulsory transfer to the permanent staff of the Militia as a colour-sergeant, but this course is rarely resorted to. In the absence of a non-commissioned officer volunteering for this appointment the vacancy is filled by the promotion of a line sergeant or a sergeant of the permanent staff. Colour-sergeants are not posted to the permanent staff as a punishment. Their pay is 6d. a day less than a line colour-sergeant.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Employment of Retired Lieutenants, &c, from the Ranks.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether their Lordships will consider the advisability of discontinuing the future employment of retired lieutenants from the ranks and of retired commissioned warrant officers in the Royal Navy in dockyard and other Home billets, and, if necessary, of enlarging the number of active service officers of the ranks referred to, with a view to the employment in future as vacancies arise in connection with the positions named of active service officers only instead of retired officers.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): It is the practice of the Admiralty to appoint men in the active service to nearly all the dockyard and other home billets referred to in this Question. In certain appointments, however, it is considered desirable that the duration of tenure should be greater than the conditions of the service would permit were the holders on the active list. In such cases, therefore, retired officers, or officers nearing retirement, are appointed to these posts. With regard to the second part of the Question, no enlargement of the establishment would be necessary even if it were decided to confine all these appointments to active service officers, the numbers being already sufficient to allow of their employment in the positions referred to were it considered desirable.

    Greenwich Age Pensions.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will

    1411
    state the average ago of the men receiving Greenwich age pensions in the years 1891, 1895, and 1906, and say out of what funds the increased amounts paid in respect of these age pensions for the two last-named years have been provided.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The approximate average age in 1891 was fifty-nine; in 1895, fifty-six; at the present time, sixty-three. These average ages refer only to men who have not belonged to the Seamen Pensioner Reserve; ex-members of that Reserve have always received pensions from Greenwich Hospital funds at the ago of fifty-five. The increased amount available for Greenwich Hospital pensions in l895 was provided partly by an increase in the rent paid from Naval funds for the use of the hospital buildings for the purposes of the Royal Naval College, and partly by the restoration of a grant of £16,000 formerly made to Greenwich Hospital from the Consolidated Fund, for which provision is now made in "the Navy Estimates. The increased amount now available was provided by a further increase in the rent paid for the Royal Naval College.

    H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that accurate particulars of the design of the "Dreadnought," built in Portsmouth dockyard, appeared in the German Press several months before the ship was launched; that particulars appeared in a London technical journal on 26th May, 1905, or fourteen months before the details were communicated to Parliament, giving the exact armament, speed, displacement, horse-power, nature of machinery, and other important ideas embodied in the ship; and will he say whether, in the case of the submarines built in private establishments to the order of the Government, any leakage of information respecting their design or the fact of their being constructed took place.
    CAPTAIN HERVEY: May I ask whether it is in the interests of the nation that the Admiralty should answer "yes" or "no" as to the accuracy of newspaper articles, and whether it is not much better that
    1412
    foreign nations should be left in doubt as to the accuracy of these statements?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am inclined to agree with the principle of the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite. So far as I am aware, none of the statements published in the German Press were accurate in all important particulars. The statement containing details in regard to the "Dreadnought" in the London technical journal referred to proved to be a not inaccurate forecast. There is no reason to believe that there has been any leakage of information in regard to the design and construction of submarines.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is the fact that there was no inaccuracy whatever in the Engineering article, and whether important information concerning the "Dreadnought" was communicated to the Press while all information was refused to this House up to 26th July?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have no knowledge of any communication to the Press.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Then I must refresh my right hon. friend's memory. Is he aware that a pamphlet was issued by the Admiralty before the launching of the "Dreadnought," containing important information with regard to the vessel and marked "private"—I have it in my hand—and with the statement that it was for the use of the Press, but not to be quoted verbatim?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will hand me a copy of that pamphlet.
    LORD BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of taking proceedings under the Official Secrets Act?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am not aware that there has been any breach of the provisions of that Act.

    Portsmouth Repairing Harbour.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board propose to commence the new entrance lock to the repairing basins at

    1413
    Portsmouth this financial year, seeing that a sum of money for its commencement has already been voted.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is not intended to commence the construction of this lock entrance during the present financial year.
    MR. ARTHURLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the delay in proceeding with this very important work?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The matter is being considered.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): In view of the many men out of work in Portsmouth, cannot the Admiralty at once put the work in hand?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think it would be possible to commence it this year.
    MR. BRAMSDON: Do the Admiralty really contemplate undertaking the work?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, it is in contemplation.

    Coaling Stations—Hobart.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government will consider the desirability of utilising Hobart, Tasmania, as a permanent naval station.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to my reply to a previous Question from the noble Lord on 5th November.
    LORD R. CECIL: As I did not put the Question, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will send me a copy of the reply.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Certainly.

    Distribution of the Fleet.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTIIER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sea-going squadrons are to be reduced by six first-class battleships and four armoured cruisers, thus reducing the battleships at sea in full commission from
    1414
    thirty-two to twenty-six, and the cruisers from twenty-one to seventeen, and the first line of defence by one-fifth.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool on 14th November, and to the hon. Member for Brighton on 31st October.†
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues with regard to the advisability of issuing a fuller and reasoned explanation of the recent change of policy in view of the fact that the very brief statement made to the Press has, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, been very much misunderstood? If the right hon. Gentleman would do so, it would greatly relieve him of criticism.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will consider that.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether the Admiralty consider that a ship not in full commission, but belonging to the Home Fleet, is as available and useful as a part of the striking force as a ship in full commission?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think I can answer that question at a moment's notice. It is the belief of the Admiralty that the redistribution will add to the striking force of the Fleet.

    The Disturbances at Portsmouth Naval Barracks.
    MR. DALZIEL (Kircaldy Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the fact that important questions relating to the antecedents of Lieutenant Collard were ruled out by the court-martial sitting at Portsmouth, and whether the Admiralty consider that the ends of justice can possibly be served by the exclusion of such questions; and what action, if any, the Admiralty propose to take with regard to the sentence of five years penal servitude passed on the prisoner.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have received from my hon. friend
    † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1098; clxiv., 1482.

    1415
    private notice of this Question. I have also had similar notice from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. In reply to both hon. Members, I have to say that the official Report of the court-martial has not yet reached the Admiralty. It is expected to-day. When it is received it will have to be examined by the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet before it is considered, as it must be considered, by the Board of Admiralty. It will therefore be impossible for me for some days to come to make any statement in regard to what took place before the court-martial or as to the action which the Admiralty propose to take.
    MR. DALZIEL: Do I understand the Admiralty recognise that their hands are perfectly free to revise any sentence passed by the court-martial?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes; that is a matter of course.
    MR. LEAasked whether the order, "Down on the knee," was printed or published in any of the Admiralty regulations; and if it was not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would order that it should not be given to any man or boy in the Navy. It was an improper order.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think I may safely appeal to the House in this matter. Until the judicial proceedings are exhausted, and they are not exhausted yet, any statement that could possibly prejudice them ought to be avoided by me.
    MR. J. WARDasked whether the Admiralty decided the order in which the cases should be tried.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir.
    MR. J. WARD: It was entirely the court-martial?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The proceedings, so far as I know, are in charge of the Judge-Advocate of the Fleet. He has full responsibility for the order of the proceedings.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the Admiralty made an
    1416
    order that the men should be tried by court-martial and the officers by a Court of Inquiry.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir, that is wholly false. The proceedings began by a Court of Inquiry. There was a Court of Inquiry in the case of the only officer whose conduct was impugned.
    MR. DALZIEL: Was that Lieutenant Collard?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes; there was a Court of Inquiry in the case of Lieutenant Collard.
    MR. DALZIEL: What was the result?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot say.
    MR. DALZIEL: Has it come to a conclusion?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is one of the points on which a pronouncement might be pro judicial to the course of justice.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Lieutenant Collard refused to answer a question on the ground that he was himself under trial. Was he not tried by a Court of Inquiry as distinguished from a court-martial?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir.

    Sub-Target Apparatus.
    MR. GODFREY BARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have yet come to a decision as to the supply of the sub-target apparatus as an article of equipment for battalions.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE AVAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN,): No, Sir, the matter is still under consideration.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a battalion which has this apparatus has come out top in Army rifle shooting?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am aware of that.

    Army Cattle Slaughtering in Egypt.
    VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the method of slaughtering cattle for the use of the British troops in Egypt by bleeding and slitting their breasts open so that they take from five to ten minutes to die; will he make inquiry from the Array Service Corps officers, who have to superintend these cruel operations in the public abattoir at Alexandria and elsewhere, and endeavour to have more humane methods adopted.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The cattle in Egypt for the use of the troops are slaughtered according to the custom of the country and the method approved by the Egyptian authorities. Inquiries are being made from the General Officer Commanding with regard to the circumstance referred to by the noble Lord.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been directed to the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the "Humane Slaughtering of Animals," upon which the War Office was represented, and which laid down certain methods to be adopted in Army and Navy Establishments? Will he see that those methods are universally enforced in the cases of meat supplied to the Army?
    MR. BUCHANAN: We have no control over the Egyptian authorities in this matter.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Have you not authority over the contractors?
    MR. BUCHANAN: Not in a foreign country like Egypt.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Then is Egypt a foreign country?

    Militia Garrison Artillery.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many companies of Militia Garrison Artillery have been invited to accept the new conditions of service involving their conversion into ammunition train for the regular artillery in time of war: whether the officers commanding have been informed that in the
    1418
    event of their not accepting the new arrangements their corps will be disbanded; what has been the nature of the replies received; and whether there is reason to believe that the estimate of 12,000 men are available.
    MR. BUCHANAN: No offer has yet been made to the Royal Garrison Artillery (Militia) as regards their conversion into Royal Field Artillery (Militia).

    Spithead Forts.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House if he proposes to let one of the Government forts near Spithead.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir, it is proposed to let one of these forts which is not used for the purposes of defence.

    Command Pay.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that under Army Order No. 131, issued on 1st July, 1905, command pay at the rate of 1s. 6d. a day is granted to command officers of infantry depots, and seeing that the duties and responsibilities of the eight commanding officers of artillery depots are much heavier than those of the infantry commanding officers because of the greater number of men in their depots, the horses, harness, and equipment, he will sanction the same concession of 1s. 6d. a day to these eight artillery commanding officers, and will include a provision of £220, which is all the concession will cost the Treasury, in next year's Estimate to meet the charge.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. friend that command pay, at the following daily rates, has been sanctioned from 16th November, 1906, to the officers in actual command of depots of Royal Artillery. Depot of Royal Horse or Royal Field Artillery, 2s. daily. Depot of Royal Garrison Artillery, 1s. 6d. daily.

    Recruitment of Labour for the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the refusal of the Portuguese

    1419
    Government to afford facilities for recruiting in Portuguese territory in Africa to the Robinson group of mines is interfering with the experiment of employing white labour on a large scale in those mines; whether he has information that the mine owners of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association have been influencing the Portuguese authorities in their refusal to help the Robinson mines; and, if so, what further steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to prevent the mine owners in question from continuing to impede the employment of white labour.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): It is not correct to say that the Portuguese Government has refused to grant facilities to the Robinson group of mines. As explained by the Secretary of State in another place, certain difficulties have arisen which have caused delay, but negotiations are proceeding and the Portuguese Government has expressed a desire to meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government. Under these circumstances it may be hoped that any attempt to interfere with any experiment for the employment of white labour will be frustrated.
    MR. MACKARNESSasked whether it was not a fact that on July 31st the hon. Gentleman himself stated that the Portuguese Government had met His Majesty's Government more than with diplomatic promptness, and that orders had been actually given to the Governor-General of Mozambique to give these facilities to the Robinson group. What influence had intervened to make these orders nugatory?
    MR. CHURCHILL: A misunderstanding appears to have arisen. The licence for which we made an application to the Portuguese Government was intended to be an effective licence to enable another body of mines to have equal facilities with those enjoyed by the Robinson group. But it was construed to be a licence applicable only to the particular gentlemen in whose name it was granted; and as it was impossible for a single individual to carry out the work of a recruiting agency, we have been forced to the conclusion that the licence did not
    1420
    carry out all that we hoped would follow from it.
    MR. LYTTELTON)asked whether the hon. Gentleman would lay Papers upon this subject.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will allow Papers to be laid, though I think it would be better to await the termination of the negotiations now in progress before laying Papers on the subject.

    Mr. Bucknill's Report.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDONI beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the dates upon which the hon. Member for South Berkshire was allowed to see and make extracts from Mr. Bucknill's confidential Report.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the hon. Member for South Berkshire, on asking to see the report and to make extracts from it, stated that he would show it only to his own friends, and whether it was given to him on that condition.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Statements have been made fully on other occasions, and the hon. Member knows how the misunderstanding arose, for a misunderstanding undoubtedly it was.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Prime Minister had stated that he was not aware that any such condition had been made or accepted.
    MR. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Answer I gave a week ago,† which contains a statement on the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the part taken in this matter by the private secretary to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he will see that his Question is fully answered. In reply to the hon. Member for the Stepney Division, I understand that the hon. Member for South Berkshire had access to the Report on 31st October, 1st November, and 2nd November.
    † See (4) Debates, clxv., 392 et seq.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the ex-Colonial Secretary had asked to see the Report.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No request has reached us from the right hon. Gentleman. We shall be quite ready to submit the Report to him if he wishes it.
    MR. LYTTELTON: May I say it is not my habit to ask to see documents which have been declared by the Prime Minister in the House to be private and confidential?

    Opium in the Transvaal.
    Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the recent Transvaal Ordinance only allowed each coolie opium on the proscription of the medical officer of the mining company, there is any widespread disease in the compounds requiring opium for its treatment.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know I the extent to which opium is found to be medically required, but will make inquiry.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent edicts of the Chinese Government to suppress the opium traffic in China, His Majesty's Government will annul the Transvaal Ordinance introducing opium into the compounds, more especially in view of the Bucknill Report.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    In reply to Mr. MACKARNESS, who was understood to inquire if this provision was not opposed by the unofficial element of the Council which passed the Ordinances.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The whole matter is now the subject of inquiry. I have expressed the opinion that prima facie, the amount of opium allowed to be used is in excess of what is needed for bona fide medical purposes.

    Native Races and the Alcoholic Evil.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's
    1422
    Government have been requested by the United States Government to join in submitting to other Governments a proposal to prohibit by treaty the sale of intoxicants and opium among uncivilised races; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will join in such a proposal.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY,): I can make no statement about the intentions of the United States Government in the matter; it is for them, and not for Us, to do so. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the whole question has been defined by the Secretary of State for India in a speech in this House during the present session. I need only repeat that His Majesty's Government will regard with sympathy any proposal which will result in diminishing effectively the consumption of opium.
    MR. SLOANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a mission was being carried on in this country on this subject, and if he had received Resolutions from any meetings held in connection with it.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquire, but it would not be an official communication if it came from a private individual.

    Immigration of Aliens.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether aliens who support the plea of being political refugees by statements that they have been personally concerned in and guilty of murderous outrages abroad have been given, and are for the future to be given, permission to land and reside in this country.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a recent case at Bow Street Police Court, where the Russian prisoner admitted that, although indigent, ailing, and otherwise undesirable as an immigrant, he had gained admission to this country by alleging that he was a confederate of the revolutionaries who, in recent months, have committed upwards

    1423
    of 3,000 murders in Russia, and was consequently a refugee from justice; and if he will direct immigration officers and immigration boards that all assertions of political refugeeship by destitute immigrants, or those suffering from trachoma, tuberculosis, syphilis, and other contagious diseases must be scrupulously verified prior to acceptance, and that no participation in outrages involving human life be accepted as constituting a claim to the hospitality of Great Britain, in accordance with the Parliamentary declarations of his predecessor, the late Sir William Vernon Harcourt, on 6th May, 1881.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The first part of the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield relates to an extradition charge against one Zingar at Bow Street, which was a matter entirely for the Court. I am informed that when the man appeared before the Immigration Board at Grimsby he was admitted as a political refugee because he was believed to be in special danger if returned. An immigrant cannot claim to be admitted as a political refugee if he is suffering from diseases likely to render him a detriment to the public. As regards the statement made in this House by Sir William Harcourt in 1881, I am in full agreement with it. I think I shall have the full concurrence of the House in saying that proved participation in outrages involving human life cannot be accepted in itself as constituting a claim to the hospitality of Great Britain.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether it was not a fact that Zingar assigned as a reason for desiring admission to this country that he was charged with committing crime.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: That is not the information I have received from the Immigration Board.

    Motor-Bus Licences in London.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to recent criticisms upon the action of the Commissioner of Police in reference to the licensing of motor omnibuses;
    1424
    whether he is aware that upwards of 7,000,000 people are carried every week in such motor omnibuses; will he say whether the licensing is in the hands of promoted policemen with no technical knowledge; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing one or more qualified engineers as inspectors to assist the Chief Commissioner.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. My attention is called to this matter daily. The Commissioner of Police, as Public Carriage Licensing Authority, has, as expert adviser, a motor engineer of recognised reputation whom he consults whenever the necessity arises. There is no disagreement between the licensing authority and omnibus manufacturers and owners as to structural details on which expert advice is necessary, but only as to the interpretation to be put upon the words "undue noise and vibration." A committee, none of the members of which are promoted police officers, determines whether the vehicle under inspection is "unduly noisy" or not, the issue they have to deal with being one not requiring technical knowledge.

    Gutter Advertising.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that the chief streets of West London are continually perambulated by dirty and ragged men carrying two, and sometimes three, heavy advertisement boards by means of an iron frame; whether he possesses any powers to suppress this form of advertising; and, if not, whether he will seek such powers at the earliest opportunity.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what other means of employment he intends to offer for these unfortunate persons thus denounced by the hon. Member for North Paddington.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Commissioner of Police has power under the Metropolitan Street Act to control the carrying of advertisement boards, and he frequently interferes when the design is objectionable as creating a danger in the streets; but he has been unwilling to deprive these men of their living merely because they are ill-clad.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is my right hon. friend not aware that the prohibition of improper employment does not decrease the whole body of employment?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not see that that arises out of the Question.

    Conventual Institutions.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information as to the number of those belonging to illegal orders in France who have removed to England; whether he is aware that cruelty and sweating were proved against the institutions conducted by these orders in France; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure their adequate inspection in England.
    MR. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the earnings of these religious institutions are spent in the service of and for the benefit of the poor? Does the hon. Member who put this Question pay all his employees a just wage and find them suitable conditions to live in; is this country to become the persecutors of those who give their lives and fortunes to the service of the poor?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! Notice of this Question should be handed in at the Table.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no official information. The question of the regulation of industrial work in religious and charitable institutions, when carried on by way of trade, is now under consideration; but apart from this I cannot take any action with a view to the inspection of religious institutions.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these charges of cruelty and sweating were made on the authority of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Nantes, and were directed against an order which has since removed to England? In view of the large number of these orders now in England—they total twenty-one, I believe—is that not sufficient——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! The hon. Member is trying to make a speech under the guise of a Question.
    MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate introducing legislation on the subject next session?
    MR. GLADSTONE'Sreply was inaudible.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong comments made by the Bishop of Nantes 'i
    MR. GLADSTONE: They have not come to my knowledge.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to see them 1
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: NO, he would not.

    Medical Relief in Whitechapel.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what sum of money the Whitechapel Guardians have spent on medical out-relief (exclusive of salaries) during the last year of which their accounts have been received by the Local Government Board.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The sum spent during the year ended at Lady Day last, exclusive of salaries and extra medical fees, appears to have been £123.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take steps to secure that, in cases of serious or infectious sickness (including phthisis, tuberculosis, measles, whooping cough, and chicken pox) of persons destitute of the means of obtaining a doctor otherwise, the Whitechapel guardians or their relieving officers will give orders for the district medical officer to visit such persons at the beginning of the sickness instead of waiting till the sickness is urgent.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am informed that in all cases of sickness at White chapel the relieving officers, on application, give orders for the district medical officers to visit. There is no delay pending inquiries into the cases. These are made afterwards. The district medical officer visits when he receives

    1427
    the order. There is no question of waiting until the sickness becomes urgent.

    Utley Post Office.
    MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if, in deference to the wishes of some of the residents in the locality, he will withdraw his sanction to the continuance of the sub-post office at Utley, near Keighley, being conducted on licensed premises.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The office has been in the hands of the present sub-postmaster for more than six years. It is well managed and no complaints have been received from the public; I do not, therefore, see any sufficient reason at present for disturbing the arrangement. The liquor sold is not consumed on the premises.
    MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): When may the House expect the Return showing the number of post offices on licensed premises?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will make inquiry.

    Telephone Bill.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state when the Telephone Bill will be introduced; and what steps have been taken with, regard to the transference of the staff.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As I have already stated in answer to Questions on the 26th February and 8th March last, it is not intended to introduce at present a Bill dealing with the transfer of the National Telephone Company's staff to the Post Office. The transfer of the company's system will not take place until the 1st January, 1912, and as statutory authority will be required for other parts of the arrangement besides the transfer of the staff, it will obviously be more convenient to introduce a Bill when the whole subject can be dealt with.

    Manchester Post Office Staff Revision.
    SIR C. E. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 786–7; cliii., 636.
    1428
    whether he is aware that, in reply to a memorial from the staff of the Manchester Post Office in 1903, the memorialists were informed that a revision of the indoor force was then pending, and that the grievances of which the staff complained would be considered under the revision; that so far the promised changes have not been authorised; and whether he will state when the revision of the force will be carried into effect.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware that the Manchester postal staff were informed that their application of the 11th December, 1903, would be considered in connection with an approaching general revision of the indoor force. I regret the delay, but the inquiries in connection with a revision of such importance have occupied necessarily a considerable time, and the proposals are now approaching completion.

    Lytham Schools and Saints' Days.
    MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that on Ash Wednesday, Ascension Day, and All Souls' Day the children of St. John's and St. Cuthbert's Schools, Lytham, and of St. Anne's School, are taken to the adjoining churches in spite of the fact that these schools are on the foundation of the Lytham charities (Lancashire), and that these charities have been stated by the Board of Commissioners to be undoubtedly undenominational in their character by an answer given on 6th August, 1894; and if he will take the necessary steps to compel the managers and trustees of these schools so to alter their methods of working the schools as to cease this denominational action.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD or EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.): I am not aware of the practice mentioned. The character of these schools is determined by the provisions of a scheme dated 14th February, 1899, and they appear to have been conducted as Church of England schools for many years past. The Board have received no formal complaint in regard to the existence of such a practice as the hon. Member mentions, but if any such complaint should be made I will inquire carefully into the matter. In any event I may remind the hon. Member that not a single

    1429
    child need be taken, or can legally be taken to Church during school hours by the managers (as alleged in the Question) if the parents withhold consent; and any breach of the Conscience Clause in this respect should be immediately reported to the Board of Education, who would take drastic steps at once.
    MR. HIGHAM: Is it necessary for the parents to send a written request asking that the child be kept back?
    MR. LOUGH: Yes, I think so under the circumstances in which the schools are being carried on.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: Is there any ground for thinking that any parents do object to this practice?
    MR. HIGHAM: Yes, Sir.

    Swansea Education Dispute.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education upon what date the Swansea Local Education Authority undertook to carry out the directions of the Board of Education.
    MR. LOUGH: I must refer the hon. Member to the very full Answer given yesterday in explanation of the situation in Swansea,† to which I have nothing to add except that I am not aware that the Swansea Local Education Authority have undertaken to carry out, or on the other hand are failing to carry out any directions of the Board of Education; if, however, the Question in this respect has reference to the matter of differentiation of salaries, it will be obvious that for the present I can add nothing to what has been said on this point.
    LORD BALCARRES: I think I ought to have an Answer to-day as the right hon. Gentleman asked me to defer the Question when I put it the other day.
    MR. LOUGH: Perhaps the noble Lord will address the Question to my right hon. friend.

    Educational Endowments.
    MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can undertake an inquiry into educa-
    † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1245.
    1430
    tional endowments which were left explicitly for the clothing of indigent children, and are now being used for higher education contrary to the terms of the original trust.
    MR. LOUGH: So far as any such endowments are being used in the manner referred to by the hon. Member without any alteration of the original Trust having been brought about by scheme, the case could probably be stopped by ordinary process of law, on the initiation of anyone in the locality interested in the matter; and only persons in the locality could well be aware of such misapplication of funds. In the majority of cases, however, to which I imagine the hon. Member refers, statutory schemes have probably been made under the Endowed Schools Act for altering the purposes on which the money can be spent. In such cases the present application of the endowments could not be altered unless the Board of Education were given now powers by special legislation for revision of such matters under those Acts. And in these circumstances I do not see that much practical result could accrue from carrying out any such inquiry as is suggested in the Question.
    In answer to a further Question,
    Mr. LOUGHsaid he believed there had been a statutory disposition in most cases and that over-ruled the rights of individuals.

    Disclosure of Government Secrets.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he can inform the House what is the customary procedure under the Official Secrets Act, 1889, by a Government Department in the event of a secret and confidential document, strictly withheld from the public, being disclosed.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said that there was no customary practice. Some of the Departments had a legal staff and some had not. Where they had a legal staff, and thought proper to institute a prosecution, the solicitor for the Department was instructed to lay the case and the evidence in support of it before the Attorney-General for his consideration. If the Department had no legal staff the

    1431
    Solicitor to the Treasury took the same course. If the evidence was such as to warrant a prosecution the Attorney-General granted his fiat.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has there been any application from the Colonial Office in a recent case?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: No.

    Brecon Official Receiver.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, before finally deciding upon the removal of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy's office from Merthyr Tydfil to Pontypridd, he will receive a deputation from the business men of the Brecon district who will be seriously inconvenienced if the proposed change is carried into effect.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): I understand that my right hon. friend has promised to see the hon. Member to-morrow afternoon on this matter.

    Parliamentary Clerks and the Members' Dining Boom.
    MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he or the Committee has given instructions restricting the facilities that the clerks have hitherto had to freely use the dining rooms on the same conditions as Members of the House; and if such instructions, if given, are to the effect that the clerks must use only one room and a certain table set specially apart for them.
    MR. LEAinquired whether there were only nine members present at the meeting of the Committee at which the Resolution was passed, and whether the Resolution was carried by the casting vote of the chairman.
    SIR ALFRED JACOBY: The hon. Member is one of the Kitchen Committee, and I think it is therefore unnecessary to take notice of his Question. In reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn I have to say, that in consequence of the unusually large demand for seats in the Members'
    1432
    dining room during the autumn session, the Committee have deemed it advisable, for the convenience of Members, to ask the clerks of the House to be good enough for the present to use the centre room for dining. In order that they may secure seats without difficulty, on notice being given a table is reserved for them.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the matter was within the province of the Kitchen Committee, or whether, as a matter of fact, it did not rest either in the hands of the Speaker or of the Serjeant-at-Arms.
    MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for Waterford is right. My attention has not been specifically called to the particular Resolution which is impugned, but I should say that it must be outside the functions of the Kitchen Committee to limit the privileges either of hon. Members or of the staff who are compelled to be in attendance.
    ME. JOHN REDMOND: Under these circumstances I take it that the Resolution of the Kitchen Committee has no effect at all.

    The Lytham Charities.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, seeing that the Lytham charities (Lancashire) were left for the schooling of the poor children of Lytham, and that the ratepayers of that parish are paying by means of the poor rate for the elementary education of the children of the parish, he will consider the advisability of arranging that the income derivable from the charity, or a portion of it, shall be paid to the overseers for the purposes of the trust, viz., in relief of the cost of elementary education.
    MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member appears to be referring to the Lytham School Charities, the jurisdiction over which was transferred 30th April 1903 to the Board of Education under the Board of Education Act 1899 and the Board of Education (Powers) Orders in Council 1900 to 1902. Any Question relating to these charities should therefore be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

    Land Agents to the Church Estates Commissioners.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, with reference to the remuneration of Messrs. Clutton and Messrs. Smith Gore as land agents for the Commissioners, whether the 4 per cent. on gross rental that they are paid for agency fees covers travelling expenses, and how much was paid each of these firms as extra agency fees during the year 1905–6 for work which he stated was paid for as an extra.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The remuneration for agency covers travelling expenses. The additional remuneration or superintendence of improvement works in exceptional cases in respect of agricultural tenancies in the year covered by the last published accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (being the accounts to which the previous Question of the hon. Member referred) amounted to £440.

    Church Estates Commissioners.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as representing the Church Estates Commissioners, with reference to the agency of Messrs. Clutton and Messrs. Smith Gore, whether these firms employ their own solicitors, and what the amount of the solicitors' bills paid in the year 1905-6 was; and whether this sum was paid by the agents out of their agency fees, or was paid by the Commissioners through these agents.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: When the assistance of solicitors is required in matters relating to agency, they are generally employed and paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but in occasional cases of minor importance the Commissioners' agents, for reasons of economy, are authorised to employ local legal assistance; the cost of such assistance is paid by the Commissioners or allowed in account with their agents as a disbursement; the amount paid by the Commissioners or allowed in account for such legal assistance during the year covered by their last published accounts (i.e., to Lady Day, 1905) was £561 12s. 6d., of which £13 11s. 6d. only was in respect of local assistance employed by the
    1434
    agents. For the year to Lady Day, 1906, the accounts are not yet completed.

    The Milan Exhibition.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the British Executive Commissioner to the Milan Exhibition will furnish a Report as to the results of this Government's participation, and if a detailed statement will be published, dealing with the expenditure of the £10,000 appropriation given by the late Government, and what steps were taken by the British Commission to have Irish industries adequately represented; if any Irishman was a member of the Commission, or if Ireland was represented on the international jury of awards; if a Return will be given as to the number of Irish industries represented; if the nomination of jurors was made with a due regard to fitness; if those who acted as jurors were British subjects and connected with industrial enterprises; if it is the intention of the Government not to make further grants for exhibition purposes until after a Report is made by the Commission appointed to report on the subject of exhibitions: and if the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): I may perhaps be allowed to answer this. I am informed by the President of the British Commission for the Milan International Exhibition, Sir Albert Rollit, that a Report as to the results of the Government's participation and a detailed account and statement dealing with the expenditure of the £10,000 Grant-in-Aid has been kept, and will be furnished to the Government by the Commission in due course. Measures were taken by the Commission to secure an adequate representation of Irish industries. The Commission communicated with the Department of of Agriculture, &c, Ireland, and with all the leading Irish industrial houses, and approached a large number of firms through the personal good offices of the Italian Consul-General at Dublin and the Consul at Belfast; they also employed a leading firm of exhibition agents to endeavour to gather a representative Irish exhibit. The success achieved was only very moderate. The Commission

    1435
    paid all expenses connected with the Irish exhibits with the exception of those of only one exhibitor. The following Irishmen (and possibly others) were members of the International Jury: Admiral C. P. Fitzgerald, A.I.N.A., Mr. J. Sebastian Barnett, teacher. But in the nomination of juries, the principle of nationality as within the United Kingdom was not followed, and in most cases was not known. The Irish industries and business houses, &c, represented included:— Carpet-making and rope-spinning; Benada Abbey Technical and Lace School, Tubbercurry, county Sligo; St. Louis Convent, Carrickmacross, county Monaghan; Youghal Lace Industry, Youghal, county Cork; Dun Emer Guild, Dundrum, county Dublin; the Belfast Ropework Company, Limited, Belfast, The nomination of jurors was, of course, made with full regard to fitness; of the forty-two jurors for Great Britain thirty-eight are known to be British subjects; one (if not two) of the others is an Italian expert long resident in England, who may have been naturalised (inquiry will be made on this point), and one a Japanese expert. Practically all the jurors were connected either directly, or as experts or otherwise, with industrial enterprises. I have here a list of the jurors with their qualifications, which I shall be pleased to show to the hon. Member if he will speak to me afterwards. At the present time I am not in a position either to say that no grant will be made for exhibition pending the Committee's Report, or that, when the Report is received, it will be considered necessary to lay it on the Table of the House.

    The National Gallery.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now communicated with the Trustees of the National Gallery with reference to their action in allowing private firms to trade rent free within the precincts of the gallery; and, if so, with what result; and whether consideration will be given to the fact that, if an official department were opened at the gallery for the sale of reproductions of national pictures, a considerable contribution might be secured towards the maintenance of the building.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Trustees have carefully considered this matter and have
    1436
    now informed me that the space available for the sale of reproductions, etc., is very limited, and that they have been advised that the rent to be obtained for it would be comparatively insignificant. They moreover desire to retain complete control over the approaches to the gallery, and are of opinion that that control might be impaired if the firms admitted were allowed to acquire, under agreement, a right to use them. In these circumstances they deprecate any attempt for the present to establish within the gallery a department for the sale of reproductions. In the event, however, of the existing buildings being enlarged, and more space becoming available, it would be a matter for consideration whether a substantial rent for any privileges which might be conceded to the vendors should be required.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it intended to allow these firms to continue trading on national premises without paying any rent, seeing that their stalls are very good stalls and their names are displayed as advertisements?
    MR. LEIF JONES: May I ask whether these private firms do not perform a public service in selling cheap guides and reproductions of national pictures; whether it is not very much to the advantage of visitors to the gallery that these reproductions should be easily obtained; and whether, as a matter of fact, it is not much more likely that the nation would lose money if an official department were opened for the sale of these things?
    MR. MCKENNA: The same arguments were brought before the Public Accounts Committee in a similar case, and they were satisfied that there was no ground for making any change.

    Trading Companies.
    MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that ordinary trading companies are being registered under the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, whereby they obtain the advantages of incorporation with limited liability, without having to pay the capital and other duties payable by ordinary companies registered under the Companies

    1437
    Acts; and if he proposes to take steps to prevent the practice.
    MR. MCKENNA: Section 4 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act of 1893 provides that a society may be registered "for carrying on any industries, businesses or trades authorised by its rules, whether wholesale or retail, including dealings of any description with land." The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that it would be extremely difficult to amend the Act without severely crippling the co-operative movement in the country, so as to prevent any trading company from being registered under the Act, but the Chief Registrar has refused to register societies which appeared to him to have objects not in accordance with the Act and has cancelled the registry of other societies which have violated the provisions of the Act.

    King's Park, Stirling.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been come to with regard to the proposed feuing of a part of the King's Park, Stirling.
    MR. MCKENNA: Sanction has been refused to the proposed feuing.

    Parliamentary Debates Contract.
    MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, referring to the contract for The Parliamentary Debates, whether the statement of the late Controller of the Stationery Office (evidence before the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates, 1893, Q. 260) that practically no one looked after the contract at all, fairly represents the present practice of the department; whether he is aware that although the current contract stipulates for publication on the sixth day after each debate, copies of the Report are not on public sale until the seventh day, and sometimes later; and whether, during the last four years, any fines have been collected from the contractors under Clause 6 of the contract.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Stationery Office looks carefully after the observance of this contract in regard to the date of publication. In the contract to which the hon. Member refers the publication
    1438
    has to be made on the sixth day after each day's debate. That is exclusive of Sundays, and this means in practice the seventh day. I am assured that in no one instance during the last four years, except on occasions which were expressly sanctioned beforehand, has there been any delay. Therefore there have been no fines to collect from the contractors.

    Civil Service Writers.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a number of aged writers who have been employed in various departments of the Civil Service since 1870, and who have been paid during that time about thirty shillings, per week, are to be discharged in January next with only £100 each as a gratuity; and whether, in view of the age, character, and length of service of these men, he can see his wav to provide them either with an old age pension or an increased gratuity?
    MR. MCKENNA: The considerations which have led my hon. friend to the conclusion that these men should be granted pensions apply with equal force to a very large number of persons now in the employment of the State. No distinction can be made in their case and the terms on which their engagement was made give no ground for the claims now advanced. I may add that I dealt fully with this subject in my reply to my hon. friend the Member for Exeter on the 3rd July last.†
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: Would there be any difficulty in modifying the Treasury Minute to meet the case of these men? I should also like to ask whether these men are not a class entirely by themselves, consisting of only about a dozen; whether there are any other persons in the Civil Service in a similar position, that is to say, with an average of seventy-four years of age and thirty-four years service; and whether, in view of these circumstances, they are to be discharged and be obliged to go to the workhouse?
    MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to my hon. friend's Question is that there are a,
    † See (4) Debates, clix, 1601.

    1439
    large number of other persons in the service of the State engaged on exactly the same terms, and whose conditions of service are exactly the same. No change could be made in these cases without extending a similar change to those other servants of the Crown. I can hold out no hope of any alteration in the law in this respect.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will my hon. friend consider the advisability of treating all these men in the same way— a proper way—and so keep them out of the workhouse?

    Controller of Stamps Clerkship.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Controller of Stamps especially recommended Mr. Clark of his Department (an officer of twenty-seven years Revenue service) as the fittest person for promotion to a principal clerkship therein, rather than Mr. Johnson, of the Department of the Secretaries of Inland Revenue (an officer of only twenty-two years Revenue service), by reason especially of the fact that, among his other qualifications, the former had a full knowledge of the technical and general business of the Controller's Department, whereas the latter was absolutely wanting in such knowledge; will he say why the Controller's recommendation was disregarded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; whether other circumstances in relation to Mr. Johnson have been brought under the notice of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue as pointing to the unlikelihood of that gentleman's translation being an influence for good in the Department of the Controller of Stamps; whether he will make further inquiries and satisfy himself that the action of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in this particular case is just towards Mr. Clark, who was strongly recommended by the Controller of Stamps; and whether, in all the circumstances, he has satisfied himself that the course taken is calculated to be of real benefit to the public service.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am aware that the Controller of Stamps recommended Mr. Clark, but as I stated in reply to the hon. Member a few days ago, Mr. Johnson was selected by the Inland Revenue
    1440
    Commissioners as being in their opinion the officer best qualified for the appointment. Seniority is not the main consideration, but I may point out that Mr. Johnson has been in the public service a year longer than the officer who was recommended by the Controller as the best qualified among those serving in his Department. The Answers to the third and fourth parts of the Question are in the negative and to the fifth part in the affirmative.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is it not the fact that the Controller of Stamps had an interview with Sir Henry Primrose and protested strongly against the appointment of Mr. Johnson? Is the translation of Mr. Johnson to the office an advantage to the public service?
    MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

    Trawling in the Moray Firth.
    MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that trawlers have recently recommenced trawling within the prohibited area of the Moray Firth, and that a trawler was seen at work opposite to Lossiemouth on 19th November in broad daylight; and whether he will impress the necessity for greater vigilance on the commanders of the fishery cruisers.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): Illegal trawling within the Moray Firth has recently been reported. Immediately on the receipt of information that a trawler was working about seven miles off Lossiemouth, a telegram was dispatched to the commander of one of the fishery cruisers directing him to proceed there at once. I am satisfied that there is no lack of vigilance on the part of the commanders of cruisers.

    Illegal Trawling on the Fife Coast.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the annual inroads of poaching trawlers fishing within the limit off the Fife coast, particularly at the mouth of the Forth and around the Isle of May, between the months of January and March inclusive, he will give instructions that a fishery cruiser or a gunboat

    1441
    shall specially watch those waters between these dates, or take such other steps as may be necessary to prevent the harm that has been caused to the fishing communities on the Fife coast in the past.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Fishery Board are aware of the special apprehension to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, and they will exert every effort to check the illegal trawling of which he complains.

    Delvin Untenanted Lands.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state what progress, if any, the Estates Commissioners have made towards acquiring for distribution the untenanted lands of Colonel Richard Fetherston, Captain Cecil Fetherston, Sir Montague Chapman and Francis V. Chapman, all in the rural district of Delvin, Westmeath.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have communicated with all the owners mentioned in the Question in regard to the sale of this untenanted land, but up to the present no replies have been received.

    The Royal Canal.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is within the province of the Irish Board of Works, or of any officer of that Board as such, in the interest of the Midland Railway Company, to advise the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways to recommend the closing of the Broadstone section of the Royal Canal; and will he have any such communication submitted to the Board of Control of the canal for its opinion.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Board of Works that the Answer to the first part of this Question is in the negative. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise. The Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways will doubtless consider the question of the Royal Canal in all its bearings.

    Kilgarvan Evicted Tenant.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    1442
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Con Mahony, who was evicted from his holding near Kilgarvan in September 1882; and whether, seeing that negotiations are in progress for the sale of the estate to the occupiers, he can say whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to secure the reinstatement of this evicted tenant whose family had been in this holding for six generations.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the application referred to, and have referred it to their inspector for inquiry. The inspector's report has not yet been received.

    Stubber Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations for sale of the Stubber Estate, Aughaboe, Queen's County, to the tenants are in progress; whether he is aware that there are 800 acres of untenanted land upon the estate which the landlord proposes to let on lease of thirty-one years to the eleven months holders, and that the tenants have requested that the untenanted land should be sold to the Estates Commissioners for the settlement of evicted tenants and redistribution amongst small occupiers in the locality; and can he say what course the Estates Commissioners propose to adopt in this case.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of any negotiations for the sale of the estate in question, nor of the circumstances of the estate. No proceedings for sale have been instituted before them, and no application from the tenants in respect of the untenanted land can be traced.

    Dromahair Riots.
    MR. DOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the case against the persons who had been prosecuted by the police for rioting at Dromahair, county Leitrim, on the 1st inst., has been dismissed; and whether, in view of the fact that the information supplied to him by the police

    1443
    authorities is contradicted by one of the clergymen whose arrival prevented a row, he has any further information to give to the House on the subject.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that the persons referred to were prosecuted for riot. The proceedings taken by the police consisted in an application that these persons should be bound to keep the peace. The defendants produced evidence to show that they had attended with their band at Dromahair in order to protest against a certain proposed scheme of sewerage and not for the purpose of taking part in the intimidatory demonstration against shopkeepers which had been announced. The magistrates accepted this explanation and refused the application against the defendants.

    Shimna River Fishing Rights.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state who possesses the fishing rights at the limit of the Shimna River, Newcastle, county Down; whether Lord Annesley held the sole rights for ten years prior to the passing of the Act of 1842; whether Lord Roden owns any part of the river or has any fishing rights at the limit; whether he can state when Lord Annesley commenced to pay rates on his alleged rights; whether he can explain why Mr. John Tear was prosecuted for having a net inside the limit, and that no prosecution was laid against Lord Annesley's bailiff, who was detected with three illegal nets across the mouth of the river; and what explanation the Dundalk Board of Fishery has to offer.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have no definite information as to the extent of any exclusive right of fishery which may exist on this river. Such a question of title can only be decided by a Court of law. It is understood that Lord Annesley claims such a right, and he commenced to pay rates in respect of this alleged right in 1905. The Department understand that Lord Roden does not claim any such rights. It would appear that the Dundalk Board of Conservators prosecuted John Tear for fishing within the half-mile limit at the mouth of the
    1444
    river contrary to statute law. In the case of Lord Annesley's bailiff, the Board of Conservators stated that they were satisfied that he worked his nets in a legal manner when acting as bailiff.

    Elementary Schools in Ireland.
    MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to make elementary education in Ireland compulsory.
    MR. BRYCE: The Irish Education Act of 1892 provides for the application of the law of compulsory attendance at school in all municipal boroughs, towns, and townships in Ireland; and under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, it is optional with the rural district councils to come under the same provisions. The law, therefore, already provides facilities for compulsory education in Ireland, although there are many districts in which it has not been adopted.

    Fishery Inquiry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what steps, if any, will be taken to give the Fishery Department power to hold inquiries with the object of changing the close seasons where necessary.
    MR. BRYCE: I informed the hon. Member early in the session that I thought some legislation on this subject desirable; but I am not yet in a position to say when it may be possible to introduce such legislation.

    The Tollemache Estate.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether Mr. W. T. French, of Redwood, Lorrha, in North Tipperary, agent on the Tollemache estate, has purchased the Ragh and Mill farms on the estate, situate adjacent to the village of Lorrha and held by him as tenant; whether the tenants of the lands known as the Bullock parks have purchased, and, if so, at what price; whether he is aware that the other tenants on the estate have refused to purchase their holdings owing to the fact that Mr. French on behalf of she landlord wants twenty-five years

    1445
    purchase for them; and whether under the circumstances the Estates Commissioners will sanction the sale until the whole estate be sold.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to identify the estate mentioned as one in which proceedings for sale have been instituted before them; nor have they any knowledge of the matters referred to in the Question.

    Increased Price of Irish Land.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact demonstrated by the Estates Commissioners that under the zone system the price of land in Ireland has been raised 68½ per cent. in excess of true value, and the danger involved in the continuance of a system producing such a result, whether he will include the abolition of the zones and the restoration of inspection in any Bill which he contemplates introducing for amending in other respects the Land Act of 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of any statement made by the Estates Commissioners to the effect that under the zone system the price of land has been raised 68½ per cent. in excess of true value. The hon. Member probably refers to the statement in the Commissioners' last annual Report to the effect that the average price per acre, inclusive of bonus, received by landlords since the passing of the Act of 1903 is 68½ per cent. more than the average price per acre during the preceding five years when there was no bonus. I do not observe that the Commissioners have sought to draw any conclusion as to true value. As I have previously stated, the Government are carefully watching the operations under the Act with the view of seeing whether amending legislation may be necessary, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

    Labourers Cottage Schemes.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the number of schemes now in preparation under the Labourers Acts, and the desirability of taking for the purposes of those Acts
    1446
    untenanted and non-residential land so far as available, will a copy of the whole or of part of the Return of the untenanted land be sent to each rural council in whose district land of that class exists.
    MR. BRYCE: It is not the practice of the Government to distribute Parliamentary Returns to local authorities gratuitously. The Return in question is on sale to the public, price 3s. 3d., and it is open to any rural district council which may be interested in it to purchase a copy for official use.

    Clonlara Untenanted Lands.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have got untenanted land belonging to Colonel Westropp to divide among the poorer tenantry in the parish of Clonlara, county Clare, under £15 valuation, and, if so the number of acres; whether their inspector has inspected the holdings and decided on the more deserving persons to get divisions of this land, taking into consideration the number of persons in each family and the want of tillage land; and if he can say what purchase money the Commissioners have sanctioned, and when will the division take place, and how many families will get divisions.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate in question has been inspected, and the inspector's report is now under their consideration. The Commissioners have, however, informed the owner that they would decline to regard the lands proposed to be sold as an estate for the purposes of the Act, unless he should sell to them, for the enlargement of holdings in the neighbourhood, 175 acres of untenanted land. This the owner has expressed his willingness to do on certain terms which are now under the Commissioners' consideration. Until this question has been settled the Commissioners are unable' to make any statement as to the division of the untenanted lard in the event of their acquiring it.

    Dromod Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the

    1447
    fees due on 30th June for the teaching of Irish have not been paid in several schools in the parish of Dromod, county Kerry, although the classes have been examined, in some cases early in the month of June; and whether, in view of the fact that the bilingual programme has been adopted extensively in this Irish speaking parish, he will inquire what is the cause of the delay in paying these fees.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the fees referred to in the Question have now been paid.

    Bataurst Estate, Cappamore.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that negotiations for the sale and purchase of the Bathurst property in Cappamore, county Limerick, have been for some time in progress between the owner and the tenants; is he aware that there are, beside the rural tenants, a body of town tenants who are anxious to purchase their holdings whilst the sale of the estate is now going on; and will he take steps so that the Estates Commissioners may put themselves in communication with the agent of the estate with a view of having the town tenants included in the general sale.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to identify the property referred to from the particulars given in the Question. They add, however, that it is not their practice to insist upon the inclusion of a town or village in an estate which is the subject of proceedings for direct sale from a landlord to his tenants.

    Lloyd Estate, Arva.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the position of the sale of the Lloyd estate near Arva, county Cavan; when were purchase agreements filed; how many tenants signed these agreements; when was this estate inspected; how many evicted tenants are there on the said estate; what amount of untenanted land is on the landlord's hands; and how many tenants are still outside this sale.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable, from the particulars given in the Question, to identify the estate referred to. If the full name of the owner and the name of the townland on which the estate is situated are given, the Commissioners will make further inquiry in the matter-Irish Securities.
    MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what was the cost of the securities referred to in the annual Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, 1904–5, page 134, as proceeds of sale of securities, £29,985 17s. 9d.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the cost of the securities referred to was £29,621 6s. 0d.

    Irish Board of Works Surveyors.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in the Surveyor's department of the Irish Board of Works sixteen of the nineteen surveyors are Protestants; and can he say if these appointments are the subject of open competition?
    MR. MCKENNA: The Board of Works inform me that they have no knowledge of the religious beliefs of their staff. Of the nineteen principal and assistant surveyors ten have been appointed by open competitive examinations. Owing to a dearth of suitable candidates in 1900 three appointments were made by nomination and one other officer was appointed in this way in 1904 for somewhat similar reasons. With these four exceptions, however, the rule of recent years has been and still is to appoint by limited competition from amongst nominated candidates. Wide publicity is given by advertisement in the professional and other papers when a vacancy exists, and all qualified candidates are invited to send in a statement of their qualifications with their testimonials.

    Sir Henry MacCullum.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister for what term does Sir Henry MacCullum, who was appointed to the Governorship of Natal in January, 1901, hold office; and whether, having

    1449
    regard to the disturbed condition of Natal during his government, the fact that a letter from Lord Milner to him in favour of the suspension of the Cape Constitution was published in the Press, the language used by him in a speech to the Boer leaders during the negotiations which preceded the termination of the South African War, and the severity in the administration of a martial law régime instituted by his own proclamation which has characterised his governorship of Natal, steps will be taken to bring his official connection with Natal to a termination.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMP-BELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I have already answered the first and the only effective part of this Question. Sir Henry MacCullum's term as Governor of Natal will expire in May of next year. The second part of the Question seems to be merely the excuse for a general denunciation of this distinguised public servant which, if in accordance with the rules of order—as I presume it is, as you, Sir, have allowed it—is at any rate highly improper when made under cover of a Question. The Government have no reason to withdraw their confidence from Sir Henry MacCullum, who in his treatment of recent events has been guided by the advice of his responsible Ministers.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would give him a day for the purpose he would undertake to substantiate every word he had said.
    SIB H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That may be so, and I have no objection to days being given if there are any to be had, but my observations were addressed to the introducing of these personal opinions under the guise of a Question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he took the full responsibility for that.

    Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANNo, Sir, I have no information to give. The hon. Member must know that it is impossible to take it in the present state of public business.

    Occasional Licensing.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue officer for the Loughborough district has granted an occasional licence for the sale of drink for more than three days at any one time; and whether he will call the attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the violation of the Revenue Act of 1862.
    MR. ASQUITH: Occasional licences have been granted by this officer for periods of six days under the Act 26 and 27 Vict., Cap. 33, Section 19, which amended the Act of 1862 by substituting six days for three as the period for which an occasional licence might be granted.

  THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Government still contemplated taking the Workmen's Compensation Bill on Thursday next.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Certainly, Sir.

  THE ADMISSION OF STRANGERS.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: May I ask whether the supervision which has existed in the past with regard to the admission of permanent officials to the strangers' gallery continues under the altered circumstances with regard to the gallery behind the Speaker's chair?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that special regulations applied to the admission of private secretaries and officials to the gallery behind the chair. The names of the officials or private secretaries had to be sent in on the morning of the day on which they required admission, and a request had to be made by the Minister who desired a private secretary or an official to be present.

  NEW BILL.
    BURIALS BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to the consents required for the use of ground for Burials and the construction of cemeteries," presented by Mr. John Burns; supported by Mr. Runciman; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 356.]

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  Proceedings resumed upon the clause (Cases in which electors may apply to a court for leave to select a constituency), read a second time upon the 26th November:—
  "(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 has become registered before the end of the calendar year in more than one
  1452
  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 were 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.)
  MR. NIELDwho bad given notice of the following Amendments—
  "In line 27, to leave out from ' and,' to ' shall,' in line 34."
  "In line 28, after ' may,' to insert ' upon ex parte application (unless for good and sufficient reason to be stated on the record, the court should otherwise determine, and thereupon notice to such person or persons and in such manner as the court shall direct).' "
  stated that in view of the private assurance he had received from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that it was the intention of the Government in framing it to require all applications under this clause to be made ex parte, he would not press the two Amendments standing in his name.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton) moved an Amendment providing that the clerk to the county council, or the town clerk responsible

  1453
  for the printing of the Parliamentary register in a selected constituency "shall cause the necessary mark to be made in all copies of the register," and shall send a copy of the order to the sheriff and returning officers. It was a matter of form and would complete the arrangement. He hoped the tight hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid it was the custom for the different political party agents to send for a number of copies of the register. Each party might require about a dozen copies at an election and the returning officer would want twenty or thirty copies. That meant that perhaps as many as sixty copies of the register would be required. He wanted to know how all the interlineations were going to be made in all the copies of the register. He was afraid the carrying out of that work would be very inconvenient, and he would like to know exactly how it was going to be done. He seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Clause—
  "In line 34, after the word 'force,' to insert the words ' shall cause the necessary mark to be made in all copies of the register and then.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Clause."
  MR. NIELDsaid this operation had to be gone through every year and in regard to every new register. The sheriff or the returning officer in, practice never saw the register and had no cognisance or control over it until the election was announced. Moreover, the returning officer in a borough was not in many cases determined upon until the writ was sent from the Crown Office. In many cases, therefore—and, indeed, in all but the occasions when there were by-elections, these registers might require to be altered year after year for some four, five, or even six years without the sheriff or returning officer having any real or practical control over, or knowledge of, the contents of the register. Surely there must have been some oversight in drafting the clause.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale)said he was not sure that the practice of interrupting a Minister when he rose to reply was a convenient one, although he had given way to the hon. Member for Baling. He wished to point out that the clerk to the county council or the town clerk was in charge of the register up to the end of December, but on the 31st of December he parted with it, and after the 1st of January it must be the person having the custody of the register who must make the necessary mark. If there was any inconvenience in this respect under the Bill there would be equal inconvenience under the Amendment. He did not think there would be many cases of the kind, and his opinion was that the number would be decreased to an infinitesimal total after the experience of a year or two. When the hon. Member spoke of such a large number of copies of the register being required he assumed that the whole of the register was required in each case. That was not so, because what was wanted in each case was only the part required for some particular district or polling station. As for interlineations, they occurred under the present law if a voter, after being struck off by the Revising Barrister, had his name placed on the list again on appeal. Under the proposal of this clause there would be no interlineations at all; there would simply be marginal marks.
  MR. WALTER LONGhoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would look a little more closely into this question, and not be quite so certain that the difficulty raised by his hon. friend was not a substantial one. The whole question was a technical one and must rest with those who had the best information. Under the circumstances he advised his hon. friend not to press his Amendment. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little severe on his hon. friend when he complained of his interrupting a Minister. He only asked leave to put a further point which was just as much for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman as of anybody else. It was for the convenience of the Minister in charge of the Bill that he

  1455
  should hear the whole case before he replied.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEwished to raise a point which he thought could be met in the circular. The present practice was to purchase copies of the register at the beginning of the year and sometimes at Christmas. Many county clerks were in the habit of reprinting alterations and sending them round to those who had purchased copies of the register. He thought it would be well to provide in the circular that the marks made in the register should be communicated when they were made to those who had purchased copies. It was obviously desirable that all parties should know what marks had been made during the year.
  MR. HARCOURTreplied that the question raised by the right hon. Baronet was one which could be dealt with by an Order in Council.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL SIR WILLIAM BULL moved to extend the meaning of "court" by inserting, after the words "High Court or" the words "the Lord Mayor's Court in the city of London, the Court of Passage in the city of Liverpool, and the Palatine Courts in the counties of Lancashire and Durham." He felt that they ought to provide every possible facility for a man to get his vote. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat under-estimated the number of cases which would come before the court. For example, the case of the Brompton County Court, which would have to deal with the electors in a number of Parliamentary divisions, the time of the court was practically fully occupied from Mon-day to Friday and he thought there would be difficulty in getting time wherein the electors could ask that their votes should be corrected on the register. Did the right hon. Gentleman really think that the ordinary elector would take the trouble to go from any of the boroughs to Brompton County Court
  1456
  and hang about all day for the purpose of getting these corrections made? He was very much afraid that the majority of them would not do so, and the result would be that a number of persons who were entitled to vote would be disfranchised. A voter could go to the High Court, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that an originating summons could not be taken out there at a smaller fee than 10s., and no one without some knowledge of legal procedure would know how to act in the matter. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman should formulate by Order in Council a more simple moans of getting these matters put right. He should go further into the details of the machinery and see what would be the exact cost to voters when they applied to the courts in the first instance. The whole of the procedure must be cut and dried in the most detailed manner if the right hon. Gentleman wished the Act to be a success. Everyone who had had to do with elections knew perfectly well that electors, unless directed in the clearest manner, very often went wrong. It would be difficult for a voter to apply to the court without legal aid to get this matter put right. Contrary to the view of the right hon. Gentleman, he believed there would be a large number of cases, and that the work of each court would be considerably increased by the new duties thrown upon them by the Bill. He should not be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman heard from the judges and registrars that there was not time at present to do the work of the courts adequately, and that they could not properly undertake further work. He begged to move.
  ME. COURTHOPE, in seconding the Amendment, said every facility should be given to the electors to make these corrections. He understood from what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that it was his intention that this new clause should be really effective, and that the right to make a selection should be easily exercisable. He therefore urged the acceptance of the Amendment, or something analogous to it, so that ample facilities might be given to have

  1457
  corrections made in an easy and reasonable manner.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 37, after the word 'or,' to insert the words, 'the Lord Mayor's Court in the city of London, the Court of Passage in the city of Liverpool, and the Palatine Courts in the counties of Lancashire and Durham."—(Sir William Bull.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in ths clause."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid a most extraordinary misapprehension seemed to have arisen in the minds of hon. Members opposite on this matter. The hon. Member for Hammersmith had expressed great alarm as to the congestion which might be caused in the county courts. Voters would not bring their cases to the county courts at all except in rare instances where it would be a special convenience to do so. The hon. Member had not read the new clause or listened to his explanation. Voters could go to the High Court or to a court of summary jurisdiction. That meant that they could go to a public court or to a bench of magistrates sitting anywhere.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman suggested that voters could go to the various police courts around, say, Brompton County Court.
  MR. HARCOURTwas understood to reply in the affirmative. He could not see that there was anything to be gained by including the Lord Mayor's Court in the city of London. There were two courts of summary jurisdiction sitting in the city every day in the year, and there were courts of summary jurisdiction in Liverpool more suitable and also cheaper than the. Court of Passage. The Palatine Courts were really local courts with Chancery jurisdiction, and they would not be suitable for this purpose, especially where the voter would be able to find courts of summary jurisdiction close at hand. The hon. Member for the Blackpool division of Lancashire had given notice of another Amendment to include the Tolzie Court in the City of Bristol. That was an inferior court of record
  1458
  for the trial of civil actions. As to these special courts generally, he was certain that in no case was it desirable that they should be mentioned in the clause, the wording of which was, he considered, already sufficiently wide.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman than people who had omitted to make a claim or who desired to alter a claim, would go to the police court. That was only their opinion, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor himself could know exactly what course these people would pursue. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a very small number of people would go to court. He himself thought there would be a large number of cases, and the result would be that these unfortunate people who had committed no fault would have to go to the police courts and wait until the vaccination cases and the night charges had been disposed of, when their applications might possibly come on. If the object of the Bill was to put as much difficulty as possible in the way of plural voters in order to discourage them from voting at all in any place he thought the right hon. Gentleman would accomplish that object. If ordinary persons had to go to a police court in order to get their vote the chances were that very few people would take the trouble to apply. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment. It was not against the principle of the Bill. It was a very mild and modest Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman might very well make the concession to the minority. It had been said that there were two courts of summary jurisdiction in the City of London; but he would point out that there were 30,000 voters in the City of London, 25,000 of whom were probably plural voters. Those two courts were always busy, and how could they deal with all those cases in addition to their other work? If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the addition of the Lord Mayor's Court it would only extend the facilities which voters would have of putting themselves on the register for the City of London.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he had listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Baronet, from which he gathered that the hon. Gentleman admitted that the vast majority of his constituency were plural voters. He did not know whether, when this Bill became law, that great majority would select to vote in the City of London.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was afraid not.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that that was a matter of speculation. The hon. Baronet had failed to observe that they were not dealing with the case of 25,000 voters, but only with those who failed to make a selection on account' of absence, illness, or any one of the other accidents and contingencies provided for in the Bill. Were these gentlemen to be excused from the ordinary duty of the plural voter, viz., to make their selection at the proper time? He must assume — the hon. Baronet's knowledge of these voters was more intimate than his—that the majority of them would perform their statutory duty and make their selection; and therefore they were here dealing with an insignificant minority. If that were so, could any provision be more adequate to meet the case of that minority than that proposed by his right hon. friend? When the Bill was in Committee the only demand made was that there should be an application to the High Court; but the right hon. Gentleman had gone beyond that demand and provided an appeal not only to the High Court but to the county court or any other court of summary jurisdiction. The Amendment was to add to these the Lord Mayor's Court in the City of London.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: It is a court of record.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it was a very respectable court, no doubt. It was a long time since he had practised in it, but he thought it only sat comparatively rarely, and his experience of it was that it was often congested with business. On the other hand, they had in the
  1460
  City of London the City of London Court, which was the proper county court for the City, and two courts of summary jurisdiction—one at the Guildhall and one at the Mansion House. To suggest that these three tribunals, each of which was open practically every week day and which were local, were insufficient and that more relief would be given by going to the Lord Mayor's Court was absurd. As he had said on the previous day, he thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had been over-generous in the concessions he had made.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the mover and seconder to withdraw the Amendment, for it seemed to him that it was very desirable to have uniformity in dealing with these cases. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the police court was a relief court, but it was also the court where illegal voters would be punished.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COURTHOPE MR. COURTHOPE moved an Amendment, the object of which was to give an applicant the option of applying to a court having jurisdiction either in the constituency he selects or in which he resides.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 39, at end, to add the words, 'or in which he resides.'"—(Mr. Courthope.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONexpressed his appreciation of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to remedy the defects which had been pointed out in the previous stages of its consideration. The only fault he found was that in sub-section (b) the right hon. Gentleman did not go quite far enough. His object in moving the addition of a paragraph to the clause was to enable a statutory declaration to be made before the presiding officer of the polling station to which the voter was allotted in the constituency which he desired to select. That addition would remedy

  1461
  a defect which might operate very hardly against the most innocent of plural voters. He had already shown that it would be possible for an ordinary elector to have moved before 15th July into an adjoining division in the same county and the overseers who were anxious to keep him on the county council register might leave him on the old register, while at the same time he was placed on the register of his new constituency. He might not be aware of that fact until he received polling cards or election literature from the candidates in two constituencies when there was no time to make application to a court. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had no desire to exclude from the exercise of the franchise any voter who had been innocently or accidentally registered in two constituencies; and he hoped that he would extend his generosity by accepting the addition which he proposed. He begged to move.
  MR. LUPTONseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the clause—
  "In line 39, at end, to add after the words last added, the words, ' (4) If any person becomes aware that he is registered in more than one constituency for the first time on the day of the poll or such a short time before that day that he has no reasonable opportunity of obtaining an order of a court under this section, he may make before the presiding officer of the polling station to which he is allotted in the constituency which he desires to select, a statutory declaration of selection in the form prescribed by order in council under this Act. A statutory declaration so made shall have the same effect as if the elector had given notice of his selection of the constituency in the manner required by this Act, and the presiding officer shall allow the elector to vote accordingly, and shall transmit any statutory declaration so made before him to the returning officer, and the returning officer shall cause the necessary mark to be made on the register.'"—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that the proposal of the hon. Member fulfilled to the letter the one unfulfilled promise he had made during the Committee Stage. It was left unfulfilled intentionally, because before he had completed his own clause he noticed that the hon.
  1462
  Member had ingeniously and sufficiently met the point. He did not think it was necessary to put it into his own clause, because he was prepared to accept the hon. Member's Amendment which adequately met the case. When declining a statutory declaration for general purposes he had guarded himself specifically with regard to the case of a man who had become acquainted with the fact that he was registered in more than one constituency only on the day of the poll or immediately before it, because that case required different treatment. He did not think so many people would be affected in this matter as had been re- presented. He, however, accepted the Amendment.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants., Basingstoke)suggested that the Amendment, admirable as it was, might be still further improved. The only difficulty which occurred to him in connection with the working of this new sub-section was that the relief was only to be applied when an election was taking place. Somebody would have to determine as to the rights of the voter other than the voter himself, and as the Amendment stood they would have voters arriving at the polling booth on the day of election and placing their cases, with or without assistance, before the presiding officer to the effect that they were plural voters, that they had only recently become aware of the fact, and had had no opportunity in the county court or in the court of petty sessions of making a selection. The presiding officer had many delicate duties to discharge during the polling, but he was not accustomed to exercise judicial duties of this kind. Some presiding officers would be more merciful and some more severe than others, and there would be no uniformity of treatment in such cases. It seemed to him that the duties of presiding officers should not be complicated by this somewhat important and judicial function at a moment's notice. He suggested that the difficulty could be got rid of by striking out the words "for the first time on the day of poll" in order to insert a short space of time before the poll. The time he ventured to suggest was fourteen days, but if a shorter time

  1463
  of ten or seven days were thought better he would be prepared to assent to it.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that yesterday the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had denounced at considerable length what he seemed to regard as a hideous suggestion that a statutory declaration should be sent to the clerk of the county council or the town clerk upon which they could act. Now, however, he had consented to an Amendment under which the presiding officer in the polling booth was to be called upon to do this task at a moment's notice, under pressure of work. Working men as a matter of convenience at election times voted either in the earlier or the later part of the day, and at those times the polling booth was crowded. How was the officer with the polling booth thus crowded to discharge this delicate duty? He found no fault with the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment, which tended in the direction which the Opposition had urged all along, but if he thought it was desirable to impose this duty upon the presiding officer in the polling booth he ought to have carried his power still further and enabled an honest man to make a declaration which if it were false would land him in penalties the presiding officer must, it appeared, accept that declaration, and therefore the whole thing came down to a question of the number of these pluralists. The Government flattered themselves that there were not going to be many, but they would find that there were a large number of men who had dual qualifications. Owing to the complexity of the electoral system these men would not know anything about their rights. The House ought not, he considered, to put obstacles in the way of a man obtaining and exercising a vote.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that when he declined to accept the statutory declaration he particularly saved himself in regard to this particular case, and it was because he wanted to deal with the rare emergencies that he had accepted the proposal before the House, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have misunderstood the Amendment. The presiding officer would have no authority to enter into
  1464
  an inquiry, because the voter had made a statutory declaration, and any person who was or was likely to be aggrieved would have his remedy at law.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid another point had been lost sight of in the course of the discussion. During the late hours in the polling booth the demands on the attention of the presiding officer were very heavy, and it was important that some provision should be made for the case of a man who coming with a claim to vote did not bring his statutory declaration with him. Was the presiding officer to keep a form? If not, the provision would lead to fraud, intrigue, and chicanery to a serious extent.
  LORD R. CECILridiculed the idea that the presiding officer would have no judicial function to exercise when the statutory declaration was handed to him. The proposal was that if any person became aware that he was registered in more than one constituency for the first time on the day of the poll, or such a short time before that day that he had no reasonable opportunity of obtaining an order of a court under this section, he might make a statutory declaration. It would therefore be necessary for the presiding officer to satisfy himself upon those points, and to that extent exercise judicial functions. There must be some check of this kind, otherwise difficulties must arise such as had been pointed out. The hon. Member for Hythe had an Amendment on the Paper in which he suggested that the application should be made to two justices of the peace, but that was not necessary. There would be no difficulty, however, in having one justice of the peace. There might be a justice of the peace kept ready for an emergency in one of the committee rooms, and the voter would go not into the polling booth at all, but into the committee room for a moment or two before the justice, and having satisfied him and gone through the necessary formalities, make a statutory declaration and hand it in to the presiding officer. He thought it would lead to confusion and chicanery if the declaration was made in the polling booth itself.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcongratulated the hon. Member for Barnard Castle upon his success with this Amendment. It, however, cast rather a curious light upon the proceedings. All who had sat through the debates on the Committee stage would remember that when hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House pointed out the evils that might arise they were received with the derisive laughter of hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the gangway. So long as only the rich man was affected nobody cared whether he got his vote or not, but six weeks consideration had resulted in this Amendment. Hon. Members below the gangway were very anxious when it was thought that a working man might lose his franchise.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONreminded the hon. Baronet that so far as he was concerned this Amendment had not been created in the Report stage. He had raised the question in the earliest stages of the Bill.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he referred to hon. Members generally and not to any one in particular. the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had made the most extraordinary admission that the presiding officer was not to make any inquiries. the result of that would be that any man could go to the polling booth and inform the presiding officer that he was on two registers, but that until a few minutes before he was not aware of the fact, and claim to make a declaration and then vote. the presiding officer was to make no inquiries; in fact he would not have time. He would produce a form and it would be signed by, say, John Jones, who would then vote and go away. But who was to say that the statement of John Jones was correct. Supposing it was found that John Jones had made a false declaration, how was he to be caught? He had effected his object and gone. And if he were caught he could not be proceeded against without an inquiry. John Jones's vote might have decided the election. Without an inquiry the vote could not be challenged and the man could not be caught. It might be, as the hon. Member for Barnard Castle thought, that many of these voters would be
  1466
  people who moved about from one constituency to another and who therefore could not be traced. It might be that they acted quite honestly in signing a declaration which was not correct. He was sure the hon. and learned Member for Perth would endorse everything he said, because the hon. and learned Member did not believe in a declaration at all. Although he (Sir Frederick Banbury) was personally in favour of the Amendment, the hon. and learned Member for Perth would probably divide the House upon it. the hon. and learned Member was against declarations before the County Court Judge, who was capable of making every inquiry, and therefore he could not approve of a declaration made before a man who could not make any inquiry at all. He was inclined to think that a good many false statements must arise under this clause, and that, therefore, there ought to be some machinery beyond the declaration before the returning officer, and that the inquiry which was not made before the returning officer should be made afterwards by some one else.
  MR. R. PEARCEsaid that, although it was suggested that these declarations should be made before the presiding officer, it seemed to have been overlooked that hardly a presiding officer in the whole of the country had the power to administer an oath. If the word "statutory" was left out and the word "written" inserted that would, he thought, get rid of all the difficulties of the Statutory Declarations Act.
  MR. GEORGE FABERagreed that one of the serious difficulties of statutory declarations was that the presiding officers in most cases had not the power to administer an oath. If, therefore, the doctor only made a declaration there would be no penalty; there would be no perjury if that declaration was false. Thus they fell between the two stools. the presiding officer could not administer an oath, and therefore the man could not take an oath. If he could not take an oath, then he could not be prosecuted for swearing to a false statement. All those who had fought contested elections knew that in the hurly burly of the polling booth it was impossible to ask the presiding officer to conduct an inquiry. It was impossible for him to carry out any

  1467
  judicial duties. They all wished to make this Bill work as smoothly as possible, and one way out a difficulty that had occurred to him was to make it part of the declaration itself that the man proposing to vote had only ascertained his disability on the day of the poll or within a short time prior to that date. It should not be left to the presiding officer to find that out.
  MR. HARCOURTthought he could clear up a misconception which seemed to have accidentally arisen in minds of hon. Members. The noble Lord appeared to think that the necessary facts were not to be stated in the statutory declaration. Of course they would be set out and the voter would have to come prepared to swear that he had not heard until that day, or that if he had heard before the time was so short that he had not had any reasonable opportunity of obtaining an order of the court. The presiding officer was not asked to make inquiries; he would accept the statement of the voter, which would be sworn. He could not say that he approved of the suggestion of the noble Lord that a justice of the peace should be present to accept not a statutory declaration, but a verbal declaration from voters. If the noble Lord meant a statutory declaration he did not see the object of it, because the voter could make the statutory declaration just as well to the presiding officer. If they got rid of the statutory declaration they would get rid of the penalties which accompanied it. He was not surprised at the point being raised as to whether a presiding officer was entitled to administer the oath. It was a point he had inquired into before accepting the hon. Member's Amendment, and he could state that the presiding officers would have power to administer the oath in these cases.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the one difficulty about the provision, although he was glad the Government had accepted it, was the danger of its being used to block the poll in certain circumstances. It was notorious that the illiterates were now used for that purpose. The difficulties raised by the hon. Baronet opposite and other hon. Members on the Opposition side were purely imaginary. The presiding officer was armed with the Bible at the present moment for the purpose of declarations which had to be made under
  1468
  the present law. As to the voter making a false declaration and disappearing, he could vote just as well without making any declaration at all. the voter would make this declaration in order to avoid penalties he would otherwise incur. the voter would have only just become aware, and other persons also, that he was a plural voter, otherwise one party or the other would have told him before. If he had not become aware of the fact he would vote without making the declaration. His right hon. friend had gone a little out of his way to assert that there were very few of these people; but he would produce to his right hon. friend or any Member of the House who was interested in the subject the registers which he had himself examined and which showed the enormous number of these persons. His right hon. friend thought there must be a great many people concerned in these men being on the register. That was not so. There were numerous cases in which men with double qualifications wore unaware of the fact. the difficulty arose because voters did not make their own claims. A large number of voters were placed on the register without there being aware that other persons had claimed for them. His right hon. friend thought that the two parties could clear the registers in these cases. In the first place their were very few constituencies where the parties went to the expense of making the immensely costly inquiries that were necessary to clear up all these cases, and in many instances where they knew the facts neither side would object because they did not know enough of the politics of the voters concerned, and so these persons remained on, although their qualifications, if carefully tested, would break down on account of "short time." In a slightly more substantial class of voters also the number of pluralists were very great. He was glad the case had been provided for, but one difficulty not provided for was that the provision might be used for blocking the poll.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexpressed his gratitude to the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division for the support he gave him when he raised this question in debate, and said he was now glad to support the hon. Member who had found a form of words that was acceptable to His Majesty's

  1469
  Government. But that form of words was not without objection. There was a real danger in the possibility to which the right hon. Baronet bad just alluded, that the provision would be used to block the poll, and the Government ought to give their serious attention to see whether they could devise a remedy for that. But, with all the objections, he was heartily in favour of the Amendment, because he desired to make it as easy as possible for every man, rich or poor, who was qualified to vote to record his vote at least once. What distressed him about the attitude of the Government in this matter was that so long as the voter could be supposed to be a rich man, or to have more than one qualification, there was no restriction or obstacle they could throw in his way which they did not joyfully put there, and they absolutely refused to him the relief they gave to the man who, ex hypothesi, had but one qualification, although his name appeared on two registers by an oversight on the part of the overseers. That man was considered by the Government to be more deserving of consideration than the man who had two qualifi-tions and whose name rightly appeared on the two sets of papers, but who, under this Bill, had to make a selection.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid it was a matter the voter could find out at the last moment. It would have nothing to do with his vote or the validity of his qualification.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was only when it was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were men of this kind amongst the voters with only one qualification that he gave the slightest sign of any willingness to consider the case. He could not help contrasting the attitude of the Government towards other proposals for making it easier for properly qualified men to record one vote. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not met the Opposition in as amicable a spirit when they desired to secure the technical right of the voter, not to vote more than once, but to vote a single time. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the questions that were put to him? He assumed it to be the intention of the Government that the presiding officer should have the statutory form printed
  1470
  and supplied to every voter who asked for it without any fee.
  MR. HAECOURT: Yes.
  MR. COURTHOPE*MR. COURTHOPE moved an Amendment to the proposed Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle with the object of enabling the voter to make a selection before the presiding officer of the polling station at which he was qualified to vote in the constituency which he selected, in the form prescribed by Order in Council under the Act. Although he did not attach very much importance to his Amendment, it would, he thought, remove some of the objections which had been raised to the form of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. Had it not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that after taking advice he found that the presiding officer would be able to administer the oath he should have pressed his Amendment. Now, however, a great deal of its importance was removed, though he still thought his Amendment provided a better and more, simple form of words. He begged to move.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGin seconding the Amendment, said he quite understood the difficulty of making this clause meet all demands.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed' Amendment to the clause.—
  "In line 4, to leave out from the word ' section,' to end, and insert' it shall be lawful for him to make a selection before the presiding officer of the polling station at which he is qualified to vote in the constituency which he selects, in the form prescribed by Order in Council under this Act.'"—(Mr. Courthope.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the. proposed Amendment to the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTthought the hon.. Member would see that this was not a desirable Amendment when he pointed out that its effect would be to remove the statutory necessity for a declaration. In order to prevent the concessions made to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle being turned to fraudulent uses, it was necessary that they should be safeguarded by a statutory declaration. If

  1471
  they were going to insist upon this declaration it was only fair that it should be in the Act and not provided for afterwards by the Order in Council.
  MR. COURTHOPEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed words added to the clause.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  New clause:
  "A prosecution for an offence against this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney or Solicitor-General." —(Mr. Harcourt.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEdid not think they ought to allow these words to pass without pointing out that the Act was likely to be a dead letter owing to the extreme difficulty of obtaining a conviction for breaches of its provisions. Legislation on these lines would prove to be a disappointment to the country, because at the present moment where duplicate voting occurred it was perfectly notorious that breaches of the law took place. the practice varied very much in different counties. In the constituency of North Herefordshire it was admitted at the Revision Court by the agents of both parties that forty-one duplicate voters voted twice at the last general election. If such a breach of the law occurred when enormous penalties attached to the offence, how much more would the breach of this law be practised when they had to prove that it was done knowingly. the cases in which proof would be forthcoming would be very few, and it would be almost impossible to secure a conviction. the words they were now discussing still further weakened the probability of prosecutions, and he feared that legislation on these lines would be a failure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  New clause—
  "In the application of this Act to Ireland— '(1) Sections eighty-eight and ninety-three of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1850, shall be substituted for sections eighty-one and eighty-six respectively of the Parliamentary Voters Registration Act, 1843; and (2) Section three of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885, shall be substituted for section seventy-six of the Local Government Act, 1888; and (3) the clerk of the peace shall be substituted for the clerk of the county council or town clerk; and (4) the expressions ' Attorney-General,' and ' Solicitor-General 'mean respectively the Attorney-General and the Solicitor General for Ireland.'" —(Mr. Harcourt.) —
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked if the adoption of this clause would prevent his moving to leave Ireland out of the operation of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly it would.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGthought in that case he would be in order in arguing that the Act should not apply to Ireland. He wished to point out the disabilities under which a man would labour on account of the long distances he would have to travel to vote through having been placed on two registers, one say belonging to Fermanagh and the other to the south of England. Great expense might be incurred, especially to the labouring man in moderate circumstances who had acquired qualifications in both Glasgow and Belfast. If these men happened to be on that side of the Channel where they had not selected their constituency the expense of crossing the Channel to record their votes would be prohibitive. He considered that was a serious hardship, and one which would appeal to all hon. Members who knew the immense number of dual voters there were in Ireland. Whichever way they looked at it anyone living in Ireland was taxed to an enormous extent as compared with dual voters in adjoining parishes

  1473
  in England. It was never intended that plural voters who were endeavouring to develop industries in Ireland or who went to Ireland to the shooting lodges or to fish should be disfranchised or put to enormous expense as compared with people on this side of the Channel. There were so many flagrant anomalies in the Bill especially when it came to be applied to Ireland that he could not enumerate one half of them. It would be extremely difficult to meet the cases he had cited. He was not one of those who desired separate legislation for different parts of Great Britain, but when a serious innovation was made in the working of the system of Parliamentary representation nothing but a redistribution of seats——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is wholly outside the scope of the new clause.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he hoped the Bill would not be made to apply to Ireland where it was neither wanted nor necessary.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTentirely agreed with his hon. friend in the very moderate and reasonable appeal he had just made to the House. He thought that appeal would have had even more chance of success if the hon. Member had pointed out with more emphasis that it was made not only on behalf of dual voters who were wealthy, but also on behalf of a very large number of labourers, who in the harvest season went from Ireland to England and Scotland, and during their residence in those countries became qualified voters. Hon. Members laughed, but that only confirmed what many of them believed, that some hon. Members did not know Ireland well, and did not take the trouble to inquire into the conditions. He said with confidence that there were a large number of plural voters among the labourers of Ireland whom this clause would seriously affect. the Government had shown a great disposition to listen to appeals made from the Labour Benches. They had been guided by the Labour Members to a large extent in their policy in regard to
  1474
  Bills brought before the House. Sometimes they had been guided for evil, but by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle they had certainly been guided for good. He would venture to assume the role of Labour Member and speak on behalf of labourers in Ireland who were plural voters. Unless this Amendment were accepted a severe blow would be struck at many of these labourers who had crossed to England during the harvest-time and become qualified voters in two constituencies unknown to themselves.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read the second time, and added to the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL,in moving a new clause (supply of forms to plural, voters) said that the ordinary elector, who was not a very intelligent person would find difficulty in regard to the form in which the selection of the constituency should be made. It was for that reason he proposed that the statutory form should be supplied gratis by the overseers.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY,in seconding the Motion, said he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would accept the new clause, which applied to all classes of voters, as he had already accepted something similar in the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle in regard to working class voters. There were no doubt electors who did not know what course they ought to pursue, and they would not take the trouble to draw up a form themselves. If the forms were supplied gratis there would be additional cost thrown on somebody—he supposed it would be the State—but they must submit to it. the least they could do was to put the people concerned to as little expense as possible.
  New clause:—
  "That the statutory form be supplied by the overseers gratis to all plural voters."—(Sir William Bull)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he agreed that there should be a form provided gratis for voters, but he thought for three reasons this new clause was not necessary. In the first place, they were not going to make it a statutory form; secondly, it should not be supplied by the overseers; and thirdly, it should not be limited to plural voters only, but should be supplied to anybody who might apply on their behalf. All that would be provided for in the Order in Council. It was not necessary to put the provision in the Act as they did not make it a statutory form.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLasked leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that the new clause he had to propose raised the question as to whether the clerk of the county council or the town clerk of a borough ought not to serve on any elector whose name appeared on the register for the first time a notice that his name appeared on another register. Having regard to the new clause inserted by the Government it became doubly important that a person whose name was inserted on a register for the first time should, if the name appeared on another register, have an intimation that he must select the constituency in which he wished to vote. His Amendment would enable such a person to apply to the court to get his right to vote in one of the constituencies. the obvious reason for putting down the Amendment was that a man's name might come on the register after 5th September, the day on which he must serve his notice as to selection, and he might be thereby disqualified. Then there was the case of a man in a University constituency who came on the register automatically. He thought his Amendment was a perfectly reasonable one. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman would say that it would pat a great deal of labour on the county
  1476
  council and borough town clerks; but that was no answer at all.
  New clause—
  "Where the name of any person is inserted on the register of Parliamentary voters for the first time the clerk of the county council or town clerk shall serve a notice of the fact on such person, and shall thereby give him notice that if he is registered in and other constituency it is necessary to serve a notice in accordance with and in the form and manner prescribed by the first section of this Act."—(Sir E. Carson.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that the hon. and learned Member had contended that it was no answer to his Amendment that it would involve a great deal of labour on the county council and town clerks; but he insisted that the adoption of the Amendment would put too great labour and responsibility on those clerks. They would be asking the clerks to do something impossible. How were the clerks to know that a man was on the register for the first time? It was true that a man might not have been on the register for the previous year, but he might have been at a former period and his name had been dropped out. How far were the county council and town clerks to go back and search old registers in order to find out whether a man was on the register for the first time? He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that this was a clause which. could not reasonably be added to the Bill.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that his right hon. and learned friend, in moving the adoption of his Amendment, had again shown how many were the difficulties which would arise in the practical application of this Bill. No doubt the Amendment was open to some criticism, but there were plenty of cases which justified it. He himself had been placed, without his knowledge, on the register of a county division when he had no right to be put there. When informed of it by a relative he wrote to the county clerk and explained that lie had no electoral qualification in that

  1477
  division; but three years afterwards the same mistake was made. Who was to bear the responsibility of those mistakes and incur the penalties which might follow if this legislation was passed? For the first time it was proposed to enact that the possession of two votes was to expose a man to all sorts of penalties if he had not made the declaration required by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible for a clerk to find out whether a man was on the register for the first time; but surely State officials should do the work which the ordinary voter could not possibly do. For Party purposes the Government were trying to prevent a man giving more than one vote. If that was what was meant they were at the same time exposing a man, not only to the possibility of disfranchisement, but to serious penalties if he happened to have two votes. As the Government had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle they might accept that of his right hon. and learned friend.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid that under the Bill a plural voter without guilty intention might be subject to serious penalties and be disfranchised. That being so, was it not common justice to warn him of the dangers which surrounded him? He ventured to say that the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University would secure that. There had been several suggestions as to how the warning should be given to the new voter, but the only complete way was to appoint other officers if the county clerks and the town clerks were unable to do the work. He sincerely hoped that his right hon. and learned friend would press his Amendment to a division. The cynical refusal by the Government to accept the Amendment only revealed once more the true motive for introducing and pushing this Bill through the House.
  LORD ROBERT CECILthought that the Government would do well to take the Amendment into serious considera-
  1478
  tion. the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had asked—
  "How was the county council or town clerk to know whether a voter was on the register for the first time?"
  If there was any doubt about it, all the clerk had to do was to send a note to the new voter and ask him whether he had been on the register before. But the real reason why he supported this clause was that he believed the Bill was going to add enormously to the expenses of Parliamentary candidates. That consideration had not, he believed, been sufficiently kept in view by the Government. Under recent Acts the actual costs of a contest had been considerably reduced; but that was not the most serious burden which a candidate had to bear, especially in some constituencies where for a period preceding the contest the machinery had to be prepared, the Party organisation kept up, and registration seen to. All that was a serious burden already on candidates; but that burden would be enormously increased by this Bill unless there was some official liability to give notice to the plural voter that he must take steps to retain his qualification. This meant an enormous addition to Party machinery, and he looked upon any such addition as a very bad thing from many points of view. He did not think the Government had given due consideration to that question. What they had to consider was whether they were going to leave the carrying out of this Act to private organisations in the different constituencies or whether they were going to say that it was the duty of the State to see that the measure was carried into operation. This Parliament had already passed Resolutions in favour of placing upon the State the expenses of the returning officers and for the payment of Members, in order to enable all citizens whatever their wealth might be to become Members of Parliament, and yet this same democratic assembly was now engaged in putting up a barrier far higher than any that now existed against a man of moderate means entering the House. That was rather a remarkable position to be taken up by what had been so often described as a great democratic Parliament. He invited the Government to

  1479
  consider the matter from that point of view, and even if they did not approve of the machinery suggested to see if they could not carry out the object which the House had announced to be one of those which they wished to attain.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the right hon. Gentleman had raised the question of the great labour that would be involved in carrying out the Amendment, but he thought that clerks of the county councils and the town clerks should have the duty cast upon them of giving the warning contemplated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal. He wished to emphasise the point which his noble friend had made and which he himself made when the Bill was before the House for Second Reading, viz., that this Act would largely increase the cost of elections. That remark was received with derision, as such remarks always were when they were uttered by one who was supposed to represent a wealthy class, but he thought it was necessary that the Government should consider the matter from that point of view. Whatever the motive of the Bill was he was perfectly certain that its effect would not be to make elections cheaper. Any Member who sat for a large and scattered constituency must realise that unless this Amendment was carried the expense of electioneering machinery would be greatly increased. Therefore in the interests of those whom right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite pretended to represent, and whom from hour to hour they were showing themselves not fit to represent—in the interest of the poorer classes he hoped the Government would give more consideration to the proposal than they had hitherto done.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid this was an extremely important Amendment, and one which he would have thought would appeal to Members on both sides of the House, because the Bill undoubtedly was going to add immensely to the expense of registration. This consideration apparently did not appeal to hon. Members below the gangway, because they seemed to be under the impression that they were going to put the additional cost upon the unfortunate taxpayer, and so long as he had to pay they did not care how much money was wasted
  1480
  on these matters. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had given as his only reason for refusing to accept the Amendment that it would put considerable labour and trouble upon the clerks of the county councils or the town clerks, and that it would be practically impossible for those officials to carry out the work. He would point out, however, that it would be extremely easy for the clerk of the council or the town clerk to carry out what was suggested. All they had to do was to find out how many voters had been added to the register. They had only to take last year's register and compare it with the present, but if that was too much work for them they could go to the overseers and ask how many people they had put upon their lists, and find out also what number of people the revising barrister had allowed to remain on those lists. That was an extremely simple process. What was a town clerk appointed for if he was not to take any trouble in regard to matters such as were dealt with by the Bill? If this work was left to the Party agents, plural voters would obtain a vote only in those cases whore the Party agent, Liberal or Conservative, happened to be energetic and the prospective candidate was a rich man. An energetic and capable Party agent with large funds at his back would no doubt take the trouble to inform all the persons who were on the register for the first time that they were plural voters, and the candidate who had the longest purse and the most efficient agent would benefit. It was not desired to make admission to Parliament contingent on a man's having a long purse, but unless the Amendment were accepted a man with such a qualification would have a very great advantage. He could not understand how hon. Members opposite could oppose an Amendment which would have the effect of putting people on an equality. He could not, moreover, see why the right hon. Gentleman was so concerned lest the town clerk or the county council clerk should have to do some additional work. the number of voters added to the list every year was not large. In a constituency of 10,000, the number would not be more than 1,000 or 1,500 at the outside. Surely it was not a very large task for a person to find out who the plural voters were. He hoped it

  1481
  was not too late to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, the only result of which would be to put people more or less on an equality.
  MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Towkesbury)hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. As the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had pointed out, people were very often placed upon the list against their will and in spite of their protest. There were scores of people who got upon the register without their knowledge, for in numbers of cases claims were not signed by the electors but by an agent; and on that account, in order to prevent people becoming liable to be charged with the offence of personation or other illegal practices, that notice should be given to them. The fact that many voters remained on the register when they presumed their names had been removed must also be taken into account; for what happened in cases where only one Party was represented at the Registration Court was that the agent who appeared objected to and got struck off the lists the voters for the opposing Party, whereas the claims of those who belonged to his own Party remained on the list. If in some cases, therefore, voters were not removed from the list when they thought they had been, and were put on another list without receiving any intimation of that fact, numerous charges of personation would arise which might have been avoided by the acceptance of the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had a wide experience of elections and the work of registration in various constituencies, but it could be wished that he would extend his purview to other constituencies where an entirely different system prevailed. There were a great many constituencies where the Party agents did no work in the Registration Courts at all; where year after year no expenditure was incurred for registration. Those were the best seats which Members of this House could occupy. High as the expenses of contests usually were the greatest strain put upon Members was that of maintaining the
  1482
  Party organisation from one election to another, and when that strain was intensified by the costs of registration it became intolerable to a poor and most burdensome to a rich man. He had ventured on a former occasion to describe the Bill as one to amend the criminal law and create new offences; he would not now be going too far in describing it as a Bill for rendering the work of registration and the maintenance of Party organisation more onerous than ever. Here was work that had to be done, work which the right hon. Gentleman thought was too difficult and costly to put on the public authority, and consequently the agents of the Party organisations were to have it thrust upon them. They were not the proper men to make a register; their work ought to be strictly limited to checking a register made by some one else. the Bill proposed to thrust upon those men work altogether outside their proper sphere. He joined in the appeals that had been made to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he supposed the eloquent speeches to which the House had listened were made in favour of the rejection of the Bill, because they could not be intended to support the clause. Was it seriously suggested that in the urban portions of the county of Essex a public officer was to search the register of a constituency in which a quarter of the voters changed every year? There were an average of 40,000 electors each in the Romford and Walthamstow Divisions; was it suggested that the register was to be searched by the county clerk of Essex and all the new voters to be ticked? [An HON. MEMBER: Somebody has to do it.] Somebody had to do it and where cases of plural voting were suspected there might be great difficulties. That was an argument that could not be used in support of this clause.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said in dealing with these matters they must have some sense of proportion, and the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire in his speech had lost sight of all sense of proportion in treating the dangers which he contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested

  1483
  that there might be a class of persons possessing two qualifications without being aware of the fact. If that class existed it would be a very limited class, and an intolerable burden could not be placed on public officials connected with the administration of public affairs in order to inform those persons, and to remind them of their obligations under this legislation. In the first place, there would be the laborious comparison of old with new registers, and, in the second, a costly and laborious machinery for the
  purpose of informing a person for the first time that if he happened to be on some other list he must make a selection in order to exercise a vote. He did not say there was no danger, but he submitted that the machinery proposed was out of all proportion to the danger which might have to be met.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 338. (Division List No. 440.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peters field)

  Arkwright, John Jtanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Roberts, S. (Speffield, Ecclesall

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cave, George

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor, C. W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Endrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

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

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glagsow)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Moore, William

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beck, A. Cecil

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bertram, Julius

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bethell, J. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Billson, Alfred

  Byles, William Pollard

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cairns, Thomas

  Barker, John

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't)

  Boland, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brace, William

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Barnes, G. N.

  Branch, James

  Chance, Frederick William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brigg, John

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Beale, W. P.

  Bright, J. A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Clough, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Meagher, Michael

  Clynes, J. R.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Menzies, Walter

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinstd

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morrell, Philip

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morse, L. L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Cox, Harold

  Hogan, Michael

  Napier, T. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Hooper, A. G.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crossley, J.

  Horniman, Emslie, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Daives, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Dickson-Goynder, Sir John P.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Mara, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Paul, Herbert

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kelley, George D.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lambert, George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamont, Norman

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, K)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lover, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Ginnell, L.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Glover, Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Robinson, S.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Killop, W

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Halpin, J.

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

  Rose, Charles Day

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rowlands, J

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Haslam, James (Derbyspire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Massie, C. F. G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Masterson, C. F. G.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  1486

  1487

  Sears, J. E.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Seddon, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Thompson, Franklin

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tillett, Louis John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Toulmin, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Soames, Ernest J.

  Wad-worth, J.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wallace, Robert

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Winfrey, R.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Young, Samuel

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  MR. COURTHOPE MR. COURTHOPE moved a clause with the object of securing that the registers should be marked in any case, quite irrespective of the failure or otherwise of the plural voter to make his selection. It was manifest that after a Bill like this had been passed, by which a very large number of qualifications would cease to operate, so far as permitting voters to register their votes was concerned, it would be very important that the registers should be so marked that the number of plural voters could be ascertained. It was manifestly undesirable— and he thought the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him— in the interests of economy in the conduct of elections, that the election expenses should be calculated on the total number of qualifications on the register and not on the total number who would be able to vote. It would also be a matter of great convenience to revising barristers, to the Party agents, and to many other officials, presiding officers at polling stations and so on, that they should be able to tell at a glance, by looking at the register, whether a person was or was not also registered elsewhere. It might possibly be contended that this would involve expensive machinery. He did not think it necessarily would, but he thought even if a certain expense were involved by the carrying out of the clause, it would be more than justified by the enormous convenience and great economy which would be effected. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman in
  1488
  charge of the Bill did not want unnecessary expense to be incurred either in the preparation of the register, the work of the revising barrister, or by the contending parties at the time of an election.
  New clause—
  "The clerk of the county council or town clerk who is responsible for the printing of the parliamentary register of any constituency, shall, before the first day of August preceding the commencement of the year in which the righter is to begin to take effect, mark the name of every person who is entered on any register of parliamentary electors for another constituency where it appears on the register in the manner prescribed by Order in Council, made under this Act, and shall keep the same of that person so marked in the register for every subsequent year so long as the name of that person continues without interruption to be included in both the said registers."— (Mr. Courthope.)—
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Member bad not explained to the House how he imagined or intended that the clerk was to obtain the knowledge it was necessary he should have in order to carry out the provisions of this clause. What the hon. Gentleman suggested was that the clerk should mark the name of every person who was entered on any other register of Parliamentary electors. Was every clerk to search 669 registers and compare each of them with his

  1489
  own, and having found a similar name to one on his own register, decide by himself whether the owner of the name in each case was the same individual? He agreed as to the desirability of having a clean register, but if so every voter must be compelled after making his selection to send notices of his other qualifications to the proper clerks. That was the only way of obtaining a clean register, or else some great clearing house would be required in London. It was not a matter that could be dealt with in this way, and the Amendment was not one that he could accept. With regard to the question of the undesirability of election expenses being kept up to a high figure by people being on the register who were non-effective voters, the Leader of the Opposition had raised that question, and in compliance with a promise that had been made an Amendment to Clause 4 had been placed on the Paper.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid with the leave of the House he would explain the methods by which his Amendment could be carried out. It would only be necessary for the clerk who was preparing the lists, when he found that the address of an elector in the qualification column was not the same as the address in the residential column, to ascertain from the clerk in charge of the lists for the constituency in which the latter occurred whether the elector was registered in respect of his residence. Both clerks would then mark their lists accordingly. It would be a simple and inexpensive process and would not involve sending out notices.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsuggested that the clerk of the council might send a notice to every voter on the register requesting him to state whether he was on another register. It would be a cumbrous process, but the Bill itself was a cumbrous measure, and he could not see why the suggestion should be refused on the ground that it would be troublesome and inconvenient. The Bill would throw insuperable burdens upon what he regarded as a very deserving class, namely, the plural voter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well adopt the Amendment subject to the suggestion he had made.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINagreed that it would be almost impracticable for the clerk to discharge the duties which the clause would cast upon him. He hoped the House would take note of the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to have a clean register, because the main argument all along had been that it was important that they should have a clean register and that it should be made perfectly clear who had a right to vote and who had not.
  MR. CAVEthought the proposed new clause in its present form would not be workable, but suggested that an attempt to clean the register might be made by leaving it optional to the plural voter when he sent in his notice of selection to specify in the notice of selection any other constituencies in which he had a qualification. The clerk of the selected constituency could then be required to send to the clerks of the other constituencies so specified a notice to the effect that the voter had decided to vote in the selected constituency, and the clerks of the other constituencies could then put a mark on the register showing that the person in question was a plural voter, and was not entitled to vote in that particular constituency. If something of this kind were not done, a man might be canvassed and dragged up to the poll in a constituency not selected by him and then find when he applied for his voting paper that he had no right to vote in that constituency.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he was afraid that they were rather a divided party in regard to this Amendment. He wished to protest against the suggestion of his hon. friend which would increase the burden already laid on the plural voter. The great difficulty was finding out whether or not a man had voted twice. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that it would be almost impossible to find out whether or not the law had been broken.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had had considerable experience in regard to the question they were now discussing. He voted for the Second Reading of the Bill because it scorned to him a matter of

  1491
  equity that the plural voter should be abolished, but he objected to the methods by which that principle was now being carried out. The effect of the Bill without some such Amendment as that under discussion would be to set up dummy registers. He had officiated as Under Sheriff of Lancashire during two general elections, and from practical experience he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there would be thousands of names appearing on the register as duly qualified voters who were not qualified to vote at all in a particular constituency. He knew of two divisions where there were over 2,500 plural voters in one, and over 1,500 in the other division. This Amendment was an attempt to rectify the unworkable nature of the Bill by providing some machinery under which the dummy voters would either be cleared off or indicated on the register in some practical way. Tremendous expense and inconvenience would be caused by leaving the Bill in its present shape. The returning officer's charges and the cost of the election were based upon the number of electors on the register, and if 25 per cent. were not entitled to vote, why increase the cost of an election by 25 per cent.? AH the canvassing for these people would be unnecessary if this Bill were made workable by taking the names of duplicate voters off the registers for the constituencies where they were not entitled to vote. If the names were not taken off altogether, some mark should be placed opposite to them in the constituencies where they were entitled to vote. He looked at this from the point of view of one who would like to see plural voting abolished. Having had a great deal of practical experience in the actual conduct of elections, he could only say that the Bill as at present framed was absolutely unworkable. He was perfectly certain that such an outcry would be raised against it that it would not take long for any Government to repeal it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  LORD R. CECIL LORD R. CECIL moved the following new clause—"This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January after the next general election, unless before that time an Act shall be passed giving to women the franchise on the same terms and conditions upon which it
  1492
  is enjoyed by men, in which case it shall come into operation on the day fixed for the coming into operation of such last-mentioned Act." He said they had good reason to think that one of the main purposes, or one of the main results of this Bill, would be to diminish the electoral support of the Unionist party and increase the electoral support of the Liberal party. For a Parliament containing a large Liberal majority to endeavour to secure that one Party should continue in power for all time or for a long period was a highly unconstitutional proceeding. It seemed to him essentially the same as attempting to repeal the Septennial Act. Therefore, before this Bill came into operation, it was right that the people of the country should be consulted upon it before the Party now in power succeeded in placing on the statute-book a measure which would work out to their political advantage; at any rate the constituencies should have an opportunity of saying that that was the reason for which they were returned to power. That was the general scope of this clause, but there was one contingency in which he thought the House might fairly think that the Bill should not necessarily be put off until after the next general election. If the Government were to undertake to make a real reform of the electoral law of the country and set the franchise upon a solid and enduring basis, it would be reasonable to say that whenever that Bill came into operation this Bill should also come into operation as part of that great reform. What was nominally really sought to be removed by this Bill? As he understood it, at any rate, that which was put forward by the advocates of the Bill was that there were certain electors who had an undue share in the government of the country—that some, owing to their property qualification, were enabled to have a greater share of representation in this House than others—in other words, that some people were favoured elector-ally above others. That was an anomaly undoubtedly, if they put it in that way, and he did not say that it was an anomaly which should not in certain circumstances be dealt with. But he did say that in considering the anomalies of our electoral system it did not stand very high. The anomaly was that they gave to a certain class of voters no doubt

  1493
  a preponderance of power, but there was a very much larger class of our fellow-countrymen or countrywomen who had no share in the electoral power of the country. No one could say they were in any way less qualified than the present electors to give their voices in the government of the country. They had the same stake in the country, the same intelligence, and the same education.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that the noble Lord would be justified under a clause fixing the date of the operation of the Act to go into a general discussion on the question of woman suffrage. He is entitled to contemplate a Bill for that purpose passing the House, but I do not think he is entitled to go into arguments in favour of it.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he did not propose to argue the case for woman suffrage beyond saying that this Bill was only intended to remove one of the anomalies of the electoral system, and before it came into operation the House ought to have an opportunity of considering the electoral system as a whole. He was quite aware that it was not very easy to present that argument without to some extent dealing with the question of woman suffrage, but he would endeavour to abide closely by the ruling which had been given and not to deal with it more than was absolutely necessary in order to make his argument clear. This was essentially a disfranchisement Bill. Before they disfranchised one class, they ought to consider whether there was not another class anxiously demanding and entitled to the franchise. Before they made this small alteration, which after all would do no more than deprive people of the vote which they had exercised up to now, they ought to consider whether in the readjustment of our electoral system there were not other people who were entitled to be called to the exercise of the franchise. Before they passed a measure which, after all, would mainly benefit one party, they ought to consider whether there were not other anomalies which affected all parties alike, such as the question of woman suffrage, which really had gained the sympathy and support of hon. Members sitting in all parts of the House. He contended that a reform of that kind had as great a claim to be considered
  1494
  as the one dealt with in this Bill. There were an enormous number of Members pledged to that reform, and he would point out that if they accepted this Bill without endeavouring to force on the House and the Government their claim that women should receive the vote they would never have an opportunity of doing so again. [Cries of "Order."] He ventured to think that that was perfectly in order. The question was whether this Bill should come into operation immediately. It was only in that way that they could secure from the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reform which they desired. It was only by putting pressure on the Government that many hon. Members opposite could carry out their election pledges. The pledge he gave was embodied in this clause. He said that he would not bring in a Woman Suffrage Bill, but he did say that they had a better claim to be considered than any other class in the country. Hon. Members opposite had given more extreme pledges than that, but he believed that very few of them would vote with him in the division. [Cheers.] Yes, and they gloried in it, because they cared much less for the cause he was pleading on this occasion than they did for the support of the Government. Until reformers outside realised the nature of the support they were receiving in Parliament, they would labour Under a delusion which, he feared, they Would have to bear with very unpleasant results to themselves. He recommended this new clause to the House because it embodied the opinion which he had endeavoured to impress on the House more than once, and because it would be a test of the political sincerity of hon. Members who sat on the other side of the House.
  AN HON. MEMBERseconded.
  New clause—
  "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January after the next Genera Election, unless before that time an Act shall be passed giving to women the franchise on the same terms and conditions upon which it is enjoyed by men, in which case it shall come into operation on the day fixed for the coming into operation of such last-mentioned Act."— (Lord R. Cecil.)—
  Brought up, and road a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that a considerable portion of the interesting speech to which they had just listened left his withers completely unwrung. He did not pledge himself, when he was before his constituency, to woman suffrage; but he did not think that even those who did pledge themselves need be in the least difficulty about voting against the noble Lord's clause. The effect of it would be to postpone the operation of this Bill, which secured, as they believed, a great and necessary reform in their electoral law, until 1st January after the next general election, unless the contingency which the noble Lord contemplated took place in the meantime. In other words, the probable or, at any rate, the more than possible operation of the clause, if it wore carried, would be that, until another general election had taken place, the plural voter was to continue to vote and, indeed, was to have the opportunity of saying, at the next general election, whether he would be a party to his own extinction. That was not the intention of the Government, and he did not believe it was the intention of the House of Commons. This was not a new proposal. It was one to the principle of which the majority of the Party on that side of the House had been pledged for more than twenty years. If ever there was a reform which had been adequately discussed and presented to the people of the country it was this, but the present was the first occasion on which they had had an effective opportunity of seeing it carried into law. He had no hesitation in asking hon. Members behind him, whatever their opinions as to the expediency or inexpediency of woman suffrage might be, to vote against this clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought every one would admit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put before his followers the argument which of all others was likely to induce them to follow him into the lobby. He could well believe that nothing would be more disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite than that anything should be deferred until after the next general election. They were aware from Parliamentary history that general election must
  1496
  follow general election, and that a new Government would reverse the policy of that which preceded it. He congratulated hon. Gentlemen in having no illusions as to what would happen at the next general election. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, was not quite so happy in the earlier part of his speech, in giving reasons why the Amendment should be rejected. He understood that his noble friend who proposed the Amendment was a supporter on the whole of female suffrage, but he had not given the specific pledges which had been given by 420 Members on both sides of the House. His noble friend's view rested on two propositions. The first proposition was of general policy, and it was that, when they were desiring to remove anomalies, they ought, if possible, if they could do so in a practical spirit, to take a wide view of the anomalies that existed, and that, in particular, they ought not to set to work to deal with this relatively small anomaly, which was directed against a particular party, when there were other anomalies in existence which had no party complexion, but which affected much greater and wider interests in the community at large. He had been a consistent supporter of that view when he was unsuccessfully fighting a Manchester seat and through all the debates on this Bill. He was a more ardent supporter of woman suffrage twenty-five years ago, but he had never concealed his opinions either in the House or out of it. The addition of an enormous number of votes to the register was a great change in our electoral system, which now worked well, and he looked at it, therefore, with the caution appropriate to the Party to which he belonged. But the general trend of legislation in this country seemed to him to make it very necessary that on some questions they should have an authoritative representation of the other half of the human race who now, far more than formerly, were brought into direct competition with men in the industrial sphere. That was a genuine argument in favour of the change. But, apart from that, it was quite clear that those who thought they ought to make our electoral system a symmetrical whole, in which they should only consider the exact value of each human being in a community and give each human being his exact proportion of the total political power of the whole community—those

  1497
  who held that hard and fast theory—he thought a very pedantic theory—of our representative system, were bound to support his noble friend's proposal or any other proposal which hastened the day on which this grout and undoubted anomaly should be brought to an end. That brought him to the second motive which had animated his noble friend, viz., that it was in vain to appeal to the House and to gentlemen pledged to a particular change unless they could give them some strong motive for carrying out that change. There were 420 gentlemen in the House who were pledged to this change. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed, not in words but in tone, an absolute scepticism as to the possibility of the change being carried out in the present Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that, although 420 gentlemen were pledged to it, it would not come to anything so long as this Parliament, under the direction of the present Government, had no motive other than the actual carrying out of their own pledges for seeing the change brought into effect. That other motive his noble friend supplied, and he ventured to say that every one of the 420 gentlemen ought to welcome the stimulus to carrying out their pledges which his noble friend supplied. Promises were easily made but not always equally easily kept. It was because his noble friend, rightly gauging the temperament of these 420 gentlemen, and rightly seeing that there could be no motive applied to them so strong as the motive of getting a Party advantage out of the change, sought to link together the great change, the great reform which had no Party complexion, with a simple change which had nothing but a Party complexion. He seemed to have rightly gauged the motive actuating those 420 gentlemen. Personally, holding that view which he had always held, he should go into the lobby with his noble friend.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)thought the only inference to be drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was that this Government did not intend to enfranchise women before the next general election. The question of the enfranchisement of women was of supreme importance, and he should vote for the Amendment now before the House as a protest against the
  1498
  statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Events out of doors ought to convince Ministerialists that they could not treat this question lightly. Thirty-nine years ago the House of Commons passed a resolution in favour of the enfranchisement of women. He was sorry to hear from the Loader of the Opposition that as he advanced in years he did not advance in wisdom, or, if he advanced in wisdom he did not advance in gallantry. Women's Liberal Associations had been pathetically putting their trust in the present Government, but now they knew that so long as this Government remained in office there was no chance of the injustice to women being removed.
  MR. NIELDdenied that this question had in the proper sense of the term been before the country for twenty years, although it might have been discussed in hole-and-corner Liberal caucus meetings and at Radical clubs from time to time, but it could not be said to have been pronounced upon nor had the opinion of the country been taken upon the question. All he knew was that several hon. Gentlemen opposite were commiserating each other in regard to the votes which they would lose under the Bill and did not seem to have a very grateful appreciation of the Government measure, except so far as they thought as a Party they might derive some general benefit from the injury it was expected to inflict upon their opponents. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the electorate had had the question before it for twenty years past, but he appeared to have lost sight of the fact that his Party had not been able to get up very much enthusiasm over the subject. He would remind the Right Hon. Gentleman that for the bulk of the period he mentioned the Radical Party had been wandering in the desert, and so far from the cry of "one man one vote" assisting them to terminate their wanderings it had done nothing for them, and they only found their way out when they invented the fable of "Chinese Slavery" and the imposture of the "big and little loaf."
  MR. HOWARDsaid he was a keen supporter of woman suffrage, but he proposed to vote against the now clause of the noble Lord because

  1499
  he thought it would do nothing to forward that movement. It appeared to him to pursue a "cut off your nose to spite your face" policy. He believed that this Bill was a democratic measure, and he did not wish to see the effect of a general enactment of this kind postponed until after the next general election, In his opinion the effect of this measure at the next general election would be a valuable one and would forward the democratic cause in the country.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he had a great admiration for his noble friend the Member for Marylebone, whose foresight and capabilities were beyond question, but on this occasion the noble Lord had put him in an extremely
  difficult position, because if he went to a division, as he supposed he would, he really did not know with whom to vote. He was in favour of the first part of the Amendment, but with the second part he disagreed, and therefore he did not know what course to pursue. He thought, however, as the first part of the Amendment would postpone what was an extremely bad measure, he had better support his noble friend, especially as be thought the second part of his Amendment, which only dealt with an abstract question, would never be brought forward.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 278. (Division List No. 441.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters-

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. (Harmood)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hodge, John

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Jowett, F. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Cave, George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Keir Hardie.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Clough, William

  Alden, Percy

  Brace, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Branch, James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brigg, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Bright, J. A.

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barker, John

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Cox, Harold

  Barren, Rowland Hirst

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Craig, Herbert J, (Tynemouth)

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crean, Eugene

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Berridge, H. T. D.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Bertram, Julius

  Cairns, Thomas

  Dillon, John

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Duffy, William J.

  Billson, Alfred

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Boland, John

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

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

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Elibank, Master of

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lever, W. H. (Chesh, Wirral)

  Renton. Major Leslie

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Levy, Maurice

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richardson, A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Robinson, S.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maclean, Donald

  Rogers, F. K. Newman

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rose, Charles Day

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Greenwood, G (Peterborough)

  M'Killop, W.

  Seddon, J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hall, Frederick

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Halpin, J.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Menzies, Walter

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Micklem, Nanthaniel

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mooney, J. J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Tillett, Louis John

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

  Napier, T. B.

  Torrance, Sir A. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Verney, F. W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wallace, Robert

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

  Whitbread, Howard

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Mara, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Joyce, Michael

  Paul, Herbert

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Kelley, George D.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Winfrey, R.

  Lambert, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Young, Samuel

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rees, J. D.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  SIR WILLIAM BULL,in moving a new clause providing that an attempt to
  1502
  induce any person to vote as a Parliamentary elector by informing that person

  1503
  without reasonable ground that he was not registered in two or more constituencies, should be considered to be undue influence within the meaning of Section 2 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883, said that as there would be much difficulty in understanding the Bill, he thought this Amendment was desirable. During election times various stories went about with reference to people not being entitled to vote, and such stories were likely to increase greatly in the future, when men would be uncertain whether they could vote or not. Added to that there was the question of heavy penalties which were to be inflicted under this Bill upon anyone who committed these offences. The result would be that numbers of people, rather than run any risk, would decline to exercise their franchise. That being so, any pressure in the direction of undue influence might have a material effect upon an election, and therefore it was in the interest of purity that such a clause as he now proposed should be inserted in the Bill. He begged to move.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, who seconded, said that when this question was dealt with in Committee he understood the right hon. Gentleman sympathised with the suggestions that were made, and indicated that he would probably provide words to carry out the ideas suggested. On looking through the various clauses and Amendments, however, he had failed to see anything to provide against undue influence. He did not think this Amendment would injure the Bill.
  New clause—
  "If any person directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, induces or attempts to induce any person to vote as a Parliamentary elector by informing that person that he is not registered in two or more constituencies knowing that he is so registered, or without having reasonable ground to believe he is not so registered, that person shall be guilty of undue influence within the meaning of Section 2 of The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1883."—(Sir William Bull.)—
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that although he had spoken sympathetically in Committee, nothing appeared on the Paper in his name. The obvious reason was that it was not necessary. This new clause under discussion was more or less the converse of an Amendment in his name to Clause 1, and was therefore unnecessary, because a person who induced anyone to vote under such circumstances would be guilty of impersonation under two separate sets of circumstances. First, he would be guilty by Section 6, Subsection (2) of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883 if the agent knew that he was a plural voter—that was the guilty agent and the guilty voter—and he would be also guilty by his new proviso under Clause 1, Sub-section (1) Sub-head (c), if the voter did not know he was a plural voter. In both those cases the persons so inducing would be guilty of the offence of impersonation.
  MR. COURTHOPEasked whether the right hon. (Gentleman would be willing to accept an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, the effect of which would be to include both inducing to vote and inducing not to vote. If the right hon. Gentleman did so he agreed that this proposed clause would be unnecessary; but otherwise he did not see that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to Clause 1 at all covered the case which this proposed clause was designed to meet.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid when they reached his Amendment he would point out that it was unnecessary to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ealing.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that although he sympathised entirely with the motive of his hon. friend in moving this Amendment, he really thought the point was much better met by the Amendment put down by the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman, however, ought to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ealing as suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Rye. They took the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment for what it was worth—meaning no disrespect—but they thought that with

  1505
  the words of the hon. Member for Ealing added it would be very much better.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON Mr. STANLEY WILSON (Yorkshire, E. R., Holderness) moved an Amendment to enable a Parliamentary voter to withdraw any selection made by him on giving notice on or before 5th September, and requiring the clerk to send to such voter an acknowledgment of the receipt of such withdrawal. He thought it was only fair that the voter should have this right given to him, and he earnestly hoped the Government would be able to accept the clause.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseconded the clause, the effect of which, he said, would be that a plural voter who had chosen his vote in constituency A and found that there was no probability of an election in any given year in that constituency, but that there was a probability of an election in constituency B, in which he was also registered, would have the opportunity of withdrawing his selection from constituency A, and placing it in constituency B. In other words, it would prevent a plural voter from being disfranchised altogether when a by-election occurred.
  New clause—
  "A parliamentary voter may withdraw any selection made by him on giving notice to the clerk of the county council, or town clerk, having charge of the registers in which such selection was operative on or before the fifth day of September in any year, and the clerk of the county council, or town clerk, shall send to such voter an acknowledgment of the receipt of such withdrawal." —(Mr. Stanley Wilson.)—
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be road a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he must condole with the hon. Gentleman on the particular quality of support he received. The hon. Baronet knew there was no offensive intention in what he said. It was only that they had not been able to direct the hon. Baronet's attention with any precision to the clause which he happened to be supporting. The hon. Member who
  1506
  moved this clause had, of course, a very definite idea in his mind as to what he wished to obtain, but unfortunately the two benches that separated the two Members had been an effectual bar to that close communication between those who were taking such an active and intelligent part in the discussion necessary to bring the controversies within the ordinary region of reason and application. The hon. Member had proposed that a voter should be permitted to withdraw any selection he had made up to the 5th September. He thought it was a reasonable proposal, and he had provided for it in an Amendment to Clause 1, which he had on the Paper. He could not imagine what more the hon. Gentleman wished for.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he should like the right hon. Gentleman to have included in his Amendment the date and also the sending of notice to the voter himself.
  MR. HARCOURTthought it would be a pity to insert the date, as it might limit the operation. As to the notice, his Amendment provided that the clerk should send an acknowledgment of the receipt of every notice of selection or withdrawal received by him.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON MR. STANLEY WILSON moved a new clause requiring the overseers to distinguish in the lists of voters those registered in more than one constituency. In this way he submitted they would get a clean register and simplify the work of every body connected with registration or elections. He thought his proposal was quite a reasonable one, and he had brought it forward with an honest intention of preventing dishonesty. If the First Commissioner of Works would give this matter his careful consideration he would at once sec the reasons why the suggestion he was making was necessary.
  MR. COURTHOPE*MR. COURTHOPE, in seconding, said it was highly desirable that they should have a clean register, which would simplify the work of everybody connected with registration, and make it much easier to administer this Bill when it

  1507
  became an Act. Although he preferred the method which he had proposed in his own new clause, this clause would by other means achieve the same object, and he was therefore glad to second it.
  New clause—
  "The overseers of every pariah or township shall in the months of April or May in each year ascertain from every person in their parish or township, entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector, whether such person is registered in any other parish or township as a Parliamentary elector, and every person who is a Parliamentary elector in more than one parish or township shall have a distinctive mark placed against his name in the overseers lists of voters."—(Mr. Stanley Wilson.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed. "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid this proposal would make it part of the duty of the overseers to undertake a personal canvass of every elector in order to ascertain whether such person was registered elsewhere as a Parliamentary elector, and that, of course, must carry with it the right to prosecute if the overseer did not get a full and true and complete Answer. The Amendment would compel every voter to state all his qualifications and impose a penalty for not doing so. There were other objections of a practical character to the Amendment, which, obviously, was not one that could be put into the Bill.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked the First Commissioner if he had a new clause or Amendment down on the Paper which would carry out the intention of his hon. friend's proposal.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he should probably have mentioned it if he had.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought that in this case the right hon. Gentleman was right, and the new clause proposed by his hon. friend was a mistake, because it would give a good deal of trouble to the overseers and impose upon them a task which they could not fulfil. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the work thrown upon the overseers by this Bill would be so great that be was
  1508
  obliged to refuse this new clause. Surely that admission was a tremendous condemnation of the Bill, for it showed that after all they would not get a clean register.
  MR. R. PEARCEwho had a similar Amendment on the Paper, urged that the overseer was the only person who could really get the information on which alone a clean and trustworthy register could be drawn up. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than that candidates should have to fight an election on a register crowded with names of persons who were not entitled to vote in the constituency because they were qualified elsewhere. It would be very inconvenient for both canvassers and candidates if the register was left in such a confused condition that nobody could tell whether or not the persons on it were entitled to vote. He would like to point out the difficulties which the voters themselves would be in when they were considering where they should record their votes. They might find themselves pursued by applications from the political parties in different constituencies, and when the Primrose dame came along in a motor car, followed possibly by the suffragettes in prison dress in a trap, the unfortunate voters would find themselves in a sad dilemma. The voter might drive off with one party or the other, and then discover that he had no right to vote. Nothing could could be more irritating than for a voter to be brought up to the polling station and then find that he was not able to vote. In endeavouring to find a remedy for this state of things hitherto they had been looking to the clerk of the county council, the town clerk, and the registration agent. These were not the right people to deal with this matter. The clerk of the county council and the town clerk were high and dry officials who did not really have to do with this particular matter at all. Registration agents were non-official and only parisitical people, who were employed to try to correct anything that was done wrong by the overseers. It was the overseer who was at the root of the matter. He must be employed to keep the register clean. He thought if the overseer was appointed to deal with this matter they would accomplish what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill hoped for. They

  1509
  would be able to get a clean register, and surely the right hon. Gentleman would welcome any suggestion which would enable them to do that. A register should be in such a state that everybody could rely on it at election time, and he urged respectfully, but still with persistency, that the only person who could help to do that was the overseer. He made the rate book, and the rate book was the foundation of the registration list. The man who made up the rate book was the man who had to make investigations and inquiries which resulted in a voter ultimately being put on the voting list. There was no difficulty about the overseer getting the information. In the City of London the overseer was the person who put every occupier of single rooms on the rate and therefore on the register. The rate book was his guide. The overseers were willing and proud of the work they had to do, and the ultimate result was to collect and marshal in order the voting power and public opinion of the country. The overseers, he was certain, did their work thoroughly well. The overseer by personal inquiry found out the place of abode of the voter, and out of 31,000 voters in the City of London 25,000 voters had against their names their actual place of abode. That was done by private inquiry and when that inquiry was made there was nothing more easy than for the overseer to put to the qualifying voter the magic question which would otherwise be put to him at the polling booth, "Are you to your knowledge registered in any other constituency?" The country overseers knew everything about their parishes. In the constituency he represented in North Staffordshire the overseers of the parishes knew all the voters who had plural qualifications. If a man had a field in an adjoining county or neighbouring constituency and was entitled to be on the register the overseer knew it, and the overseer was acquainted not only with the man's residence but with his occupation. They could tell what he had
  1510
  for dinner and what market inn he frequented. There would be no difficulty in the overseer in a county constituency making up a list of plural voters. If they entrusted the overseer to do it he could distinguish these plural voters in the list by distinctive type so that everybody would know that the man was a plural voter. He thought that should be done in order that the voter might not be ensnared into a double vote. The voter was the very last person who saw the list. It was not until the voter came to the polling booth that he knew he was on the list. The best mark of all would be to print the names of plural voters on the register in italics.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the debates had been remarkable for the non-intervention of private Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and he wished to congratulate the Government and the Minister in charge of the Bill that they had now had an exception to the rule. He found himself in a difficulty. He had some sympathy with the object sought to be obtained by the Amendment, but he could not find himself in agreement with the Amendment itself. It had been said that this was a Bill the object of which was to secure "one man one vote." He entirely disagreed that that was the object of the Bill, indeed it was the last object. The object was rather "one man no vote but possibly prison," He had no doubt that the Government might have achieved what was said to be their object with a less waste of time. This was the first occasion in his recollection that an hon. Member had stood up in the House as an advocate for the overseers. Both in his public and in his private life he had had a good deal to do with that wholly underpaid class of public servants, and he was glad that they had obtained such an advocate. The hon. Gentleman had said that the overseers were the only persons who could provide the necessary information. It was perfectly true that the assistant overseers in their different

  1511
  parishes had all the local information without which this Bill could not be carried into effect with justice. He was amazed that the Government, and the supporters of the Government, did not realise what they were doing. There must be thousands of electors who would walk absolutely blindfold straight into the trap that was being laid for them. He did not know whether the overseers had the intimate knowledge of the daily life of the electors alleged by the hon. Member for Leek, but they wore in the unfortunate position of being called upon to do a great deal of work for little or nothing, and he did not think that it was quite fair to throw this additional burden upon them. Nobody in the House really wanted to expose a man to penalties because he happened to have two voting qualifications. What was wanted was to prevent a man voting more than once; but the plan of the Bill was the most roundabout way of obtaining that object which he had ever hoard of in his Parliamentary experience. He believed that if the Bill passed into law, it would have to be followed by an entire reorganisation of our whole electoral and local government systems, in order that somebody else should be found to do the work which the overseers could not undertake.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the silence of the supporters of the Government, that that was a silence which the right hon. Gentleman understood in past years. When they were working under closure the supporters of the Government were silent, to allow more time to hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not remember the guillotine being imposed upon the Report stage; but he himself remembered seeing, from below the gallery, the guillotine being imposed by the late Government not only at the Committee stage but on Report as well. As to the Amendment, it was perfectly true that he did not wish to add to the work
  1512
  of the overseers who had been so ably represented by the hon. Member for Leek, but he was not able in this Bill to add to their pay. He had a great regard and respect for the overseers, but the hon. Gentleman would admit that he could not put the spiritual powers of the overseers, which he had specified so fully, into an Act of Parliament. Omniscience had always been the foible of overseers, and now apparently omnipotence was to be added, for the kind of canvass proposed would necessitate that they should not only know where each voter dined and what he drank, but a personal Interview in order to discover the facts. He did not envy the lot of an overseer who would have to conduct such a canvass, and such a proposal as this would inflict a hardship and unnecessary labour upon those who were charged with the preparation of the lists.
  MR. THORNTONsaid he was quite conscious of the force of the objections which had been put forward, but in a suburban constituency with which he was familiar and which he represented he would like to see the overseers charged with this duty. He would like to tie down the dwelling house occupier and the small lodger as much as possible to the locality, and so secure a strong Residential vote, because there was great difficulty in finding out the qualifications of the elector except by visits. He wanted to know how these personal visits were to be carried on under the machinery which existed. He spoke with some sense of responsibility and some knowledge, and although he had just heard private Parliamentary agents spoken of disparagingly they would loom more largely in the future and become more powerful under the Bill. It would become necessary in the future for a Member to defend his position by means of such agents who at the last moment knew the voters who had a dwelling house franchise and who had gone into another constituency. The task of

  1513
  following these voters was far beyond a private Member's ability or purse, and involved a policy contrary to that which his Radical opponents professed to support. They all desired that elections should not be made dearer and also to put them on a plane which would lead to citizens with ordinary purses having a chance of entering Parliament. Under this system, however, the cost would be much greater unless the overseers were employed.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDcontended that, if this proposal wore carried out, there would be the advantage that on the list of voters plural voters would be shown by a distinctive mark. There would also be the distinctive mark put by the official to whom the voter had sent his notice of selection, so that the register would show, not only who were plural voters, but also who were entitled to vote. It was the assistant overseer's duty to compile the register. Why should they not take the trouble to ask whether any given man was a plural voter or not? It was the assistant overseer's duty to find out a lot of particulars about a man and his house. He had to find out whether a man was an alien, whether he had made alterations in the house to the extent of £40 or £50 so that something should be put on his assessment, and a variety of other matters. If the assistant overseer was paid for this work why should he not do it, and make the Bill workable? He had calculated that in the county of Lancashire £20,000 would be saved on elections if the registers were complete in this respect. Putting a man on an inquiry of this kind would show the voter that there was something in the point and that he had better look into it. He did not know
  1514
  which of the three clauses on the Paper would carry out this proposition most effectively; he doubted whether any of them would be effectual, but they showed that the Bill was unworkable. Why should not the work be done by those who made up the lists to the extent, at all events, of the information that could be got and put upon the register? It would save an immense amount of money to everybody concerned in an election. He respectfully suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should give one of these clauses his consideration. The affect of adopting the clause would be that, in addition to the notice sent in, there would be a mass of other information on the register, such as the place in which a plural voter might vote and the places in which he might not. It was a fatal objection to the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman persistently refused to entertain any suggestions whatever which would enable the electors to preserve the great advantage which they had only acquired as the result of fifty years of legislation, namely, a complete register. He thought if the Government did not adopt some such Amendment the Bill would become a dead letter.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTthought there was a growing feeling in all parts of the House that this was not only a very confused and complex but a very bad Bill. If the debate on the Report stage had been extended for a night or two more the Government would probably have seen the wisdom of withdrawing the Bill altogether. It was a thoroughly bad Bill.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman please speak to the Amendment?
  MR. T. L. CORBETT, continuing, said the one redeeming feature about the

  1515
  debate had been the wit and eloquence of the Minister in charge. He was very glad that the silence on the benches opposite had at last been broken by an hon. Member who, speaking with great knowledge, had appealed to the Government to give way upon this Amendment. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? He objected to the overseer being made the authority because that would involve a personal canvass of the electors by the overseer. But did not the overseers send out every spring a circular to all ratepayers asking them to state how long they had occupied their house and other particulars; and would it not be the simplest thing in the world for the overseer to add to those inquiries the question—"Are you registered in any other constituency or are you not?" He desired to help the Government to reduce a very complex and confused Bill to something that the voter could really understand. The very simplest way in which to do that would be by that indicated in this Amendment.
  MR. LANE-FOXthought no adequate reason as to why this work could not be done by the overseers had been given to the House, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter in view of the enormous advantage that would accrue. It was obvious that a register overloaded with dummy names must cause an infinite amount of trouble to those who had to correct it, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to make the labours of those who
  had to amend the register more burdensome than they need be. He was glad to gather from the remarks of the right hon. Member that the silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite was due to the generous spirit of the Government, who desired to give the Opposition during the short time at the disposal of the House an opportunity of expressing their views as fully as possible.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid everybody would, after the points that had been brought out, recognise the extreme importance of weeding out the register to the lowest point. The notices sent out at the present time by the county council clerks and town clerks could at all events cover one of the points raised by this Amendment. It was quite clear that some wrong was going to be done by the Act to a certain number of people entitled to vote, and the minimum of wrong would be done if these officials were allowed to make the register as plain as possible. A great deal of clearness would be undoubtedly attained if the suggestion of his hon. friend were carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman could be induced to do something to remedy the evil complained of it would be a gain. He thought the fact that there had been unanimity on this question during the debate should lead the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 298. (Division List No. 442.)

  AYES.

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Bull, Sir William James

  Ashley, W. W.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cave, George

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

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

  Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Starkey, John R.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh,

  Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

  Moore, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Nield, Herbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmds.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Courthope.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Agnew, George William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Alden, Percy

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clough, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Halpin, J.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cox, Harold

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Barker, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't

  Crossley, William J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dillon, John

  Hodge, John

  Benn Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Bertram, Julius

  Dunne, Major K. Martin (Walsall

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Billson, Alfred

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Elibank, Master of

  Jenkins, J.

  Boland, John

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Brace, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Branch, James

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Joyce, Michael

  Brigg, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bright, J. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kelley, George D.

  Brooke, Stafford

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamont, Norman

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Ginnell, L.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  1518

  1519

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Malley, William

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Mara, James

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lough, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lundon, W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore C, (Radcliffe)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Maclean, Donald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Toulmin, George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

  Ure, Alexander

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  M'Killop, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Richardson, A.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Myer, Horatio

  Rowlands, J.

  Williamson, A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Hebert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seddon, J.

  Wodehouse, Lord

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Young, Samuel

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved a new clause providing that no nomination paper should be invalidated by the fact that the registered elector signing it was not entitled, by reason of the provisions of this Act, to vote in the constituency. Under the Bill a person disqualified to vote would be unable to nominate a candidate or present a petition against the return of a candidate. He thought that would cause a great deal of inconvenience and unnecessary expense, and it was an obvious defect in the Act. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had an Amend
  1520
  ment down on Clause 4 dealing with this question, and he should like to have some assurance from him that it achieved the same object as he was anxious to provide for in his proposal. Of course if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment covered the same ground he would withdraw his proposal.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONseconded. He thought this was a clause which the Government ought to accept. It would be a great hardship if a nomination was rendered void on account of a man having signed tit in error. The proposal

  1521
  of the Government on this point was a most complicated one.
  New clause—
  "No nomination paper shall be invalidated by the fact that the registered elector signing it is not entitled, by reason of the provisions of this Act, to vote in the constituency."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. HARCOURTassured the hon. and learned Member that the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was intended to cover the point dealt with in his proposal. With that assurance he hoped this Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw his clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY SIR FREDERICK BANBURY moved the following new clause:—"Any clerk of the county council or town clerk who shall wilfully neglect to carry out the provisions of this Act or any part thereof, or who shall be wilfully guilty of any breach in the execution of this Act shall for every such offence be liable to pay, by way of fine, a sum of money not exceeding £5, nor less than 20s., to be imposed by, and at the discretion of, any barrister holding any Court for the revision of any list of the parish or township of any such clerk of the county council or town clerk." That was a very simple clause, and it provided a moderate penalty in case the clerk did not carry out the duties imposed upon him. They had been told that the overseers would be put in a very awkward position by the onerous duties imposed
  1522
  upon them. He would be the last person to impose onerous duties upon persons who were unable to carry them out, but it ought to be remembered that the Bill would impose a great deal of trouble and some heavy burdens upon a very deserving class, namely, plural voters. Unless some penalty of this sort was imposed it would be difficult to ensure that the town clerks or the clerks of the county council would carry out the duties placed upon them by the Bill. In view of the fact that the penalty was so small, and that it would only act as a reminder to those concerned that there was a penalty if they did not carry out their duties, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER, in seconding the Motion, said this new clause proposed to make the penalty for wilful breach of duty a fine not exceeding £5, nor less than 20s. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wished to make the penalty £100. He felt in connection with this Bill that for some reason or other the right hon. Gentleman had got "penalties" on the brain. They owed a great debt of gratitude to the clerks of the county councils and to town clerks for the the manner in which they performed their duties, and the House ought not to impose penalties on them which would be unduly oppressive.
  New Clause—
  "Any clerk of the county council or town clerk who shall wilfully neglect to carry out the provisions of this Act or any part thereof or who shall be wilfully guilty of any breach in the execution of this Act shall for every such offence be liable to pay, by way of fine, a sum of money not exceeding £5, nor less than 20s., to be imposed by and at the discretion of any barrister holding any Court for the revision of any list of the parish or township of any such clerk of the county council or town clerk." —(Sir Frederick Banbury.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he had several times to-night begged the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London to devote some of his rare moments of leisure to a more detailed consideration of the Amendments on the Paper. The new clause went on the assumption that he was not proposing to put a penalty into the Bill. The hon. Baronet had not devoted his mind sufficiently to the clause which applied to these matters. Members of this House were not going to be more squeamish than their forefathers in 1843 when they passed the Parliamentary Voters Act which imposed penalities on clerks for omission to perform certain duties. This was the only time he had departed from legislation by reference. If he had put in an Amendment imposing under this Bill the penalties provided for in the Act of 1843, he would have heard none of these complaints. The penalties under the Bill for the same class of offence wore the some as those provided for in previous Acts of Parliament. Having taken that course, an hon. Member who was not acquainted with the previous Acts
  accused him of having "penalties" on the brain.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid there were one or two trifling alterations which he thought the hon. Baronet ought to make in the new clause. They were all agreed that where a person wilfully neglected to make a selection he should be open to penalties. The revising barrister had duties to perform which did not syncronise with those of a county council clerk or town clerk. He thought the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake in making the appeal to the revising barrister. He should have chosen a court of summary jurisdiction. This clause was one which inflicted penalties for the non-performance of a statutory duty, and required the most watchful cure of every Member of the House.
  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th November, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the clause already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 346. (Division List No. 443.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Renyell

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ashley, W. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Keswick, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Pox, G. R.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Faber, George Damson (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fell, Arthur

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Cave, George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Moore, William

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Nield, Herbert

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

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

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Agnew, George William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Alden, Percy

  Cleland, J. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Clough, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gulland, John W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Barker, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dswar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dillon, John

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Bertram, Julius

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hogan, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh're

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

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

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brace, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Hudson, Walter

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Branch, James

  Erskine, David C.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brigg, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bright, J. A.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Joyce, Michael

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Kelley, George D.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Freeman Thomas, Freeman

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ginnell, L.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lambert, George

  1526

  1527

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  O'Malley, William

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O'Mara, James

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Levy, Maurice

  Paul, Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lough, Thomas

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lundon, W.

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

  Toulmin, George

  Maclean, Donald

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Ure, Alexander

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Verney, F. W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wallace, Robert

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Walsh, Stephen

  M'Callum, John M.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

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

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rees, J. D.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  M'Killop, W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Richardson, A.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Menzies, Walter

  Robinson, S.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Montagu, E. S.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williamson, A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Myer, Horatio

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Winfrey, R.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Seddon, J.

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

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

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes before Eleven o'clock.
EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
Committee for Privileges met: Petition of Charles Botolph Joseph, Lord Mowbray, Lord Segrave and Baron and Lord Stourton of Stourton, for the determination of the abeyance of the dignity of Earl of Norfolk in his favour, and for a summons to Parliament as Earl of Norfolk considered. Then it was resolved that the Petitioner hath not made out his claim to the said dignity. Report thereof to be made to the House.
PETITIONS.
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONGESTION IN IRELAND.
  Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the Acts dealing with congestion in Ireland; report, minutes of evidence, and appendices.
  POST OFFICE.
  Agreement between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Servia for the exchange of money orders.

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 16. (1906)—Convention between the United Kingdom and Hayti respecting nationality; signed at Port-au-Prince, 6th April, 1900. (Ratifications exchanged at Port-au-Prince, Kith October, 1906.)
  No. 17. (1906)—Agreement between the United Kingdom and Germany respecting the boundary between British and German Territories from Yola to Lake Chad; signed at London, 19th March, 1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the clay for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the Bill which I have the honour of bringing to your Lordships' notice to-day is based mainly on the recommendations of three Committees appointed by the late Government, and I do not think it would be out of place if I were to say how much indebted we were to the Reports of those Committees in framing the present Bill. The Bill is in no way, I think, a contentions one, nor is it one in any way of a party nature. It is an honest attempt of the Government of the day to improve the conditions of the shipping community as a whole. I do not think your lordships will find that the Bill in any way favours any particular class, and I think that I shall be able to show that the Bill helps all those classes who follow the sea as a trade. It will benefit the shipowner by protecting him from unfair competition, it will help the sailor by improving his comforts when at sea, and it also helps that very deserving body of men, the British pilots.
  The Bill is the result of numerous conferences held between the Board of Trade and the various interests concerned; nothing has been done without first obtaining the opinion of those interests, and I think that it is mainly owing to these meetings that the Government have been able to frame a Bill acceptable to all parties. In some cases it has not been possible to see the representatives of every class, but when this was the case a copy of the Bill was forwarded to them for their remarks, and some of their suggestions are now embodied in the Bill. The Bill has somewhat grown since it was first introduced into the House of Commons, for then it only contained forty-three clauses and now it contains eighty-five. I sincerely hope it will not grow with equal vigour in your Lordships' House. But most of these new clauses have been suggested by the shipowners, seamen, or by Government Departments.
  The Bill is divided into six parts. Part I. deals altogether with safety, and what

  1351
  we propose to do is to extend our safety regulations to foreign ships; these regulations are, compulsory load-line, defective hull, equipment or machinery, proper life-saving appliances, and rules as to the carriage of grain. I do not think that any of your Lordships will take exception to our imposing our load-line on foreign vessels, for at present it often happens that foreign vessels come into our ports carrying 200 or even 300 tons more cargo than our own vessels would be allowed to carry. Surely this is unfair competition. Our ships have to conform to our regulations as to load-line, and surely we can very well say to the foreigner, "If you want to trade with us you must observe our safety regulations." These regulations have certainly been a success as far as we are concerned, for the loss of life in our mercantile marine has been reduced from 4,171 in 1874 to 1,113 in 1904. I have reason to believe that some foreign countries are moving in our direction, and that they will soon introduce regulations of their own dealing with safety.
  With regard to overloading, the law at the present moment allows us to detain in our ports a foreign ship which is overloaded or improperly loaded, but we have no power to detain a ship if she is unsafe by reason of defective hull, equipment or machinery. Your Lordships will readily understand that it is somewhat difficult to enforce this provision. Foreign ships have at present no load-line, and if afterwards it is found that we have detained a ship without good cause we are liable to pay damages, and the Board of Trade officials are naturally often rather disinclined to take this risk. We have never had any power to punish a vessel entering our ports, no matter how overloaded she was. By the present Bill we propose to take the same powers that we have over our own ships, and we shall not allow a foreign ship to leave or enter our ports unless she is safe according to our regulations, and considered by us safe to undertake the voyage she proposes to make. Another very strong reason for legislation on this subject is that it often happens that ships which our Board of Trade officials refuse to pass as safe are sold to foreigners and come back to our ports still in an unsafe
  1352
  condition and compete against our own ships. This is a state of things which in my humble opinion should cease, as it will if your Lordships approve this Bill. It is intended to give foreigners a liberal time to consider these proposals, but after the date fixed any foreign ship coming to or leaving our ports must conform to our regulations and carry a marked load-line.
  I now come to the question of grain cargoes. These cargoes are certainly of a dangerous character when they are not properly stowed, for they frequently shift and cause a ship to take a list and become very dangerous. We have regulations for the stowage of this class of cargo for our ships and they have certainly worked wonderfully well, for the loss of life from carrying this class of cargo has greatly decreased since they were introduced. We intend to apply these provisions also to the foreigner. The same remark also applies to life-saving appliances, with this exception, that if foreign Governments have rules approximating reasonably to our own we can accept them as alternative. Your Lordships will see that by this part of the Bill we are anxious to place the foreigner on equal terms with our own ships; we do not want him to have an advantage over us, as he appears to have had in the past. I have one more point to state before I leave this part of the Bill, and it has reference to the clause by which we prohibit any foreigner from being engaged on a British ship without a sufficient knowledge of English. I regret to say that of late some accidents have occurred which have been attributed to a sailor's want of knowledge of our language; when orders have been given to him he has not understood them, and the consequences have been disastrous. We, therefore, propose to instruct our superintendents not to sign any foreigner on to a ship unless they are satisfied that he has sufficient knowledge of English and is able to understand the orders given to him in that language, and when a man is engaged it will be marked on his papers that he is sufficiently acquainted with the English language.
  I now turn to Part II. of the Bill, which virtually brings the existing

  1353
  law as regards passenger and emigrant ships up to date; for the parts dealing with this subject in the present Act are so very antiquated and were really enacted for ships and conditions which have now long passed away. There is very little to trouble your Lordships with, except to say that by the provisions of the old Act all foreign emigrant ships calling at our ports were obliged to conform to our emigrant regulations; this was not the case as regards foreign passenger steamers calling for cabin passengers only. This, we think, is an anomaly, and we propose to subject foreign passenger vessels to our passenger regulations. So much for Part II. of the Bill.
  I now come to Part III., which in my opinion is certainly one of the most important parts of the Bill. It carries out the recommendation of the St. Helier Committee and deals with sailors' food. We propose to introduce a compulsory food scale. I fear that in the past the sailors on some ships were very badly fed. I am not, of course, referring to the average steamship, but there are black sheep in every flock, and I fear that the sailor who had the bad luck to sign on one of these ships had a very moderate time. There was a scale which was known as the Board of Trade scale, but in reality it was nothing of the sort. It was a kind of skeleton scale, upon which the Board of Trade expected shipowners to put the flesh, but it often remained a skeleton, and the fare was salt meat, biscuits, tea, and sugar; this was, of course, very poor, although I am sure very few shipowners gave their men such bad rations as these. But it happened that if a man complained of his food he was told "Well, if you don't like it I will give you the Board of Trade scale," and this as far as the seaman was concerned was like getting out of the frying-pan into the fire. What the St. Helier Committee recommended was that owners should of their own accord settle on a certain food scale and abide by it, and the Committee, which sat in 1903, considered that two or three years should be given to the shipowners to make up their minds. We have now reached the year 1906, and nothing very effective has been done.
  1354
  Consequently, we have decided to bring in a compulsory food scale. Comments have been made that this scale is not as good as the St. Helier scale, but your Lordships must remember that this is a compulsory scale, and is therefore a minimum scale. On a great many ships the men are now fed on a higher scale than we propose. There is another most important clause in this part of the Bill, namely, Clause 26, which deals with the inspection of provisions. At the present moment the Board of Trade officials have only power to inspect provisions on emigrant ships and on long-voyage ships going round the two Capes or through the Suez Canal, and it has been our experience that stores rejected by our officials on these ships have found their way into other ships which are not at present subject to inspection. We propose to stop this by giving our officials power to inspect the stores on any vessel. We say that they may inspect them. Of course, it would be obviously impossible to inspect all ships, as we should require an army of officials to do so, but I feel sure that this regulation will have a salutary effect.
  We have been up to now talking of food and inspection of provisions. These are all very good things, but to appreciate them thoroughly we require a good cook, and that is what we propose to give the seamen under Clause 27. After the 30th of June, 1908, any ship going to sea from the home trade limits must carry a certificated cook. There are at many ports now schools of cookery, and I hops soon that they will become more general. As far as the present cooks are concerned they will be given certificates of proficiency provided that they have been acting in that capacity before the passing of this Act; but after the passing of the Act other cooks will have to produce certificates of proficiency from one or other of these schools of cookery recommended by the Board of Trade before being allowed to serve as a cook. I have great hopes that this part of the Bill will have the effect of increasing the number of British seamen on our ships, as I feel confident that if we make the conditions of life of a sailor more comfortable we shall attract more

  1355
  men to take up the sea as a profession. I am glad to say that from the last reports we have to hand the number of foreigners on our ships shows a tendency to decrease.
  I should like here to point out how greatly our tonnage has increased since 1870. In that year we had 5,500,000 tons; in 1904 this figure had increased to 10,250,000 tons—very nearly double. It must also be borne in mind that a great increase has taken place in the Navy. In 1864 our Navy consisted of 64,000 men; in 1904 of 129,000 men. I firmly believe that if we were to forbid the employment of foreigners in our ships we should ruin our mercantile marine. I do not think that there are enough men willing to go to sea to man our huge mercantile fleet, for as it is, by returns recently compiled, one out of every thirty-six of our adult population follows a seafaring life. Our carrying trade is enormous; it is 54 per cent, of the trade of the whole world. Many of the ships engaged in it never return to this country for years, and it is very hard, indeed nearly impossible, to keep British seamen on this class of vessel. The question of lascars is often raised, but they, I think, are on quite a different footing. They are British subjects whose profession is the sea. We have virtually destroyed their trade by introducing our large ships into the coasting trade of the East, and I think it would be very hard if we did not allow them to serve in our ships. They make admirable firemen and are well spoken of wherever they are employed.
  Part IV. of the Bill, to which I now come, lays down that, in the event of a man deserting, the effects left behind by him can be used for making good to the ship the just expenses caused by the desertion, and the surplus above this sum goes to the Exchequer. This provision was introduced to prevent a master from having any interest in forcing a man to desert. At the present time the effects of the deserter are retained by the ship; a deserter can claim them in a court of law, but he rarely does so. We propose to insist on an account being rendered to a public officer of the effects left behind by each deserter, and the expenses caused to
  1356
  the ship by the desertion. We, however, intend to allow the shipping company to pool all these different cases, and if in the aggregate a company can show us that they are at a loss by the total desertions they will not be required to pay anything into the Exchequer; but if, on the other hand, they lose on some cases and the balance works out in favour of the shipowner that balance must be paid to the Exchequer. We do not want to make money for the Exchequer, but we want to secure that shipping masters gain nothing by the desertion of their men. Another clause is introduced into this part of the Bill amending the present Act. The law at present is that if a sailor receives injury in the service of the ship he shall receive medical attendance and be sent home at the expense of the ship. It was pointed out to us that this section, was rather hard in the case of a man who, say, caught malarial fever, for in this case the man had his expenses in hospital and his passage home deducted from his wages; the consequence was that a man often arrived home in a destitute condition, We think this is a hardship, and we propose to make the shipowner liable for the expenses and repatriation of a sailor who-contracts an illness which is not caused by his own fault.
  I now come to Part V. of the Bill, which contains clauses inserted at the instance of the shipowners, sailors, or Government Departments. For instance, Clause 54 allows a shipowner to deduct from the net tonnage of his ship any spaces set apart for water ballast; this all tends to the safety of the ship, and we think it right to absolve the shipowner from paying dues on these spaces. Again, in Clause 64 we give the shipowner for the first time power to appeal from a decision of a court of inquiry to the High Court.
  Now I turn to one or two clauses which are to the advantage of the seamen. For instance, a sailor will not be entered on the ship's books as an A.B. unless he can prove his rating, and the term of service has been reduced from four to three years. Clause 58 is, I think, most important. At present a master can disrate a seaman and reduce his wages without telling him; and it has happened sometimes, when a man

  1357
  is on, say, a two years engagement, that he has been disrated after the first month and had his wages reduced, but he has never been informed of that till the end of the voyage. Thus a man expecting to get, say, £60 at the end of the voyage only gets, say, £40, and has no redress. This we intend to change, and in future no disrating will take effect until after the man has been informed that he has been disrated. By Clause 60 we make it obligatory upon masters in all cases to allow a seaman to allot part of his wages in favour of his near relatives or his savings bank, and sailors will not be asked whether they want to allot until after they have signed on. We also increase the minimum crew space for the men from 72 cubic feet to 120 cubic feet. We also give the seaman or any person aggrieved another advantage—namely, the right to appeal from the finding of a naval court, and this is done by Clause 66. After the passing of this Act we intend to restrict the issue of pilotage certificates to British subjects, but foreigners who have had certificates granted to them before the 1st of June, 1906, will be allowed to retain them.
  I have now, my Lords, virtually outlined the main provisions of the Bill, and in thanking your Lordships for the kind hearing you have given me, I do not think I am end better than in the words used by Mr. Austin Taylor, of the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, on Friday, the 23rd instant, in another place. He said—
  "This Bill is not a shipowners' Bill, but it is mainly a Bill for improving the conditions of employment at sea and generally regulating and facilitating the management and employment of ships.
  With those words I leave the Bill to your Lordships' earnest consideration.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."(The, Earl of Granard.)
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I welcome this Bill as an indication that at last the importance of our merchant shipping is beginning to be recognised. The Government can certainly claim some originality, and, I am bound to say, courage in bringing forward this Bill. But there is no originality in most of the proposals contained in the Bill, for they are chiefly a legacy of the
  1358
  recommendations of certain Committees which were appointed to inquire into shipping matters by the late Government, who, however, did not invite Parliament to consider them.
  The Government have been given great praise for the introduction of this measure, and have had no serious opposition to contend with. We had the more confidence because it was said that representatives of the various shipping interests had been consulted prior to the launching of the Bill. But I must say that at least my own confidence has been rudely disturbed in this respect. I put a perfectly reasonable question asking the Government to inform us who these representatives were. Their faith in the representatives they consulted is shown by the fact that they were afraid to tell us who they were. That is not the way to command sympathy and support for a Bill of this kind. As a student of shipping affairs, and as one who knows the views of the great organisations connected with shipping, such as the Merchant Service Guild, I am sorry to say that this Bill only touches the fringe of the serious evils which exist in regard to our merchant shipping. The measure before us looks bulky and comprehensive, but when we know that the Merchant Shipping Act embraces 748 sections with 21 schedules, it is not so comprehensive as it appears, having regard to the magnitude of the subject.
  I am sorry to strike a discordant note, but this Bill is a patchwork arrangement, all the most serious rents in the fabric being left severely alone. For instance, there is the question of aliens in our merchant ships—a great national evil, and the only attempt of the Bill to deal with it is to direct our shipping superintendents to require alien seamen to show some knowledge of English as it is spoken in the way of orders on board ship. Aliens will still be free to command and officer British ships, and things in reality will go on in the old way. The President of the Board of Trade said recently that there were 27,000 desertions from British ships in a year. Yet the Bill appears to contain nothing which will check the frightful indiscipline which is disclosed by such a startling statement. From the Memorandum of the Bill as it appeared in

  1359
  another place, I find that its object is to carry out the Reports of three Committees. But why three Committees only, when other shipping committees have made much more important recommendations? It seems to me that there is an air of strong partiality evident, and that the framers of the Bill have simply picked out here and there such, recommendations and suggestions as personally appealed to them.
  When we travel on the high seas, we do so in the fond belief that those to whom we entrust our lives are fully certificated, competent, and responsible men. I do not doubt but that the vessels in which we travel from time to time are as safe as human beings can make them in this respect; but there are plenty of ships with lives on board of them—and I am not disposed to say lives of lesser importance—which are in charge of uncertificated and quite incompetent men. After searching inquiry into this matter the Manning Committee reported as follows—
  "A ship is in an unseaworthy state when she leaves port without sufficient officers, or with her responsible officers unfitted for their duty by reason of prolonged overwork, and no ship of large size or power should be permitted to go to sea without provision having been made that the deck shall always be in charge of some person who has given proof of his qualification, by service or examination, for such a position."
  The Manning Committee decided that this matter was one urgently demanding legislation. There is not one amongst us who could find fault with such a decision, yet it is still an undoubted fact that no matter what the size of the ship may be, so long as she is outside the three-mile limit there is nothing incumbent on her in law to carry one single certificated and competent man on board. This also applies to any vessel in our home trade when not carrying passengers. Where in the present Bill do we see any attempt to grapple with this enormous flaw? Under the Bill cooks are to be certificated, but a similar requirement seems quite unnecessary in the case of the men responsible for life and property. As another sample of how this Bill makes for efficiency in the merchant service we find now that it will be permissible for a man to qualify as an able seaman after two years service——
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: After three years service.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I have been reading the clause, and I cannot understand whether the period is two or three years.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: Three years.
  LORD MUSKERRY: I accept my noble friend's correction. It is, at any rate, a reduction of the period, for it has always been held by the law that four years was necessary to qualify for such a rating. Then, again, nothing seems to have been done in legalising he recommendations of the Load-line Committee, and in view of the fact that disasters have happened since these recommendations were made I certainly think that the framers of this Bill should have had due regard to them. It is a very regrettable fact that, owing to the exigencies of their profession, the most important class of our seamen—I refer to our captains and officers—cannot obtain direct representation in Parliament. Consequently Parliament lacks the advantage of possessing the views of the men most competent to express opinions on the practical working of our merchant service. In view of this, it behaves us, not only to extend to them what sympathy and help we can, but to ensure that their views as experts are not ignored as is usually the case.
  The captains and officers of our merchant service stand to gain little by this Bill, whilst they stand to lose a very great deal. In the case of captains they are to be rendered liable to a number of additional penalties, when under the Merchant Shipping Act their present liabilities in this direction extend to something over £7,000. I think the Government have done handsomely by the shipowners in imposing the safety restrictions on foreign ships, which is a proposal contained in this Bill, and by the reduction of the light dues and the alteration of the load-line, which increases the shipowners' freights by 5 per cent., and, of course, adds considerably to the risk of the lives of those on board. It is rather an illustration of

  1361
  what I am just saying that three steamers whose load marks were altered in August, foundered in the following month, September. One of them—the "Manning-tree "—under the new rules was only carrying 95 tons more cargo, but this extra weight seems to have made all the difference between safety and disaster. Fortunately, no lives were lost, but in the case of the "Manningtree" had it not been for the presence of another steamer near her, in all probability all hands would have been drowned. It is, of course, open to consideration whether the extra 5 per cent, freight is worth the increased risk which our sailors have to run.
  The seaman will derive some benefits from the measure owing to the enforcement of the scale of provisions, increased living space, and one or two other matters, but the captain and officer stand to gain practically nothing. Much more tangible benefits would accrue to seamen of all grades had such important matters as discipline, hours of labour, Sunday labour on board ship, and others been dealt with in the Bill. For my own part I feel that the j Bill is open to so many important and necessary Amendments that to deal with them all is a very heavy task. I have already been informed by His Majesty's Government that the Bill which I introduced regarding alien captains and officers would have been more properly brought forward in the shape of an Amendment to this Bill. Acting on the advice of my noble friends in front of me, I withdrew my Bill in order to follow the course which was indicated. Early in the present session I also introduced another Bill having for its object the prevention of further sacrifice of j life through the carriage of dangerous deck loads in the winter time. As I take it that His Majesty's Government would consider that this also should be brought forward in the shape of an Amendment to the present Bill, I propose to adopt that procedure. There are also other Amendments which I propose to move, and I hope that in the interests of both shipping and seamen your Lordships will accord me your support.
  This Bill I regard as an attempt to grapple with the situation, but I cannot
  1362
  by any means accept it as a final solution of the great problems which confront us in our mercantile marine. Still, it is a progressive and not a retrograde movement. I feel that I must have wearied your Lordships in so continually bringing shipping affairs to your notice, and, therefore, it is a relief to me now to find them being submitted by others with greater powers than I possess, and who can do so much if they choose. Though I regret to find that, as usual, our captains and officers have received the minimum of consideration, the Bill contains provisions which will benefit their subordinates, and it will be to the great advantage of shipowners in checking unfair competition. Therefore, as I said before, I welcome it as a step in the right direction, and I trust that the Amendments that may be brought forward will receive favourable consideration from His Majesty's Government as coming from practical men, strongly interested in the prosperity of the merchant service. I also trust that we shall be afforded a reasonable time for the consideration of the Amendments that may be brought forward.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, though I am afraid that I shall find myself in opposition to most of the measures brought forward by the present Government, yet I congratulate them on the Bill that is now before us. I regret, however, that alien captains are still to be permitted to command British seagoing ships, and that the Bill on many points does not give the merchant seaman all that I consider he is fairly entitled to get. If this Bill passes without Amendment, seafaring men will not look upon it as a final settlement of their claims. No provision is made for giving mariners an opportunity of using their votes. In some of the clauses, too, what is given by one hand is taken away by the other.
  I am glad to find that this Bill does something towards equalising the conditions of foreign vessels frequenting our harbours with those of British ships as regards unseaworthy conditions and load-line. A great deal of dissatisfaction has been caused by the striking out of

  1363
  certain clauses dealing with the load-lines of foreign ships. The legal and diplomatic difficulties connected with these clauses appear to be insurmountable, but until they have been fully laid before the public, dissatisfaction will continue. Clause 13, requiring that foreigners shipping on board British ships should have some knowledge of the English language, ought to have been made law years ago. Railway guards and engine-drivers occupy positions analogous to those of helmsmen and look-out men. Passengers would cry out loud enough if any railway company were to employ men in those positions who were unable to understand English.
  I wish to make it distinctly understood that there are many lines of shipping to which what I am about to say does not in any way apply, in consequence of the good sense of both shipowners and captains, and that the Amendments I intend to move will have little, if any, effect on their relations with seamen in their employ. In short voyage trades most of the men are employed continuously, and are paid at short intervals, whereas in long voyages the reverse is the case, and it is the position of the seamen on board of some of the long voyage ships and not that of those on board of the best lines or on short voyages that I wish to bring before your Lordships. As regards provisioning, I congratulate the seamen of this country on the circumstance that the barbarous pound and pint scale is to be definitely abolished. In future a seaman who makes a just complaint about the quality or quantity of provisions issued to him will not be told that he will be fed as a punishment on this mediæval scale nor be made to suffer from thirst by having his ration of water reduced to ¾ of a gallon for all purposes, whether in the tropics or not. Though the new scale is not so good as that used by some shipowners it is far more wholesome and healthier than the old one.
  As the Board of Trade, with the assistance of an Order in Council, can change this scale without consulting Parliament, any defects discovered in practice can be eliminated by that Department, and therefore I shall not touch on the merits or demerits of the different scales recommended by various
  1364
  experts. But I hope that the Board of Trade will from time to time carefully consider the question of equivalents. For instance, there is a scale called the Shipping Federation scale, which is in use on board a great many ships. It is not by any means a bad scale when the provisions are of good quality, but owners and captains sometimes play fast and loose with it by making unfair substitutes, such as issuing an extra half lb. of flour in lieu of the ¼ oz. of mustard,¼ oz. of pepper and 3 ozs. of raisins. To make plum pudding with ½ lb. of flour in lieu of raisins would, I fancy, be outside the power of any cook, even of the new certificated variety with which merchant ships are to be supplied.
  The chief cause of bad provisioning on board some ships is that it is the custom for many shipowners to contract themselves out of the responsibility of feeding their crews, more, I think, for the purpose of saving themselves trouble in account-keeping than for the sake of making a profit. That profit they leave to the contractor. The Australian Royal Commission, at page 77 of its Report, recommends that every ship should show its victualling bill for each voyage, a somewhat stringent measure. There has recently been a correspondence on this subject at page 51 in the July number of the Nautical Magazine. I hope that your Lordships will not think me tedious, and that you will allow me to read three short letters that appeared in this magazine, only one of which is anonymous. Captain W. H. Hood, of the s.s. "Trafford. Hall," wrote—
  "SIR,—It should be made illegal for shipowners to escape their just responsibility in the matter of victualling and provisioning their ships by deputing it to the master of the vessel, or by permitting a store-dealer to contract to supply the necessary provisions and the person to look after them.
  "In the first case, if the master is poorly paid he is likely to try and make some profit for himself out of the provisioning to the detriment of the crew. The second ease is quite deplorable, inasmuch as the barest possible will be given by those whose earnings depend upon results, as in the case on those Middlesbrough and Cardiff vessels, provisioned by store-dealers, who supply the steward who has sole control of the commissariat. This individual is placed on the Articles at a nominal wage of 1s. per month, and is therefore beyond the reach of any disciplinary measures (having no wages to

  1365
  lose), except those of the boot or the fist. His earnings depend upon the result of his economy, as decided by the store-dealer, who pays him accordingly."
  From the Marine Superintendent of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, Goole, appeared the following—
  "SIR,—I am very strongly opposed to any system by which the responsibility of feeding the crew is removed from the shoulders of the shipowners and placed on those of the captain or a contractor. I do not assume for a moment that the captain would not, if made the contractor, endeavour to fulfil his obligations to the utmost, but his duties as captain are too onerous to permit him to pay personal attention to the matter, which, in addition to his lack of experience in catering, makes it necessary that he should leave the work in the hands of others Jess scrupulous, who undoubtedly in many oases try to make a profit at the expense of the crew. The cabin table does not suffer, the forecastle does! And while discontent is being bred in the ship, apparently through his action, the captain rarely hears of it until it has culminated in acts of open violence.
  "It is an unsatisfactory principle in every way —open to great abuse at the expense to those who are least able to retaliate; and I am convinced that statutory powers should be invoked to make it illegal for shipowners to contract out of their obligations in this respect.—Yours, etc., Walter S. Atkin, Com., R.N.R."
  A Merchant Service captain wrote—
  "SIR,—My own experience may perhaps interest your readers. Some years ago I had the feeding of the officers and engineers—not the crew. If I rightly remember, the allowance was 1s. (id. per head. Now, I got a fairly good name in the company for my feeding, and yet I made a considerable sum each year; exactly how much I should be ashamed to tell you. But some of the other masters cut it too fine— indeed, so fine that at last the feeding was taken away from us. These good things are always spoilt by greedy beggars who have no conscience. But, mark you! it is necessary to keep on the right side, for no man wants to lose in such circumstances.
  I therefore, answer 'No,' to your question. It wants a man of the very highest character to act fairly under such conditions, and for most of us, with our meagre pay and a family to bring up, the temptation to 'make a bit' is too great."
  I am intending to bring forward an Amendment to the effect that it shall be illegal for a shipowner to contract out of his responsibility for the feeding of the crew, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
  As regards the question of seamen's wages, the report of the Australian Commissioners shows that the withholding of wages, on the plea that desertion is checked by so doing, is, on the contrary,
  1366
  one of the chief causes of desertion: With this opinion I entirely agree. I also look on this withholding of money already earned as being the chief cause of the dearth of long voyage British seamen. If seamen and their families cannot get their wages, why should they go to sea at all? There was far mor3 desertion in the Royal Navy when men's lives were made uncomfortable by withholding wages than there is now. At present our blue-jackets art; paid ones a month when at sea, and once a week when in harbour. The laws and customs under which merchant seamen serve are chiefly those of 1854, I first went to sea in 1854, and I have no hesitation in asserting that if the present seamen of the Royal Navy were to be treated in accordance with the laws and customs then prevailing, the whole Fleet would be in a state of mutiny in less than a month.
  Clause 28, dealing with the wages of deserters, is bat a slight improvement on the present system. The best way to check desertion is to adopt the drastic plan of making the whole of the property of the deserter forfeit to the Crown. The effects and wages of a deserter should be treated in exactly the same, way as if he had died, with the exception that his property should go to the Crown, instead of being handed over to his relations. Forfeiture to the Crown is one thing, but forfeiture to a private person, who often has a financial interest in inducing his employee to absent himself for forty-eight hours, is another. No part of the "premium for desertion" should be allowed to enter the pockets of the employers. If Sections 3 and 4 of Clause 23 are allowed to remain, this part of the Bill will be of little use to merchant seamen. Section 3 of Clause 28 can unfortunately be interpreted in a manner which will render all payments to the Crown nominal. Any captain—and thank heaven there are only a few—capable of bullying a man out of his ship would be equally capable of sending in an inexact account, incapable either of contradiction or verification. For instance, a captain might say that he went on shore to look for the absentee, that he spent £1 on a shore-boat to land him and another £1 on a boat to bring him off,

  1367
  whereas he may have spent all his time on shore in amusing himself, and have paid nothing whatever for boat hire. Such expenses and similar charges would soon swallow up all that was due to the Crown, and the worst ships would make the most out of such transactions.
  There are, I believe, no existing returns from which the amount of wages due to deserting seamen can be calculated. But as it appears that about 27,000 men desert in a year, if the amount due to them is taken at £10 per head, shipowners profit by desertions to the extent of £270,000. In addition to this there is the interest on the money owing to seamen which at present remains in many cases for a year or more in the hands of the owners to be employed in their business, whereas it ought by rights to go into the pockets of the seamen. Against this they have sometimes, but not always, to pay larger wages to the men shipped in lieu of them. If this Bill is a success, these sums will, I admit, no longer reach the shipowner, but he will be recouped by being served by a healthier and better class of men. With your Lordships' permission I will read a few sentences from page 13 of the Australian Report—
  "By practice, as well as by law, the seaman is not entitled to demand his wage until the completion of the voyage, or of the period for which he has engaged. This places him in a position of dependence, and has a most demoralizing effect upon his fortunes and character. No matter what length of time he has been on the ship nor what he may require in the way of clothes or other necessaries, he cannot legally demand one penny. Other workers receive their wages when earned; the seaman, who works harder than most men, is not even entitled to payment at reasonable intervals. When ill-fed, badly housed, and sometimes even ill-treated, and, to crown all, unable to obtain a penny of his wages, it is hardly a matter or surprise if the sailor on such ships succumbs to the deteriorating influences of his environment.
  "The effect, too, of this practice upon the masters and owners is in some cases not less deplorable than upon the seamen. Evidence was given before the Commission in Newcastle that one master of a vessel trading to that port-made it a boast that he had not paid a man for three years. The incentive to unscrupulous masters and employers to connive at desertion, or even to induce seamen to desert, is, under such circumstances, considerable. It is not con-tended that the practice is general, but that it is not unusual the volume of testimony given before your Commission at Newcastle clearly shows. As this matter is dealt with more fully under the heading of "Crimping," it is not necessary to enter into further particulars
  1368
  here. But it is thought imperative that these conditions should be altered at the earliest possible moment. It is, therefore, recommended that in the foreign-going trade seamen shall be entitled to receive at the expiry of one month from the time of shipment, and thereafter at intervals of a month, at any port where the ship calls for trading purposes, two-thirds of the wages earned by them.
  "The one possible objection to be urged against such a reform is that it would lessen the hold of the master over the seaman, and so conduce to desertion. We think a careful perusal of the evidence given at Newcastle will show that such an objection is not well founded, and that hardly any alteration of the law can render desertion more prevalent than at present. In suggesting this Amendment, however, your Commissioners are very sensible of a strong opposition which a change of so radical a character will arouse in the minds of those who consider that their interests will suffer thereby. They are, nevertheless, convinced that the proposal is based upon justice, and in accord with common sense. Nor do they consider for a moment that the best interests of the shipowners will be prejudicially affected. Besides, the recommendation is supported by the experience and practice of other nations. For instance, the laws of the United States and Norway provide for the payment of one-half the wages earned; while in Germany a man may claim, after three months, half the wages due to him for that period; or, if on a time engagement, when he returns to the port of shipment, wages earned to that date. The evidence at the disposal of your Commissioners does not disclose any increase of desertions as the result of the adoption of this practice; on the contrary, they are assured that they rarely, if ever, occur.
  And at page 8—
  "In some respects the British sailor has been treated as a child, and in others denied the rights of a free man. He has been the special object of legislation. The Merchant Shipping Act has made provisions of a most elaborate character intended to safeguard his interests, but these in most cases have proved a dead letter."
  Recollect that the owners get the benefit of the interest of the wages withheld sometimes for more than a year. Sailors sometimes sign for three years, and during that time have no legal right to any pay at all, though the captain occasionally doles out pocket money to them as if they were children. Sometimes, however, he issues clothes to them at a fancy price out of a so-called slop chest, or else he gives them an order on a clothier who supplies them with garments at a price far higher than the sailor would pay if he had cash with which to buy the necessary articles of his kit.
  Imagine yourselves at a seaport town, out of the United Kingdom, walking with

  1369
  a foreign friend. You pass a dirty-looking man in rags. "Why is your fellow countryman in rags?" says the friend. You answer, "Because he has received no money for months." "But why is he so dirty?" "Because he has not even money enough to buy soap." "Why has he no money? Is he one of the unemployed?" "Oh dear no! He has done a hard day's work every day for the past twelve months, Sundays included." "Then what on earth is he?" "He is a British merchant seaman, ten thousand times more of a slave than any Chinaman on the Rand. But the treatment that he has received is, strange to say, in accordance with the laws of a country which boasts of its freedom." Try to apply such laws to a miner, a shipwright, or any other working man. Could any of your Lordships get a butler, a housemaid, a cook, or a gardener to enter your service on such conditions? Half the faults of the British seaman on distant stations are due to the irregular manner in which his wages are paid. British seamen are neither better nor worse than other people. They are the natural product of their treatment and surroundings. If men were paid once a month, or nearly so, that disgusting parasite, the crimp, would cease to exist. This Bill when passed will go a very long way towards remedying these cases. But still, in my opinion, it does not go far enough. Among other things the words ''a month's wages" should be substituted for "ten pounds" in line 32 of Clause 61. Ten pounds is in many cases three months' wages.
  The recently published Return of Allotments (Index No. 124) shows that the intention of the Legislature in 1880 and in 1894, that long-voyage seamen should be able to obtain possession of their own money by making allotments of half their wages to banks, has been frustrated. This document shows that under 9 per cent, of seamen make allotments, but, out of 983,000 agreements, only 276 allotments have been made to banks. If my information is correct, by far the greater number of these were made by petty officers and stewards, and not by bona-fide seamen and firemen.
  1370
  That this frustration of the intentions of the Legislature is not the fault of the seamen is clearly shown by the petitions recently sent by them to the Board of Trade from thirteen of our principal ports, asking that allotments of half wages be made compulsory. If the seaman has sufficient opportunities for sending his money home to England, and receives his wages as he earns them instead of being paid in lump sums at long intervals, he will never have enough money about his person to make it worth while for foreign crimps to rob him, and that detestable profession will tend to die out. The Australian Report, at page 17, recommends that, instead of allotments being made to banks, two-thirds of the wages of the seaman should be paid to him whenever the ship touches at any port for trading purposes. Clauses 60 and 61 of this Bill will certainly tend to remedy the grievances connected with wages. I hope that no means will be found of evading them. For instance, if three or four starving men apply for one vacancy the captain may ask, "Which of you may not want an allotment?" To get the berth, one of the men may say that he will not ask for an allotment. Then, after "signing on," when the superintendent asks him if he wants an allotment, he can only say "No," unless he breaks his previous promise; and if he does that he may expect to have a lively time of it with the captain when he gets to sea. In 1880 if the word "shall" had been inserted instead of "may" there would have been many thousands of allotments out of the 983,000 agreements instead of only 276. As it is, that part of the Act has remained a dead letter, and I am afraid that until allotments are made compulsory the laws dealing with them will continue to be evaded.
  This Bill and other attempts to improve the condition of the seamen have been attacked on the ground that they partake of the nature of grandmotherly legislation. But this part of the Bill is for the purpose of rescinding grandmotherly legislation. Can anyone imagine anything more grandmotherly than to withhold wages from the seaman as if he were a little child unfit to have the care of his own money? It is this grandmotherly

  1371
  treatment which is one of the chief causes of the shortage of long-voyage British seamen; for this shortage scarcely exists on home voyages or on the best liners. One of the reasons which has hitherto checked the amount of remittances made by seamen when paid off and discharged in Continental ports has been the charge of 3d. in the £ on all money remitted. Seamen often preferred to carry it home themselves to paying so much money, but unfortunately they often failed to carry out their virtuous intentions. That 3d. in the £ was a most hateful tax, a tax on providence and on family affection. I congratulate the Government on having been able to reduce that charge to 1d. in the£.
  Clause 37, section2, says that if a master shall knowingly deliver a false account of the wages due to a seaman left behind he shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds in addition in each case to the payment of the wages. Is not this far too light a penalty for a wilful and deliberate act of swindling? Recollect that a seaman often has more than twenty pounds due to him. As the captain himself keeps the accounts, it will always be very difficult to check his statements as to what may have taken place months previously at a distant port. A month's imprisonment and permanent deprivation of certificate would not be too great a penalty for a man who had disgraced his profession by knowingly delivering a false account of this description. Men who knowingly send in false accounts are a disgrace to the honourable body of master-mariners to which they belong. All professions exclude from practice the black sheep who disgrace them. Barristers can be disbarred, officer cashiered, and solicitors struck off the rolls. If a shipowner was contemplating a swindle he would look down the list of masters convicted of sending in false accounts with the view of finding an accomplice in his schemes. Such men should never be given a magisterial position of authority in command of a ship on the high seas, with no higher power within sight. It is unfair to all on board to be placed under the command of a swindler of this stamp.
  Clause 62 of the Bill deals with the housing of the seaman. Unfortunately,
  1372
  what it gives with one hand it takes away with the other. Therefore, it requires amendment. At present a man may be required to live, dine, and sleep, and keep all his belongings, in a space 6 feet long by 6 feet by 2 feet which an Australian witness, referring no doubt to colonial burial laws, has grimly described as—
  "the sepulchral accommodation to which a man is entitled at his own interment."
  The Bill raises this cubic space of 72 feet to 120 cubic feet. The evidence in favour of an increase, given before Lord St. Helier's Committee and before the Australian Commission, is overwhelming, but as it is somewhat lengthy, I shall not trouble the House with any of it, unless opposition is made to this increase in Committee. But Section 2 of Clause 62 contains a most objectionable sentence, which I believe was not originally in the Bill; it says that "bath-100ms and washing places" may be deducted from the 120 cubic feet pro-provided for the seamen, if the old sepulchral accommodation of 72 cubic feet is left to him in his sleeping place. That mess rooms should be deducted from the 120 cubic feet appears to be fair enough, for if the sleeping place be overcrowded, there will always be an overflow into the mess room. But the existence of bathrooms and wash-houses in which few men would spend more time than a quarter of an hour in a day would not prevent overcrowding in the sleeping place. Of course, at sea some men would always be on watch, but even that would not raise the cubic space to the quantity required for health.
  Soldiers, I understand, are allowed 600 cubic feet in barracks, regardless of bath-rooms, wash-houses, or the number of men on guard. Lodging-houses are required to give 300 cubic feet. A seaman in the Royal Navy when in a cell under punishment is entitled to a, space 6½ feet long and 3 feet broad, which, with a deck 6 feet high, gives him a space of 117 cubic feet, in which he has not got to keep his belongings. If he has the good fortune to be on board that up-to-date ship the "Dreadnought" when he qualifies for cells he will have about double that space to live in. If the words "bath-rooms or washing-places" are allowed to remain in the Bill,

  1373
  one of its principal objects will be defeated, as the more cleanly and disciplined lads brought up on board training ships or in training schools will be far less likely to remain in the merchant service under such conditions. This Bill cannot be looked upon as final if this want of space, one of the chief grievances of the seaman, remains un-redressed, I shall therefore move an Amendment to strike the words "bathrooms or washing-places" out of Clause 62. If this House accepts it, I do not think it at all likely that the words will be reinserted in another place. If 72 cubic feet is enough space for a hard-worked man to keep himself and his wet clothes, let other people say so, and let this House have the credit of holding a different opinion.
  The present Bill does not touch on the question of lighting and ventilation. Schedule 6 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 says that—
  "Seamen's quarters should be properly lighted and ventilated."
  The Australian Report declares that these sections of the Merchant Shipping Act have proved ineffective. The responsibility for this should be thrown upon the officers of the ship. A clause ought to be inserted in the Bill requiring that all the iron in the quarters of both officers and men should be completely insulated, not by wooden linings which would harbour dirt and vermin, but by asbestos or cork varnish, in such a manner as to leave no interstices in which insects might congregate. This is done in the Royal Navy. The constant dripping from bare iron is a cause of great discomfort and is very unwholesome. It appears to me that these are questions that the Board of Trade are fully competent to deal with without further aid from Parliament. If this assumption on my part is correct, I should be glad of an assurance from the Government that the Board of Trade will i consider these points. If they will undertake to do this, an Amendment dealing with the questions of light and ventilation would appear to be superfluous. In the better lines of steamers the men's quarters are frequently inspected by the officers of the ship, and what we have to do is to level up to them. In some
  1374
  vessels I am told that such an inspection would be resented by the men, and that any officer who entered them would be-come a target for a marlinspike or a pannikin.
  The Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 represents chiefly ideas previous to 1854, when attempts at sanitary regulations for checking the spread of cholera were met with the maxim that, "An English-man's house was his castle." We have got beyond that on shore, and should get beyond it afloat. The rights and duty of the captain and officers to inspect the men's forecastle should be admitted on board every ship that flies our flag. I am in full sympathy with those who, like the noble Lord opposite (Lord Brassey), wish to train boys to be sea-men in the merchant service. But I look upon such attempts ass certain to result in failure as long as many of our forecastles remain small and. dirty. The very habits of cleanliness and orderliness inculcated at training institutions would cause these boys to look upon their surroundings with disgust, and to take the first opportunity of obtaining other employment on shore.
  I congratulate the Government on Clause 71 of this Bill dealing with alien pilots, but I must express my regret that alien captains and seconds in command are not dealt with in a similar manner. There appeals to me to be a sort of underlying assumption in our Merchant Shipping Acts that all our ships are commanded by British subjects, yet this is not so. By these Acts aliens are placed in a magisterial position over men of British nationality. That their existence should be tolerated is a blot on the Bill, and I am intending to bring forward an Amendment on the lines of the alien pilot clauses, allowing existing alien captains to continue their service, and permitting them to be temporarily employed on foreign stations so as to prevent British ships being unnecessarily detained in distant ports for want of a navigator. I hope that the Government will accept these Amendments; if not, I shall at all events have entered my protest against the continuance of the present system. If war broke out their being in command of British ships would constitute an additional risk to British

  1375
  commerce. The opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown as detailed by the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday afternoon, show that it is uncertain whether under all circumstances such alien captains could be tried for high treason, or for communicating official secrets. I take this opportunity of thanking the First Lord for the congratulations personal to myself that he made yesterday, which were so unexpected as to leave me speechless for a time.
  I should myself be glad to see some legislation carried which would ensure a preference being given to British seamen when it becomes a question of employing them or foreigners. But on many unhealthy foreign stations, it is for the benefit of the British seamen that kroomen or lascars should be carried. They can bear the heat of sun or stokehole far better than a European, and are also less liable to suffer from fevers. I should be sorry to see none but British-born seamen employed on board ships trading in the Bight of Benin, or in the Persian Gulf. The high wages that would probably be offered to them would be a poor equivalent for a large death rate and ruined health.
  As regards Clause 72, I think it a mistake. The local marine boards were doing their work very well and no case had been made against them. At great shipping centres such as Glasgow, Liverpool, and the Tyne, all of which I have recently visited, the local boards have been of use. They were fully competent to deal with their own neighbourhoods, and were a check on over-centralisation. I believe in local government when competent men can be found to administer it. I will conclude by saying that I hope this House will show itself ready to support all reasonable claims of labour, that shipowners will accept my Amendments, so as to do away with legitimate grievances and disarm the trade unions by granting the seaman all that he is fairly entitled to receive, thus weakening the outcry that will certainly be made by Labour Members and others in favour of further legislation in accordance with the recommendations of the Australian Report. Some of the legislation suggested in that Report would, I think, in the face of foreign com-
  1376
  petition, be ruinous to our trade and injurious to the seamen themselves as tending to lay up ships and reduce employment.
  As long as a man can be punished for a two days absence from work by imprisonment and the forfeiture of the wages earned during a year or more, there must be regulations to prevent his being half-starved and ill-treated during such service. We boast that our shipping trade flourishes under present laws, but unfortunately some few shipowners flourish at the expense of long-voyage seamen, who are demoralised by having their wages withheld, and by their unwholesome food and surroundings. Are not these men as much part and parcel of Great Britain as shareholders in shipping companies? Compare the Merchant Shipping Acts with the King's Regulations for the government of the Fleet. The latter book is full of orders dealing with the comfort of the seamen, yet they are not thought grandmotherly. Then have not our men-of-war admirals who inspect ships and keep the captains in order? With payment at regular intervals, sufficient space to live in and clean surroundings, many of the better class of men who now take to other work as soon as they can find it would, I think, remain in the merchant service to the exclusion of the foreigner.
  LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, as a member of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, upon whose recommendation regulations as to loading and detention were first established, I desire to offer a few observations. Those regulations were due to the stirring appeals of Mr. Plimsoll. He had a strong case. It was referred to a Commission over which the Duke of Somerset ably presided. Mr. Plimsoll proposed to place our mercantile marine under close and continuous survey, and to guarantee seaworthiness by Government certificates. The Commission reported that such proposals were impracticable. As they pointed out, seaworthiness depends upon the unceasing application of that skill and care which no Government Department can exercise. The Commission held that nothing should be done to relieve the shipowner of his responsibility.

  1377
  It should be enforced, in cases of disaster, by prosecution, or by taking criminal proceedings. To prevent glaring abuses, some regulations are necessary. All regulations impose charges on the shipowner and place him at some disadvantage in competing with foreign tonnage. It is just that that disadvantage should be removed, as it will be under the provisions of the Bill.
  I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a few words on a matter with which this Bill does not deal, but to which the attention of the Commission on Un-seaworthy Ships was specially directed. If the law of marine insurance could be so amended as to make it impossible that the shipowner should derive pecuniary advantage from shipwreck we should have the strongest guarantee which legislation can give against recklessness in the management of shipping. Reform is difficult. It was attempted under the late Government by Lord Halsbury. With all the advantage of his authority and influence the Bill did not pass. It may, as the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships recommended, be desirable to begin by inviting foreign nations to concur in framing an international code. The loss of life at sea is diminishing. The over-laden sailing-ships, in which the casualties were lamentable in former years, are diminishing in number. The tables published by the Board of Trade cover a period of twenty-five years. In the first four years, 4,950 lives were lost in sailing ships, foundered and missing. In the four last years covered by the Return the number had fallen to 877. While sailing ships are disappearing, steam ships are growing in size and power, and these changes make for the safety of life at sea.
  I turn to Part III. of the Bill. Its provisions will alleviate some of the miseries of the seaman's calling. As a scheme for dealing with the alleged denationalisation of the mercantile marine by the employment of foreigners it will not go very far. The latest Returns show that the number of British parsons, which had for many years been diminishing, is now increasing. In the home trade and the fisheries, in ocean liners, and in tramps, not trading with the East, foreigners are com-
  1378
  paratively few. They are to be found chiefly in sailing ships in the foreign trade, in which wages are paid on the lowest scale. Lascars are increasing. They are necessary in the trade passing through the Suez Canal into the hottest regions of the globs. On the whole, the position is satisfactory. The aid of the Government is chiefly required in support of some well-considered scheme of training for boys. Several training establishments maintained by private subscription well merit public support. I am glad that the Government have taken a first step by referring the subject to a strong Committee. In conclusion, I suggest that it would be well if some knowledge of first aid to the injured were required on the part of candidates for Board of Trade certificates.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I claim that indulgence which your Lordships always extend to one who addresses you for the first time. I have not that special knowledge of this subject which is possessed by many of your Lordships, but no one could fill the office which I hold without taking the liveliest interest in these matters. In my diocese there is probably the largest amount of sea coast in any diocese in the United Kingdom, and at one time—thank God that time has now passed—there were more wrecks on that coast than in any part of the Kingdom. I have, just in front of the windows of my house, one of those training ships on which good and able men are working with might and main, and with a considerable amount of success, to bring up those, who, if left to themselves, would become dangerous hooligans in our towns, and make them self-respecting God-fearing seamen. Again, I have the advantage of intimate friendship with those engaged in the Missions to Seamen who, more than almost any others, know the real wants and wishes, as well as the hardships, of our sailors.
  No one can look at this problem with out being struck with its great difficulty. First of all, one must remember that this is a time of intense competition and cutting-down of expenses, and if by our well-meant attempts we do anything to prevent the shipowner getting a fair and legitimate profit we shall drive away the

  1379
  shipping trade from this country and so lessen the employment of British seamen. We have also to contend with the inveterate prejudices, not only of owners and captains, but of seamen themselves, for it not infrequently happens that Jack views with disapproval the very best intentioned efforts of others to add to his comfort. An amusing case was given by the President of the Board of Trade in the speech in which he introduced this measure in another place. He informed the House that several lascars had petitioned that as they had done no wrong to Mr. Havelock Wilson, they hoped Mr. Havelock Wilson would not introduce certain measures adding to their accommodation. That may be taken as only one instance of how those who do not quite understand the sailor may wish to do him good, and yet at the same time receive opposition to their well-intentioned efforts from the sailors themselves.
  But, allowing for all those things, it must be admitted that our sailors have a great deal of preventible hardship to undergo. The sea must be a hard life to those who follow it, and really one could hardly, in some instances, wish that it should be otherwise. Everyone is proud of the heroism and endurance of our seamen. There is a certain poetry about their life which we all admire, but there are hardships which we ought to do our best to alleviate and which we could do at little cost. Indeed, we have here a further instance of evil wrought by want of thought rather than by want of heart. I especially welcome in this Bill the provision that food supplied good should not be rendered uneatable by bad cooking. I also agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that ships ought to carry someone trained in ambulance and first-aid work. I have myself listened to pathetic stories of cases where injured men had to remain weeks before their injuries could be surgically treated.
  I think His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the attempt they are making to reduce desertions. I am convinced that this is a step in the right direction, and that the provision that it should not be to the interest of anyone that seamen should desert is a
  1380
  wise one. One cannot shut one's eyes to the urgency of this subject. In the county in which I live there are fewer men following a seafaring calling than in past years. Thirty years ago nearly every small farmer around the coast was also a good boatman. That is no longer the case, and we find that we have not the same multitude of people to draw from as we had before to man our lifeboats. I can only hope that this Bill, when it goes back from your Lordships' House—in which there are many noble Lords with practical knowledge of the subject, because they themselves have fallen under the spell of the charm of the sea, some of whom are themselves qualified by examination to act as masters of ships—and becomes law, will improve the conditions of life of our seamen and attract fresh recruits to the profession upon which, after all, depends not only the wealth but the very food and nourishment of our country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I desire to join with the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords in congratulating His Majesty's Government, and especially the noble Earl who introduced it, upon the measure which lies before us. The subject, I know, is a most complicated one, and I admired the lucidity and skill with which the noble Earl steered his way through all its difficulties. Undoubtedly the Bill is a very long and complicated one. It does not, however, entirely satisfy the ideals of my noble friend Lord Muskerry. He, as I understand, would like it to embrace even a far larger number of topics than are now dealt with. But, perhaps because for a short time I was in office at the Board of Trade myself, I am tempted to be content with a certain amount of progress at a time and not to defeat the ends either of the Government or of Parliament by asking for legislation on too great a scale on a matter so difficult and complicated.
  I do not think the Government would have had much chance of passing this Bill as it is but for the circumstance that it is in nearly all its provisions a legacy from ourselves. That is the most happy position in which legislation can stand. A Bill which has been drawn up by one

  1381
  Government and introduced by another is likely to be opposed by neither side of the House, and, therefore, there is more probability of such a measure passing into law. I need not add, for this very reason, that I have nothing much to say by way of hostile criticism of the proposals in the measure. On the contrary, I believe that these provisions on the whole will commend themselves to all Parties, and, with certain very small exceptions, to all noble Lords in this House.
  Perhaps the matters which have engaged more attention than any others in the discussions on the Bill have been the questions with reference to the load-line. I do not intend to say much on that point on the present occasion, but there has been a certain amount of difference of opinion exhibited in another place as to whether the load-line provisions went far enough in their application to foreign ships. I fully recognise the difficulty the Government have felt in dealing with this subject. The difficulty may be insurmountable; but that only makes it all the more necessary that we should consider whether there is not some other way by which the same end can be achieved. I think that road is indicated by the promise which the Government have made that they will endeavour by negotiation to obtain the assent of foreign Powers to the adoption of a more stringent law on this subject. That, I believe, has been the policy of successive Governments, and I should like to ask the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what prospect there is of such negotiations bearing fruit within a reasonable time. It is especially these minor topics in the business of the Foreign Office which are likely to be left out of sight. The Foreign Office are engaged upon topics of enormous importance, and very often these smaller matters are allowed to go on from month to month and year to year without any definite steps being taken to press them on foreign Governments. Yet the matter is one of great importance, and it would be satisfactory to numbers of persons if they knew that some vigorous steps were being taken to press it on the attention of foreign maritime Powers, and to get them to approximate
  1382
  their load-line regulations to those which have been for many years established in this country. I will say no more on that head.
  I turn for a moment to the provisions of the Bill designed to raise the standard of comfort of the crew and to increase their safety. Those provisions have been received with universal approval by almost every commentator upon the measure. We were very pleased to hear from the noble Earl that the number of British seamen, according to the last Returns, showed a marked tendency to increase. That is a very satisfactory piece of information. Undoubtedly the problem which is presented of adequately manning the enormous mercantile marine of this country with British seamen is a very formidable one, and I think the noble Earl was fully justified in saying that no better means for solving it could be adopted than that of adding to their comfort and their safety by such provisions as are found in the Bill. Those provisions deal with food, space, wages, medical attendance, and repatriation. I do not, of course, desire to say that these provisions are in all respects perfect. My noble friend Lord Ellenborough called your Lordships' attention to many particulars in which he thought changes might be made for the better, and I suppose there is nobody in your Lordships' House who speaks with greater authority on this subject than the noble Lord. There is also my noble friend behind me (Lord Muskerry), who, I think, has pages of Amendments in his mind, and perhaps already on paper, and which no doubt on a suitable occasion he will explain to your Lordships. But, even as they stand, the provisions for the seamen's comfort are very various, and, I hope, well designed.
  I think we must not leave out of account the observations made by the right rev. Prelate, in which he pointed out that it is not only their comfort and safety which must be sought, but also that their character should be raised by means of training on ships and in schools such as he himself is interested in. is I have said, these provisions are very

  1383
  numerous and go a considerable distance. I think there is a danger lest we should go too far. It is quite right to do everything possible to add to the comfort of our seamen and to maintain their safety, but in a great profession like the merchant service some danger is involved if too heavy a burden is laid upon those who are responsible for its conduct. Just as we do not desire to discourage seamen from entering the profession, so we do not desire, on the other hand, to discourage capital and the energy of capitalists from being employed in the merchant service; and there is no doubt that if we were led into imposing too great burdens upon that service we might in the long run do more harm than good. Moreover, in imposing restrictions in the interests of seamen and in passing legislation in the interests of shipowners, we must not forget the interests of other persons concerned. Your Lordships will be aware that considerable attention was drawn to this particular matter in another place, and it was pointed out in the House of Commons that as the Bill stood the provisions made in respect of space and the calculation of tonnage were likely to affect adversely the interests both of pilots and dock owners. I think I am right in saying that some sort of compromise was arrived at on this point in the other House and that the Government were willing to abandon part of their original provisions, whilst, on the other hand, those who spoke on behalf of the pilots and others were willing to go a certain way to meet them, in order that part of the burden involved in these changes should rest on themselves as well as on the shipowners. If that be true, and if that compromise was agreed: upon, I have no doubt your Lordships would be unwilling to disturb it.
  There is one other direction in which, I think, there is danger of doing too much. I refer to the question of the marine boards, which has interested a great many people in certain parts of England. I should not like to claim to speak with any competence on this point. Possibly after the noble Earl has explained the matter to your Lordships, it may be found that the policy of the Government in this, respect is fully
  1384
  justified; but, speaking prima facie, it certainly seems to me that the change was rather uncalled for. The Government appear to have thought that it was of great importance in the interests of the seamen that they should have assistance when they appear before the superintendents in the questions which have to be tried before that tribunal in the matter of wages and so forth. That has an outward semblance of fairness, and no doubt commands superficially a certain amount of support; but, as a matter of fact, I am informed that the seaman's friend in whose interest this appears to be brought forward is generally a very undesirable person indeed, and that the only effect of this provision, which is advanced, no doubt, with the very best intentions, will be to put those individuals known by the name of crimps in a far more powerful position than they are at present. I, therefore, rather regret that the change was introduced. That feeling of regret was shared vehemently by the marine boards themselves, who resisted the change to the very best of their ability. The only thing they got from this resistance, which I suspect was in the public interest, was that the Government in another place put in a provision by which they to a large extent abolished the power of the marine boards in so far as the superintendents are concerned. If, as I think, the marine boards took the action they did in the public interest, it was rather unfortunate and bad policy that the Government should have taken the opportunity of this Bill, which is otherwise quite non-contentious in the broad sense of the word, to attack the marine boards. Taking a broad view, we must all admit that the Bill is a very good Bill, and I think both His Majesty's Government and the country are to be heartily congratulated on its introduction into your Lordships' House.
  LORD LYVEDEN: My Lords, in rising to say but a very few words on this Bill, I ask for that indulgence which your Lordships always extend to those who address you for the first time. As I have had some practical experience in the mercantile marine, perhaps a few remarks from me might not be out of place. I listened to the observations of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill,

  1385
  and I thoroughly agree with all that he said in moving the Second Reading. I was also glad to hear that my noble friend Lord Muskerry does not regard the Bill as a bad one. I have had the opportunity of speaking to owners, captains, and seamen, and they have all told me that they thoroughly like the Bill, and think it is the right thing in the right place. If it is passed, men will go to sea under conditions which have never before obtained, and the cry of a "hungry ship" will be no more. I am perfectly certain, therefore, that all those who follow the sea will believe that the words of Dibdin have again come true, and that Mr. Lloyd-George in another place and Lord Granard here, like the little cherub that sits up aloft, have looked after the needs of poor Jack.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, the favourable reception which this Bill has received does not make it at all necessary, I think, that at this stage any prolonged statement should be made in reply to the friendly criticisms which have been made; and in regard to those criticisms, such as they were, dealing essentially with matters which relate to the Board of Trade, I think that in all probability it will be more natural that my noble friend who introduced this Bill in what I think has been generally acknowledged to have been a very able speech should reply.
  But the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, made an appeal to me in regard to certain matters which relate not merely to the Board of Trade but also to the Department which I represent in your Lordships' House. I allude more particularly to what he said in regard to the establishment of an international load-line. That, I am sure, is an appeal which must find a ready response in the heart of every member of your Lordships' House, for it would be impossible to conceive of any international decision which could be of greater benefit to humanity than the consent of all the great maritime nations to one load-line. It is perfectly true, as in all these cases, that the negotiations on these questions are to a certain extent in the hands of the Foreign Office, but in this matter there
  1386
  is a more than divided responsibility between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, because upon the opinion of the great advisers of that important Board the real decision depends far more than upon us at the Foreign Office. Subject to that observation, I may state that the question has not been at all lost sight of, and that at this moment we have made some satisfactory progress in negotiations, especially with Germany, in regard to this matter, and also with Norway; and in regard to another Power with which we have very friendly relations—Spain— the adoption by them of the same load-line as we have is, I hope, a matter which will be secured in the not distant future. I can assure the noble Marquess that the matter is not being at all lost sight of.
  I may further remind him that subsection (b) of the first clause of this Bill distinctly puts what I may call a premium upon engagements of this kind, because it to a certain extent may be said to enable this country to exempt from the regulations and penalties which otherwise are imposed on foreign vessels the vessels of any country which can show to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that they have adopted regulations for a load-line of equal value to that which will exist under this Bill. That, indeed, is not altogether new, for I may remind the noble Marquess that in Section 445 of the old Act of 1894, which was in itself a great consolidating measure, the first step in that direction was taken. I was glad indeed to hear what fill from the noble Marquess, and I am quite convinced that it is far more desirable to move in the direction of attempts to secure agreements of this kind with the great commercial Powers of the world than to attempt to extend the purview of our laws and regulations outside our own immediate territorial jurisdiction, because any attempt of that kind would be quite ineffectual. How, I venture to ask, would it be possible, supposing even that it was desirable, to enforce in an English Court rules and regulations in regard to a state of things which might have existed in a foreign harbour outside our own jurisdiction or even upon the journey of the ship to this country? It would be a matter of criminal jurisdiction, and the proof of any such offence outside our jurisdiction

  1387
  would in itself be most difficult. Bearing in mind that in criminal law you must have not merely surmise, but exact proof before you can expect a Court to condemn a man, it stands to reason that to attempt in an English Court to convict on such' uncertain evidence would be practically useless.
  But, apart from that, I must point out that any such attempt would raise very difficult questions of international law, because if there is any well established principle of the law of nations it is that a nation must confine the law relating to its own subjects to its own territorial jurisdiction, or to its own subjects beyond that jurisdiction. No nation must assume to punish the subjects of a foreign State for an offence committed against the laws of that nation outside its own jurisdiction. Any attempt to bring pressure on foreign nations to alter their own law and to penalise them until they altered their own law with regard to what happens in their own ports would be a distinct attempt to violate the principle which I have tried to sum up in these few sentences. Therefore, it was with great satisfaction that I heard from the noble Marquess that it was not to these attempts that he looked to obtain agreement. He realises, in fact, that it is not to the pressure of legislation in matters which our legislation really cannot touch that we must look to obtain real progress in this direction. For that reason I welcome what fell from the noble Marquess, and I can assure him that he may be quite certain that both the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade will act in the spirit of his observations.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I wish to say a few words on this Bill as a practical shipowner. I made it my business to get to know the feeling of those concerned on the main points of the Bill, and I have the authority of the representatives of the seamen to say that they are perfectly satisfied with the provision with regard to food. That really is almost the most important provision in the Bill. One noble Lord has said that we shall not have any more "hungry ships" going to sea—a very practical way of looking at it.
  But there is one point upon which I am not perfectly satisfied. I refer to the
  1388
  interference with foreign ships. Why are we to interfere with them? It must be either for the protection of life or property. Protection of life is a matter for their own countrymen, and protection of property appears to me to be principally a matter for the underwriters I will explain how you may cause irritation and difficulty in this matter. For a great many years the mercantile marine had a load line, when suddenly the Board of Trade found that that load line was entirely wrong. I telegraphed to Hull to-day to ask what had been done in regard to the alteration of the load line, and one firm—perhaps your Lordships may imagine it is my own— replied that 4,365 tons had been added to the dead-weight capacity of the fleet by the new load line. But if the load line in the past had been inflicted on foreign shipping we should have been doing them an injustice. We do not know what injustice we may do by interfering with their own regulations. And what does it bring in? It brings in a word that has been favourably received by noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House—the word "retaliation"; and what is more open to retaliation than the British mercantile marine? I am chairman and vice-chairman of companies owning 150 steamers at the present time, and I know the jealousy there is in every country of our mercantile marine. We cannot be too careful. We have nothing to fear from foreign ships. Statistics, which I do not propose to go into, show that our mercantile marine has increased in spite of every effort of other countries. I know very well how foreign competition comes in, and I wish to give this warning—interfere as little as possible with foreign shipping and do not provoke retaliation. There is another provision which I do not like to see in the Bill. Masters are made liable in twenty-one cases to heavy fines for misdemeanour. What does misdemeanour mean? I do not quite know, but I know what the fine is. It is from £2 up to £500. This is rather a criminal way of treating masters of British merchant ships, and I hope the Board of Trade will consider the matter and make this provision less hard upon them.

  1389
  There is going to be put upon the British mercantile marine by this Bill a tax which is not inflicted on foreign merchant navies. I should think that this measure, especially with the increased food scale, will cost the British mercantile marine an extra £100,000 a year at the least, and, in view of the increased burden thus imposed on the shipping industry, I hope the Board of Trade will help the shipowners in return by placing the light dues on the National Exchequer. I know a great many of the difficulties attending the British mercantile marine, and my advice to the Board of Trade is, leave it alone as much as possible, and also do not attempt to legislate for foreign shipping; leave them severely alone. It has been satisfactory to hear two noble Lords on the Opposition side express sympathy with the sailors, and perhaps not the game sympathy with the shipowners, but may I, in entirely approving of their kindliness to the sailor, say that my practical knowledge makes me feel that it is sometimes somewhat sentimental and not practical.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, I think I might just state the facts in regard to the alteration of the load line which took place last year. By the Act of 1894 the Board of Trade had power to fix a load line after consultation with the various registering authorities, but the Act also provided, in sub-section (4) of Section 438, that in any modification of the load line the Board of Trade should have regard to any representations made to them by any corporation or association for the survey or registry of ships for the time being appointed or approved by the Board of Trade. Since the load line was originally settled there have been great improvements in shipping and the class of ships have been greatly improved. It was thought right to make a change in the position in which the load line was put on the ship, and the change was made with the full concurrence of Lloyds' and the other registering associations whose consent was required, and it is believed, greatly to the advantage of the shipowners of the country.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: It is quite correct that there has been an immense improvement in modern steamships, but the altered load line applies also to the very old steamers.
  LORD GLANTAWE: My Lords, having had experience in connection with shipping, and being a member of one of the principal trusts in the United Kingdom, I desire to congratulate the Government on having brought forward a Bill which, in all the circumstances, is an honest effort to meet a great want and difficulty. There are undoubtedly very many points in it of a practical nature that are capable of Amendment. Other Amendments may also be introduced judging from the interview which the President of the Board of Trade had with the dockowners of the United Kingdom, who suffer great hardships from the mode in which the tonnage of ships is registered. The present state of affairs is unfair to dockowners and also unfair between shipowner and shipowner, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to amend the Bill in that particular.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole. House on Tuesday, the 11th of December next.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.