Sitting of 17 June 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Woking District Gas Bill [Lords]
Houghton-le-Spring District Gas Bill [Lords].
Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Egremont Urban District Water Bill,
Ramsbottom Urban District Railless Traction Bill,
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
Birkbeck Share and Debenture Trust Bill [Lords],
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time.
Price's Patent Candle Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill,
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 14) Bill.
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Dews-bury." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns.
Ordered, that Standing Order 193a be suspended, and the Bill be now read the first time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to constitute and incorporate a Joint Board consisting of representative of the urban district councils of Gelligaer, Caerphilly, Bedwellty, Rhymney, and Mynyddislwyn, and the rural district council of St. Mellons, in the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth; and to authorise the Board to construct main trunk sewers and other works for the disposal of the sewage of such districts; and for other purposes." [Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Bill [Lords.]
Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Copy presented of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway at Clayton-le-Moors, in the County Palatine of Lancaster (Clayton-le-Moors Light Railway Order, 1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the National Health Insurance Commissioners (Wales) as to the decision of Questions under Section 66 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to-lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and of the National Health Insurance Commissioners (Wales)

1287
as to the Payment and Collection of Contributions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Copy presented of Regulations under Section 108 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Calendar of the MSS. of the Marquess of Ormonde, K.P., preserved at Kilkenny Castle. New Series, Vol. VII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SIGHT TESTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee on Sight Tests [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made, the number of Patients seen, and the number of Miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics, between 1st October, 1911, and the 31st March, 1912 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Opium Cultivation (India and China).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the greater moral obligation under which the British Government lies to the British-Indian subjects of the Crown as compared with their obligation to the Chinese, His Majesty's Government propose to delay the operation of the agreement between India and China until the provisional Government in the latter Empire is succeeded by a settled administration, which can formally adopt and successfully enforce the obligations of the late Imperial Chinese Government in respect of the cultivation of opium?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): It is true that the welfare and interests of British subjects everywhere are a first charge upon the care of His Majesty's Government and they have in this sense greater moral obligations to British-Indian subjects than to-subjects of foreign nations, but it does not follow that these obligations will be best discharged by delaying at this moment the operation of the Opium Agreement with China, and I cannot therefore answer the question in the affirmative.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the Under-Secretary realise the very serious effect of the present conditions upon those engaged in a lawful trade?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am well aware of that. The whole question is now the subject of protracted and careful negotiations. What I desire to convey is that I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member. The matter is under consideration and negotiations are proceeding.
  Sir J. D. REES: I wish to know if anything effectual can be done without adopting some such suggestion as I have made?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If anything effectual can be done it will be done.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the people of India will not be called upon to pay for the delinquencies of the Chinese Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The determination of the Government with regard to the growth and export of opium has already been announced to the House.

  Miss Malecka (Publication of Papers).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any expressions of opinion from hon. Members of this House that the Papers in the case of Miss Malecka should be published; and whether he will now agree to this being done?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): "I" in this answer refers to the Secretary of State and not to myself. I have seen that some Members have expressed a desire for Papers, but I certainly understood that the commutation of the sentence by the Emperor and the release of Miss Malecka were regarded as disposing satisfactorily of the case, and that that was the general sense of the House when the

  1289
  announcement was made. I have no reason to suppose that I was mistaken in this, and I cannot see what good purpose would now be served by the publication of Papers.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: As the hon. Member takes the view, or does he not take the view, that this case is the second that has occurred under very similar conditions; and under these circumstances does he not see his way to publish at least the report of the trial which he promised to this House if the House desires it?
  Mr. ACLAND: We have a report of the trial, which is a reproduction of a report which appeared in a Warsaw paper, and I think there would be very little, if any, objection to publishing that, if that is the only Paper the publication of which is desired. That is, in no sense, a special report, but nevertheless we believe it is an accurate report of the trial.
  Mr. KING: Will the hon. Member allow those Members of the House really interested in this matter to inspect the documents at the Foreign Office?
  Mr. ACLAND: I do not think I can do that. If it is the general sense of the House that it would be better not to publish these Papers, I think it would not be the general sense of the House that anything of that kind should be done. With regard to the suggestion I made that it might be possible to publish this full report of the trial perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with the Secretary of State what he thinks about it.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Would it not set up an extremely awkward precedent to publish an unofficial report in that way?
  Mr. ACLAND: It would simply be the publication of what we consider to be a full, complete, and accurate report of the trial, and if that is asked for by the general sense of the House I am instructed to say that my right hon. Friend does not see any objection to that being published. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

  Morocco (British Commerce).
  Sir J. D. REESasked what steps, if any, have been taken to secure the interests of British commerce in Morocco?
  Mr. ACLAND: The interests of British commerce in Morocco are protected under the terms of the Anglo-French declaration
  1290
  of 8th April, 1904, and the Franco-German Convention of 4th November, 1911, to which His Majesty's Government adhered on the understanding that British subjects would continue to receive in Morocco as favourable economic treatment as those of any other State.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the action recently taken by the German Government to further German commerce?
  Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another question on that point.
  Mr. HEWINS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the revised form of the Most-Favoured Nation Clause Treaty with Morocco will be published?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must have notice of that question also.

  St. Petersburg (British Consulate).
  Colonel YATEasked what prospect, now that the Report by the commercial attaché at St. Petersburg has been received, there is of the recommendations made by the British Chamber of Commerce, regarding the raising of the status of the Consulate at St. Petersburg to that of Consulate-General, and the increasing of the number of salaried officials there, being carried into effect?
  Mr. ACLAND: The matter is receiving attention, but its proper consideration must necessarily take time, and no decision has yet been arrived at.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask when a decision is likely to be arrived at? The matter now has been put forward some time by the chamber of commerce.
  Mr. ACLAND: We have received very voluminous and other reports on the subject of the position of the Consular Service in Russia, and we certainly intend to improve it; but, of course, we shall have to act in consultation of the Treasury, and I can assure the hon. Member no time will be lost. It is a most important subject.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether St. Petersburg will be taken into consideration?
  Mr. ACLAND: The position at St. Petersburg and Moscow is one of the most important questions that arises in the report we have received.

  Agricultural Commissioner for Wales.
  Mr. VAUGHAN DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received any representations as to the necessity of making new arrangements for the administration of agricultural business in Wales; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to satisfy the special requirements of Welsh agriculturists and to secure the allocation of moneys from the Development Fund on lines which will commend themselves to the Welsh people?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Yes, I have received representations on this subject and have been giving them very careful consideration for some time. The increased activities of the Board, especially with regard to scientific research and technical education, have rendered necessary new machinery in order to enable the Board to meet the special requirements and circumstances of Wales. I have therefore obtained the authority of the Treasury for the appointment of an Agricultural Commissioner for Wales, whose primary duty it will be to advise the Board as to the manner in which Grants from the Development Fund can with advantage be expended in that country, and generally to supervise the business arising in connection therewith, but who will also advise and assist the Board in connection with their work in Wales generally.
  I am glad to inform the House that Professor Bryner Jones, M.Sc., the present Principal of the Agricultural Department of the University College of Wales at Aberystwyth, whose distinguished career is well known in Wales, and whose competency for the work is beyond question, has consented to accept the new appointment, at any rate until the 1st January, 1914. He will give his whole time to his official duties. In addition to the appointment of the Commissioner, I propose also to constitute an Agricultural Council for Wales, which will meet twice a year for the discussion of agricultural questions, and for the interchange of views between its members and the Board. The Council will mainly consist of agriculturists, nominated by the Welsh county councils and representatives of the University Colleges. An additional Welsh-speaking inspector will be appointed to act as secretary. I believe that by these means I shall be able to bring the Board into closer touch with Welsh agri-
  1292
  culturists than has hitherto been the case, and to secure for them further and more adequate assistance on lines which commend themselves to those best acquainted with the special difficulties and necessities of the country.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the salaries of these various new officials?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a question on that point, I will give him full information. The inspectors, of course, will be on the ordinary customary scale, and in substitution of one or two who are at present trying to do the work.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: What are the special requirements of Welsh agriculturists?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice; but everyone who knows Wales knows it is in many respects agricultural.
  Mr. HEWINS: As distinct from the marches of Wales.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    SHORE WIRELESS STATIONS.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has been able to make or proposes to make arrangements to equip naval shore wireless stations with additional receivers to enable them to take in messages from merchant ships in distress, particularly when these naval shore stations are situated in isolated positions, and in the neighbourhood of dangerous coasts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The matter has been considered, but, apart from the question of expense and other questions involved, it is not thought to be necessary to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member. The work of receiving commercial signals appears to be essentially for commercial stations, of which there are already a large number in existence, practically covering the same areas as the naval shore stations. Other commercial stations are in course of erection or under consideration. Further, as stated by the First Lord in reply to the hon. Member on the 19th March last, whenever a sufficient number of men-of-war are in company, a look-out is kept by one of them on a commercial wave length.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the result of his inquiry into the complaint against Messrs. Bow and McLauchlan, Paisley, in the treatment of their workpeople?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not yet in a position to announce the result of the inquiry, but I hope to be able to do so in the course of a day or two.

    ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, HASLAR.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Order recently issued at the Royal Naval Hospital, Haslar, regarding the hours of employment being the same as those worked by dockyard employés is to apply to the men employed as mess men, who at present work seven days a week, at an average of about 73 hours, for a wage of 23s. per week?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Order does not apply to mess servants. They are employed for seven days a week, and are on duty a maximum of 61 hours, exclusive of public holidays. The wages are as stated.

    TOKERS (SHORTAGE).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the shortage in stokers in the Royal Navy, he will consider the advisability of raising their pay and see if it is possible to offer greater inducements to stokers to join this rating in the Royal Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The shortage is considered to be temporary as recruiting varies at different times of the year. With regard to pay and conditions of service, I can add nothing to what was stated by the First Lord in answer to the hon. Members for Dulwich and the Ludlow Division on the 20th of May.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the falling off in the recruiting for the Navy was mainly due to the falling off in the stokers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that. There is a shortage, but I say it is attributable to the fact that the recruiting varies at different times of the year.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Is any inquiry being conducted into the rates of pay
    1294
    of the stokers with a view to a possible increase?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The First Lord of the Admiralty stated on 20th May that we were giving consideration to the pay and conditions generally. Perhaps I had better quote the words:—
    "I am giving careful attention to this question, which clearly deserves to be closely examined in relation to present conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1912, col. 1546.]
    That careful consideration is being given, but I can give no undertaking in the matter.

    NAMING NEW SHIP (PETITION FROM TORQUAY).
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will favourably consider the petition of the mayor and town council of Torquay that one of His Majesty's new battleships or cruisers shall be named "Torquay," seeing that so many of the bluejackets belong to that town and neighbourhood?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion shall receive consideration, but I can give no undertaking.
    Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of that neighbourhood, and more especially Tor Bay, giving a wider area than Torquay itself, seeing that many men are drawn from Tor Bay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I say the matter will receive consideration.

    ABLE-BODIED SEAMEN'S PAY.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked what is the present rate of pay of able-bodied seamen in the Navy; and how long that rate has been in operation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The pay of an A.B. varies between 1s. 8d. a day, which is the substantive rate without badge money or allowances, and 2s. 8d. a day, which includes the badge money and allowances for which the A.B. may be qualified. This 2s. 8d. a day does not include allowances for service in special classes of ships, such as, for instance, the allowance of 1s. a day for men living on board torpedo craft. The substantive rate was established at 1s. 7d. a day in 1854, and 1d. a day was added in 1860 for trained men. This 1d. was incorporated in the substantive pay in 1907.
    Mr. FRED HALL: There has been no increase since 1860. Will the right hon.

    1295
    Gentleman give this matter his careful consideration, and bring up a report to the House with regard to the question of increased pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I stated just now that the First Lord of the Admiralty on 20th May said he was giving careful attention to these matters in view of present-day conditions, and I also stated I could give no undertaking.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when any report will be given to the House?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot do that.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sum per month an A.B. is allowed by the Admiralty to send home to his wife and children?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know that there is any limit. I know a very large number of them do make payments to their wives.

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
    Sir REGINALD POLE - CAREWasked the Prime Minister whether he can guarantee that no serious change will be made in the disposition and strength of the Fleet in the Mediterranean which obtained before the right hon. Gentleman's recent visit until this House has had an opportunity of considering and discussing the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I cannot fetter the discretion of the Admiralty from day to day whatever dispositions of the Fleet may best conduce to the safety of the country.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question is of great importance to the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No one is more aware of it than I am. I am most anxious that it should be fully discussed.
    Sir R. POLE-CAREW: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any answer beyond that I have already given. There will be a full opportunity of discussing the whole matter when we take the Shipbuilding Vote early in July.
    Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Do I understand that this opportunity will arise before the change takes place or afterwards?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It depends upon what you mean by change.
    Mr. LEE: The withdrawal of the Fleet.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Before any permanent change takes place, no doubt.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman now stated the date when the Shipbuilding Vote will be taken, although he has twice told me that he cannot give a date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I repeated exactly what I said last week, that the Vote will be taken soon after the first week in July.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked when it is proposed to issue a booklet explanatory of the obligations under the National Insurance Act for the men employed on the Royal dockyards similar to that just issued for the same purpose to the men in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Marines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A pamphlet explaining the application of Part I. of the National Insurance Act to workmen in His Majesty's dockyards and other civil employés of the Admiralty is now being prepared, and will be issued at an early date.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether it is still intended to deduct 2½d. per week from the wages of hired workmen employed in the Royal dockyards for unemployment insurance, in view of the Financial Secretary's statement that 75 per cent. of these men are in regular employment; and, if it is so intended, to what purpose is the money collected to be applied?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Part II. of the National Insurance Act applies to hired workmen in the insured trades employed in Royal dockyards, subject to such modifications as may be made by Order in Council for the purpose of adapting the provisions of Part II. of the Act to the case of such workmen. There is no

    1297
    provision in Part II. of the Act for exempting workmen merely on the ground that they have at present an expectation of regular employment. Contributions of such workmen will go to the Unemployment Fund, and they will be able to claim benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Act if for any reason they become unemployed. The case of the regular workman is met by Section 95 of the Act, which provides that any workman or his personal representatives who show to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the workman has paid contributions to the Unemployment Fund in respect of 500 weeks or upwards, and that the workman has reached the age of sixty, or before his death had reached the age of sixty, may claim to be repaid the amount, if any, by which the total amount of such contributions have exceeded the total amount received by way of unemployment benefit, together with the compound interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Financial Secretary, in this House, stated that 75 per cent. of these men were always employed? Why, therefore, take away the 2½d. per week? Will you please answer?

    Temperance and Hygiene (Wales).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of departments and schools in South Wales and Monmouthshire in which the temperance syllabus is now regularly and systematically taught; and whether his inspectors will report upon the sufficiency and efficiency of the instruction as upon other subjects in the curriculum?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I am afraid I cannot give any exact information in answer to this question. Lessons in temperance and hygiene are usually given as part of the ordinary instruction in schools in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and the Board's temperance syllabus is, I understand, very largely used. His Majesty's inspectors report upon the teaching of these subjects in the same way as upon other subjects taught in the school.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures, in order that we may see how far the instruction allowed under the Regulations is carried out?
    Mr. PEASE: I understand the instruction is being carried out, but it is very difficult to get any figures.

    British Merchant Ships (Registration).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now taking steps to deal with a Report to him by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild of the case of the steamer "Razani," or "Ranzani," which, it is alleged, is trading abroad under the British flag, though of Greek ownership; whether, in view of the recent similar case of the "Coomassie," which was also officially reported by the guild, he will take action, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in ensuring that articles of registration as British ships shall not be granted unless there is absolute proof of genuine British ownership; and whether he intends to introduce legislation at an early date to provide that all ships flying the British flag, when leaving ports other than in the United Kingdom, shall at least be commanded and officered by men holding British certificates qualifying them for the position of masters and officers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: An inquiry under Section 51 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, was held some months ago by order of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise into the title of the "Ranzani" to be registered as a British ship, and after careful investigation it was concluded that the vessel was entitled to be so registered. I will cause inquiries to be made as to whether there has been any change in the ownership of the vessel since that inquiry. The Merchant Shipping Acts already contain provisions intended to ensure that certificates of registry shall not be given to ships other than those owned by persons qualified to own British ships under the Acts, and for special inquiry to be held if there appears to be any doubt as to the title of any registered ship to remain registered. My right hon. Friend has already considered the question of introducing legislation of the nature suggested by the hon. Member, and as at present advised he does not see his way to do so.
    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand the Government will not favourably entertain any Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill extending its scope in the direction indicated in the question.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That is another matter which will be considered when the point arises.

    Loss of Steamship "Titanic."
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the various forms of recognition which have been awarded in the United States to Commander A. H. Rostron, R.D., R.N.R., of the Cunard royal mail steamer "Carpathia," have been brought to his attention; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure adequate recognition of the services of the commander, officers, and crew of the royal mail steamer "Carpathia" in this country?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the various forms of recognition of the services of Commander Rostron and the crew of the "Carpathia" to the survivors of the "Titanic." The Board appreciate very highly the services rendered, but it is not their practice to grant rewards for services of this kind when rendered by one British ship and crew to another British ship and crew.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. NANNETTIasked whether any steps have been taken to proceed with the building of the Labour Exchange offices in Lord Edward Street, Dublin; and, if not, who is responsible for the delay?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Public Work (Dublin), who are in control of the arrangements in connection with the building of the Labour Exchange and Unemployment Insurance Divisional Office in Dublin, inform the Board of Trade that there has been no avoidable delay. Plans of the building, which is to be erected by the landlord, have been settled, and tenders will be invited as soon as possible.
    Mr. NANNETTI: When does "as soon as possible" mean? I have had the same answer during the last two years.
    Mr. JOYCE: Tell them to cut red tape.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department is offering employment to women clerks in the central office in connection with Labour Exchange and Unemployment Insurance, the ordinary hours of duty to be eight per day, the whole of their time, however, to be at the disposal of the Department without additional remuneration, the clerks being entitled to eighteen working days' holiday, exclusive of Bank holidays, in each year so
    1300
    far as the exigencies of the service will permit; whether he is aware that in the General Post Office, from which many of the clerks are being transferred, the hours of duty are seven per day with payment for overtime, and the annual leave is twenty-seven days; and whether he proposes to take any steps to level up the conditions of employment under the Board of Trade to those existing in the clerical department of the General Post Office?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The terms upon which a number of women clerks in the Post Office have been offered and have accepted appointments under the Board of Trade are the same as those applicable to all other clerks throughout the Labour Exchange service. The officers concerned were fully aware of this condition attaching to these posts. Some of them have, moreover, secured a substantial increase of salary by promotion on transfer. The question of the amount of annual leave to be allowed to various grades in the Labour Exchange service is at the present moment under consideration.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether the offices of the Labour Exchanges are used for political or trade union meetings; and, if so, whether such use is sanctioned?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In accordance with the statutory Regulations under the Labour Exchanges Act, every application for accommodation within the premises of a Labour Exchange must be referred to the Advisory Trade Committee for the district, and can only be granted on such terms and conditions as they may approve. A number of these Committees, which, consist of equal numbers of representatives of employers and workpeople, have agreed to the grant of accommodation to trade unions and other bodies subject to certain conditions, and the Board of Trade have usually accepted their recommendations. The conditions laid down, of which I am causing copies to be sent to the hon. Member, vary to some extent, both as regards the business which may be transacted at meetings on Labour Exchange premises and the bodies to whom accommodation may be granted. In no-case may a public meeting of any kind be held at an Exchange except with the express consent of the Advisory Trade Committee and of the Board of Trade, and the Board are not aware that the premises of Exchanges have been used for political meetings.
    Mr. AMERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his sanction was given to the meeting of the Birmingham branch of the National Union of Clerks being held at the Birmingham Labour Exchange on the 5th June, when resolutions in favour of supporting the transport workers in a general strike were passed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: In accordance with the conditions laid down by the Advisory Trade Committee for the West Midlands, provisional sanction was given to the Birmingham branch of the National Union of Clerks by the Divisional Officer for Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance in the district to hold their meetings at the Birmingham Labour Exchange, and his action was confirmed by the Committee at their meeting on 13th June. The Board have no information with regard to the proceedings at the meeting of the branch on 5th June.
    Mr. AMERY: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made with regard to poltical resolutions being passed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the Advisory Committee send information to the Board of Trade the matter will be considered with a view to future action.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the interpretation of a resolution in favour of a strike as a "political" resolution?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I accept nothing without very careful inquiry.

    Strabane Unemployment Insurance Agency.
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether about March last advertisements were published in the local papers inviting sub-postmasters and others to apply for the position of local agent for unemployment insurance in Strabane, county Tyrone, and other centres; whether the postmaster has since been appointed local agent for Strabane; and, if so, will he say if he is to be remunerated at the ordinary rate at which local agents elsewhere are to be paid?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Advertisements were issued for local agents at Strabane and other centres in the local papers. The work at Strabane is being undertaken by the postmaster under an arrangement with the Postmaster-General. The remuneration to be paid to salaried postmasters is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. MOORE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware where Strabane is?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is given in the question as in county Tyrone.
    Mr. MOORE: It is generally called Straban.

    Workmen's Trains (Kilbowie Service).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there have been complaints as to the inadequacy of the service of workmen's trains between Bridgeton and Messrs. Singer's works at Kilbowie; and whether he is able to announce any improvement in the facilities?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company concerned on the subject of a complaint which my hon. Friend brought to their notice, and the company have put an additional carriage on each of the two workmen's trains running between Bridgeton Cross and Kilbowie.

    Railway Rates (Owner's Risk).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case tried at Reading County Court on Thursday last by Judge Harrington, in which Messrs. Cumber and Giles, farmers, of Beenham, in the county of Berks, failed to recover from the Great Western Railway Company the value of a milk churn admitted to have been lost by the company, owing to the impossibility of proving wilful misconduct on the part of the company's servants as required by the usual owner's risk consignment note; whether he is aware that dairy farmers cannot afford to pay companies' risk rates without sacrificing the whole margin of profit on the sale of their milk; and whether the provisions of the Government Railway Bill will be effective to carry out the expressed view of the above-named judge that the onus regarding the loss of goods carried on these conditions should in fairness be shifted from the consignor on to the railway company?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has seen a report of this case. The Bill now before the House provides, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on Railway Agreements and Amalgamations, that where goods are carried at owner's risk rates a trader shall be able to claim a company's risk

    1303
    rate exceeding the owner's risk rate only by an amount representing the difference in liability, and this seems to my right hon. Friend the proper remedy for any real grievance of the kind referred to in the question.

    Census of Wages.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked when further Reports on the Census of Wages, in completion of those already published, may be expected?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The final volume of the series of eight Reports on the Census of Wages is now in preparation and will be issued in the early autumn.
    Mr. HEWINS: Will the Report issued by the Board of Trade include "earnings"?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Will the hon. Member kindly give me notice.

    Chambers of Commerce Congress (Preferential Trade).
    Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state the result of the decision of the eighth Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, now assembled, with regard to the resolution submitted by the Toronto Board of Trade asking the Congress to reaffirm its opinion in favour of preferential trade within the Empire?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that a resolution on this subject has been passed by the Congress, but the resolution has not been communicated officially to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the declaration of the members of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire in favour of Imperial Preference; and what steps he intends to take in order to meet the views of those Chambers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given to the hon. Member for South Birmingham, to which at present I have nothing to add.
    Mr. CROFT: Was the Prime Minister correctly reported as saying that the conclusions at which the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire will arrive must have the greatest weight with those who are called upon to guide the various parts of the Empire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I said that, and I adhere to it.

    Board of Trade (Electricity Orders).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Undersecretary to the Board of Trade whether he will publish a Return of the Orders granted by the Board of Trade during the last three years to local authorities to enable them to supply electricity in their localities, showing in each instance the population, the rateable value, the amount of local rates and indebtedness, and the nature and number of any guarantees forthcoming that the estimated demands for units of electricity by consumers would be taken by such consumers over certain periods of years, and other considerations that led the Board of Trade to sanction such Orders?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think that it would be possible to tabulate in a Return the guarantees or considerations which have led the Board of Trade to make Provisional Orders authorising local authorities to supply electricity. A Return could be prepared showing the population, rateable value, local rates, and indebtedness in each case, but I doubt if the information would be of sufficient general interest to justify the cost of such a Return. If, however, the hon. Member wishes to have the information, I shall be glad to supply it to him.

    Vaccination Officers (Remuneration).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in November last, he informed the Glanford Brigg Board of Guardians that their vaccination officer's income had fallen from £113 before 1907 to £93, and that his total loss to November, 1911, was £70 to £75; whether the Local Government Board suggested to the Glanford Brigg Board of Guardians that this officer should be paid a gratuity of £35 and a salary of £110; whether the guardians refused to take any action; whether the Local Government Board then asked the guardians if they would give this officer £25 as a gratuity to make good the loss of £70 and a fixed salary of £100; whether the guardians again refused; whether the Local Government Board then issued an Order directing the Glanford Brigg Board of Guardians to pay this officer a salary of £100 a year as from the 1st April last and £25 forthwith; if so, what were the reasons for the Local Government Board to fix the amount of salary and gratuity

    1305
    to be paid to this office at £10 less than first suggested; and whether he is prepared to meet this case, one of two in which he has put compulsion upon the guardians, so that the officer shall receive the consideration he asks for and is entitled to?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The facts are as stated in the question. The reasons for suggesting a lower gratuity and salary were that the Board were informed by the guardians that the vaccination officer had certain other small sources of income of which the Board were previously unaware. As to the last part of the question, I am not prepared to go beyond the Order I have made in this matter.
    Mr. PETO: Did these other small sources of income arise subsequently to the original appointment of the officer in question?
    Mr. BURNS: I believe some of them arose before the Order.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that because an officer has some other sources of income, which were always at his disposal, that he is therefore not entitled to proper remuneration?
    Mr. BURNS: Not at all. All the facts were considered, and the total remuneration bears upon the proper payment for each separate duty.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the average income received by the vaccination officer for the York Union for the years 1903 to 1907 was £160; whether the Local Government Board wrote in November last to the York Board of Guardians suggesting that they pay to this officer a fixed salary of £140, at the same time pointing out that the loss of income sustained by this officer for four years was £118, and suggesting that he should be paid a gratuity of £50; whether the guardians refused to pay any gratuity and suggested a salary of £130; whether the Local Government Board agreed to this suggestion; and whether he is prepared to meet this case, which is one of sixty-one cases brought to his notice, fairly and generously, and give the officer in question the consideration that he asks for and is entitled to?
    Mr. BURNS: I wrote to the Board of Guardians in October last pointing out
    1306
    that the average annual income of the Vaccination Officer in the years 1903–1907 was £157, and that the diminution in his income since 1st January, 1908, was between-£90 and £100, and I offered to sanction a gratuity of £50 and a salary of £150 per annum. The guardians, however, refused to pay a gratuity, or a higher salary than £130 per annum, and I have issued an Order directing this salary to be paid to the officer. Having regard to the fact that the diminution in the officer's income is due to a large extent to a decrease in the number of births, and that the salary agreed to by the guardians, and fixed by the Order is considerably in excess of what he was receiving, or was likely to receive, I do not feel justified in overriding the wishes of the guardians in this matter.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether the officer is receiving all the consideration he asks for and is entitled to?
    Mr. BURNS: Yes. Justice tempered with mercy.

    Rag Flock Act.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the position of the retail trader under the Rag Flock Act when it comes into force; whether he will in Regulations to be made under the Act make it clear; whether stocks which the trader has in hand will be liable to condemnation if they do not come up to the standard required by the Act; whether the Act will only apply to goods made or purchased after 1st July; and whether the usual re-make for customers without sterilising is to be prohibited?
    Mr. BURNS: The Act only authorises the Local Government Board to prescribe by means of Regulations a standard of cleanliness for flock manufactured from rags. I may say, however, that I am advised that the Act does not apply to upholstered furniture and bedding manufactured before the date on which the Act comes into operation, or to the re-making of mattresses and similar articles. If in the re-making any new flock is added that flock must conform to the standard of cleanliness prescribed.

    Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 (Emigration).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what amount of money has been expended

    1307
    on emigration since the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, came into force out of public funds, out of the rates, and other sources, respectively?
    Mr. BURNS: The amount expended on emigration under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, from the coming into operation of that Act up to the 31st March last, is £193,219. Of this amount, £36,356 was met out of the Parliamentary Grant, and the balance was defrayed out of other sources. The expenditure by boards of guardians on emigration for the years 1906– 1911, both inclusive, is £59,782.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The expenditure includes children, I suppose?
    Mr. BURNS: Yes.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the money expended upon emigration under the Unemployed Workmen Act was expended out of public funds voted by this House for the purposes of unemployment generally?
    Mr. BURNS: The money spent on emigration during the years I have mentioned has been spent from taxation, from rates, and from money voluntarily subscribed.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE.

    HOSPITALS.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether it was the practice of the National Telephone Company to grant to hospitals specially favourable terms in the form of reduced rates; whether, since the transfer to the State, these favourable terms have been in all or any cases withdrawn; and, if so, whether it is intended to persist in such withdrawal?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): The National Telephone Company came to the conclusion that such reductions ought not to be allowed, and they began to discontinue the practice some years ago. At the time of the transfer the hospitals generally were paying for their services at public tariff rates, but a small proportion were still receiving reductions which are now being discontinued. A general obligation is imposed upon the Postmaster-General by Statute not to show favour or preference; and this obligation
    1308
    precludes preferences such as those mentioned, and requires him to provide telephone services on uniform terms as telegraph and postal services are provided.

    GERHARD EXCHANGE.
    Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Postmaster-General whether a reduction has taken place in the staff employed at the Gerrard Exchange since the Government have taken over the telephone service; and, if not, whether he can give any reason for the inconvenience caused to subscribers during the present year by the inefficient working of the exchange?
    Captain NORTON: There has been no reduction, but, on the contrary, an increase, in the number of the staff employed at the Gerrard Exchange since the Government took over the National Telephone Company's service. From the information at my disposal, I do not think that any material deterioration in the service at that exchange resulted from the transfer; but the changes which were necessary at other London exchanges and the interruptions to the overhead lines acquired from the company, which were caused by a heavy snowstorm, caused exceptional difficulties in connection with the Metropolitan service generally during the first three months of the present year. Since then, however, the service at the Gerrard Exchange has, I am assured, been at least equal to the service during the corresponding period of last year. The exchange is somewhat congested, as the company, in view of the approaching termination of their licence, did not provide the additional accommodation required. Steps are being taken to provide relief at the earliest possible moment, and when this has been done the service will be much improved.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I attempted to telephone three times last Saturday morning, and was advised that the telephone had broken down?
    Captain NORTON: That simply bears out the statement I have made. I have explained how these delays arose.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Is the snowstorm still causing a breakdown?
    Captain NORTON: The Noble Lord evidently did not listen to the last part of

    1309
    my answer. I said the exchange is somewhat congested, as the company, knowing of the approaching termination of their licence, did not provide the additional accommodation required, and steps are being taken to provide relief at the earliest possible moment. When this has been done the service will be much improved.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Have facilities been given to the representative of any publication to inquire into the working of the telegraph system—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord must give notice of that question.

    London Postal Service.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General how many vacancies exist in the counter and telegraph staff of the London Postal Service; how many qualified learners on the London Postal Service list and the Central Telegraph Office list, respectively, are now in the telegraph school awaiting appointments; and whether he proposes to establish all the qualified learners available in London before sanctioning the transfer of provincial officers?
    Captain NORTON: There are nine vacancies for male counter clerks and telegraphists and sixteen for female counter clerks and telegraphists in the London Postal Service. For these appointments there are no fully qualified learners on the London Postal Service list. There are fifteen male learners on the Central Telegraph Office list who are qualified in telegraphy; eight of these will be appointed to existing vacancies, the other seven will be appointed before they have completed two years' service; but owing to the necessity for strengthening the operating force in the Central Telegraph Office the other vacancies now existing will be filled by the transfer of experienced provincial officers.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a memorial from the executive of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association regarding meal reliefs and late duties in the Central Telegraph Office, together with requests asking him to receive a deputation on these subjects; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction consequent upon the present system, he will expedite the reply to the memorial and receive a deputation at an early date?
    Captain NORTON: I have received the memorial referred to, and am about to reply to it.

    Finance Bill.
    Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister when he intends to proceed with the Finance Bill founded on the Resolutions passed more than than two months ago; and if he can give an assurance to the House that this Bill shall not be delayed as it was last year, when the Committee stage was not taken until December?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to take the Report stage of the Resolutions on Monday next, the 24th, and thereupon the Finance Bill will be introduced. I cannot at present say anything as to the future course of the Bill.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to get it through before the Autumn Session?
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the delay last year, a concession introduced into the Budget did not take effect till this financial year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite alive to the necessity of making all possible dispatch.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that last year the Finance Bill was closured on the Second Reading after one day's discussion, and that a number of Members who desired to speak on it were unable to do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This year there are no changes in taxation proposed in the Bill.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that Members are entitled to express their views on the general financial policy, notwithstanding that there are no changes in taxation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that no opportunity has been given to review all the taxation of the country since it was imposed in 1909?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to refresh my memory upon that.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    LAND PURCHASE.
    Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can now

    1311
    see his way to accompany the Government of Ireland Bill by some such proviso as Mr. Gladstone in 1891 undertook to propose, with a view either to completing the settlement of the land question by Act of the Imperial Parliament within a limited period, to be specified in the Bill, or to committing the power of dealing with it to the local legislature?
    I have been asked to postpone this question till Thursday. I assume that Clause 2, which makes land purchase a reserved service, will not be carried in the meantime?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it is impossible that that should happen.

    Indian Budget.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the Indian Budget will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A statement on the subject will be made later. The Indian Budget will be taken before the Summer Adjournment.

    House of Commons (Dilatory Motions).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been given to the proceedings in this House on Friday last, when nearly five hours were occupied in discussing whether a Bill which had passed its Second Reading unopposed, and had passed the Committee stage in Grand Committee without serious opposition or important change, should be referred back to a Committee, or to a Grand Committee, or to a Select Committee, or should be proceeded with on Report stage; and whether he is prepared to bring forward such amendment of the Rules of the House as to prevent the recurrence of such events?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no direct responsibility for the proceedings on private Members' Fridays, and I should not be disposed to propose any change in the Rules affecting them unless it was supported by the general opinion of private Members.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of having some Member representing the Government present in charge of the House though it is a private Members' day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These two-days are set apart for private Members' business.

    Post Office Stores (Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the reason for placing the Irish Post Office stores branch under the control of the Birmingham office; and if he will give an undertaking that the facilities for securing contracts previously possessed by Irish manufacturers will not be diminished in consequence of the change?
    Captain NORTON: As I have repeatedly stated in this House, the Irish Post Office Stores Branch has not been placed under the control of the Birmingham Office. On the point referring to stores contracts, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for College Green on 20th ultimo.
    Mr. MOORE: What has the change referred to been?
    Captain NORTON: I do not think it advisable to read the reply. The hon. Member can refer to it.

    Wireless Service (British Empire).
    Mr. AMERYasked whether the Government has received any assurance that a. reliable and continuous wireless service can be secured between different parts of the Empire, especially in the tropics; whether any responsible firm has guaranteed or refused to guarantee such a service; and what are the views of the expert advisers of the Government as to the possibility of securing a reliable and continuous service by night and day?
    Captain NORTON: The Marconi Wireless Company have entered into a provisional contract to provide a satisfactory and continuous wireless service between different parts of the Empire, some of which are in the tropics. The expert advisers of the Government see no reason to doubt the company's ability to provider such a service.

    Mines, Factories, and Workshops (Inspection).
    Mr. BARNESasked how many mines, factories, and workshops there are in the United Kingdom subject to inspection; and how many inspectors there are to inspect them?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): According to the latest returns, the number of mines was 3,958; the number of factories, 114,442; the number of workshops 178,801. The authorised number of inspectors of all grades for factories and workshops is 205; and the authorised number for mines and quarries, including new appointments sanctioned but not yet made, is ninety-one. Of the latter, eight are assigned for quarry inspection only.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How many inspectors are first grade and how many second grade?
    Mr. McKENNA: I must have notice.
    Mr. BARNES: When will the new appointments be made?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not say at the moment. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will tell him.

    Suffragist Prisoners (Sentences).
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give his reasons for discriminating between the different classes of women suffragist prisoners in such a manner that those who, by reason of their greater responsibility, were convicted of a more serious offence and received a heavier sentence than their followers are accorded the privileges of the first division, while those guilty of a minor offence are being subjected to more severe punishment?
    Mr. McKENNA: There has been no discrimination between different classes of prisoners. My decision to advise the transfer of Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and Mrs. Pankhurst to the first division was based entirely upon the recommendation of the jury and the advice which I received from the learned judge who tried their case.

    Shops Act.
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Shops Act is not being observed in many leading London hotels; and, seeing that such non-observance is due to the failure of the London County Council and the borough councils to decide who is to be the administering authority, whether he proposes taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not received any complaints that the Act is not being
    1314
    observed in London hotels, but the matter is one for the local authority, which is charged with the administration of the Act, and I have no power to intervene. I understand that the question of delegation under the Act to the Metropolitan borough councils is to be discussed this week at a conference between the county council and the borough councils; but, unless and until its powers are delegated in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (2), the responsibility for the enforcement of the Act rests with the county council.

    Mental Deficiency Bill.
    Captain O'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state why the Mental Deficiency Bill, now before Parliament, does not apply to Ireland; whether he will give an undertaking to make the necessary alterations and amendments so that its beneficial provisions may be extended to all parts of the United Kingdom; and whether he is aware that the Irish division of the Medico-Psychological Association, at a special meeting recently, passed a resolution in favour of its application to Ireland?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not received or heard of the resolution referred to. I am in consultation with the Irish Government as to whether the Bill should be extended to Ireland, but as the existing law in Ireland differs from that of this country, it will probably be found convenient to deal with the question of the feebleminded in Ireland in a separate Bill.
    Mr. CASSEL: To whom does the right hon. Gentleman refer as the Irish Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should have thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise the constitutional phrase.

    Industrial Council.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if he will give the names of the gentlemen who at present form the Industrial Council; and if he will state whether any names have been added or will be added in connection with the forthcoming inquiry into agreements as to conditions of employment?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The names of the members of the Industrial Council have, been made public, but I will have them circulated with the Votes. It is not at present proposed to add to the existing members. [See, Written Answers this date.]

    Malatesta.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to give his decision regarding the sentence passed upon Malatesta and the recommendation for his deportation?
    Mr. McKENNA: After careful consideration of all the circumstances, I have decided not to make an expulsion Order against Malatesta, but I see no reason for advising remission of his sentence of imprisonment.

    King's Visit to Cardiff.
    Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can state the grounds on which it has been decided by the military authorities to limit the attendance of Welsh Territorials at Cardiff on the occasion of the visit of His Majesty the King on the 26th instant to Glamorgan units only; whether that decision is approved by the Government, and whether, having regard to the fact that His Majesty's visit to the first city of Wales is expressly for the purpose of inaugurating a great national institution, the Secretary of State will grant similar facilities for the representation of all Welsh Territorial units on that occasion to those given on the occasion of His Majesty's visit to Carnarvon last year?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The local committee at Cardiff approved of the military proposals as set forth by the General Officer Commanding in Chief and these were subsequently approved by the Army Council. In view of the fact that last year a large assembly of Welsh Territorial troops had been brought together at Carnarvon on the occasion of the Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, it is not considered expedient to assemble troops on the present occasion outside the county of Glamorgan. No applications have been received from other associations to send detachments.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that I was present at the meeting of the. committee referred to, and that at the committee it was stated by the representative of the General Officer Commanding that what they required was a general representation—not necessarily the presence of the whole units—of all the units in the Principality; and that the committee was under the
    1316
    impression that that was the recommendation made to the War Office and approved by them?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I was not aware of that; nor was I aware that that was the nature of the communication received by the War Office, but if my hon. Friend will send me a communication of that character, of course I will see that it receives consideration.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: Does the hon. Gentleman accept my statement as one who was present that that was the state of affairs, and in view of the very short time at our disposal will he communicate at once with the local military authorities?
    Captain CRAIG: Can the hon. Gentleman not give this gentleman a job?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think I said anything to show that I did not accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member. I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking to communicate with the local military authorities.

PORT OF LONDON (STRIKE).

  LONDON CARMEN'S UNION.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if T. Leggatt, an official of the London Carmen's Union, who was fined at the Thames Police Court on 12th June for conduct arising out of the dock strike and who in a speech on the same date made certain references to their Majesties the King and Queen, has been present at or consulted in any way in connection with the conferences between His Majesty's Government and representatives of the Transport Workers' Federation?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: So far as I am aware, Mr. Leggatt has not been present at the conferences or consulted in connection with them.

  FREE LABOUR SHIP "LADY JOCELYN."
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board (37) if disease has broken out among the imported labour housed on board the "Lady Jocelyn"; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the disease together with the steps being taken in connection therewith; and (38) if a wharf or wharves at Wapping have been closed owing to an outbreak of infectious disease, which disease was introduced by persons imported to take the

  1317
  places of men out on strike; and, if so, what steps he is taking to obviate either the spread or a recurrence of such a danger to public health?
  Mr. BURNS: I am informed that no illness of an infectious nature has occurred on board the "Lady Jocelyn" or amongst the other persons referred to. I cannot learn that any wharf or wharves at Wapping have had to be closed for the reasons stated.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is not the action of the strikers in isolating these ships directly calculated to promote the outbreak of disease on these ships?
  Mr. BURNS: Not at all.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary practically admitted on one occasion that disease did break out at the Wapping Wharf?
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether the "Lady Jocelyn" was unable to take in the necessary supply of water owing to intimidation from strikers in the vicinity who patrolled the water in union picket boats; that an attack was made on the 10th instant by pickets in boats on a boat conveying provisions to the "Lady Jocelyn," with the result that several persons were badly hurt; and whether he has arranged to give proper protection in this behalf?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Lady Jocelyn" has been lying at Greenhithe within the jurisdiction of the Kent police. I was informed that there was some fear of disturbances in connection with the conveyance of water and provisions to the ship, and I communicated in the matter with the Chief Constable of Kent. On 10th June protection was given by a strong detachment of the Kent Constabulary, and the provisions were successfully taken on board.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he communicated with the Chief Constable of Kent, if he is not responsible for law and order?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the Noble Lord had paid attention to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he would have recognised that it does come within my discretion to communicate with chief constables all over the country.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information that several persons were badly hurt, or, whether there has been a misstatement in the Press as to persons being badly hurt.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information as to anybody being badly hurt.

  INTIMIDATION.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked whether the Government will institute an inquiry by an independent and trained judicial person as to the extent of intimidation practised during the present dock strike, its character, the circumstances under which it has taken place, the classes of persons who have done it and the persons who were responsible for it, and as to the conduct of the police in relation thereto and the responsibilities of the several police authorities for what was done or omitted by such police?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not been furnished with any sufficient evidence to justify the institution of such an inquiry.

  "NECESSARY CARGO."
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of a possible prolongation of the dispute in the Port of London he will confer with and ascertain from the Transport Workers' Federation what classes of goods and foodstuffs they will allow to be handled as necessary cargo; and whether he will make such decision public at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative. No "allowance" by the Transport Workers' Federation is required.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that wheat is a "necessary cargo"?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regard wheat as extremely necessary for the feeding of London.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Are the Thames lightermen unloading cargoes of grain at present?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Thames lightermen are not unloading cargoes of anything.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Who is supposed to be unloading cargoes of wheat?

  RESPONSIBILITY OF HOME SECRETARY.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the Home Secretary, representing the central executive Government, is ultimately responsible to this House for the maintenance of due law and order in this country; and, if the Law Officers are of opinion that the Home Secretary is not so responsible, whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that, in this case, the executive Government may be made responsible to Parliament, in accordance with the general principles of the Constitution?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have every reason to know that the Lord Chancaller and the Attorney-General concur in the statement of the law which I made last week, I see no ground for such a reference, nor for such a change in the law as is suggested in the second part of the question.
  Mr. STUART WORTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite any judgment of the Courts of Law, any passage in a text book or any previous declaration of a responsible Minister in support of his doctrine?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer without notice, but I am perfectly certain my statement is correct, and I am borne out by the highest legal authority.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Are we to take the right hon. Gentleman's statement the other day to mean that the Home Secretary is not more responsible than any other Minister for law and order except in the Metropolitan area?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, my statement must be taken in the words in which I expressed it and none other.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say the Home Secretary is not responsible to this House for the preservation of law and order in the United Kingdom?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what I said last week.

  LIGHTERMEN.
  Mr. FELLasked the Home Secretary if any progress has been made with the settlement of the lightermen's strike; and,
  1320
  if not, if any steps have been taken to have other men licensed to work on the lighters for the purpose of enabling the wheat to be conveyed from the ships to the flour mills?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. So far as the Board of Trade are aware no separate negotiations with a view to a settlement have taken place between the master lightermen and their employés since the dispute commenced. The conditions under which licences may be granted to lightermen can only be varied by by-law made by the Port Authority. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter unless and until by-laws are submitted to them for confirmation.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if any active steps are being taken by the Board of Trade to secure a supply of wheat to the mills?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is a question for the Home Secretary.
  Mr. CARR-GOMM: May I ask if the House will have any opportunity of expressing its opinion on this by-law before any change is confirmed by the Board of Trade?
  Mr. FELL: May I put my question to the Home Secretary?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have answered the question on the Paper. A supplementary question is another matter.

  PROSECUTION OF STRIKERS.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the. Home Secretary if he will state the number of cases in which individual strikers have been prosecuted for acts of violence and disorder during the present transport workers' dispute, and how many of such cases arose out of steps taken by the employers which would come under the head of provocative action as defined by him in relation to the case of Messrs. Houlder Brothers?
  Mr. McKENNA: There have been 241 persons charged with the following offences in connection with the dock and transport workers' strike, up to and including the 15th June:—

  Using threatening or insulting words or behaviour

  177

  Assaults on private persons

  52

  Intimidation

  23

  Assaulting or obstructing police

  31

  1321

  Drunken and disorderly conduct

  14

  Throwing stones at convoy

  1

  Larceny from van

  1

  Suspected person found in dock

  1

  Wilful damage

  2

  There were forty-eight persons charged with two offences, two with three offences, and three with four offences. Of the 241 persons charged 212 have been convicted, fourteen discharged, and the charges against fifteen have not yet been disposed of.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state how many of the cases to which he refers come under the head of provocative action as defined by him recently?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to answer the question.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask whether the cases under the head of "drunken and disorderly conduct" arose out of provocative action so far as the strike is concerned?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have only given the figures as supplied by the Metropolitan Police.
  Mr. FRED HALL: That is the very question I asked in the last portion of my question. Is it in the circumstances necessary that I should ask it again?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question is of such a kind that it is impossible for me or anybody else to answer it.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any employers have been prosecuted?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put the question on the Paper, I will give him an answer.
  Mr. W. THORNE: How many of these cases were caused by the action of the police?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that any were so caused.

  POLICE IN BERMONDSEY.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether it is a fact that the proposed inquiry by Mr. Chester Jones into the action of the police in Bermondsey is to be postponed; if so, what is the reason for this postponement; and will he state when it is proposed that the inquiry shall take place; also to ask the Secretary of
  1322
  State whether he is aware that Metropolitan policemen are being placed on board barges working on the river; whether these policemen have been placed there in order to assist in the working of the barges; and, if not, what is the reason?
  Mr. McKENNA: The inquiry was opened this morning by Mr. Chester Jones. I understand that after the opening and the receiving of names of witnesses he adjourned the inquiry until next Monday, in order that the necessary information should be obtained. There is not the slightest intention of postponing the inquiry. With regard to the Metropolitan police being placed on barges, a number of policemen have been placed on barges in order to afford protection to the men working the barges. There is no intention whatever that these policemen should work the barges, and they will be strictly confined to their proper duties of giving protection.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the inquiry this morning there was in attendance a very large number of trade union representatives and others who protested against the inquiry being adjourned, because they believed that there was nothing to be gained by adjournment? And with regard to the second part of his answer, that the police have been engaged only in protecting people on the barges, is he aware that the police in the Metropolitan area are blacklegging everywhere right and left, every one of them?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend will understand that the conduct of the inquiry must be left to Mr. Chester Jones, and it would be perfectly improper for me to interfere. On the second point in his question, I am quite unaware of any case of alleged blacklegging by the London police, and I am bound to say that no evidence of any sort of that kind has been brought before me.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we brought cases to his notice and the police made inquiries, and we received what is called the usual official information, and does he not know that the people who give this information are not going to dig their own graves?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, my hon. Friend brought cases to my notice in which the officers assisted the carts uphill when they were undoubtedly overladen, but they did so in the interests of the horses.
  Mr. W. THORNE: And of the employer.
  Mr. McKENNA: Instructions have been given that care should be exercised that carts should not overladen in future, also in the interests of the horses. There was one case of the policeman driving because the driver had fainted, and it was quite proper that he should drive.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the right hon. Gentleman give the expression "black-legging" his official sanction?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is a current expression used by my hon. Friend, and I used it in the sense in which he used it.
  Captain CRAIG: I desire to ask whether it is in order for hon. Members on either side of the House to stigmatise by terms of opprobrium these men, who, after all, are prepared to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay?
  Mr. BARNES: Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to suggest that an hon. Member is fishing for a job when he is asking a question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I deprecate both these expressions. The one used by the hon. Member for South-West Ham did not appear in the notice which was handed in to me previous to the question being asked. I certainly object to some of the unmannerly references of a personal character which are occasionally passed across from both sides of the House.
  Captain CRAIG: On that point I willingly withdraw the suggestion of any jobbery if hon. Members opposite will stop passing these remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "No bargaining."]—as to blacklegs.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman made his observations before the other expression was used.

  SUGGESTED DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I would like to ask your advice upon a matter which is likely to be of very grave importance at present. I understand we are this afternoon to discuss a Bill to give Manhood Suffrage. I want to know whether it is possible for me to ask the House to accept a Motion to resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of discussing to what, after all, to my mind, is of much more importance at the present moment, and that is as to whether we can consider ways and means by which the transport workers' strike in London can be settled? I believe that if that were
  1324
  done this afternoon it would have that effect, or at least that it would bring employers and workers together and help to effect a settlement.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have given proper notice of his intentions and first obtained the day from the Government. The hon. Member will see that the House has met here for the purpose of discussing a particular subject and all those who are interested in that subject are present here, whereas many hon. Members who would be interested in the subject which he seeks to have discussed have had no notice of it and are probably not here this afternoon.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Of course, the House had notice of the fact that we were to meet to discuss Manhood Suffrage, but certainly every Member of the House knows that there is a strike going on in London, and that unfortunately many women and children are being done to death in the East End of London. I submit from the point of view of public importance that the House would be better employed in discussing a matter of that kind than the matter of Manhood Suffrage, which may become law in another few years.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That may very well be, but I am afraid that the hon. Member must not ask my personal views on the matter. I am only here to carry out the orders of the House and the regulations as to procedure.

QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.
Mr. LONG: I desire to ask a question of which I have previously given notice, whether for the information of the House, and in order to resolve doubts which have arisen touching certain of the Speaker's decisions and rulings before he exercised the Speakership and when he was Chairman of Committees, and of Ways and Means, he will be good enough to inform the House whether during his tenure of those offices, the practice in Committee was altered by him to the extent of ruling out of order a Motion, previously held to be in order, to postpone Clause 1 of a Bill in Committee. In putting that question, allow me to say that there is no discourtesy intended to the Chairman of Committees, nor is it my desire to challenge his ruling, but I desire to get from you, if you would be good enough to give it, a

1325
definite statement as to the position in which the House now stands?
Mr. SPEAKER: During the ten years I acted as Chairman of Ways and Means I did on several occasions permit the Motion to postpone the first Clause of a Bill in Committee, but there were occasions when I did not permit the Motion to be made. Two instances have occurred to my mind since I received the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and I daresay after research I might find others; but there are two that do occur to my mind. I can only say that each case must depend upon its merits. The Chairman of Committees has a discretion to permit, or not to permit, a Motion to be made, and, of course, he would be guided in arriving at each decision by the character of the particular Clause and its relation to the rest of the Bill; but no rule has been laid down either that in every case an hon. Member is entitled to move the postponement, nor has there been any rule laid down that the postponement cannot be moved.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether since 1893 any change has been made by this House in the rules affecting a Motion for the postponement of the first Clause?
Mr. SPEAKER: I would not like to say, without looking back before the year 1895, when I first became responsible for the conduct of proceedings in Committee, but I was not aware that I was making any change when I gave the ruling in the two particular cases which I have in my mind.

BILL PRESENTED.
  REGISTRATION BILL.
  "To shorten the period of qualification for and to facilitate the Registration of persons entitled to vote at Parliamentary, municipal, and local government elections." Presented by Mr. GOLDMAN; supported by Mr. Cave, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Leslie Scott, Mr. William Peel, Major Morrison-Bell, Mr. Cassel, and Mr. Nield; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 2nd July, and to be printed.

FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION BILL.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a
1326
Bill to amend the law with respect to the Parliamentary and Local Government Franchises and the Registration of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors and to provide for the abolition of University Constituencies."
4.0 P.M.
The Bill which I ask the leave of the House to introduce will not, I trust, arouse that vehement opposition which the other two principal measures of His Majesty's Government have evoked. At any rate, I think I may claim for this Bill that it will not offend the sentiment nor will it offend the religious convictions of any individual in the House. If hon. Members are anxious to criticise the details of the Bill, I, at any rate, hope that they will be prepared to accept the principles of the Bill, and will not regard these principles as controversial. The reform of our franchise and of our registration laws is a matter which has been constantly before the electors of the country, and during the last twenty-one years I suppose there has not been a single Member of the House sitting now on this side who has not at every election advocated the reform of both our franchise laws as well as of our registration system. Our present registration system is based upon eleven different Parliamentary franchises, with at least nineteen variations of different kinds. No one knows, excepting a few electioneering experts in the country, when he may become qualified, or how he is going to become qualified, whilst we all must feel that a matter of this kind ought to be outside the sphere of doubt and that the privilege should be obtained in the simplest possible manner. The intricacy of our franchise laws is without parallel in the history of the civilised world. The registration system is a complex growth due to the antiquated character of some of our franchise Acts, and to the fact that a large number of electoral anomalies have been created by the overlapping of enfranchising Acts from time to time, and the matter at the present moment is wrapped in utter confusion.
We have in front of us a large number of great social problems to solve. We see around us a considerable amount of labour unrest in the country, and there ought to be no doubt in the mind of anyone as to the truly representative character of the House of Commons. There ought to be no room for any suspicion that some interests are over-represented or that others are under-represented. If any suspicion does exist in any

1327
quarter we may be quite sure that it begets dissatisfaction and that it has a "weakening effect upon the confidence which is placed in the authority of Parliament.
From the point of view of Members of the House I think I may lay down this proposition, that we all realise we cannot work so whole-heartedly in the interests of our constituents if we do not retain their confidence. There is no greater or more potent force, no more powerful weapon to destroy a Government, than the weakening of confidence in the support of Members returned by constituencies to this House. Equally so, is it a potent force in discouraging the Opposition of the day from opposing any good work the Government have in hand. The real strength of the House of Commons depends on the democracy behind Members of this House, and the views of the democracy do not depend upon the accumulation of votes in the hands of the few, but on the equal votes of the many. Amongst the poorer classes of this country there is a constant sense of injustice in connection with our franchise system. If you take as an illustration the lodger vote, you will constantly find the well-to-do farmer enabling his son who resides with him in his house to become a lodger voter. The agricultural labourer may have a lodger in his house, but owing to the wealth qualification connected with the franchise system, it is impossible for a lodger in the humbler walks of life to obtain a vote in the country in which he lives. When my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Harold Baker) introduced his Bill earlier in the Session, I gave one or two cases of faggot votes, showing how individuals with shares in a theatre may become qualified and even the site for their own burial may be used to obtain the qualification. But I should like, if I may, to give three or four other illustrations more or less typical of the anomalies connected with our franchise system.
If two men own a freehold worth, say, £25,000, and they obtain a rental of £1,000, unless they use the land in partnership, only one of them can exercise the vote. But if the same amount of property is demised and let to 500 individuals, those 500 individuals can secure property qualifications of 40s. freeholds, and claim the vote. If a man in a borough owns a leasehold warehouse worth £9 10s; that man has
1328
a vote, not in the borough, but in the county, whilst the occupier of those premises has no vote either in the county or in borough. But, if it is worth 10s. more, the owner does not get a vote either in county or borough, and the individual who is the occupier gets a vote in the borough. Two solicitors to my knowledge occupy premises worth £20 a year, but neither of them can possess the votes for their business premises because there happens to be a servant, a caretaker, on the premises, who is qualified under the Service franchise. Chancery Lane is in three boroughs, and there a man may live for six or seven years in three different portions of the Lane, and yet never qualify himself for a vote. But in the Commercial Road, which is in one borough, a man may live in four Divisions in the Commercial Road and may be registered in eighteen months' time, and continue to exercise the vote during the rest of the six or seven years. These are some of the anomalies in relation to the franchise system. And now I will give one or two anomalies in connection with the plural voting system. In the City of London there are 1,300 freehold City voters who record their votes in the City of London, yet those votes are counted in the Hornsey Division of Middlesex, and presumably not one of those 1,300 voters who vote in the City of London has any association whatever with the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. In London boroughs across the river there are 7,000 freehold voters, and they all vote in the constituency, or can vote in the constituency, so worthily represented by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Chaplin), and I suppose there is not a single Member of this House, except perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who would venture to get up and defend a system of that kind.
Seven thousand voters, owning property in the boroughs of London, having no association or identification whatsoever with the Wimbledon Division, are yet placed on the register in the Wimbledon Division, and the only interest they have in the right hon. Gentleman representing them is the same sort of interest as we all on this exterior feel in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman. We propose by our Bill to clear away such injustices, absurdities, and anomalies. The arguments for the abolition of the plural vote are, of course, very well known to every Member of this House, but some individuals—I believe the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), and

1329
the hon. Member for the City of London among them—when the Plural Voting qualification was being discussed recently, advocated the principle that those who have a great stake in the country ought to have more votes than one. But that is not the present system. A person may now possess twenty small plots representing a very small amount of land and may obtain twenty votes, while another person who possesses a much larger estate than the aggregate of all the plots to which I have referred to the other case will only be able to exercise one vote. A man may be a shareholder in the Army and Navy Stores or in Harrod's Stores, and he may have property to the value of £25,000, yet he has no vote whatsoever, whilst the owner of twenty shops in twenty different boroughs in London, representing very much less wealth, will have twenty times the voting capacity. I know what the attitude of my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite is: they object to the abolition of the plural vote because they think it is put forward in party interests—for the manipulation of the register in the interests of the party to which I belong. My reply is that this system has been maintained for a great number of years to the prejudice of a great number of citizens in this country, and to the interest alone of the party opposite. The real question is whether it is a fair system between citizen and citizen. If the motives of hon. Members opposite are due to some apprehension that in the event of political power being equally extended throughout the community it would be unfavourable to Unionist policy, surely it is not a very creditable objection to put forward if they really believe in representative government.
May I just allude to one or two instances of what I may call registration anomalies? If an individual goes into a constituency on the 17th of next month he will not, of course, obtain a vote this year; he will not obtain a vote during the year 1913, and he will not obtain a vote during 1914, but he will only qualify to go on the register of the 1st January, 1915. I am, I know, taking a somewhat extreme case, but even in the autumn of 1914, if objection is taken on the ground that the portion of the premises which he occupies on 17th July next, and for the next two years, is not separately rated, then it has been held by the Courts that it does not come within the right of the owner to compound, and he
1330
will be struck off the register, and after being in residence two and a half years he would not even qualify to exercise a vote. It is no exaggeration to say that under this decision thousands of voters have already been struck off the register. The expense of maintaining a system of this kind is very great, not only to political organisations, but to candidates and the ratepayers, and I believe that the only individuals who directly or indirectly gain are the lawyers and a certain number of agents. Is it surprising that there is real danger of confidence being shaken in the truly representative character of this House when such a system is allowed to continue? I am quite prepared to make the admission freely to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that by the abolition of the plural vote we do expect to gain on this side of the House. There are 266 constituencies in the United Kingdom in which there are over a thousand ownership votes. Of course, there are many other plural voters besides ownership voters, but, at any rate, that shows the great number of ownership voters there are in the country. I suppose I am not exaggerating when I say that of the ownership votes in the country the Liberal party certainly does not expect to receive more than one in four. The effect of this vote is you can have a great injustice perpetrated upon a constituency. In one constituency which I know there are nineteen different polling districts, and in every single polling district, by agreement between the two parties, there was a large majority in favour of the Liberal candidate, but owing to the ownership votes in a city inside the county Division the effect of the wishes of the people resident in that constituency was annihilated and a Conservative was returned to represent the constituency.
Mr. NEWTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that every voter on the ownership list is necessarily a plural voter?
Mr. PEASE: No, I do not. Of course a. great number undoubtedly are voters who may or may not have other qualifications. I do not think, however, I really need argue this point, because the principle of one man one vote was accepted by the party opposite when they put forward their Referendum proposals, and the late Leader of the Opposition said:—
"If you desire to ascertain the sheer unadulterated opinion of the people, you must have recourse to one man one vote."

1331
I know the party opposite put forward the principle of one vote one value. We accept that principle. It was, I think, in 1892 or in 1895, I put it forward in my election address, and I think every Member of the House accepts the principle of one vote one value or something approximating thereto. [An HON. MEMBER: "IS at in the Bill?"] The only difference between ourselves and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is this, that we believe that it is necessary as a preliminary step to pass a Bill reforming our franchise and reforming our registration laws in order that we may see what is the true and fair distribution of the electors in the country, and then to pass a Redistribution Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite desire those Bills to be brought in concurrently. We pledge ourselves so far as we can, and at any rate we say it is our intention, to follow this Bill by a Redistribution Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "When? "]—but we believe it is essential that this Bill should pass into law first in order that we may ascertain the proper method of distributing fairly the electoral areas. The case for redistribution we admit is unanswerable. When you have eight one-member constituencies in the country with less than 20,000 and eighty-three with over 100,000; when you have constituencies like Kilkenny and Durham with 16,000 electors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sixteen hundred"]—I ought to have said population—when you have constituencies like Kilkenny with a population of 13,300, and Durham with a population of 15,900, and when you have Romford with a population of 312,000, and Wandsworth with a population of 253,000, of course it is obvious that you ought to have a redistribution of seats. I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the House to three matters which require reform, the Franchise and the Plural Vote and Registration.
We admit that there are a great number of electoral anomalies and reforms which ought to be redressed at an early period, but this Session already two very important Bills have been introduced which we recognise must occupy a great deal of Parliamentary time, and we are limited by the scope of those measures, and we are also limited by the physical endurance of Members of Parliament, and it is impossible for us to extend our present Bill outside the three matters to which I have alluded. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not next Session?"] There are facilities which many
1332
advocate should be given to the absentee voter in the case of the sailor and the fisherman. The matter has constantly been brought before us. I introduced a Bill sixteen years ago to try and remedy this, and still the grievance remains. All elections on one day is another reform advocated, not only in the interests of trade, but also to prevent one side being favoured by a special day selected in the interests of a party. There is also the amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act, and which ought to be placed on the Statute Book, and there is the question of motor cars and their use and abuse at the present time which is a matter requiring reconsideration—I am speaking of motor cars conveying electors to the poll. Under the existing Parliamentary system there has been a steady increase in the number of electors, and we are proposing to add thereto, but at the same time in our Bill we are making no provisions in order to meet the increased expenses which may be incurred and placed upon candidates at Parliamentary elections. We do not deal with the subject of electoral reform. We feel we are debarred from dealing with it in the present Session. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] On account of time. Payment of Members will undoubtedly contribute to add to the number of candidates who may come forward at the next General Election, with the result that you may have an increased number of Members returned representing a minority of the voters at the polling booth. We are not proposing to deal with that in this present Bill either by the second ballot or the transferable or alternative vote or proportional representation for which there is a good deal to be said.
We believe that this Bill meets the three great evils to which I have referred—of the franchise laws, plural votes and registration, and, with the permission of the House I will now explain what we propose to do. The three most important changes that are effected by this Bill are: first it will be enacted that a person shall not be registered or vote for more than one constituency. It will also be enacted that an elector shall be qualified by residence or occupation and in no other way. The value of property as an element of qualification will cease. Thirdly, it will be enacted that we limit the qualifying period of residence or occupation to any continuous period of six months. In order that I may make it quits plain I would point out that if an individual goes into residence on 5th March

1333
he will be qualified on 5th September, or if he went into residence on 17th November he will be qualified on 17th May, or any period of six months in any one year, or whether it overlaps from one year to another.
Viscount HELMSLEY: Even if he moves, that does not disqualify him?
Mr. PEASE: I will try to make the matter quite plain and I will deal with that point subsequently. I want to point out first of all the qualification is so simple everyone will understand it, and to carry out those three proposals we are introducing a Bill consisting of ten Clauses and four Schedules. In order to introduce a residential and occupation qualification we have found it advisable to insert in the Fourth Schedule at least twenty-eight Statutes which we propose to repeal in their entireity, and about forty-four others which will be partially repealed. Therefore we start practically with a clean sheet. We leave untouched all the existing incapacities except one, to which I will refer later. The existing legal incapacities of paupers, aliens, and felons are left untouched in our Bill. Clause 3 substitutes for the existing system of annual registration a continuous registration for both Parliamentary and local government purposes. In order to carry that out rules will have to be provided. There are two ways in which we could deal with the rules to make provision for a continuous system of registration—one by Order in Council, a method we have not adopted, and the other by placing in a Schedule to the Bill all the rules which might be passed by an Order in Council. We thought it fair to the House that they should have before them the whole of the rules in the Bill itself. Although the addition of these forty-one rules makes the Bill look unduly bulky, I think the House ought to understand that we are not departing from precedent, for in 1885 there was a Bill which also contained Schedules a great deal larger than the Bill itself. These rules will define the areas and duties of the registration officers, the form of the register, where and how the register must be published, how transfers can be effected and objections made. There will also be a certain number of rules adapting the procedure to the case of Scotland and Ireland.
Residence is to be the chief qualification in the future for Parliamentary voters in this country. We think that it will
1334
not be necessary for us to define what residence is. I am informed that it is easily translatable in any Court if occasion should arise. But we do define occupation. Occupation is in some cases even a better test of a man's interest in a locality than his residence, but the interest that a man has in the locality in which he lives is the main principle upon which we found our franchise. An individual who owns a factory, foundry, or farm, may himself be resident outside the area in which that farm, factory, or foundry is situated. Therefore we include the occupation franchise as well as the residential, and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Register no other franchise will be entertained. I will now explain the machinery, and although it is a somewhat technical matter I hope, as the machinery will be so much simplified, to be able to make myself clear. Every class at the present moment gets on to the register sometimes—generally, or occasionally—and the difference between the present system and the system established by the Bill is that all those anomalies which deprive certain men of the right to exercise votes which they see other men in the same rank and position of life enjoying, will be swept away. If we gain by the abolition of the plural vote, hon. Members opposite may very likely think that they will gain to a large extent by the addition of a certain number of classes of voters who will be added to the register under the operation of the Bill. For instance, I am told that a very large number of male domestic servants will become qualified for the first time. Clause 3 provides that if a voter removes from one house to another in the same constituency he will remain qualified in spite of the change of residence. If an individual removes from one constituency to another he will retain for six months his voting power in the constituency which he has left, whilst qualifying in the constituency to which he has removed. The object of that is that in a General Election, or at a by-election, we shall not suddenly find a large number of individuals disfranchised owing to their having removed from one district to another.
We think six months is a reasonable period to qualify by residence or by occupation. A shorter period would lend itself to the gerrymandering of the electorate, and where the margin was very narrow there would be a great temptation to make an effort to induce a certain number of voters to cross the border from one

1335
constituency into another. The registration officers will be the town clerk in boroughs and the clerk to the county council in the country. They will be responsible for the preparation and publication of the register. They will be compelled to publish a complete register at least once a year, and as often in addition as they think fit. Further, they will be compelled on the first of every month to issue a supplementary list which will indicate all the removals, deaths, and additions which have occurred during the previous month. They will continue to be paid as at present. These individuals are very largely responsible for the register at the present time. In England the lists are first prepared by the overseers, and they are then sent on to the town clerk or to the clerk of the county council, who ultimately is responsible for the register. Under the present system there is, at certain periods of the year, a great press of work, and the clerk has very often to engage a special staff, which he has to pay at special rates, for this particular work. Instead, the work which these officers have to do being increased, we believe it will stand to be diminished in the future, as they will be able to systematise the work and distribute it equally throughout the year. It will be the duty of the registration officer to require the overseers once every year to make a canvass of the district, so that any voter who has been in residence six months will be placed upon the register if he is not already on.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will they have to do that every month?
Mr. PEASE: The overseers will not be expected to make a monthly canvass of their area, but all the information that they possess in regard to removals and additions must be sent forward to the registrar, and the registrar of births and deaths will be compelled to send to the registrar of the register a list of the deaths, so that they may be duly notified upon the supplementary list each month. In case the overseers fail from month to month to inform the clerk of the county council or the town clerk of those who have qualified or of those who have removed, it is provided in the Bill that every individual will have the right to have his name placed upon the supplementary list if he sends his name, address and qualification to the registrar. Suppose an individual commences his residence on 25th-December, on 25th June following he will be qualified by six months'
1336
residence. If the overseer fails to acquaint the registrar that that individual has been in residence for six months, the individual may advise the registrar himself that he is qualified to vote, or anybody may do it for him, and if after such inquiry as he likes to make the claim appears to be good the name will be advertised, and will appear upon the list which will be open to inspection by the public; and if there is no objection within one month, the name will be placed upon the register on 1st August following. That is to say, within a few days after one month from the termination of the qualifying period he will be upon the register and entitled to vote. Take now the most extreme case where an objection is lodged—taking the same dates as before. Suppose objection is taken to the qualification of an individual, on grounds which must be set forth when the objection is lodged. Notice of that objection must be handed to the registrar and a copy of the objection sent to the claimant between 25th June and 25th July. The objection will then have to be heard.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How soon, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, after 25th June, the date when the individual completes his qualification and makes his claim, will the list be published which gives notice to possible objectors?
Mr. PEASE: The names will appear instantly upon the registrar's list; it will then be seen that an individual is claiming a vote. If any individual should chance to take exception to the vote, all he has to do is to go to the registrar's office where he can obtain a copy of the list, or he can copy from the list which will be-duly posted.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I am anxious to ascertain is when the list will be published. A man completes his qualification at the end of six months. Another man completes his qualification one day later, and another man one day later still. At what period will the list be published which includes these names—and in which is given notice to the rest of the public that these men claim to be upon the register?
Mr. PEASE: Perhaps I ought not to have used the word "list." As soon as an individual is qualified by six months' residence an announcement will be made upon the door of the registrar's office that that individual is claiming a vote, and it will remain there for a month, subject to

1337
objection. If that individual is not objected to within that month—it is quite open to anyone to object to him subsequently—the name goes on to the supplementary list on the first of the month following, and the man gets upon the register. If he is objected to the case will have to be heard by a certain tribunal; and we propose in this Bill to abolish the Revision Courts and to allow these cases in future to be heard in the County Courts. No objection can be taken to the County Court unless seven days' clear notice is given of objection to the claimant to the addition or the removal of any name to or from the register. If an objection is lodged after 25th July that case cannot be listed on 1st August, because seven days' notice must be given to an individual that objection is taken to his qualification. Therefore the County Court will hear the objections during the month of August, and in the event of the vote being allowed the man's name will appear on the list on 1st September following. In other words, the longest period which it will be necessary for the individual to wait to get upon the register if he is qualified, and in the event of objection being taken to his qualification, will be just over two months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eight months."] Two months from the end of the qualifying period, or eight months in all. I think that about eight months and eight days is as much as it will come to in actual practice.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will this list, which appears on the door appear on the door only of the clerk of the county council, and will the list therefore only appear in the county town; or will it appear in some places in the Division to which the vote and claim relate?
Mr. PEASE: It will appear in both places, and provision is also made for it to appear at the post office in the district. Let me say a few words in connection with the abolition of Revising Barristers. I believe this Bill will not be so popular with revising barristers, and perhaps a certain number of party agents. After the passage of this Bill intricate knowledge of franchise law will no longer be required, and contested claims will in my judgment almost disappear. What will be the grounds of objection? That the individual has not been in residence six months. Well, it is very easy to ascertain whether that is a fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am informed that it will be extremely easy to ascertain whether an indi-
1338
vidual has been six months in residence. Residence does not mean continual occupation, by sleeping every night in certain premises. A great deal of latitude is given to the individual in regard to the number of days, weeks, or even months during the qualifying period in which he may be away from his home or residence. But under the provisions of our Bill the individual must elect which residence he is going to occupy. If he has got two or three residences, he is debarred—I will explain how in a moment—from being on the register for two places or exercising a vote in two places. It can therefore be easily ascertained whether he has been six months in the place in which he claims residence. It will also be very easy to ascertain whether he is of the age of twenty-one, and also to ascertain whether he has any other vote. These are about all the cases which occur to me in which it is likely objection will be taken.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Have we to understand that for all purposes the age is to be twenty-one?
Mr. PEASE: Yes, the age is to be twenty-one for all purposes. The qualifying period may occur during the minority of the individual, and then he may obtain his vote on the day of his majority. As to the effect of the finance of the Bill, in England the Treasury pay, in the first instance, the whole of the revising barrister's fees, and they recover half from the local authorities. That sum of money will be entirely saved by the local authorities. As to the expenses of the County Courts, they are entirely borne by the Exchequer at the present time, and will continue to be borne by the Exchequer after the passage of this Bill.
Mr. MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the town clerks and the clerks to the county council: will they be further remunerated?
Mr. PEASE: If there is increased work in connection with the County Courts, that will be a matter between the Exchequer and the individual. In regard to the county councils and the borough councils, we anticipate that the officials concerned will have no additional work thrown upon them. If there is additional work, of course, this matter can be brought up, and the Government are quite prepared to consider it. I am informed that the probability will be that the work of these officials will be diminished rather than increased. At the same time, there will be

1339
a reduction in part for the local taxpayer, he no longer being called upon to contribute towards the expenses of the revising barristers.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Who is to pay for the initial printing of the lists?
Mr. PEASE: That will come out of the local authority's funds. The provisions for plural voting enact that it will be prevented by the imposition of penalties. The registrar, in the first instance, may require information from any voter, from anyone claiming a vote, or who is on the list, as to whether he is qualified in any other area. If the voter declines to give that information it will naturally be the registrar's duty to strike that individual off the list. If the registrar is satisfied that the man has only got one vote, that vote will be given, and the name will be retained upon the register. But it is the duty of the registrar to do his best to prevent any name appearing on more than one register. An obligation, however, is also placed upon the voter, who has to see himself that he is not placed upon more than one register. He is called upon to disclaim the vote which he does not wish to exercise.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Under a penalty?
Mr. PEASE: If he wilfully declines to disclaim, or if he knowingly seeks to secure a plural vote, he will be guilty of a corrupt practice, and will be liable to a fine of £200, or one year's imprisonment, and he will further be incapacitated for the exercise of a vote for seven years. The onus of proof that he did this knowingly will rest upon the accuser. If he votes twice at a General Election it is to be assumed that he knew what he was doing, and the onus of proof that he did it inadvertently will rest upon him.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am anxious to understand the Bill. Will the imprisonment be in the first or the second division?
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: That depends upon whom it is.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. PEASE: The imprisonment may or may not be without hard labour. I now-come to another point which I know will be a rather sore subject with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may be anticipated that in our Bill we find no room for fancy franchises. The retention
1340
of the university vote we believe to be inconsistent with the principle of "One man one vote." Every voter for the universities will almost without a single exception obtain his qualification as resident or occupier. In England at the present time there are three university constituencies, in Scotland two, and in Ireland one, and nine University Members are now returned altogether. On the average the electorate of universities is just over 5,000. The average electorate in the constituencies in this country is nearly 15,000, therefore any Members of this House in favour of one vote one value will not be able to justify university representation on these terms.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have the honour of representing a university with an electorate numbering 12,000.
Mr. PEASE: That only indicates how very small the electorate of some of the other universities is. I know it is probably of great matter to representatives from our great seats of learning, and occupying the position I have the honour to do in the Government I am the last individual to undervalue and underrate the great educational help some of these representatives have been to the cause of education. At the same time we in this House recognise, at any rate we recognise it on this side of the House, that university representatives are just as good party men as any other Members. By our proposals we shall diminish the number of constituencies by nine in the case of universities, and we shall by our proposals in connection with the Home Rule Bill diminish the number of constituencies by sixty-one. That will give the House of Commons 600 Members. I am not authorised by my colleagues, who have not considered this matter, to say whether a future Redistribution Bill will be for 600 or remain at 670. But I submit to the House that my own opinion is that 600 may be just as good a number as 670.
I alluded a few moments ago to the Clause dealing with the incapacity of voters. Among those now debarred from exercising the Parliamentary franchise are peers. We propose to remove that disability. They already vote in local government matters and for local government authorities, and we do not see why they should not have the grievance of which they complain in connection with the Parliamentary franchise redressed. Since the passage of the Parliament Bill

1341
their complaint is that they have got even less voice in the permanent laws of this country than even the proverbial coachman. We wish to redress their grievance.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Are they to be qualified to sit in Parliament?
Mr. PEASE: No, the right to vote will not carry any right to sit. We make no alterations in regard to the Statute which prevents Peers of the Realm sitting in this Chamber. I am now going to do my utmost to explain to the House the effect of our proposals in regard to the numbers upon the register, and if the House will have patience with me I should like to go back to 1832. By the great Reform Bill 500,000 voters were placed upon the register. That number rose to a total in 1867 of 1,084,000. Then there was the extension of the vote to the boroughs, and the electorate in 1868 became 2,500,000. In 1884 it had risen from 2,500,000 to 3,000,000, and then the vote was extended to the householders in the country, and there was added to the register 200,000 for Scotland, 400,000 for Ireland, and 1,300,000 for England and Wales, therefore the electorate became 4,900,000. The electorate has since risen from 4,900,000 to 7,984,600, or just under 8,000,000. The division of the total electorate will interest Members representing different parts of the United Kingdom. The figures are: Ireland, 696,405; Scotland, 812,452; and England and Wales, 6,475,743, making a total electorate of 7,984,600. It has often been asked how many voters we expect will be abolished by the removal of plural voting. My estimate is 525,000, and by the abolition of the university electors 49,614, so that there will be a further reduction under our proposals of 574,614. That would leave an electorate of 7,400,000 upon the present register.
The total number of male persons in this country twenty-one years of age and over is 12,032,000. That leaves without votes to-day approximately 4,600,000 individuals of twenty-one years of age and over. I estimate that those incapacitated from votes by being aliens, lunatics, felons, and paupers number about 300,000. There are one or two other classes, such as persons found guilty of illegal practices, personation agents at polling booths and others who are incapacitated, but there are not more than a handful. The result remains that there are about 4,200,000 individuals of twenty-one years of age without votes. It is impossible for the Government or any-
1342
body else, I believe, to estimate what would be the exact effect of getting rid of the fixed annual registration system and establishing a continuous registration system based upon any six months' period of qualification. The best calculation I am able to make, and I put it forward with a good deal of reserve, is that we shall add something like 2,000,000 or 2,500,000 on to the register, while we shall reduce the total number of individuals on the register at present by a. little over 500,000, that is to say, that about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 adults in this country who have no votes now will have votes under the operation of this Bill. It may interest the House if I should refer to the number of women over twenty-one years of age in this country. The number is 13,352,000, and if the vote was to-be extended on the same terms to women as to men about 10,500,000 women voters would be added to the register.
Mr. GOLDMAN: As far as municipal voters are concerned with a £10 occupation qualification, will the registration machinery be the same?
Mr. PEASE: I have not forgotten that point. If the House will have patience with me I will make quite clear what will be the case in regard to the local government registration. I will deal with that question at once. The Government have been anxious to confine this Bill as far as they possibly could to the points connected with the Parliamentary franchise, plural voting and registration to which I have formerly alluded. We desire, having regard to the other work of the Session, not to overload our measure, therefore we are not proposing to interfere more than we can help with the local government register. But we realise it would be absurd for us having established a working machinery of a very simple kind for Parliamentary purposes that that same simple machinery should not also be extended for local government purposes, and therefore we get rid of revising barristers and revision courts just as much for the sake of the local government elector as for the Parliamentary elector. Having established this simple-machinery, it is really unthinkable that we should attempt to allow two registration systems to run concurrently at the same time. It would be just as absurd as for a works which had installed up-to-date electrical plant to drive the machinery in the workshops to allow a great old fashioned steam engine to be retained in order to work a few machines as it would

1343
be to allow the old existing machinery to remain for local government while we had simple machinery established for Parliamentary purposes. The lodger and owner vote and occupier vote will remain for the purposes of local elections but without any limit of value attached thereto. The anomalies existing upon the local register between one part of the country and another will continue. I might give as an illustration the fact that the Parliamentary lodger franchise is not available in England for the purposes of county councils or borough council elections. There will be under the new lists four categories of voters upon the register: there will be the occupier, who will be qualified both for local government as well as Parliamentary voting; there will be the residential voter, qualified only for Parliamentary purposes, and there will be the lodger and owner qualified only for the local register. The only individual starred upon the register will be the class of electors disqualified from voting for local government purposes, such as lodgers who may not vote in respect of county councils and borough councils. I have practically said all that I desired to say, and I hope I have made the Bill plain to the House. I should just like to run over in conclusion the ten Clauses of the Bill, in order that the House may see what we do with each Clause. The first Clause deals with the Parliamentary franchise. It abolishes the plural vote, and it creates a new Parliamentary franchise by residence or occupation.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind explaining, as I have not been so fortunate as to understand what is precisely the new proposals with regard to the residential and occupying qualifications?
Mr. PEASE: The occupier for the Parliamentary register is an individual who may occupy land, foundries, shops, places of business, or anything of that kind; or for the local government register he may be a lodger. The individual who is qualified by residence practically includes everybody else who has a home and is resident for six months in continuous occupation.
Mr. GOULDING: Why is a lodging not a residence?
Mr. PEASE: The word "occupier," as used in the Bill, is defined to include
1344
lodger for the local government register but that is a technical legal point. It is quite obvious that residence does not include the occupier. The occupier is probably a resident, but the resident may desire to be qualified in respect of his occupation qualification, and not of his residential qualification, and therefore we have included the two. Clause 2 deals with the Local Government franchise. It adapts the new machinery to the local Government elections, with the assistance of Schedule 1. Registration is dealt with in Clause 3 and applies the rules I have before alluded to contained in Schedule 3. Penalties for voting in more than one constituency are inserted in Clause 5, and then there is Clause 6 containing provision for dealing with the incapacity of voters now debarred from exercising the Parliamentary franchise. University constituencies are abolished by Clause 7, and the definitions occur in Clause 8. The application of the measure to Scotland is dealt with in Clause 9, and Clause 10 repeals the Sections of all the Franchise Bills to which I have referred as being antiquated and no longer necessary. Clause 10 also provides the short title, and it does one thing more, because it indicates when the Act is to come into force, and the date we have inserted into the Bill is 1st June, 1914, or such earlier date as may be fixed by an Order in Council. We think it would be impossible for one registration system to run concurrently with another in connection with the election of Members for the same House of Commons, and therefore between now and the Dissolution all the by-elections will be carried out under the same system as at present prevails; but in the event of an early Dissolution it will be able to anticipate the register by an Order in Council, so that the provisions of this Bill would operate whenever the next General Election occurs. The life of this Parliament must end in December, 1915. If no Order in Council bringing the provisions of this Bill into force prior to June, 1914, is issued, the register will be ready at the end of 1914, and available for a General Election at the end of 1914 or early in 1915.
Mr. MALCOLM: Which Clause applies the Bill to Ireland?
Mr. PEASE: Schedule II adapts this Bill to Ireland, but there are rules which also adapt the Bill and make the necessary changes so that the measure will equally apply to Ireland, England, and to

1345
Wales. There are people in Ireland who have different titles to the people in this country. For instance, the clerk of the county council, who is called the Secretary of the county council. All the little alterations which are necessary by law are dealt with in the rules, and the Bill will be thus made effective in Ireland.
Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the short title of the Bill is?
Mr. PEASE: Yes, the short title is the "Franchise and Registration Bill," and the large title is "a Bill to Amend the Law with respect to the Parliamentary and Local Government Franchise and the Registration of Parliamentary and Local Government electors, and to Provide for the Abolition of University Constituencies."
Sir W. BULL: Is there only going to be one register, or is it going to be a running register?
Mr. PEASE: The register will be made up in portions to suit the various demands of each authority in the country. For the purposes of local government there will be one register, and another may be required for other sections. Each section of the register will be available for purchase separately, or the whole Parliamentary register may be purchased together with the local government areas in one.
Sir W. BULL: Does the register come in on 1st September, or is it brought up to date all the way through the year, so that by-elections operate through it? Otherwise, it seems to me that you will not get the eight or nine months' qualification.
Mr. PEASE: The register is continuous. It may be printed every month and all the alterations effected in it. It is assumed that the whole of the register in a big bound volume to be printed every month would be an unnecessary expense; but it must be printed with all the alterations once a year. On the first of each month there will be a supplementary list issued from which any individual can make any alteration in the main register which may be necessary, available in a complete form if wanted, in connection with any election. It is always competent for any individual to get from the registrar a complete register brought up to date on the first of each month. He is not directed in the Bill necessarily to print it, but he has such an amount of latitude in connection with printing that I believe in actual practice
1346
it will be found that the register will always be printed and in the hands of any individual together with a printed list of corrections made up to date. By this Bill we lay to rest the antiquated enfranchising Acts, and we are giving birth to what we believe to be a robust child. By the alterations of the Bill we believe the State will thrive and continue to develop more than ever. Interest in Parliamentary life will be invigorated and stimulated by the sound franchise laws we propose. We claim for this Bill the great merit that it is short, that its proposals are simple, that they are just and equitable, and will expedite registration; that it will cheapen the machinery, and that it establishes on sound principles our franchise and registration laws. It is the result of a good deal of thought. It is based upon the principle of trust in the people, qualified by prudence: and though some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway would like to see an Adult Suffrage Bill the principle we have gone on is that men in this country ought not to be allowed to rove about and vote wherever they like—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or work."]—but they shall be permitted to vote for the constituency in which they possess an interest: and we place that interest as the residential qualification of six months in a constituency. We submit to this House that this is a principle which may be accepted. I believe the overwhelming opinion of this country is in favour of such a reform as we propose in this Bill, and it is with great pleasure that I move the Motion which stands in my name.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman very good-naturedly throughout the course of his speech answered the various points of difficulty which occurred to my hon. Friends and myself, and we are very grateful to him for having done so. I can assure him, however, that some points are still left in obscurity, and the fault lies in the nature of the subject which the right hon. Gentleman had to unfold, and not in any want of lucidity on his part. I must at the outset say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in my judgment was at least as remarkable for its omissions as for what it contained. To listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech one would never think that he was introducing in the middle of June this measure in one of the most remarkable and congested Sessions which, so far as I know, the House of Commons has ever been asked to face. It appears to me to be a subject calling

1347
for more than a mere perfunctory comment. I think we should be informed how a Bill which, from the very nature of the case, must give rise to an extremely protracted discussion, can possibly be proceeded with in the limited time we shall be able to devote ourselves to legislation during the present Session. I would invite the serious attention of the House to this aspect of the question. For my own information I have attempted to see whether the House would be justified in giving a First Reading at this stage of the Session to proposals so complex, and I have attempted to discover what are our commitments and what time is available for the present House of Commons to discharge them. I understand the Prime Minister has definitely assured the House that we are to be allowed a short and not very adequate Recess, from the 10th or the 12th August to the beginning of October. I understand that to be a definite statement.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I did not say the 12th August.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: No, I do not think the Prime Minister did say the 12th. We are at the present time at the 17th day of June, and we have thirty-two full days, eight Fridays, and one possible Saturday available before the date of the Adjournment. The days already allotted are one Friday for Private Members' measures, thirteen Supply days which have been allotted, one Supply day which is not allotted, and two days for the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Adjournment. That leaves available for the various activities to which we shall be called in due course sixteen full days and seven Fridays. Of these sixteen days one is now being used for the Franchise Bill, and two are already allotted to the Home Rule Bill. That leaves thirteen full days before the House separates in August. The Finance Bill has engaged the attention of the Prime Minister, and he has informed the House that this year reasonable time will be given to the consideration of that Bill. The reasons for that must be obvious to everybody, having regard to the circumstances under which the Finance Bill was discussed last year. Assuming that six days, which no one would say was an excessive amount of time, are given, that leaves seven days before we part in August.
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say they would be given before the Adjournment.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: I know the right hon. Gentleman did not definitely say they would be given before the Adjournment, but in answer to my right hon. Friend who was formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did say substantial progress would be made before August.
The PRIME MINISTER: I promised to-day the Report stage and the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: The number of days is not largely affected I think I can show by that consideration. Assuming, however, there are ten days left, provision must be made during that period for the Indian Budget; the Marconi Agreement; an extra day's Supply, I understand, is not unlikely in connection with the Naval Estimates; the Scotch Temperance Bill; the Criminal Law Amendment Bill; and a Bill to which I understand the Government is deeply committed, the Second Reading of the Railways Bill. There is also the Sugar Convention, the Mental Deficiency Bill, the Osborne Judgment Bill, and there is an obligation which I also understand is quite definite, a pledge having been given, if I am not mistaken, at the Colonial Conference, with regard to the appointment of two new judges. That means the whole of the time would be taken twice over before the Adjournment if any serious attempt were made to carry out even 50 per cent. of the obligations they have made. The Committee stage of the Home Rule Bill of 1893 occupied forty-seven days, the Report stage occupied fourteen days, and the Third Reading three days—that is to say, sixty-four days were given altogether to Home Rule. I think the Prime Minister will accept what I say on behalf of the Opposition that there is not the slightest desire or the slightest intention of obstructing by trivial or dilatory Amendments the progress of the Home Rule Bill through this House, but at the same time I hope the Prime Minister will equally recognise that to ask us to be content with less time, now we have the security of the Second Chamber taken away altogether, than was accorded in 1893, would be a demand so unreasonable and unfair that no Opposition could be expected to acquiesce in it if their powers of resistance enabled them to prevent it. The sixty-four days which were given in

1349
1893 were never accepted by the Opposition; it was the time which was prescribed by the Government as adequate for the Bill.
I will just say a word and then I have completed the enumeration, which I hope the House will not think irrelevant, why they should not proceed with a Bill of this magnitude. In 1895 the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was also considered. Thirteen days were given to the Committee stage of that Bill, and by that time the first 'half of Clause 6 alone had been reached. I think it is only proper to consider what time is available, having regard to the prospects of an Autumn Session, for dealing with these various problems. I do not know what the precise proposal is, but say the Autumn Session lasted from 10th October to 21st December. That would give forty whole days and ten Fridays, with the very striking result that yon would have left in the Autumn Session time insufficient, on the basis of 1893, to conclude the Home Rule Bill alone, without attempting to deal with any other single measure. I do say, without any reference to the merits of this Bill, that it is scandalous under these circumstances to introduce a Bill like this at all at this period of the Session. This certain consequence of the working of the Parliament Act was repeatedly pointed out by my hon. Friends and myself during the progress of those discussions. We pointed out to the Government that the necessary result of giving some position of priority to Bills which reached a Second Reading in a particular Session without any reference to the period which was available for their adequate discussion would be that a number of controversial Bills of the greatest importance would jostle one another for precedence, and I venture to think that warning has been abundantly justified.
The position in which we find ourselves is extremely injurious to the House of Commons itself, but it is also injurious to the prestige of the House of Commons in the country. No one who listens to me can have failed to notice in the last two years a constant decline in the interest which is taken in the country in the Debates in this House. I am unwilling to take the unflattering view that the explanation is to be found in the undue prolixity of our observations or their lack of interest I believe the explanation is to be found in the fact that Parliament is always sitting and always discussing something. You cannot expect the constituencies to have their attention
1350
switched from one gigantic legislative proposal to another and then to understand our Parliamentary discussions. If that prospect is injurious, as I believe it is profoundly injurious to the House of Commons, it is even more injurious to the constituencies. I have not been long enough in the House to offer any opinion as to whether there has been a decline in the interest in our Debates in the House itself, but I remember Mr. Disraeli once said on a well-known occasion that he had never heard the whole of a Parliamentary Debate without learning something of importance which he did not know before, and, if there still remains some vestige of that educational power in this House of Commons, surely no error could he more tragic and more irreparable than that by the length and duration of our sittings and the multiplicity and complexity of the subjects with which we attempt to deal we should make it impossible for the public, whom those Debates ought to educate, to understand them. One observation surely suggests itself to us in connection with this Bill, and it is a subject on which the right hon. Gentleman had an observation to make, although his omissions were, I think, most striking of all; and that is the impossibility of abandoning this Bill, if I understand the Parliamentary position, at a later period of the Session. It is not uncommonly assumed by hon. Gentleman opposite that, when the pressure of the Parliamentary situation makes itself increasingly felt, it is probable the whole of the complex provisions of this Bill will not be persevered with, and that part of this Bill alone which is occupied with plural voting will survive. I cannot help thinking that perhaps it was the "robust child" which the right hon. Gentleman referred to when he described the parturition of the Government. This convenient solution of the difficulty is really quite an impracticable one, because the Prime Minister gave a pledge I confess I greatly regretted and never quite understood, which seems to me to make it quite impossible that this Bill should be withdrawn, say, for an easier Bill, and makes it obligatory on the Government to persevere with this Bill, at any rate through the Committee Stage. I understand that what the Prime Minister said on 18th November to a suffragettes' deputation, was:—
If the House of Commons is prepared to transform or extend the measure which we are agreed in thinking necessary for the franchise as regards men so as to confer the franchise on such terms as they think necessary to women, we should not only acquiesce in

1351
the proposal, but we should treat it as the considered judgment of Parliament and should make ourselves responsible for carrying it through."
I do not understand myself whether the Prime Minister took the view when he made that statement, a statement repeated by many of his colleagues, that he was giving a definite pledge to the female suffragettes that this Bill would be carried or whether it was that they would have an opportunity during the Committee stage of making their proposal to add female suffrage to the other proposals in the Bill; but I can assure him, because it is within my knowledge, that whether he intended or not to give an assurance so definite, every suffrage society in the country is under the impression he did give that pledge. I would invite the House to consider what a remarkable position follows. The Government have put themselves in a position which is incompatible with any retention of dignity or self - respect in this matter. It means we are, in connection with this Bill, to debate and to decide whether women are to be admitted to the suffrage pari passu with men; that is to say, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, whether 10,000,000 women are to be allowed to vote on equal terms with men. My views on that subject are well known, but they are not shared by many Members of the House, and, as showing how completely very important sections of the House refuse to accept the views which I and some of my Friends, and, indeed, the Prime Minister holds, I may remind the House that the Leader of the Labour party, at a meeting in favour of women's suffrage at the Albert Hall, was very specifically asked whether or not, if on the Third Reading of the Franchise Bill in the House of Commons it failed to include women, he and his colleagues would vote against it, and the Leader of the Labour party gave a specific pledge that unless on its Third Reading this Bill included women he and his colleagues would vote against it. That opens up a very serious possibility for the Government, and it is worth noticing what the position is. No one, I suppose, suggests that this House can possibly decide whether or not ten millions of women are to be admitted to the suffrage without most protracted debates. Some of us will have a great many arguments to advance before a consummation of that kind is reached. It must be clear to everyone, whether they are in
1352
favour of or against it, whether the Government may have been right or wrong in ever giving the pledge they did of these opportunities to the supporters of women's suffrage, they have now introduced a Bill as immense and as complex as any legislative proposal ever introduced. This may not be directly relevant to the Bill itself, but I mention it as a subject which is relevant to the question of the propriety of proceeding further with this measure. As I understand it, if this Bill becomes law with the added provision that women, in an extreme or more limited form, shall be admitted to the suffrage, another consequence follows.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he will then consider this as the considered verdict of Parliament, and make himself and the Government responsible for carrying it through. In what condition will this Bill go to the other House, and with what authority will these proposals go to the other House, should the majority in this House decide that women should have votes pari passu with men. We know the view of the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn). I was present at a great meeting in the Albert Hall, which received great importance from the presence of some nine or ten of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, and at that meeting Lord Loreburn said, in language very explicit, that the proposal to carry female suffrage by means of the Parliament Act was a constitutional outrage. Yet apparently this is to be done, and it appears to be a circumstance which does not call for any observations at all from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, in order to explain what its Parliamentary progress is likely to be. I do not propose to attempt to follow in detail the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed. I will only deal with general principles, and in face of the difficulty which almost inevitably confronts one who has to get up immediately after the Minister who introduces a measure of this importance, I do ask that, if I have failed to understand any of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted, he will correct me.
I will make some observations first on the simplification of the register. I take the opportunity of saying at once that a proposal to simplify the register is one which will command in my judgment the general sympathy of the Unionist party. I postpone any consideration of details, and confine myself to the general proposals for simplification. The present

1353
system is complex, anomalous, and unfair. I myself have always taken the view that the franchise of the individual ought not to depend on the activities and competence of party agents. How far these proposals will have altered the dependence on party agents will require some consideration. The attitude of the Conservative party to a proposal of this kind was indicated with great clearness on an occasion when he spoke for the Conservative party by Sir Edward Clarke, and I adhere to every word that right hon. Gentleman said. His words were:—
"In our view when Parliament has decided that a certain class of persons are to receive the franchise it is our duty to see that there shall be no artificial obstacles to prevent the enjoyment of that right. It is our duty to make such arrangements as will enable persons qualified according to our law to get easily on the register and have their names kept there when there."
I associate myself entirely with that, and the observation I have to make on the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, in so far as I am able to understand them, is that I do not think that they are calculated to carry out the object which Sir Edward Clarke suggested, although, on corrected knowledge, I may find that that is not the case. The period which the Government has selected is six months. I make no complaint of that. All that is necessary is that we should have such a period as will prevent any colourable creation of claims without at the same time depriving people of the franchise who have resided in a constituency for a substantial period. Therefore, so far as the period of six months is concerned, speaking of course without full consideration, I make no particular complaint of it. Proposals which have been made in the past have ranged between three months and twelve months, and the Government have taken a middle course.
I confess I am in greater doubt as to the machinery by which the Government propose to give effect to the simplification of registration. To my mind some of the proposals are impracticable and undesirable. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the duties which will be thrown upon town clerks. I often notice in this House that when new duties are being thrown by Parliament on officials who are already very hard worked, there is a tendency very much to attenuate the importance or exacting nature of the new requirements. We are always told that the undertaking of these new duties will not prove onerous or any considerable aggravation of the work already imposed upon the officials. But in an almost unbroken succession of
1354
cases a wholly different view is taken by the officials on whom the duties are cast, and I shall certainly await with much interest the views of town clerks as to whether it is true that these proposals so far from adding to their labours will merely relieve them of some of the duties that they discharge at the present time. A greater objection, if I understand aright the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman—and I put this forward solely on the ground of impracticability—seems to lie in the suggested methods by which these lists are to be maintained. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there will always be at any given moment a list. It does not matter what you call it, but there will always exist some place in which the names of persons will be constantly reproduced day by day as they become entitled to the vote. The right hon. Gentleman gave an illustration of how that would work. He said, assuming a man goes into a constituency and becomes resident there on 25th December, he will become qualified by 25th June, and he added, "If the overseer does not tell the registrar anyone else may do it." This is an extremely ambiguous expression. Whether the imagination of the right hon. Gentleman is peopled by a conception of good Samaritans and charitable persons who are going to persons qualified to vote to tell them their names are not on the list, I do not know. But we do know that no one is going to point out to a person that his name is not on the list when it ought to be there, except the party agent who is paid to do it, and so far from this Bill excluding the activities of the party agent, in my humble judgment it will considerably add to his labours and increase his expenses. He will have to keep daily watch, and no candidate can afford, as we know, to take the slightest chance in that respect. If A, B, C, D, and E become entitled to vote in July, the agent will have to see that their names are on the list. Then you get added complexity when you come to deal with the county lists. As the right hon. Gentleman said, you cannot very well have one door for a whole county constituency, I really suggest, as a serious consideration about the proposal, that the labour to be thrown upon party agents in these districts will enormously increase the importance of their office. The expense is already very considerable, and so far from introducing simplicity, I consider that the proposals will bring about considerable complexity.

1355
There is another branch of the proposal which I also contemplate with the greatest possible anxiety. I express no definite opinion as to the abolition of revising barristers, because I am well aware that in this House any member of the legal profession who laments the extinction or decline of any office held by another member of the legal profession, exposes himself to a certain amount of criticism. I think, therefore, laymen may be left to lament the extinction of a body of men which counts among its members many who habitually support right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But that is after all a secondary consideration. Whether the Government are wise to dissociate themselves from the services of men who, under existing conditions, have acquired a very great deal of experience I question, but until experience satisfies us we can safely dispense with the services of revising barristers, I confess I would gladly see them retained. In reference to later parts of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals our objections are still greater.
The right hon. Gentleman proposes to place these duties on the County Courts. Surely he is aware—if he is not he should have been advised—as to the state of business in the County Courts. Not only are those Courts dreadfully congested, not only has a great multiplicity of new duties been thrown upon the County Court judges in the course of the last ten years, especially in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act, but you are actually proposing in this Session of Parliament to add enormously to their work and the volume of litigation which engages the attention of the County Court. Yet without one word of justification we are told the Government are going to throw the work of the revising barristers upon a body of men as hard worked as any body of men that can be found. In my humble judgment that is a proposal which will require a very great deal of justification when we come to consider this Bill in its later stages. I should like to know whether any personal opinion has been invited from County Court judges as to whether they feel themselves able to undertake these duties, for I doubt very greatly the propriety of a Minister, without consulting the people on whom he imposes these labours, in coming down to the House of Commons suddenly and announcing his intention to take this course without such consultation.
6.0 P.M.
I pass from the simplification of the register proposal, and I come to the second
1356
part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, that is the substitution for the present overlapping and confusion and so many franchises, of a simple residential or occupation franchise. I remember hearing Sir Charles Dilke—whose absence from our Debates on this subject must be a source of profound regret to everyone here, because of his admitted and unrivalled knowledge of this subject—I remember hearing, him say that he was able to distinguish no less than nineteen or twenty different forms of franchise in this country. The object of abolishing so great a variety of franchises, and of substituting for them one simple form is one which, if it be fair and if it be practical, must demand the support on principle of every Member of the House. It is, however, necessary, and the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit it, to consider very attentively what will be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. I asked him a question whether he could distinguish on some intelligible principle between the residential franchise and the occupying franchise. I am not sure that the answer he gave me rested upon any very definable logical distinction, but that would not very much matter if it rested upon some statutory definition contained in the Bill, as I gather it does. If I understand him aright, what he means is this: that in future everybody who votes will vote by reference either to a residential claim or to an occupying claim. A residential claim means primarily the claim of every person who votes by virtue of the fact that he lives in a certain house, and, a little illogically, the claim to vote of a lodger, which is that of a claim to vote by virtue of residence, is treated as not falling under the residential head, but under the occupying head. Also, the right which will be enjoyed under the terms of the Bill by those who occupy foundries or factories, or places of business, is described as an occupying franchise. I discern the possibility of no small confusion unless the definitions in the Bill obviate the doubts which have arisen.
But on a First Reading Debate it is not necessary for us to consider how far the definitions are sufficient. What is important is to understand what will be the effect of the proposals. Simplicity in these matters is very admirable, if it is not purchased by depreciating the civic quality of the electorate. The Conservative party is not, and never has been, hostile to the admission of any new class to the suffrage, if it is reasonably probable that that class

1357
will consist of useful and intelligent citizens who desire the privilege, and who will make the House of Commons, in the words which the right hon. Gentleman used more than once, more truly representative of the best elements in every class. Some observations must occur at once to every Member of the House. In the first place, who can help noting that no popular demand has been exhibited for the extension of the franchise. I do not desire at this point of my speech to be unduly controversial—when I reach another subject I shall have to be a little more controversial—and I am perfectly prepared to leave it to the judgment and recollection of hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it was true to say that there was a great popular demand for the extension of the franchise at the time when the Prime Minister made that wholly unexpected announcement, in the sense that it has been possible to say it of every great legislative measure during the last few years, in regard to which, whether a majority was in favour of the proposal or not, none of us ever disputed that a considerable section of the community was strongly in favour of it. I deny absolutely—and the means of observation which are available to me are the same means of observation available to every hon. Member in other parts of the House—I deny absolutely that there was any great volume of popular demand for this change in the sense in which it can be said of any other great proposal in the last few years. If I am right in this view, then there is a very great difference between this proposed extension and the earlier extensions of the franchise. What the Government is doing is pressing the suffrage on large classes who have expressed no audible desire to have it.
In the second place, the information which the right hon. Gentleman gave as to the number of new voters was extremely meagre. I had some figures worked out for me by a very considerable expert in these matters, and I think it right to add that he does not agree with the figures which are put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and is of opinion, although, like the right hon. Gentleman's advisers, he admits the subject is one upon which it is very difficult to speak with any great confidence or certainty, that the increase in the male electorate will be some 3,000,000 and that the female electorate, if women are added, will be some 11,000,000. Let the House consider for a moment what is being done. It means that we are asked,
1358
if the Labour party have their way, and if a considerable section of hon. Gentlemen opposite have their way, to consider proposals which will have the effect of adding 14,000,000 voters to the register. Even if it be limited to men, you are adding half as many again of those who now vote. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I cannot recollect a proposal so momentous being made with so little preparation of public opinion, and so little public opinion being expressed upon it. The whole House will remember the occasion when the Prime Minister suddenly made to a deputation the announcement that this proposal was to be brought forward. So far as I understand, he had made no preliminary statement. None of his colleagues had made it, and everybody was astonished at the time selected by the Prime Minister for the announcement and at the gravity of the proposals he indicated, not to the House of Commons, but to a deputation.
On this point I would ask the House whether they think that the present state of affairs at home and abroad offers a prospect so tranquil that we can afford to make experiments of this kind. We are living, as the right hon. Gentleman recognised in his speech, at a time of unexampled industrial unrest; we are living at a time when we are making legislative experiments which have never been dreamt of before, and I should think that, to whatever school of political thought any responsible Member of this House belongs, he could not contemplate without gravity, even if he confines his attention to our internal affairs at home, such a momentous change. But if we carry our eyes further afield and consider the position of foreign affairs, I ask is it a moment which is opportune for so great an experiment. I am not going to embark retrospectively upon consideration of the events which caused so great and so well-founded an anxiety in the House and the country last autumn. Everybody knows how great the apprehensions were of actual disturbances on the Continent last August. Whatever has been said for or against democracy, it has never yet been tried in the crucible of a great and critical war of long duration, affecting the very existence of this country. I submit to the judgment of this House whether this is a time, with the anxieties at home and abroad with which we are notoriously confronted, to make so gigantic an experiment as that indicated in the

1359
proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. What makes it none the less amazing is that those who are the strongest advocates of a much greater extension of the right to the popular vote are of the number of those who never hesitate to indicate their distrust of the popular vote when it is expressed in any sense hostile to themselves. Has anybody forgotten the Peckham election two or three years ago? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly the Labour Members, because the result of the Peckham election was adverse to themselves, immediately peopled quite a fairly respectable borough with a number of imaginary drunkards. I suppose that as the constituency is now represented by a Liberal it has presumably been rehabilitated and become respectable. While election after election was being lost on the Licensing Bill, everybody in the House will remember the absolute contempt with which hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, spoke of the electors. They were the dupes of the trade; they had been deceived by the brewers; they were not competent to form an opinion upon the Licensing Bill, and they hardly ought to have had votes with which to pronounce an opinion upon it.
You see the same thing in regard to the Insurance Act. Of every by-election which goes adverse to the Government what is the explanation given? The explanation is that the people have been deceived by misrepresentations with reference to the Insurance Act; they cannot understand it; it is too complicated, and the dishonesty of my hon. Friends is so extreme, and their mendacity is so great, and, give me leave to add, so successful, that in every constituency where a by-election takes place the people are misled. If that view is honestly held, I ask the question is it wise to extend so largely the area of gullibility? I would point out that although this question can be argued in a humorous way, there underlies it a perfectly serious argument. If you think you are right in adding 3,000,000 electors to an electorate which, as it is at present constituted, cannot understand these problems at all, and is so easily misled and deceived by hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me, whose powers in this House you are accustomed to underrate altogether, and even to deride, how much easier will it be when the electorate is enlarged? I would make one further observation on the subject of the age of the voters. My recollection was that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his speech which he
1360
made somewhere in England, recommended that the age of legal qualification should be raised from twenty-one to twenty-five.
Without in the least committing myself to the proposal that twenty-five would be a more suitable age for the franchise, if proposals of this kind are to be adopted at all, I should certainly express myself in the sense that such a proposal was at least very well worth considering, and I should like to ask whether the average man or woman between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five, on a franchise so extended, is likely to be a source of strength to the community. I put that question perfectly seriously—and it is one which concerns every party—with a desire to secure the best answer. If it is really contemplated that women should be admitted to the vote at all under the conditions of this proposal, I may point out that an overwhelming number of the women who have broken windows and committed other excesses have been between twenty-one and twenty-five years' of age, and in some cases, I believe, even younger. And to apply the same consideration to men, the tendency during the recent strikes in the speeches of older Members of the Labour party and older Labour Leaders is to complain of the bad influence, as against their advice, of the younger men and boys who are employed either in the mines or on the railways. I am not quoting the opinion of Conservative critics, which I know would not be listened to, but I remember more than one speech by a highly respected leader of the men at the pit mouth complaining strongly of the undue influence which, in their judgment, had been gained by the younger men. This proposal to raise the age limit is one which I sincerely hope will engage the further consideration of the House; and I hope we shall have an opportunity of debating it and arriving at a deliberate conclusion upon it. These proposals to extend the franchise are of the greatest gravity, and will be approached by the Unionist party with a sincere desire to hear and to give due weight to every consideration which can be urged in their support; but with the constant conviction that the onus, and it is a grave onus, lies on those who support proposals so momentous by arguments so light.
There remains on this point one other question I should like to ask. If the Bill is carried will there be a dissolution? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the precedent. He will, I

1361
imagine, recognise that if you admit, as you will admit if you carry this Bill into law, that the present electorate requires recruitment and reinforcement before large decisions are taken in the near future, it will become absolutely impossible for the Government to persevere with large measures on which the electorate, which, ex hypothesi, is inadequate to pronounce, has never been consulted, and on which you have excluded yourself from the recruitment of this great new reservoir of the electorate. These considerations have been recognised with almost complete uniformity in the case of every great franchise Bill in the past, not technical uniformity, because there have been one or two exceptions, apparent rather than real, into which I need not enter, because they will engage more detailed consideration hereafter. But I did not gather that the Government have the slightest intention of dissolving. The right hon. Gentleman contemplated, with happy and easy security, a period of beneficent and continued activity from now till December, 1915. But even this Government, which has called into existence many new precedents, has created no precedent more startling than that at one and the same moment they should say "the constituencies require recruitment," and "we are going to carry enormous and far-reaching changes," although the only voucher they have, if they have it—which we deny—is the very electorate which is so inadequate.
I will now make an observation on the subject of university representation. The right hon. Gentleman, who is always as conciliatory as the nature of his task renders possible, said he feared that the question of university representation was a sore place to hon. Gentlemen upon this side of the House. It is one of those sores which has become chronic, and I greatly doubt whether it will be eradicated by the Government. It is a sore that has lasted for a very long time, which many physicians have set themselves to excise and which has outlasted the efforts of them all. The Government are unfortunate here, as they are in the case of plural voting, inasmuch as the discharge of what they honestly feel to be their duty happens to coincide with their electoral advantage. It may, of course, be that they would have embarked on this campaign against the universities had the university Members all been Liberals. I do not know. At least, it will be admitted that is an interesting subject of speculation if time allowed. But I should like to
1362
ask, Is there some difference between university representation in Ireland and university representation in England which makes it necessary to treat them in a different way? I could have understood, under the terms of the Home Rule Bill, the consistency of the Government if they had said, when they introduced their Home Rule proposals, "university representation shall come to an end in Ireland"; but in the same year university representation is permitted to survive in Ireland, while it is destroyed in England. There, again, I could have understood it if the Irish university Members had been Liberals. There would have been some obvious explanation of the change; but inasmuch as they are Conservative, what is the point of view. It cannot be principle and it cannot even be expediency. Is it absence of mind? Although the motives of the Government may be of the purest, though they may be exposed to the real pain of having to introduce proposals which will result, by the way, in an electioneering advantage, which persons who really do not know them may suppose to have been dictated by a consideration of those advantages, whether it is their fault or not their motives in this matter are at least suspect, and I cannot promise the Government that their proposals under this head will not be subjected to some critical observation when the opportunity offers in the Committee stage.
I come to the proposals in relation to plural voting. It is worth while noticing in passing that the present proposals to terminate plural voting are fundamentally different, both in principle and in their application to details, from the proposals of 1906, the rejection of which by the House of Lords occasioned such bitter resentment among hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we are face to face now with proposals which proceed upon a slightly different principle. It is commonly said, and the observation is not limited always to that side of the House, that the defence of plural voting upon principle is gone and that it is a lost cause. If it be true, I confess that I should a little regret its disappearance. In my judgment, though I am aware of the arguments by which it is sustained, it is not incapable of defence by weighty arguments drawn from the pages of political science. The fashionable view to-day has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. He says that the voting power of all citizens should be the same. It may be true that the man who by his brains has wrenched

1363
a great area of commerce from international competition, and has found work during all his life for thousands of men, and who possibly on his death has enriched the State by £500,000 or by £1,000,000 under the head of Death Duties—it may be that such a man is not a more useful citizen than one who, however blamelessly, has failed, through an imperfect mental and physical equipment, or even through bad luck, to feed his own children. It may be an outrage that the one should have two votes if he owns two houses; but the matter would appear to be one for argument rather than for dogmatism. Very acute political philosophers have taken quite a different view.
Another point in connection with these proposals admits of no argument at all. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Government had, at some period undefined, in a form which he did not explain, were going to supplement the present proposal by proposals dealing with redistribution. At least he spared the last insult of putting these proposals into the Preamble of the present Bill. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, would not have failed to get credit—if he could have got it—by explaining this to the House; and therefore, I presume, it is not contained in the Bill. I should have greatly desired that the right hon. Gentleman would have explained to us why his redistribution proposals were not contained in this Bill. He gave one explanation only, namely, that he had not got time. Did he mean by that if he had not introduced the plural voting proposal in this Session of Parliament the Government would have lost the run of the Parliament Act, and therefore it would have been doubtful whether plural voting would have become law during the lifetime of this Parliament? Is that, in other words, his reason for taking plural voting now while there is time? I assume it must be. There can be no other justification for so great an outrage: in other words, plural voting is introduced now, and time is to be made for it, in order that it may be certain of becoming law during the lifetime of this Parliament—a natural and even laudable cause of enthusiasm. But then plural voting in relation to redistribution is being put in a more favourable condition. The right hon. Gentleman told us over and over again that what was wanted above all else was to make this
1364
House of Commons more truly and exactly representative of the constituencies. If that is his object, is it not clear that unless the thing is to be dealt with in a, mere spirit of jerrymandering you must do the two together? I do not know whether there still sit on those benches admirers of John Bright, but I remember a word of advice that he gave, speaking at Birmingham under almost exactly identical conditions to those which we are considering, to-day, when he said to his constituents, "Repudiate without mercy any Bill or any Government, whatever its franchise, whatever its seeming concessions may be, if it does not redistribute seats." Unless this is accompanied in the language used by Bright, I need hardly say, as far as we are concerned, we shall offer the most strenuous resistance to the proposals of the Government on the whole subject of plural voting.
Our common object ought to be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to make the House of Commons really representative of the people. I ask this question without fear of contradiction: Which derogates most from that ideal—plural voting or our present representative anomalies? Of the two anomalies—this is the Government case—you select for correction the smaller one which injures you at the polls, and relegate to that future which you never overtake the graver scandal which gives to your Nationalist allies the power of keeping you in office to-day. It is not necessary now for me to remind the House—many opportunities will occur on the Second Reading stage, and the Committee stage, of pointing it out to the right hon. Gentleman who talks of the importance of the true and accurate representation of the country—that there sit in this House those whose electors have a voting strength, which is thirty times as great as that enjoyed by the electors of the learned Attorney-General whom I see opposite. It is more immediately necessary in order to make the House representative, that we should restore some balance of equality between the man who has thirty times more voting power than another, than that you should correct this matter of plural voting. We all understand perfectly well that the Government have deliberately taken the anomaly which injures them, while they have deliberately left still un-redressed the far greater anomaly which injures us. That is, and that alone, the explanation why, in a congested Session, they are introducing proposals like those

1365
on the consideration of which we are entering now. We shall devote ourselves to that part of the proposals which we believe to be sprung from merely party spirit, and we shall devote ourselves to it with the constant hostility which may mitigate it, and make the proposals fair as between the two parties.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) approaches the consideration of this great subject of electoral reform from a different point of view to that of hon. Members who sit on these benches. There were in his interesting speech two points, at any rate, I desire to notice. He opened by bringing before the House the inadvisability of our giving a First Reading to this measure at this juncture in the Session, and having regard to what he described as the congestion of business. I notice, not for the first time, that he carefully avoided to make any reference whatever to the reasons why business in the House of Commons has in recent years proved to be congested. He left entirely unnoticed the fact that the demands the public are making for reforms of different kinds arise out of the failure of his Friends when in office to respond to the political desires of the great mass of the people of this country. He also overlooks the fact that much of the congestion arises out of the unwillingness of another place to pass measures demanded by the people and approved of by the great majority of this House—that measures, having been sent up to another place, are wilfully thrown out against the clear expression of the people's will. It is because on the one part of the failure of the Conservatives when in power to pass measures demanded by the people, and the failure on the other part of the other House to recognise what the demands of the people were that there has been created the necessity for the Parliament Act. The provisions of the Parliament Act make it absolutely essential that the early Sessions of Parliament shall be really crowded, yea, congested, that the House of Commons must work as it has never worked before, if we are going, as the result of the expressed desire of the electorate at the General Election, to place upon the Statute Book those measures which the people are seriously demanding.
What were the important measures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? He referred to the Home Rule Bill and to
1366
the Bill for establishing religious equality in the Principality of Wales. These two measures are not new to Parliament. They received the consideration of Parliament years before most of us who are now Members of this House ever entered it. I think. I may safely say that, but for the Opposition, and but for the wrecking tactics of the other place, both of these measures would have been on the Statute Book today. In spite of the fact that Ireland has expressed time and again at General Elections the desire to have the management of purely Irish affairs, and in spite of the fact that Wales at election after election has demanded through an overwhelming majority of its representatives to have religious equality, the other place has given a deaf ear to the demands. The Parliament Act now makes it possible to get the measures passed—provided always that this House is willing to devote itself in the early Sessions in the history of a five years' Parliament to the passing of those measures and the sending of them to the House of Lords—but we are to be told by the right hon. Gentleman in the name of the party opposite, that we ought not to enter at this period of the Session on the consideration of a Bill of such importance as that introduced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. The second point he tried to make, I think, deserves notice. I am not sure whether it was not as ineffective and valueless as the one I have just noticed. He tried to make out that there had been no popular demand for this measure. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman means by a popular demand? Is there always to be, and only to be, a popular demand when it is some measure the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends wish to pass? It is not so very long since they wished to embark on a proposal that had never, in my opinion, by any stretch of the imagination received public approval in this country. It is not so very long since the ex-Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) to some extent, I think, surprised not only the country but his own Friends by suggesting that a certain question should be submitted to the Referendum. I am quite prepared to be informed that there was a popular demand for the Referendum when the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the party opposite, as he was then, put forward that proposal. But now the introduction of this Bill by the Government of the day is to be repudiated and condemned because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the

1367
Walton Division says, there has been no popular demand.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the time when the question of electoral reform was not receiving the consideration and approval of an organisation which, like the organisation his own party runs, meets year after year. I refer to the National Liberal Federation. I can go back twenty years in its history—I was formerly a member of it, and I know something of the resolutions which were passed. I think the resolution which came more frequently than any other was one dealing with the question of electoral reform. I remember I chided the Government for being slow to pass a measure in order to carry out the declaration made at the National Liberal Federation in favour of "One man one vote." I think I am right in saying that the Trades Congress carried unanimously over and over again a resolution demanding electoral reform pretty much on the lines put before us this afternoon. I hope the Trades Congress still counts for something in expressing the popular demand. It has been my duty and privilege to move similar resolutions at, I think, half a dozen of the Annual Conferences of the Labour party which represents something like 2,500,000 organised workers of this country.
Viscount HELMSLEY: And also for adult suffrage.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) does not disagree with the proposals put before us to-day because they do not include adult suffrage. If he had criticised the Bill because it did not include adult suffrage, I should have had less objection to his speech.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: It is surely ridiculous to say that because the National Liberal Federation has passed a resolution in favour of "one man one vote" year after year, there is therefore a popular demand for it.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: Now we have come to this. The National Liberal Federation speaks for the time being for as many electors—I will put it no higher than that—as the National Union which represents the Conservative party under pretty similar circumstances and conditions. When the National Liberal Federation, the Trades Congress, and the National Conference of the party with
1368
which I am associated give expression to a demand for electoral reform, the demand does not count.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: Not for all sides of the House.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman speaks from experience. Probably he has been associated with the wire-pulling on the other side, and probably he has got now into a position that will give him greater influence as a wire-puller. I wish him success. But I was merely replying to the statement that there was no popular demand, and I hope that to the satisfaction of my Friends on this side, and to the satisfaction of some people on his, I have shown that he was entirely mistaken in trying to impose upon the credulity of the Members of this House by telling us that there had been no popular demand. Coming to the Bill itself, there are some points on which I agree with my right hon. Friend. I think it was claimed for the measure that, it responded to the test of simplicity. I hold the opinion that simplicity is necessary, and I can speak with some practical experience. Probably no one in this House has had to go through the detailed work of Registration Courts more than I have done myself. Therefore I have had to be brought face to face with all the intricacies and anomalies that arise in our present registration system, and I think that any measure that does not respond to the test of simplicity must stand condemned. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not correct in saying that in a county constituency the difficulties of the elector would be increased by this measure. I tried as carefully as I possibly could to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation of the Bill, and one of the things that did strike me was its simplicity as compared with the present system, worked as it is under some forty different Statutes, with its variety of dates, which are so confusing to the elector, and with all the different qualifications for a vote. You have one qualification for the freehold ownership, another for the copyhold ownership, another for the leasehold ownership, and others for the occupation franchise and the adult lodger, and so I might go on putting these things before the House. As I understand, the Bill is going to remove these tremendous anomalies and supersede them by a simple system whereby we shall have one qualification with a six months' residence. If this be so it seems to me that we have taken a

1369
very long step in the direction not of adult suffrage, but in the direction I want to try, namely, towards the enfranchisement of every adult citizen in our country.
Not only should we have the test of simplicity, but also the test of facilitating the registration of the elector with the least possible delay. I wish that the Government could have instructed the right hon. Gentleman to substitute three months for six months' qualification. When I saw the suggestion in the Press that a six months' qualification would be set up, I became very apprehensive of a certain amount of delay in the preparation of the register, and that it might easily be one year before the voter came into the position in which he could record a vote. I was delighted, however, to find from the explanation, if I followed the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease), correctly, that the longest period that can elapse before a vote is secured is eight months and a few days, and I understand that if there is no objection lodged the voter can come into the immediate exercise of his vote on the expiration of seven months, if you allow a month for an objection. I was glad to notice that what I would call the bad effect of the six months' qualification was, to a great extent, neutralised by allowing the individual to retain his six months' registration in the constituency in which he had formerly resided. That seems to me, except in the case of the new voter, to be a very great advantage. Personally, I should have preferred a three months' period with an immediate transfer from constituency to constituency, but I do think that the right hon. Gentleman has neutralised the prejudicial effect to a very large extent.
Another point as to which I am not quite clear is the abolition of the revising barrister and the substitution of the County Court judge as the Court to which appeals have to be sent. I do not object to the abolition of the revising barrister. Everyone who has had to go to these Courts and who knows the unwillingness of the elector to whom an objection has been made to go before the revising barrister, and the risk that he very often has to incur, especially if he came to object to someone holding a property Qualification, of being mulcted in travelling expenses and expenses for loss of time. I must say that one of the greatest difficulties I experienced was to get the electors to come to Court to try to substantiate their own claims or to give evidence in support of objections that they had felt called upon to lodge. My difficulty in considering the
1370
Bill is I am not sure that the elector is going to go more willingly to the county court, and that he will not be more reluctant to appear in the county court than to go before a revising barrister, and I think that the Government might have taken another course that has been very long advocated in the country, by gentlemen who are entitled to speak with authority on this subject. It is possible that the Government might be afraid on this score of having the charge from the Opposition of creating more officials. Even at that risk I would have preferred that they had gone boldly for the registration of public officers. I think that one of the best points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton was the difficulty that the elector might experience in getting through his vote if he had to go before the County Court judge. How much better it would have been if we could have had a continuous system of registration. I think that is what the Government are aiming at, but I do not think they will get it by the machinery. We require a continuous system of registration, a system to meet the case of the ordinary working class elector, who are most affected.
I have often said in this House that the working class elector, exposed to all the vicissitudes that follow unemployment, compelled to be here to-day and away in another town to-morrow, seeking another job in order that those dependent upon them may live, having to remove their family to another town in order to be near their employment, are the people, especially in these days when we have so much unemployment, as we are constantly hearing about, who are affected most by any registration system. Surely if they are the people most affected the simplicity and effectiveness of the system would have been the better established had it been possible for the man who is leaving a town to go straight to a public registration officer, saying that he was going to such and such a town, and receive a certificate that he had been a registered elector in the town which he was leaving, and that when he had taken that certificate to the officers in the town where he was taking up his abode he should be registered there; and I would have made it necessary for the registration officer in the town which he was leaving to forward a duplicate of that certificate to the town to which the man reported he was going, and I would have made the officer in that town

1371
report as to whether that certificate had been deposited. What we want is to keep our electors on the register, however they vote. We want to keep them in the position of always being able to use their rights as citizens. We not only want simplicity but efficiency, and to have efficiency, we ought not to go to the County Court judge, but to the registration officer. If it is not too late, I hope that the Government will keep open their mind with regard to changing this part of the machinery of the Bill. I propose to defer my other observations with regard to machinery until I have been able to read the Bill. I opened by the statement that probably the right hon. Gentleman necessarily looked at this Bill from an entirely different standpoint from that taken up by us on these benches. He rather condemned it because it was so comprehensive, and because it was too big. I would concentrate my observations on that point by saying that in my opinion it is too little.
Mr. F. E. SMITH: Might I ask the hon. Member whether his view is, that if it does not include women, he and his Friends will vote against it?
7.0 P.M.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to carry on my speech in my own way, as I allowed him to carry on his, I shall probably say something on that point. I was going to say it is too little. I am disappointed, and very naturally disappointed, that the Bill is not in the full sense of the word a Reform Bill. For instance, a Reform Bill, in my judgment, ought to make it thoroughly possible not only for the electors to record their votes, but to secure just that kind of representation that they desire in this House. One of the weaknesses of the Bill, in my opinion, is that it does not provide for the payment of returning officers' expenses out of public funds. I think there is much more general agreement on that question amongst all sections of the House than there was upon the payment of Members; at any rate, I remember, and I remember with regret—it just shows what mistakes one can make—that in 1904, I think it was, I moved a Resolution from the other side demanding from the then Government, led by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) the payment of Members and the payment of returning officers' expenses. Between the time of
1372
my putting down my Notice of Motion and the time for its discussion, a deputation of Unionist Members, supporters of the then Government, requested me to divide my Motion, leaving out the payment of Members and dealing only with the expenses of returning officers. They said that if I did that they felt sure the Government of the day would be prepared to make provision for it in one of their Budgets at a very early date. I was a young Member and inexperienced, and I felt that I would have the whole or none. I held to my Motion, and of course it was not passed. From that time to now I have not heard very much from Members on the other side with regard to the payment of returning officers' expenses. I do say, however, that they are more generally in favour of that proposal than of the payment of Members. It seems to me, when we are dealing with this question, and, if we are going to democratise Parliamentary institutions, that we ought to do it completely, and one of the things that ought to be provided for is the payment of returning officers' expenses.
The second thing the Bill ought to have provided is some machinery for dealing with representation in this House. Occasionally I think both sides have taken up a very hostile position to those of us in the Labour party who feel bound to find opportunities for the electors to give expression to their views by providing candidates, and that has occasionally caused what is known as a three-cornered contest. The view they hold all depends which side occupies the seat, and which side considers its chances are going to be the most worsened by our intervention in a contest. We boldly say, and I think it must be recognised on both sides of the House, that we must fight and we are going to fight, and it is of no use either side complaining. What they have got to do is to find the machinery whereby the process of exhaustion may be carried out in the sense that the electors will have their second chance, and finally decide by a majority who is to represent them in this House. I think this is one of the most conspicuous weaknesses in connection with this Bill. Something ought to have been done whereby this great political evil could have been remedied. I now come to a point in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. F. E. Smith) is very much interested. They are always so interested when by any vote we can give we can provide an opportunity for those who are in getting out, and those who are out getting in. Therefore my right hon. Friend is exceedingly anxious

1373
on the First Reading of the Bill, before ever we have read it, that I should say what we are going to do on the Third Reading. I do not think the right lion. Gentleman, unless he had instructions from his Leader, would dare—and I know he is a bold man—to tell us what the Opposition is going to do on the Third Reading of the Bill. I may say that I have had no instructions from my Leader. I have no doubt my Leader will take part in this Debate, and, if the right hon. Gentleman should be present, I suggest that he should ask the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) what course his party propose to take on the Third Reading. I am speaking on the introduction of the Bill.
I am very much disappointed—only in a sense, of course, because we have had any amount of warning that the Government are not going to include women in the Bill—still I am disappointed that women have not been provided for. I never can understand the Liberalism that talks of government of the people by the people for the people, and which would not provide for the inclusion of women in such a measure as this. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, chided the Opposition, for taking up an attitude that was not consistent with representative government, and I say I cannot, and never could, understand the Liberalism that believes in government of the people for the people by the people, and which omits such a provision. The right hon. Gentleman talked of trusting the people qualified by prudence. I wonder he did not complete the sentence that a former leader of his made, and say that the position of his opponents was "mistrust of the people qualified by fear"; that would have completed the famous statement. I say again that it cannot be consistent with representative government to leave out of the rights of citizenship the great majority of the people. Therefore I am disappointed that women are being uncared for and unprovided for in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) made a very strong point, namely, that there has been no popular demand. I do not think he could quite mean that to apply to the case of women, because some of them have been imprisoned there has been so much demand recently, until the Vote on the Conciliation Bill, which, in my judgment, was an accident. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I say in my opinion it was an accident, and
1374
I do not think it reflected very much credit upon those who had for years voted in favour of the principle of Woman Suffrage, and that they should on this occasion, merely because there had been a certain mistake in tactics outside by a limited number of people, has turned round upon the principles they had voted for, and in regard to which they had received deputations of their constituents, and voted as they did.
I repeat that the statement about popular demand could not, in my judgment, apply to the case of women. I think I am right in saying that the division in the Conciliation Bill was the first occasion on which the principle had been defeated for many years in successive Parliaments in this House. Surely those successive Parliaments when they voted in favour of the principle of Votes for Women believed that they were giving expression to a popular demand. I hope they believed that they were giving expression to that which was fair and just to a worthy section of the population of this country—let me say so worthy that they have filled, and are filling, I think with general satisfaction, some of the most important offices in the land. I hope, in spite of the strong point raised by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the congestion of the Session, the Government will persevere with this measure. They can only fulfil their own pledges, and they can only fulfil the expectations that they have assisted in creating, by making as worthy and as serious an effort to place this matter on the Statute Book as they have in regard to either Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment. They are committed, if ever a Government were committed, to the enacting of some measure of electoral reform before ever they appeal to the country. We, on these benches, are not satisfied with the Bill, and as I have already shewn we think it is not sufficiently comprehensive. We shall try to the very best of our ability to extend the measure, and I am glad the title is so comprehensive that it will, at any rate, afford an opportunity for our moving an Amendment to include the women of the country. We shall do our best right through Committee to extend the measure, and then, on the Third Reading, I can only say for myself, if it should remain as it is now, and women are totally ignored, so far as I am concerned, I shall refuse to support it.
Viscount HELMSLEY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has taken a

1375
few minutes to decide whether he would announce what he would do on the Third Reading.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: I said my Leader would decide for the party. So far as I am concerned personally, I have for a long time decided what I will do.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not want to enter into any controversy on the point. We now know how the hon. Gentleman stands in regard to the matter, and he is going to support the Bill if women are included, and if they are excluded, he will not support it. That has been already said in the country, and therefore I take it that the Labour party are going to vote against the Bill if women are not included in it. That may be satisfactory to some hon. Members as far as it goes, but I cannot think that the Labour party are sanguine enough to believe that a measure which is to be enlarged to that extent, has any possibility of becoming law this year or next year either. I do not think the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) was very happy in his attempt to refute the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) as to the congestion of business in this House, because he chose, as an illustration, the fact that we were again discussing Home Rule, and remarked that if it had not been for the House of Lords Home Rule would have been disposed of some time ago. I would like to know whether he has reflected upon what the opinion of the people was on the action of the House of Lords. If he casts his mind back to the election of 1895, he will recollect that the people unanimously endorsed the action of the House of Lords, and if Home Rule had been passed, then it would have been passed contrary to the wishes of the people, in whom they profess to trust at the present moment. But what is going to be done now? Of course, it is not part of the case to be argued now, but it is very obvious to the House that part of the congestion which is experienced at the present time is due to the very fact that the Government do not want to trust the people, but want to pass their measures without the knowledge and consent of the people. I must say I was a little astonished when the right hon. Gentleman introduced this Bill, and as he unfolded it, to realise what the Government had actually done. I expected a complete measure which would
1376
correct all the anomalies which are to be found in our existing electoral system, and which would, perhaps, introduce some more scientific form of representation into this country than has yet been tried. I did not think that even this Government was capable of introducing a Bill which so palpably corrected only those anomalies which are disadvantageous to them, and which left alone the worst anomalies which: do them no harm and which are injurious to us.
Nobody can dispute for a single moment that the question of the redistribution of seats is a very great deal more urgent than any other of the reforms which we are quite ready to admit ought to take place as regards our electoral laws. I personally have always supported plural voting, not only on the ground on which it has often, been supported in this country by our side, that it is an anomaly which ought to be corrected if the seats were also redistributed, but I have also supported it on its merits, because I think it is quite a fallacy and a false view of the representative system to suppose that there is really any anomaly in plural voting at all. After all, it might be an absurdity if one person was to have more than one vote on any given question, but the point is this, that in each constituency the question before the electorate is who is to represent that constituency? It seems to me by no means absurd that an elector having interests in different constituencies should have the opportunity of recording his vote on each of those several questions which occur in those different constituencies. I know there are cases where those plural voters vote in some constituencies for Radical Members and in others for Tory Members. It may sound peculiar to Members of this House, because we are so very much imbued with the party spirit that we can hardly conceive the frame of mind of the man who will at one time vote Radical and at another Conservative. Cases of that kind have come to my knowledge of where they have voted in one constituency for a Radical and in another for the Tory. They have done it on the grounds of personality. They have said that in one Division one person was the right person to represent the Division owing to his position and talents, and in another Division that a candidate of opposite views was the best person to represent that Division. I think that is a good deal more widely done than is supposed. I very much question whether we have quite the proportion of three out of four or four out of five of

1377
plural voters which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education allocated to us according to his hypothesis. However that may be, that only shows that the old idea of representative election was that you voted for the man in the constituency whom you thought most likely to represent it satisfactorily. It by no means followed that you voted for him according to his particular party. I think it is a great pity myself to stereotype the old theory of voting and the old practice to this extent, that you must vote for one candidate only and that that must be on direct party lines.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walton pointed out I think with some considerable force that it is quite possible as time goes on and as democracy has developed that some of the very crude theories of democracy which have descended to us from the time of the French Revolution may become rather modified, and it is quite conceivable that the time will come when democracies will themselves realise that it is to their advantage to give to certain members of the community a larger share in the voting power in the country than to others. For my own part, I must say I have never been absolutely convinced of the theory that the votes of every elector should be equal. It always appeared to me that there is a great deal to be said for those who are distinguished by success in the case of commerce or in any other way, those who have, to use an old Tory expression and one which I still think of some value, more at stake in the country, that they should have a larger say in the government of the country. Besides that, it might become obvious as time proceeds that there must be some corrective to the weight of mere numbers. When you reflect that there is a tendency, to me very distinctly observable, for class legislation directed by those who control the largest numbers, it may be necessary for the Constitution of the country to provide some corrective of that which will prevent other classes of the country, such as the professional and middle classes, from being entirely absorbed and swamped. If representation is to go by class so much as it appear to be doing at the present time, and as I think very unfortunately, then no doubt some corrective will have to be made which will enable those classes who, although of great importance to the country, are not sufficiently numerous to have an adequate share in the government of the country. It is on such grounds as that that I have
1378
always thought that plural voting, although, of course, it contains many obvious anomalies, was none the less a useful way of roughly correcting some of the adverse balance which the middle classes and upper classes or propertied classes have as regards numbers, although I know that that view will not commend itself even to a good many of those who sit on the same side of the House as myself. What does astonish me I must say is that the Government should do away by this Bill with one system and one form of voting which seems to me peculiarly desirable, and which indeed could be extended with great advantage, I mean the principle of university voting. I should imagine that anybody trying to make an ideal form of representation would consider first of all whether he could give to the best educated and the most intelligent people in the country—
Mr. WEDGWOOD: What about Harold Cox?
Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Cambridge University rejected Harold Cox.
Viscount HELMSLEY: That is not really a very relevant observation. A university may reject one man of particular intelligence in order to elect another of equal intelligence who holds views which they appreciate more. I do think, when you have a system which does provide the germ of a system of giving votes according to intelligence and education, that it is a great pity to destroy that germ and take it away. It may, of course, be said that that system could never be developed. I dare say a good many hon. Members opposite would agree and would say that if you really could arrange votes according to intelligence and according to education that no doubt it would be quite fair, and that it would make for the wisdom and stability of the State, but they would point out perhaps to the fact that the present university representation does not by any means include all the well-educated people in the country. That is quite true, but I do say this, that it is a mistake, when you have got something of the kind, no matter how inefficient it may be, no matter how little it corresponds with what one would like to see in that direction, to take it away, and to destroy your one qualification which depends in the past not upon property of any kind, but upon a certain amount of learning and a certain amount of education which

1379
naturally does involve a certain amount of intelligent participation in current politics. When one reflects that in this taking away of university voting like the abolition of plural voting there is the grossest party complexion, especially when they are put into a Bill which does not correct the distribution of seats, then I say that the proposal seems to me even more surprising and even more monstrous than would otherwise have been the case.
Why have not the Government done anything to alter the distribution of seats? They admit the evil. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the evil in the most distinct terms. He also admitted that they were not dealing with other anomalies. Why had they not dealt with them? Merely because, and I do not think they can get away from this that they know that if they were to include all those other things, and if they were to make the Bill a complete reform of our electoral system, that it would become perfectly apparent that it could not be got through. That I think they will admit themselves. What does that show? It only shows that you are seizing this opportunity to rush through under the Parliament Act a pseudo measure of electoral reform which you think will be of advantage to yourselves because you know the further measures of reform once that Bill will be passed will be postponed to the Greek calends. That is conduct which does not surprise us any longer in this Government, but which I think would have surprised the Liberal Governments of the past, and is a course of conduct which I am certain great statesmen like Mr. Gladstone even would never have consented to take. I desire to say a few words about the details of the Bill. I did not quite understand with regard to registration what were the means by which the overseers were to be compelled to send in information to the registrar. That seems to me to be the key to the whole position, because unless some steps are taken to see that the overseers do their work you will have all the difficulty you have now, and you will have all the necessity which you have now for employing people to see that in each district persons who are qualified are put on the register. It is most important to my mind that this duty should be a national duty, and not left to party agents. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman explained that point or told us whether there was any compulsion, and if so, what it was, upon
1380
the overseers to make complete lists, and who was responsible that the list compiled was accurate. I do not understand myself the point about the one month for objection and the time in which objection can be taken and when the register is actually available. Are we to understand that the register as it comes in on; say the 1st April, lasts until the 1st May, and that then a: new register comes in, or does the register shift from day to day?
Mr. PEASE: There will be a clean register on the 1st of each month. It does not shift from day to day, but there will be lists posted from day to day of individuals who are claiming votes, and it will be impossible to bring on to the register itself the names of any such individuals until a month has elapsed during which objections may be taken. On the 1st April there will be a clean list, making all the necessary alterations in the register for the month that has passed, and on the 1st May there will be a clean register embodying the alterations which have taken place during the month of April.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I am much obliged for the explanation. Suppose a by election takes place in the middle of the month, the individuals on the supplementary list, to which objection has not been taken, will not be eligible to vote; they will not be able to vote until the 1st of the month following when the clean register will be compiled. The objection to that is that before a person can vote you might have a considerably longer time than the right hon. Gentleman stated. If a man appeared on the supplementary list about the middle of April the new register would appear in May, but the man -whose name was given in in the middle of April would not get on the new register on 1st May, because the month allowed for objections would not have elapsed until the middle of May.
Mr. PEASE: The supplementary lists are part of the register, but before a man can get on the supplementary list it is necessary for his claim to be made and to be subject to objection during one month. If the period was from the 18th June to the 18th July, and no objection was taken by 18th July, he would go on to the register on 1st August on the supplementary list of that month, and if a by-election occurred he would be able to vote.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. That is the point I am making. A man

1381
would not be able to get on to the supplementary list until perhaps more than a month elapsed from the date of the last register. He would get on to the supplementary list after a month had elapsed since his claim was made. As far as I understand the proposal, it may be more than a month altogether before his vote becomes effective. As one interested in local government, I am inclined to protest very strongly against the additional burden put on the clerks to county councils. These gentlemen are very busy officials, and they are constantly having duties thrust upon them by this House. One of their chief difficulties arises in keeping themselves up to date with the mass of legislation thrown upon them by Parliament, and I do not think they will at all appreciate having this additional burden thrust upon them. I can hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman was serious when he suggested that it would not be an additional burden. It is most unfair that there should not be a Grant to the county councils for any extra expense to which they may be put. I do not know whether it has been calculated that the amount they will save by the abolition of the Revising Barristers' Courts will be equal to the amount they will be called to spend either in extra pay to their clerks or in furnishing assistance. Certainly, if the amount they save will not cover the new expenditure, a Grant ought to be made to enable the local authorities to cope with the work. When the duty of collecting licences was put upon the police the Grant given was entirely inadequate, and I fear that the same thing will occur in this case unless the House takes care to insist that adequate remuneration is given to the county councils. It seems to me that the clerks will have a very heavy task indeed, and that it will be necessary for them to provide machinery to see that the overseers do their work. The overseers are to give information to the registrar. The registrar being responsible for the accuracy of the register, will have to keep an eye on the overseers, and that will involve his having a considerable staff to see that everybody who is eligible is put upon the register.
Another feature of the Bill, unless I misunderstood it, is rather extraordinary. I gather that the ownership of property is to be no claim to a Parliamentary vote in any sense—not even for one vote, let alone the plural vote. You may have an owner who, for various reasons, has no permanent residence and no occupation. There
1382
are people who spend such time as they pass in this country in going from one place to another. Many people live almost habitually in hotels. They may have an ownership qualification at the present moment, but under this Bill they will be disfranchised altogether. Although they may have property in five or six different constituencies, not only are they to lose their plural votes, as they would expect from the threats of the Government in past years, but they are to lose the single vote and be treated practically as foreigners and aliens. We recognise, and have done for some time past, that to own property is regarded nowadays by the Government as rather a disgrace; but I think it is pushing the idea rather far, not only to take away all the privileges which owners of property have had in the way of voting, but also to disfranchise them and to take away their full rights of citizenship.
Mr. PEASE: I presume they have a residence somewhere.
Viscount HELMSLEY: I was assuming that they had not a residence anywhere. I do not suppose that an hotel would count as a residence. Persons who move from one place to another at more frequent intervals than six months, or who live a considerable part of the year abroad, need not necessarily have a residence, which I gather involves a more or less permanent establishment. These people will be disfranchised altogether. It is a pity that the local government register has not been further simplified. I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's description of how the new register would fit in with the local government register. I gather that we are still to have the various definitions of lodger, owner, and occupier for the local government register, which will run concurrently with the Parliamentary register. It seems to me a pity that when the Government were dealing with this subject they did not seize the opportunity to make one register, as far as possible, serve both purposes, and thus avoid the confusion which, I fear, will arise under the plan proposed. The Bill does more good perhaps than many Members at first realise in the way of admitting new voters to the franchise. I cannot say that I object to that proposal in the least. It would certainly come sooner or later, and the only question is whether this is an opportune moment to do it. No doubt hon. Members opposite think that this measure will mean a great electoral advantage to

1383
themselves. I am not so sure. I think that possibly a great many persons will find their names on the register who by every consideration of equity are as fully entitled to vote as many who are there at present, and who also will represent quite as much the feelings and aspirations of the party on this side of the House as of those on the other. Therefore it is not on that ground that I object to the Bill.
I certainly should object very strongly if such a course were adopted, as has been foreshadowed, of including ten million women. To suggest that such a thing should be done without the responsibility of any Government is, I think, nothing less than an outrage. I cannot believe that even if an Amendment is carried to that effect the Government will be able to carry the Bill. It seems to me that the Government will find themselves in a very awkward position if such an Amendment is carried, because some of their Members will be under the necessity of voting for the Third Reading of a Bill containing a provision which they have denounced up and down the country in the strongest possible terms. If the House decides to include ten million women, I can hardly believe it will be possible to pass the Bill. That might be a reason for some people to move such an Amendment, but I should hardly regard it in that light. It would be an act of folly on the part of this House to entertain for one moment the proposition to add so many female voters to the register. Whatever the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) may say about a popular demand—and I do not think that popular demands are to be measured by the programmes put forward at party conferences—I deny absolutely that there has been anything in the nature of a popular demand for female suffrage. There has been an agitation by a certain number of people, but to say that it has touched the fringe of the vast electorate in either the industrial or the rural districts is a great exaggeration. This was conclusively shown by the almost ridiculous number of votes obtained by the suffrage candidates in the two constituencies in which they sought election. On the whole I confess to a feeling of great disappointment in regard to this Bill. My disappointment is greater than my surprise. I cannot say that I am surprised that the Government have used this opportunity for purely party purposes, but I am disappointed that they have not taken
1384
the chance of bringing in a measure which would have put our electoral system upon a really sound and defensible basis and corrected all the anomalies which at present exist.
Mr. DAVID MASON: I rise to state that I shall oppose this Bill on the First Reading for the simple reason that women are left out of it. I do not propose to follow the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the other side as to the various details of the Bill, because obviously if one is going to oppose the proposed introduction of a Bill itself, it will be possible to discuss the details should that Bill be introduced. I think we are entitled to ask the Government which has introduced this Bill what are their credentials in introducing such a measure. I think hon. Members will agree with me that the position is odd, in this introduction of a measure of so far-reaching a character, which, although many on these benches no doubt will support much of it in detail—the abolition of plural voting and so forth—does not deal with what, after all, is really the question before the country to-day. What is it, if men are really honest and sincere in connection with the franchise question they consider the great question before the country at the present time? Surely there can be only one answer: that is the question of women's suffrage. That is really the question that we all have in our mind, and that is the question which, we should grapple with and face in any measure brought forward by any Government. We are entitled, therefore, to ask what are the credentials of the Government in bringing this measure forward.
Let us take first the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has stated very straightforwardly on many occasions that he is opposed to women's suffrage; that he regards it, or would regard it, as a menace to the State, and therefore he believes that it should not be introduced. There are other Members of the Government, I understand, who support the Prime Minister in that attitude of mind. I think that the House will agree with me that if the Prime Minister is sincere, if he honestly does believe that women's suffrage would be that menace to the State, it is perfectly absurd, and it is an insult really to the Members of this House and to the country, to try, as it were, to have the best of both worlds by holding out this absurd idea—for it is nothing more or less than a delusion of an idea—to suggest that an Amendment may be moved by this House; that he will

1385
throw the responsibility upon Members of the House of passing an Amendment including woman's suffrage. If he is opposed to woman's suffrage, if he regards it as a menace to the State, he is bound, as an honest man, as a man who really does believe what he states, to use every possible effort, to fight for all he is worth, as it were, to use every legitimate endeavour to prevent this Amendment on women's suffrage becoming law. Not only that, but in his Government there are Members who will be accessories to the fact, supporters of his ideas, and to allow a distinguished Member of his own Government or of this House to propose an Amendment on that which he regards as a menace and something which is likely to be harmful to the State, is to ask us to regard him either as a fool or a knave. That is a self-evident proposition.
There are, I suppose, Members of the Government who, I suppose, support the Prime Minister in that view of harm to the State. All I can say is that I am sure the right hon. Gentleman deludes himself if he thinks that he can either throw dust in the eyes of Members of this House or the people of this country in endeavouring to present this sort of double-shuffle of a Bill where we are going to have a great advance made in manhood suffrage, while the supporters of women's suffrage are to be put off by this idea of an Amendment which may or may not become the law of the land. I do not propose to describe those various supporters of the Government who take that view. When I attack the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Government I include all the other Members of the Government who support him in his point of view. I come to the other section of the Government, that section which have led us to believe, not only in this House, but in the country, that they are supporters of women's suffrage. Apparently because they are Members of the Government they support the Bill. They ask us to believe that they are wholehearted supporters of woman's suffrage, and that this is our one chance in the woman's suffrage moment of leading to some conclusion, of an Amendment becoming part of this Bill, and therefore the law of the land. What an absurd position for them to be in! On this Bill we have to consider—as the Bill does not include any provision for women—I am not discussing whether this particular Bill should be extended equally to the women of this country—that is not
1386
the question before us—the question that we have to decide in discussing the introduction of this Bill is surely as to approval or otherwise of the principle of the Bill. If this Bill itself makes no provision for women, then I think I am right logically in opposing its introduction in any shape or form, though right hon. Gentlemen who apparently support this Bill, and who are in favour of women's suffrage, ask us to regard them as assuming and taking up a consistent attitude. In logic that seems to me to be the most dishonest and most illogical.
If I am in favour of a certain principle, and if I happen to be a Member of the Government; if I am in favour of woman's suffrage and regard it sincerely and believe in it, surely I am entitled to go to the head of my Government and insist that it shall be inserted in any franchise Bill that is brought in; particularly when everyone throughout the country knows that this question is a burning question. It is absurd to delude ourselves that this question of woman's suffrage is not within the sphere of practical politics. We have all discussed it in our constituencies, and we have had to deal with it in our election addresses. I believe we are all honest men, but it is not consistent with a high sincerity to say one thing in the constituencies for the purpose of gaining votes, and then by taking part in a double-shuffle, or a backhanded method of proceeding, to get out of our promises in this House. That is self-evident. The attitude of those right hon. Gentlemen who would try to get us to believe that in supporting this measure which provides for the extension of the franchise, but does not include women, they are consistent, is I submit entirely wrong, and not in accordance with the position that they would like to maintain throughout the country. If they are to retain the support and trust of the country they must obviously either take their stand with the Government of the day, that if the Franchise Bill is brought before us that that franchise Bill should include a provision for women; or, if they are unable to make their views prevail in the Cabinet, then they have a very clear alternative, that is to sever their connection with any Government if a Government measure is persisted in which does not include women's suffrage. Then the head of the Government will consider whether he will be prepared to risk bringing in this measure, or he will agree with his colleagues not to bring in the measure at all. The Govern-

1387
ment must either surely stand or fall with their particular measure. It is absurd to delude us by stating that the other side are divided on the subject. That is not the question. There are many questions on which even the other side sometimes join with this side, and on which hon. Members on this side also join with other Members of the House, but surely a Government bringing forward a measure of this magnitude must either stand or fall by it? They must either bring in a measure because they believe in it, or state that they do not see their way to bring it forward, or surely leave it alone. But they cannot expect us, those of us who believe in women's suffrage, to support the First Reading with the idea that we are going to amend it in Committee or later. If we admit the principle, and if we support the First Reading of this Bill, then we are a party to that which I regard as a dishonest proceeding. I said I did not propose to go into the details of the measure, because I cannot discuss details. But I trust many Members of this House will appreciate the point of view I put forward, that is that if you support a principle, and wish to be consistent, you must oppose any measure which touches upon the franchise and which does not include the extension of the area to the provision of the franchise for women.
As I believe in that I may perhaps state why I regard that as fundamental to any measure of franchise, or the extension of the franchise, that is submitted to this House. I do not claim that women, or the addition of women, will bring about any great and particular change in this country. I believe that you will have progressive women, and that you will have reactionary women; you will have women in favour of this question, and opposed to the other question. I do not believe that if women come into the realm of politics as voters that they will vote as a body. I believe that they will support certain candidates, and certain Members of Parliament, and vote on certain questions just as men do. Part of them, as we know from our own experience in our own constituencies, will vote one way and part another, for we have Liberal women and we have Conservative women. No doubt we shall have women supporting Labour candidates, and women supporting Irish candidates. It is absurd to suppose, or to imagine, that because you extend the franchise to women, that women are going to
1388
vote as a body, and that they are going to alter the whole structure of the State; that they are going to interfere with all the institutions of the State. Certain women, no doubt, will wish for changes in one directions or the other; but I believe that the addition of women to the franchise will be an immense advantage to the State. I believe, instead of it being a menace, it will be a supreme advantage. It does not show us up in any particularly manly fashion, we men who believe in this, that some of us are content, possibly in a half-hearted way, to suggest that it will do if the House is in favour of women's suffrage, and so get rid of an awkward question by saying that, of course, we will support the Amendment.
8.0 P.M.
Supposing this Amendment is not carried, what is the position? It is, of course, this, that you have added a very considerable number of male electors to the register. Does anyone in this House state, or is he prepared to state, that that will not be committing a gross injustice? Of course it will. If you add a very large number of male voters to the electors, and if those male electors when the question again comes forward of women's suffrage, utilise their power, as possibly they may do, to still further vote against the question of women's suffrage, you will still further set back this movement. You will be committing a gross injustice. You will be doing something which you must know is opposed to sincerity and honesty. I wish to draw the attention of the House to those who state that they are in favour of women's suffrage—to those Members more particularly who profess or who state that they are in favour of women's suffrage, and wish the country to believe that they are in favour of women's suffrage. I am sure that the country would take note of the votes of those hon. Members. I think that is a self-evident proposition that if any hon. Member is in favour of it is is necessarily absurd that anyone should support a Bill which does not include or make provision for women. He cannot honestly or sincerely do so, because he runs a great risk of the Bill being carried, and the Amendment being defeated, because it is not a Government Amendment. One could not be held up as disloyal to his party if he opposed the Amendment, for he could oppose it for many reasons. He might say he is in favour of women's suffrage, but does not think that such a large number should be admitted, and for various reasons he might oppose

1389
this Amendment, and this Bill may become an Act without it, and permit a gross injustice to be done, and set back for many generations the great boon which I and others believed would be of immense service and advantage to the State by the addition of women to the franchise. I hope I have made my position perfectly clear. I believe I am not alone in this attitude, and I hope that many Members, when a vote is taken upon the introduction of this Bill, because certainly a vote will be taken, as far as I believe, on the First Heading, will vote against it. I certainly hope to vote against it. I hope many others will follow in this Debate who possibly will put the case better than I do of the dishonesty of being a party to the production of a Bill which proposes to alter the franchise but does not make provision for women.
I do not think I should serve the cause I have at heart by speaking at great length upon this question of women's suffrage. Many of us are surely now agreed and well convinced of its advantage. Surely the basis of the franchise should be the mind. You want the opinion of the people. You want to have representative Governments, and to have the opinion of men, and I hope equally of women, as to how you should carry on the government of the country. This Bill, by ignoring women, treats women as inferior beings. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members says "No, no"—but there is no getting over the fact that if you bring in a measure for the extension of the franchise and cut women out of it you treat women as inferior creatures. You do not even recognise their mental powers, even in limited numbers, because you make no provision in your Bill for any women. You are in favour of extending the franchise to a considerable number of men; but you do not yet see that the time has arrived to admit an equal number of women. We men are all agreed that to be perfectly consistent and honest that if you cut women out of the Bill you obviously—and I think it is clear to anyone—treat women as inferior creatures, and do not regard it as many Members of the Government have said, as an advantage to have women enjoy the franchise in this country. I have said the basis of the franchise is mind, and therefore believing that, and as I have no doubt many other hon. Members believe, that there are many women of great mind and mental capacity and activity, it surely is of great advantage to bring additional strength and intellect into our councils and into our politics by
1390
giving women the right to vote. In a State, if you have not an autocrat with all the virtues and the intellect, the only thing is to advance and widen the area of your electoral franchise, and to bring in all classes of the community, men and women, so that you may have real representative Government, representative of the whole community, and not half of the community or one section. No one could deny that in bringing women into the Bill we would be assisting and steadying our policy. You are denying yourself the opportunity of getting within the Constitution a great reserve of strength and intellect and mind. This is not an Amendment that we should throw like a sop to Cerberus meant to end in nothing in order to keep women quiet and quiescent.
I believe we should welcome this question of the vote which women are willing to take, and that we should go out into the highways and byways and rejoice that women are willing to come in and help us. We are all interested and fascinated with political affairs, but I have no doubt, I express the views of many Members when I say that we get tired and a little bored with the monotony of the proceedings of the House of Commons, and that politics sometimes try us a good deal. Men sometimes get tired of politics. If there were women willing to vote and help to express opinion, and to help in electoral work in the constituencies, surely that is a thing not to be sorry for but to welcome? Any one willing to take a hand in politics or in electoral contests ought to be welcomed, and I am sure we certainly always do welcome women if they are likely to help us in getting into this House which seems to be the ambition of so many of us. I do not think it necessarily follows that women, if they had the vote, would wish to sit in this House. At any rate, they would have to be elected to this House, and I very much doubt whether women when they get the vote, and men equally, will elect women to this House as long as there are men prepared to come forward and serve and attend and go through the arduous work and labour entailed by Membership of this House. It is absurd to suppose that because women have the power of expressing their views through the vote that they will necessarily wish to come into this House. That is a matter upon which I do not express any opinion for or against. It is a matter to be settled by the electorate. The point I wish to emphasise is we are anxious

1391
to get the mind of the electorate, that women have a mind and intellect of a high order, and will be of immense service through the influence of their votes. I am sure I express the opinion of many Members here when I say that on moral questions and questions of purity women possess a higher standard than men on these questions. There are questions on the industries, factories, social questions and many other questions which affect a great Empire where women exercising the vote must be of immense service to the Empire. It is moral strength that strengthens nations and empires. Deny that moral strength and you cut away the whole superstructure and undermine the foundations upon which your Empire is built. We are foolish to deny ourselves this great addition to our strength and to our political power.
I have said sufficient to give proof of the faith that is in me with regard to the immense advantage it would be to add women to our electorate. It is no new theory this addition of women. Students of history must know that even in the days of Plato it was proposed that women should take part in expressing their opinions and voting for the various officers of the legislatures of that period. I, for my part, regret that this country has taken so long to find out what an immense advantage and good it would be if we could get women to vote and take the interest which I believe we could get women to take in the affairs of the State. It is argued that where it has been brought into being women have not taken that interest when they had the vote, that they declined to exercise the vote or take part in the elections for which they got the vote. I do not think that is borne out by the facts of the case. I think in Australia and other countries where women have the vote they take a very considerable interest in the elections, and I think we have seen here at home that in municipal elections they vote and take considerable interest. But that does not affect the justice or the injustice of granting them the franchise. I think it was Mr. Gladstone who said, when the extension of the franchise to the agricultural labourers was proposed, it was not a question whether the agricultural labourer demanded it or not, but he ought to have it, and this responsibility ought to be thrown upon him. And it was thrown upon him. And I say this, that women ought to bear a far greater share in the
1392
State and take a far greater interest in the government and should be compelled to face those responsibilities which should be laid upon them. They should feel those responsibilities and they ought to take-part in the responsibilities of government as citizens of this great Empire.
I submit this is not a question of granting the franchise because they demand it or not. It is a question that they ought to recognise the responsibilities thrown upon them, and they should be compelled to take an interest in the government of the realm. They are willing to bear these responsibilities and we should try to get them in. I hope the hon. Members will support this attitude of opposing the introduction of this measure because of this great outstanding fact. There are many other points that might occur to hon. Members as a reason for opposing the introduction; I venture to suggest that if we allow ourselves to be diverted into the by-ways of lodger votes, questions of residence, and numbers of the male electorate, we will be, I believe, forced from the main issue and from this burning question which is before the country just now. Many hon. Members probably with greater experience than I have know the folly of lack of concentrating in political life. We should not allow our energies to be diverted, and the Government have been very wily. They have not been in office all these years for nothing; they are practical politicians, and it is for us again and again to bring back the Debates on this Bill to this point of women suffrage, because if the Bill is carried, as it possibly may be, without the inclusion of women, it will set back the question of the admission of women to the franchise for generations.
Mr. NEWTON: I beg to call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The House cannot be counted between 8.15 and 9.15.
Mr. NEWTON: May I very respectfully suggest to you, Sir, that it is not yet 8.15.
Mr. D. MASON: Those who believe in keeping this question before the House should not allow themselves to be diverted by such questions as those which are raised in this measure, and they should all as occasion arises again and again bring back the House to the main issue and that is the burning injustice of any Government, and particularly any Liberal Government, introducing in these days a

1393
Reform Bill without dealing with the question of women's enfranchisement, a question vitally affecting the future of this country and providing for that addition of women to the electorate which will add to the glory and future progress of this Empire.
Sir WILLIAM BULL: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in regard to what he said upon women's suffrage, although I have been a vigorous supporter of a modified form of women's suffrage myself for many years. I am in favour of widows and spinsters who pay taxes having votes. A great many qualifications are to be put off by this Bill, and the franchise is to be entirely altered, and therefore I do not propose to follow the last speaker in regard to what he has said on this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Friday he would convince the House that the Government could have no interest or desire to help forward the Registration Bill which was then being considered, because we should see on Monday a Bill far more reaching in its effects. In that I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but a Bill of this nature, although admirably and clearly explained by the Minister for Education, is far more complicated and difficult in its details than any other Bill we have had before us in the nature of a Reform Bill for many years. I propose to give just a few examples of where difficulties will arise. I believe the Government will find that so many questions are involved in this that they will not be able to get on with it, and they will finally fall back upon the private Member's Bill which came up on Friday last. I believe that is the second string to their bow, and eventually they will be forced to adopt that simpler measure rather than the complicated Bill now before the House. This is a Reform Bill, and should be accompanied by some measure of redistribution.
It is perfectly plain that the distribution of seats at the present time is in a very unsatisfactory state. The most Conservative Member of this House, who would like to see things left as they are, would, I think, agree with me that, owing to the growth and change of population, a great many seats are now too large and others are very much too small. As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, I thought, at any rate, he would have given us some indication as to whether the Government intended next year bringing in some measure of redistribution which would equalise, to some
1394
extent, the tremendous sweeping changes that will be made by this Bill. One of the great principles of this measure is the abolition of plural voting. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned someone who happened to have shares in the Army and Navy Stores, and I could not help thinking how the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Members opposite who have shares in companies would like it if their joint-stock companies were managed as the Government propose in this case by a rule that everybody should have a single vote, and that all shareholders, whether they owned a large number of shares or not, should have an equal number of votes with those who only held one share. I do not think there is a single hon. Member of this House who would subscribe to a theory of that kind, and if they would not subscribe to it in their own businesses they have no right to airily suggest that plural voting should be entirely done away with, and that the stake a man has in various parts of the country should not be represented. As to some of the details, the right hon. Gentleman was extremely clear in his description of the Bill, but I cannot understand—perhaps the Solicitor-General will be able to explain—the difference the right hon. Gentleman drew between an occupier and a resident. I can understand the difference between occupier and owner, but resident seems to be a new word in registration law.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): Not entirely.
Sir W. BULL: I cannot understand why any distinction is drawn between occupier and resident. If you have a residential qualification, that is, someone living in at particular house, and you are going to sweep away the freehold and the lodger vote, and make the qualification merely occupying a certain house for six months, you are only complicating matters by using the word "occupier" and "resident."
Sir J. SIMON: Some people would be residents under this Bill, and not occupiers, and some would be occupiers and not residents, but whichever they are they will get a vote. A man who is a tenant of a piece of land is, of course, an occupier as the hon. Member well understands, but it does not always follow that that is the place at which he resides. On the other hand a son may be living with his father in his father's house, and he is a resident, but he is not an occupier in the sense in

1395
which the hon. Gentleman understands the meaning of the word. The object is to ensure that a man shall not be excluded because by the technicalities of our law, though he is occupier he is not resident, and although he is resident he is not occupier.
Sir W. BULL: The scheme is that every man shall have a vote, but I am not clear whether two votes might not attach to the one house or the one piece of land, that is the man who owned it would have a vote.
Sir J. SIMON: No owner would have a vote.
Sir W. BULL: Then it would merely be the tenant who would have a vote, and the owner would have to seek a vote elsewhere. I want to know whether the Government have considered the tremendous expense that this Bill will place upon the country. The keeping up of a register from day to day in large constituencies is no easy matter. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think there is in existence machinery by which you can discover what is going on from day to day, but I would remind him that we have not got an inquisitorial system like France, where a person gives in his name at the police office, and declares how long he is going to stay at a certain place. We have no such machinery here. We have got to have clerks and officials for all that machinery. When a by-election is suddenly sprung upon us, I take it the officer who is in charge of the register will be responsible for seeing that everybody who is entitled to have a vote is able to vote at that election, and to get out a fresh register from day to day and yet have it available is no easy matter. I do not think the Government altogether contemplate that the whole of our party machinery is going to be thrown away.
We shall have to have registration agents and clerks as before. That of course is fairly expensive, and, if the party machinery is going to be put in force for the purpose of checking the officials as we check the overseers at the present time, it will put a tremendous cost on the parties who are nursing the constituency, and the result will be that the longer and richer purse will gain. I do not think that is what the Government want to bring about. If they think by means of this machinery they are going to do away with all party machinery, I for one listening to
1396
the right hon. Gentleman, could not see any chance of that taking place. I believe you will find just as much keenness in contesting claims, and, instead of that occupying six or seven weeks as at the present time, it will go on all the year round and various fights will take place with regard to the matter. We have three or four hundred revising barristers, and they are paid ten guineas a day for thirty days. That is £300 a year, and the Treasury will have to compensate all them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—It seems to me it is rather a vested interest. If the Government can get out of it, so much the better, but there will certainly be a great many revising barristers who will think they ought to have compensation. Is the County Court the most suitable place where these questions can be settled? The County Courts do not have as long a vacation as the High Courts, but in the midst of their holidays these hard worked County Court judges, the registrars, and their clerks, will have to come back for the purpose of fighting out these claims and practically acting as a Registration Court. The Solicitor-General shakes his head.
Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry if I indicated dissent. I agree the County Court will be used at all periods of the year, but our anticipation is that the questions which will arise will be of so simple a character that there will not be anything like the same cause for expert solution of great difficulties as undoubtedly there is under the present system.
Sir W. BULL: The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill said it was very easy indeed for anyone to ascertain whether he is on any other register. How is he going to do that? Party agents will certainly not be disallowed, and a man either by design or accident may very easily get on another register. Do you suggest people are to inspect all the registers round their district. How are they to ensure they are not on any other register? You will have to have some machinery and interchange so as to prevent that taking place. The question of selection is a somewhat difficult one, and the right hon. Gentleman did not say whether a man is to vote primarily for his residence and not his office, or whether he is to be allowed to select his office or place of business if he chooses. You are practically going to have two registers, one a bound register printed from year to year, and another

1397
register which will be corrected from month to month. There are a good many difficulties in the way of that. How are you going to dovetail into the registers the additions that have to be made? Supposing a Member of this House suddenly applies for the Chiltern Hundreds, or dies, and an election takes place, there will be an immense amount of work to get ready in two or three days so that everybody who is entitled to vote will be in a position to vote and so that people will know a person is entitled to vote. You will have to make some provision whereby the alteration of the register shall cease ten days or a fortnight before an election, and all persons who become qualified within that period shall be disqualified from voting at that election. You will have to make some provision of that sort. I speak with some practical technical knowledge of the matter, and I suggest that the confusion will be endless. It seems to me you will have endless trouble after the poll is declared. A large number of people will come up and say they have been in their house six months, and are not on the register, and have not been able to vote. I hope the House will understand from one who has been a practical registration agent for many years that the thing is not quite so simple as the right hon. Gentleman claimed in his speech. I have ventured to point out some of the difficulties that will have to be thrashed out before the Sill becomes law, and it seems to me we could very easily spend two or three weeks discussing this Bill.
Mr. KING: I very much welcome this Bill, partly because I am quite certain there is a very strong and widespread demand for it in the country. I noticed the hon. Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) urged that there was no demand for this Bill at all in the country. How curious it is that every proposal that is brought forward in this House is met on the other side with the statement that there is no demand for the reform in the country. There was no demand in the country for the Budget; there was no demand in the country for "the Parliament Bill; there is no demand in the country for Irish Home Rule; there is no demand in the country for Welsh Disestablishment; and lastly, to crown it all, there is no demand in the country for one man one vote. The fact only wants to be stated in that way to show the absurdity of the statement that does for a moment, but only for a, moment, with those who do not think,
1398
for an argument against every proposal which is brought forward by the Government. I welcome this measure for many reasons. I do so partly because it is thoroughly democratic in principle. As far as I understand it, it will be found, when printed and passed through this House, as I hope it will be this Session, to be on thoroughly democratic lines. It will give what we have wanted for many years—a franchise on a basis of citizenship and not on the basis of wealth, or occupation, or any other fancy idea. I also welcome it because it gives a chance for women's suffrage. I could not hear all the speech my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason), but he is one of those impatient men, gifted with a generous heart and wonderful imagination, who will not be contented until he gets the whole of his cake at once. I am contented, because the Prime Minister, a man as good as his word, has said that if a women's suffrage Amendment is incorporated in this Bill as it passes through Committee he will press it forward as an integral part of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "And if one is not?"] Then you will have to wait till next year or the year after. But if you do not allow this Bill to go, what will be the result? The Prime Minister's hope—the best hope and promise women's suffrage ever had—will go by the board, and if the hon. Member for Coventry will just go outside and think this over calmly, instead of listening to me, I am sure he will see the wisdom of my remarks. I venture to suggest that it is in the interests of the Government to press this Bill through this Session, not only in view of the strong agitation which is going on outside, but because if they do not keep up to their promise and fulfil their pledges the whole army of non-militant and constitutional supporters of the suffrage movement will be disappointed and may turn their efforts into militant channels. If that should occur one does not know what will happen, and I appeal as strongly as possible to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to see that the Bill does get through all its stages this Session.
Another point which I thoroughly approve in the measure is that it affords us a prospect of having no more university representatives in this House. University representatives here are all men of mark and ability, and, in my opinion, they would be much better in another place. They are men who elsewhere can keep and pursue their educational careers with much

1399
greater opportunity of bringing up the young idea in the way it should walk than they can in this House. Their opinions are always discounted, for though we may look up to them as men of ability, we cannot regard them as representing democratic or popular sentiment. I gladly look forward to the time when we shall have no more university representatives here. Some, no doubt, will return to this House as Members popularly elected. They will gain greatly by the change; they will gain touch with the people, which they have never had, and they will gain authority which they never possessed when they spoke in this House. I do not see a single university representative present at this moment, and, therefore, I will defer my further observations on this subject to a later stage of the Bill.
I want to give the benefit of my advice, such as it is, to the right hon. Gentleman upon one or two points where I think the Bill might be improved. I should like, in the first place, to suggest, and in this I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) that six months' qualifying period is too long in a great many ways. Some may come in probably for two rates before they get on the voting list, and certainly for two half-year's rent. Our principle has always been that when a man gets on the rate-book and pays his rate he should be entitled to vote. It will be much more difficult for a man to prove six months' occupation than four, and I would suggest an alteration of the Bill in the direction of giving a four months' qualification, and, instead of asking the local authority to publish supplementary lists every month, make the publication every two months. That would give very nearly the same length of time, and would cause less trouble to the local authority, while it would prevent any opportunity of gerrymandering the district or electoral Division. Another point is that I should like to see introduced a provision by which some Treasury Grant can be given to the local authority responsible for registration. It may be urged, possibly it will be, that the cost to the county councils will be serious. I believe that in the end this Bill will be a great economy for the nation, as compared with what is spent under our present system of registration, although, at the outset, the cost to the county and borough councils may be greater than at present. I would like to suggest a Treasury Grant of so
1400
much per elector for the average number of electors on the list during the year.
The local authority might receive a certain sum, say, for the Parliamentary voter, 2d. or 3d. per head. That would afford some recompense to the registration authority for the extra work it is called upon to do, and it would make it to the interest of the authority to secure as fair and as perfect a register as possible. The more men they get on, which means, the better they canvass their district, and the sooner they get them on, the better it is for their pockets. A small grant of this. kind would not be a heavy burden upon the finances of the country. It would make the whole system work well, and it would be a strong inducement to get as perfect and as full a register as possible. I hope there will be some provision in the Bill, as there has been in former franchise Bills, that there shall be no disfranchisement. So far as I understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, it will be possible for a man who has voted for a number of years to be struck off. For instance, there are freemen who are living in such circumstances that they would not be able to get upon the new register, although they had had the franchise for many years.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: Why?
Mr. KING: They may be residing in the workhouse. It is quite possible that they may not have had six months' continual qualification, or they may have been residing abroad. In all previous franchise Bills a Clause has been introduced or methods adopted whereby, if a man was previously on the register, he did not lose his qualification because of the method of enfranchisement having been changed. You are setting up, so far as I can see, a totally different register for local government purposes and for Parliamentary purposes. The right hon. Gentleman did not say so, but I understand that it will be necessary to keep two separate registers.
Mr. J. A. PEASE: It will be necessary to keep three lists of voters. There are those who are occupiers, who are qualified for both Parliamentary and local government purposes; then there is a certain, number of voters who will only be qualified for local government purposes, such as lodgers and owners, and then there are the new Parliamentary franchise electors, who would be qualified by residence.
Mr. KING: It is a matter which can be better dealt with when the text of the Bill

1401
is before us, but it seems to me that there is an unnecessary duplication in having a totally different qualification for the local government elector from that for the Parliamentary elector. A lodger pays rates indirectly, and a young man living at home is just as much a citizen of his parish as he is a citizen of this country or of the Empire. His immediate interests are much more closely bound up with local affairs than with large Imperial affairs. I hope it will not be found necessary to make a distinct difference between the qualification for local government elections and Parliamentary elections. In conclusion, let me say that I hope most sincerely that this Bill will be pressed forward, even if the Session has to be carried on to the latest possible date, not only in this year, but in the year to come. If this Bill is passed we really get a lever by which we can insure a large measure of electoral reform before the next General Election. I am as anxious for redistribution, for all elections on one day, and for a large reduction in the cost of elections, as I am for one man one vote. I should be glad if the Government would give the assurance, even in the Preamble to this Bill, if the Opposition would take it in that form, that this Bill should not come into force unless, before the next General Election, a Redistribution Bill should also come into force. Perhaps by that time we should have all elections on one day, and a reduced scale of expenditure upon elections. If that can be done, and I think it will be done if this Bill is put through all its stages this year or this Session, I am sure the whole country will be grateful to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman for the measure he is introducing this evening.
Mr. GOLDMAN: The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) pressed his arguments in respect of a Registration Bill very forcibly. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tease), it would have been instructing to the House if he could have accompanied Ms reference to the main part of this Bill, which alters the Parliamentary franchise, by more arguments than he actually advanced. I would like to test the principle by which he supports the Bill. I tope I am not misinterpreting his views in putting the case in this particular form. He says there is a large number of people in the country, who are receiving more votes than they are entitled to, and that there is a large number of poor people in the
1402
country who ought to be on the register. His sympathy goes out to the poorer classes of the people, who, he thinks, are entitled to have a vote, and that largely induces him to bring forward this measure. Let us test that particular principle and argument by the next question that arises in connection with the Bill—that is, the local government franchise. If the object of this Bill is to help forward the poor of this country, why does it specifically exclude the same class of people from having the same votes and the same privileges in respect of the local government franchise? The Bill, as I understand it, provides that any adult attaining the age of twenty-one and having a residential qualification, which shall be continual, although it may be successive, shall be entitled to become qualified as a voter for a Parliamentary election. Why should not the same principle apply to municipal voting? Are not the poor people as much interested in the questions of local conditions, local government, sanitation, and hygiene. Why should the £10 qualification still apply to that class, and be repealed so far as the Parliamentary franchise is concerned. Naturally we are driven to the conclusion that there is no consistency in the argument. If you want to be consistent, the principle ought to apply to both systems. There must be some other motive for extending the franchise in the matter of the Parliamentary vote and keeping it restricted in respect of the municipal. I can conceive one idea; it may be that you are going to apply the same system to the municipal franchise as to the Parliamentary franchise. In that case every person, irrespective of sex, attaining the age of twenty-one and having a successive' residential qualification is to be entitled to the municipal vote. That is to say, every woman attaining the age of twenty-one would equally be entitled to come on the municipal register and every male. That may be the reason for the Government not wishing to introduce the same principle for the municipal franchise as for the Parliamentary.
9.0 P.M.
There are one or two observations I should like to make with regard to the details and the machinery of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman laid considerable stress on the fact that the object he had in view is to do away with the many absurdities and great anomalies which exist in registration law. Indeed it was some relief to hear that he proposes repealing only forty-seven Acts. I was under the impression that there were 120 Acts. We

1403
know that there are a large number of conflicting judgments pronounced on questions which affect the lodger, and affect the question of occupation, and to that extent anyone will welcome anything that is going to facilitate the whole question of registration. But will this Bill really carry out the object the right hon. Gentleman has in view? Of course we all acknowledge the hardships which exist in the case of a lodger becoming an occupier and losing his vote for twelve months. There is also the hardship of a man who is an occupier losing his vote for twelve months when he becomes a lodger. We also realise the hardship that while an occupier is able to transfer from house to house while retaining his vote the lodger loses his vote immediately he transfers his lodging, and has to wait twelve months until he comes on the register again. So I am sure the House is in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to facilitate the whole question of qualification for the franchise, but after all is he not really increasing the difficulties? I will give one or two illustrations as they occur to me. The revising barrister is to be done away with. Instead of that we are to have the County Court. The right hon. Gentleman said a man shall remain on the register if he has been in successive occupation of premises or remains for a period of six months. Supposing he is a workman who goes to another constituency; works for a month there, and then comes back. Is he still entitled to vote? Has he not broken his successive qualification? And see the machinery that is necessary to be set up to observe a continual watch over the overseer on the part either of the Government itself or, above all, on the part of the agents of either party! That man will require to have his eyes continually on the register, because it is not a register that comes into force once a year or once in six months, but a running register continually in force, with men coming on and going off every day, and continual control will have to be kept over it. Supposing a man has been for six months on one register and transfers to another place. He has just been there for six months when there is a by-election. According to the right hon. Gentleman, he goes off the one register and comes on to the new register. But supposing the agent wishes to lodge an objection to the man going on to a new register because he has not fully qualified
1404
himself for the period. What opportunities has he, with the by-election coming on, to deal with the situation and make his objection good? Then take the case of the County Court. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we all do how difficult it is to get a lodger to put in a lodger's claim, or, if there is any objection, to bring a lodger to the Revision Court. See how largely you are increasing the difficulties in a county Division. If you are going to have a County Court, you have to bring these people from various parts of the country and you will have the greatest difficulty in doing it.
Another point I should like to raise in connection with the municipal franchise is this. I understand that what you will require are registers in respect of the owner, the resident or occupier and the lodger, and the right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the Local Government franchise. Is he making a new departure? The lodger hitherto, as far as the municipal franchise is concerned, has no vote, and it is one of the standing grievances of the lodger that though he indirectly pays towards the rates he has no voice and no vote in municipal affairs. Are we right in assuming that in future the lodger, who only has a Parliamentary vote and can vote for the guardians, is to have the right of voting at municipal elections, and also for the education authority? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there will have to be a special register for the lodger in respect of the municipal franchise.
Mr. PEASE: I want to make it quite clear. The lodger vote is a very anomalous vote, and differs very much in different parts of the country. In Scotland, and I think also in Ireland, the lodger has a vote not only for the parish council and the district council, but also for the county council and the borough council. In England the lodger has no vote for the borough council or the county council, but he has a vote for the parish council and the district council. All these anomalies, as I endeavoured to explain, we leave exactly as they were, for the simple reason that we do not propose to overload our Bill, and we are confining it, so far as we possibly can, to the Parliamentary register.
Mr. GOLDMAN:I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, so far as the Service vote is concerned and the lodger vote, there is to be no amendment of the law for local government purposes. The final point I should like to raise is the

1405
question of the Service men in the Navy. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the Bill is intended to mitigate the evils and hardships which exist in respect to them.
Mr. PEASE: I said in connection with the absentee voters, that there are a great number of men, sailors and fishermen, who are never able to exercise their vote if they are qualified. That is a grievance with which this Bill does not propose to deal.
Mr. GOLDMAN: Then are you not intensifying the feeling on the part of those very parties? Here you are intending a great extension of the franchise, yet you intend doing nothing for the Army and Navy—those who have their houses and lodgings. Merely because they have not continuous occupation for six months, they are disqualified from exercising their vote. That hardship and disability is to continue. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the pauper disqualification. Under the electoral system at present we have the pauper bar in relation to any person who receives parish relief. We understand now that every person who attains the age of twenty-one, and who has a residential qualification, is to be entitled to the franchise. Do I understand that the pauper disqualification disappears, and that a, man receiving parish relief, whether in the workhouse or as an outdoor pauper, is in future to have a vote?
Mr. PEASE: I did explain that this afternoon, but I am sorry if I did not make myself quite clear to the hon. Gentleman. I said that all those who are legally incapacitated from voting, either as paupers, aliens, or felons, were to remain as they are. We make no change whatever by this Bill in regard to these persons.
Mr. GOLDMAN: If the right ion. Gentleman will allow me to say so, that is one of the disadvantages of the Bill. In my own Constituency last year several men were struck off the roll because at Christmas time they received two loaves of bread. I had hoped that in introducing a Bill of this wide character the right hon. Gentleman would have made provision for that. It seems to me that you are dealing with two subjects which though correlated are really independent, namely, registration and the extension of the franchise. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) laid great stress upon the fact that we are living under an anomalous registration system in this country. That cannot too often or
1406
too urgently be brought forward and insisted upon. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) pointed out that the business of the House is congested, and asked what chance there was of this Bill becoming law? Years may pass before it becomes law, and in the meantime the registration law, of which every election agent complains, is to remain unchanged, because it is tacked on to the subject of the franchise in this Bill. I regret the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to apply the same principle to the Parliamentary franchise and the municipal franchise. I am convinced that if he wants to raise the passions of the people of the country he will do so by this Bill.
Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I rise for the purpose of making two comments on the Bill of my right hon. Friend as regards the general position, and one comment upon the machinery with which he associates it In the first place, I should like to say, not precisely in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldman), but in comment upon what he said. Those of us who have in more ways than one not only to make ourselves acquainted with the franchise law, but also with registration law, know how they are bound up together, how intimate are their relations, and how extremely difficult it would be to deal with registration without also dealing with the other subject. Therefore putting aside the arguments in respect of Parliamentary time, and looking at the matter on other grounds, I think there cannot be constructed a really complete argument against the Government's plan of dealing with both these matters in one measure. I venture to submit to the House that they are really bound up together.
I desire to thank the Government for the introduction of this Bill. This is not a, mere academic question. The problems-dealt with in this Bill are real problems, and I am quite certain there are very few questions in the country to-day which awaken more keen interest, not only among those responsible for detailed political action, but among the electors generally, than the result of the present franchise system and the constant obscuring of the real judgment of a constituency by those imported voters who have no residential qualification. It is perfectly certain that it is really a grave public evil that there should be the disturbance of public feeling, and that there should be the indignation aroused which is aroused' at many, if not at most, elections by

1407
the wholesale importation into a constituency for the purpose of voting only of those who otherwise are unknown to have any interest in the constituency at all. That can only be remedied by this or some other Bill which establishes the principle of "one man one vote." We are told that it is the authoritative attitude of the Opposition that it is wrong to deal with this, which is pleasantly called the minor grievance, while what is equally pleasantly called the major grievance of redistribution is left untouched. Whatever force there might be in that argument, which I think has always been put in exaggerated terms, it is almost entirely lost by the fact that this Bill will only become law at a time when the great disproportion—or rather the main point in this reform of redistribution—is more than dealt with by the Bill for Irish self-government now before the House. That cannot be dealt with except by an alteration in the Act of Union, and it is proposed to be dealt with by the legislation before the House. That legislation when brought to a successful issue will, in conjunction with this Bill, leave no special grievance affecting one party or another in the House which would call for being dealt with simultaneously such as there is in regard to plural voting. Therefore I thank the Government not only for introducing a Bill, but also for detaching it at this time from the problem of redistribution.
I am going to offer one or two comments on the machinery of the Bill. There can be no objection in putting into the hands of local authorities who are already largely responsible for the register complete responsibility, provided you make quite certain that you are not by the machinery of this Bill putting an additional burden upon them. I understand my right hon. Friend to hold the view that the simplification which this Bill will bring about will more than meet the additional work from certain points of view which may be apt to be put upon local authorities. But as one interested in the position of local authorities I am quite sure that the county councils of this country will look with great care upon the provisions of this Bill, and if it does really mean, particularly with regard to any annual canvass or inspection or ascertainment of persons who should be on the register, any additional burden on local resources that would be a matter of controversy upon which I hope the Government will give consideration to the
1408
views of local authorities. With regard to the appeal to the County Court judge on the question of fact and the more obvious issues that may arise, that appears to be a most reasonable proposal.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
I hope the Government will consider this point that, so far as I know, there has never yet been a franchise Act or a registration Act in which very important points very wide reaching and of application throughout the country, have not occasionally arisen, and there ought to be a carefully guarded Clause enabling points of that kind to come up to higher Courts if their validity is to have effect throughout the whole country, and if they are matters which really affect to a great extent the working of this Act. I not only thank the Government for bringing in this Bill, and respectfully commend to their attention these points of practical details, but I hope that the Government, whatever be the congestion of business and whatever the claims of other measures of great importance, will realise that this is a measure of such general public interest that the supporters of the Government are prepared to make great sacrifices for it.
An HON. MEMBER: Except coming in to listen to you.
Sir RYLAND ADK1NS: The duty of the supporters of the Government is neither to listen to me nor to the hon. Member opposite who called for a count, but to see that this Bill becomes law without undue delay, and in order to remedy a state of things which involves many wrongs to this House and a caricature of public opinion. Certainly if the Government realise, as I believe they do, that this Bill is of equal importance, with others which are now before the House, not only their own supporters in ordinary politics, but the country will be grateful for a solution of what has been a long-standing scandal which really weakens the influence of this House in the country.
Major MORRISON-BELL: The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) said that he would like to see in the Bill a qualification of three months instead of one of six months. I hope that the Government will stand firm upon this

1409
point, because to reduce the period to three months would be a very dangerous narrowing of the time necessary for the operation of registration. He also asked what the age would be—and I was hoping that the reply would be twenty-five—for the new electorate, and all those who in future would come on the register. When you are going to introduce such an enormous additional number of voters you should consider carefully whether the latter age would not be more suitable. It is, of course, an arguable point, but nobody will deny that not everybody has attained wisdom at the age of twenty-one. When you are dealing with such enormous numbers twenty-five seems to be the better age. I would like to know on whom the onus of proving the age will lie? Will the party agents on either side have to busy themselves in proving that the persons on the register are really twenty-one? Will they have to follow up the bogus claims that may be made, or will the officials of the council be responsible for seeing that the individuals referred to are twenty-one before they come on the register? If the party agents have to check everybody it will add enormously to the expense which falls on candidates now and on hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeing that bogus claims are not made.
Mr. J. A. PEASE: If anyone claims to be placed on the register at the age of twenty-one, and anyone likes to take objection to that qualification on the ground that the individual is not of age, it will be open to lay the objection before the registrar, and it would then be tried at the next County Court, seven days' notice being given of the objection to the individual whose case is being dealt with, and evidence would then be brought on one side or the other in regard to age. The County Court judge, in very many cases no doubt, would depute it to the registrar to decide the matter.
Major MORRISON-BELL: My point is this. Instead of somebody having to object to an individual being on the register it should be the registrar who, already in possession of the birth certificate, should assure himself that the person concerned was twenty-one, without the necessity on the part of the agent, or some other individual intervening, for that would mean an enormous amount of work for the agent, and would add largely to the expense involved. It might very easily be done through the registrar who could put a name on the register, rather than
1410
that the agent should have to see to the case. These are points, of course, which can be dealt with later. The chief objection to the Bill is that you are trying to deal with certain anomalies while leaving others of longer growth which should be dealt with at the same time. Then there is the point as to the redistribution of seats, and it has been suggested that this will be dealt with by the Government of Ireland Bill. There really is not only a present but a future grievance, because, if you take away sixty-one Members from Ireland it would not in the least meet the grievance of England, which would be just as much under-represented as Scotland and Wales would be over-represented. Therefore it does not touch the grievance of England in regard to her representation. The hon. Member opposite remarked that this is only a small grievance, and not as bad as the anomalies dealt with in this Bill. Possibly hon. Members can hardly realise how these anomalies have grown. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) referred to the fact that a certain Member has thirty-three times as much power in this House that another Member has. Of course, it is an extreme case, that of Rom-ford and Kilkenny. But under this Bill Romford would have 80,000 voters, and, of course, no Member could possibly represent all that number. May I put before Members how very large those anomalies have become by lapse of time. Instead of using figures, I will give an illustration in order that hon. Members may realise the difference in the scale of representation between one Member and another.
If you take the dispatch box in front of the right hon. Gentleman opposite it will be no exaggeration to say that in comparison with it the smallest Member is equivalent to a volume of "Dod's Parliamentary Companion," while the largest Member would be equivalent to the length of the Mace. No one can say that anomalies on such a scale are not a sufficiently big grievance to be altered at once, but it is not proposed to touch such an anomaly at all by this Bill. What I am saying gains added strength if hon. Members will consider it in relation to the Parliamentary situation at the present moment. I had the honour of putting the point before the House once before, but it should be repeated, because it affects the present situation to a great extent—I refer to the over-representation of Ireland. If you take all the Members who come from Ireland, including the Unionists—because it

1411
would not be fair to take only the Nationalists—you will find that the average electorate for each Member is 6,751, while the average electorate in England, including Universities, is 13,200—very nearly double. It will not be denied that the chief Bill before the House is the Home Rule Bill, in which England is as much interested as Ireland; she has to pay for it, anyhow, and therefore is as much interested as Ireland; yet Ireland in the Parliamentary Lobby has twice as much voting strength as England, on the average. Every Irishman on that particular Bill has twice as much voting strength as an Englishman. That is purely a mathematical point which needs no further demonstration. In these circumstances I do not think anyone can deny that the fact of Ireland possessing this voting power makes the passing of the Bill before redistribution a bigger scandal than at any other time. You are utilising the over-representation of Ireland to carry it against England.
If Ireland had the right number of seats according to population—and the standard of population is what you are going to carry under this new Bill—surely it is perfectly obvious, from what I am saying, that before Home Rule is carried there should be a redistribution of seats, and each part of the United Kingdom put on its proper voting basis. You are carrying by the over-representation of Ireland measures that have not, in the true sense, been before the country, and which we know very well, if put before the country, would not receive the sanction of the electors. I think that the right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly certain that as long as the Government try and carry this Bill without a redistribution scheme they will receive the utmost opposition, even from those Members who, like myself, are in favour of franchise reform and registration. By the showing of the right hon. Gentleman the doing away with plural voting may help him to the extent of forty seats; but he is not pretending to do away with the over-representation of Ireland, which also helps him to the extent of forty seats. Do not let it be supposed, as it sometimes is by the other side, that all the small seats happen to be occupied by Unionists. If you take all the seats under 7,000 voters, which I think is fair, as it is a little over half the average, you will find that more than twice as many go into the Government Lobby than into ours. On this Home Rule Bill the actual figures
1412
are that forty-three representing seats with under 7,000 voters go into our Lobby, and ninety-five into the Government Lobby. Therefore until the Government are prepared to deal with this question honestly and with fairness to all parties, and not to deal only with that part of the question which particularly suits them, then they will meet with the most strenuous opposition from this side of the House. And I believe that that opposition will be thoroughly endorsed by the majority of the people outside, who may say that even though they are prepared to see plural voting done away with, and other anomalies go, now that you are dealing with this question you should deal with it fairly and squarely and not deal with that part of the subject which, suits you, and from which you expect some electoral advantage.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: The hon. Member who spoke last from the opposite side, and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), spoke of the mandate that was given and the strong feeling that was held in favour of this Bill by the constituencies, but they singularly failed to-make out their case. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle produced a curious parallel between this Bill and the Referendum which was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City. How that parallel helped him I entirely fail to see. He went on to say that the Liberal Federation passed a vote in favour of electoral reform. I look for the expression of the country in very different quarters from either the Liberal Federation or any Conservative Union. If the country is really alive about a measure it takes other means than party caucuses to make its feeling felt. I would like to know how far this measure of adult suffrage, because it really comes to that, was mentioned in the electoral addresses of hon. Members opposite, and how far it really formed a strong element in the party fight during the last election. But however that may be, the right hon. Gentleman, I think, must have come to the same conclusion as I did when he saw the reception the Bill met with, that whether there was a unanimous declaration in favour of this Bill or not, there was a singularly small amount of united feeling in regard to it, because the hon. Member for Barnard Castle pointed out in respect to that part of the Bill on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt longest how many doubts and difficulties he had, and in how

1413
many respects he differed from him both in detail and in large general principles. He differed as to detail, and he differed still more on the fundamental principle whether this Bill ought to include female suffrage or not, and whether ten million women were to be included. If this universal feeling in favour of this Bill was prevalent it is remarkable that it neither found strong expression in the speeches and electoral addresses of hon. Members opposite, nor succeeded in obtaining any large measure of assent upon the wide principles in the kind of Bill which has been introduced.
I venture to intervene in the Debate because I am one of those unfortunate Members upon whom sentence of death has been pronounced. [An HON. MEMBER made an observation which was inaudible.] I may tell the hon. Member I am able to hear with remarkable equanimity that sentence of death. If I were sent about my business by my Constituents it might perhaps cause me some qualms of conscience and some feelings of regret. I do not feel that the sentence of death pronounced upon me by the right hon. Gentleman requires any great fortitude on my part to bear it with equanimity, I shall therefore address myself to this question with impartiality. I shall try in the first place to find what I can of merit in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. Those proposals seem to me to show a certain fitness. It is altogether becoming that the Cabinet which has placed the Constitution in a state of suspended animation, which has made weighty proposals for the dismemberment of the Empire, and which has given to one class the freedom and the privilege of not being responsible to the law for their acts, which has declared, as it did the other day, that it was prepared to put in force the law only in those cases where, in its arbitrary judgment, it was called for, which has begun and carried on a career of plunder and spoliation, and at last carried out a magnanimous design of plundering the poorest part of the English Church, should now place the coping stone on its work by flooding the constituencies with an entirely new and untried element. I bring no accusation against the right hon. Gentleman or his party of having definite and certain political objects to attain. I am not quite sure that I would acquit them of trying to attain those objects if they knew how to do so: but I am quite certain that if they have persuaded themselves that this large
1414
and uncertain addition to the electorate is sure always to turn in their favour they are nourishing a very illusory dream. The one thing that is certain about this addition to the electorate is that its movements will be absolutely uncertain, that it may turn in favour of one party just as much as of another, that it will be moved by fitful and changeful impulses, and that it will be largely under the control of dexterous manipulation and careful Machiavellian electioneering dodges. That acquits the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues of having any very definite design, however much they might wish it, to better their own case by this manœuvre: but like all desperate gamesters since the world began, they are ready to play the last throw and to stake everything upon it. Having gone far, they are unable to consolidate what they have done; they must now go further, and hope that they will be carried on the crest of a wave the composition of which is as absolutely unknown to them as it is to us.
What is common to all movements for reform? Every reform movement is made chiefly at the expense of the penultimate addition to the electorate. It was so in the movement of 1832, which ended the rule of the landed aristocracy in this country. From 1832 to 1867, the power was in the hands of the middle class, which class suffered most from the addition then made to the electorate. Since 188V, judge it as you may, nothing is more certain than that the dominating class of this country has been the respectable, self-respecting working class, and the people who will suffer most, by this uncertain and, in my opinion, rash addition to the electorate, will be precisely that respectable, self-respecting working class which gained most by the last movement of reform. They are the people who will be swamped. This new class will be able to join itself with any party that happens to be dominant. It will not think precisely of the feelings and interests of the respectable, self-respecting and to a certain extent constituted better element amongst the working classes. It will be moved by the appeals of the demagogue, who are particularly dangerous to that class. Another peculiarity is that this addition is not only different in degree from any previous addition to the electorate, but it is different in kind. Previously, with the assent of a vast proportion of the country, with the gradually growing assent even of those who opposed it at the time, you have added constituted classes, classes who, according to the old

1415
phrase, had a stake in the country, who gained a certain position, and had something to lose. You have added these bit by bit to the electorate; you have strengthened and broadened its basis and he would be a rash man who would deny that that action was not only inevitable and forced upon you, but in the long run had proved for the advantage of the country. There might have been differences as to the time; there were no differences as to the certainty that sooner or later it would have to be done.
Now, however, you are adding an absolutely untried element, an element before whom you set no ideal, who have to attain no stake, who have not established themselves in any way as fixed or settled workers in the country; who have no interests, and who have contributed nothing to the building up of the State. These are the people whom now by a reckless move you are going to add to the electorate. By so doing you will do an injury to them as well as to those who are already in the electorate, because you will deprive them of that object and ambition which is implanted in them to raise themselves only a very little, not to any very high level—because it is absurd to speak of the element of wealth in our Constitution. The poorest, as long as he has a settled place of habitation in the country, is able in a very few months more or less to obtain his place in the Constitution. But to this new proletariat you now preach the doctrine that in order to obtain the full rights and privileges of citizenship they have not to do anything but to take the trouble to be born. The argument sometimes used—I am surprised it has not been used to-night—is that derived from our Colonies. But have hon. Members ever considered what the Colonies really are? They are made up of selected citizens, picked men from the Mother-country, who have gone out to create by their own work a country and a nation. They have watched the construction of the Constitution; they have themselves been in part architects of its construction. No one knows better than those who have moved about the Colonies how striking that is in regard to the Colonies. You talk to the ordinary man that you meet in the streets of a Colonial city, and you find he has dwelt on the problems of government, on the difficulty that attends the formation of nations, and he has made up his mind in regard to these things. He
1416
is to a certain extent an educated politician in a sense that it is impossible to find amongst the waifs and strays of our streets whom you would now introduce to the electorate. The real analogy in the case of the Colonies with the movement that is now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is the admission of the native to the franchise. We know how our Colonial brethren are likely to deal with that, and how much forbearance they will give to any proposal to force that upon them.
I will ask hon. Members in the next place to consider the effect that this will have upon political warfare and the ethics of electioneering. Say what we will, this change, if carried out, will be a movement in favour of wealth. The wealthy man with the most elaborate electioneering devices, and with the latest arts of advertisement at his disposal, will be the man who will prevail with the electorate. The humbler man, the man with less expensive resources to fight a constituency, will be placed at an enormous disadvantage. The arts of electioneering, the appeals to the passions and the impulses of the mob, will be enormously increased, and the whole of party warfare, bad as it is at the present time, will be made immeasurably worse by the reckless additions of this sort of elector to the register. I come to the point, which I want very briefly to refer to, of the dealing of the right hon. Gentleman with university constituencies. I take it so far as a compliment that having decided to overwhelm the intelligent part of the electorate by the introduction of a new and uncertain element, you have joined to that the disfranchisement of the universities. The fact that they are only something like I per cent. of the Members of this House is disregarded by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues because of their consuming desire to bring the whole of the constituencies to a normal level and to one uniform monotony of political contour. There are worse things than anomalies. I am not sure that there were not amongst those philosophers in the days before the French Revolution, who were attacked by Edmund Burke, a good deal of that feeling of monotony which seems to be aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. There is a certain irony in the fact that this is proposed by the Minister for Education, by the representative and personification of the relations of the State with religion, learning, and science. We

1417
acknowledge to the full the right hon. Gentleman's fitness for his office; to that impersonation he has brought not only his native gifts, but the assiduity with which he has cultivated these gifts. But is it not rather ironical that he of all others should have been put forward by his colleagues to be the Member who should propose the elimination of the constituencies where the educational franchise exists?
10.0 P.M.
I suppose, when these university constituencies are abolished, that the right hon. Gentleman considers that he and he only, will form the sufficient bulwark of defence for all the interests of learning, science, and literature. The universities have a very easy way, if they only knew it, of recovering favour in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Twenty-five years ago, and in previous times, the university constituencies in Scotland were represented by Members belonging to the party which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues profess to represent. Whether they do represent its best traditions, whether the change has been in the university constituencies, or in the rapid progress down stream made by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, I leave to them and to hon. Members opposite to say. But I think if by chance they had returned, instead of the humble Member who is now speaking, some Member of the opposite party, that perhaps the hostile feeling might not have been quite so fierce as at present. Perhaps, if like some more yielding constituencies in my country, one or other of these university constituencies had been good enough to provide a place where a discarded Minister could find refuge, in that case, I am perfectly certain, they would have been hailed as saviours of the Constitution, and instead of being abolished would have been increased.
I used to hear frequently, and hon. Members will remember, the tirades made by our late colleague, Mr. Hilaire Belloc, against the defects of our Parliamentary system. There were three matters that chiefly formed the objects of his attacks: The first was the caucus, the second was the influence of wealth, and the third was that great, and, to my mind, very respectable nation, the Jews. He always finished up his attack by a violent tirade against university seats, where all these three influences are conspicuously absent. The caucus has nothing to do with my election. I have always asked that the Con-
1418
servative Association should leave me entirely alone to deal with my Constituents. The caucus, and its machinery, and those methods of electioneering warfare which are spread through other constituencies, do not form a very potent element in deciding the judgment of my Constituents. If I were to venture to distribute amongst my Constituents any of those leaflets, on one side or the other, which form, I believe, a large part of electioneering literature, I would very soon be sent about my business. Wealth is no very prominent element either in university constituencies or amongst their representatives, and we all know that no Jew ever thrives north of the Tweed. We leave that to the other part of the Celtic fringe to be found in Wales.
There is one argument that is used. I heard it used by the Prime Minister not long ago with regard to university constituencies. I take it, of course, not as applicable to myself, but I am proud to reckon myself amongst those to whom it may be applicable. "These eminent gentlemen," said the right hon. Gentleman, "are so fitted by their gifts to shine in other spheres, and they have so many other occupations, that they are really best rid of the rough turmoil of the House of Commons." That is very complimentary to the gentlemen referred to—more so, perhaps than to Parliament. But is there not another aspect of the matter. After all, the most important thing about a constituency is not its Member. Is it not rather more important to ask what the constituency itself thinks? I have a constituency of 12,000 gathered from all parts of Scotland, from the crofts, from the glens, from the mountains, from the small towns of Scotland. These men came up and made their way through the Universities of Scotland. These are men doing good work in every corner of the Empire. Is not that a constituency, I do not say of which its Member might be proud, but of which the House of Commons might be proud? These men have often told me, and it is upon that ground that I personally—though I object to it in principle—have no objection whatever to the abolition of plural voting so far as my own Constituents are concerned—I have asked my Constituents over and over again how they would select, and by a vast majority they have told me that had they to choose they would keep their university vote. What is their position?
There is no town of a population of anything like 5,000 all through Eng-

1419
land or Scotland where I have not a handful of constituents. I have never attended any gathering in these towns where men have not come up to me at the end of the meeting and told me they are constituents of mine. These men at the same time tell me it is very much more important for them to be represented, in their educational interests, in the interests of public health, in their professional interests, in their interests as clergymen of every sect in England, through a university Member and that they should be left free to separate themselves from local politics. For the teacher, for the clergyman, for the doctor in these various towns, it is often an essential point that he should be able to exercise his full political influence, not through the local politics of the small district to which he belongs, but through his university vote. Are you so afraid of these university constituents? Do you think that nine men are to exercise such a predominant influence that they will crush hon. Members below the Gangway opposite? That they will vote down all the serried phalanxes that meet them upon the other side? Do you not think that it is not altogether amiss that you should have constituencies of this kind, who by their own exertions have worked themselves up to their present position and are doing work for us through every corner of the Empire? In every election that has taken place I have had several hundreds of votes from Colonials—because I have some 3,000 constituents living in the Colonies—who have been at home on leave during election time. Is that not an element of interest to this House? They may have chosen their representative wrongly, but are they a wrong, a hurtful and mischievous element in the country? And what are you changing them for? Two million or three million of the proletariat of twenty-one years of age hanging about the streets. Is that what you wish and what right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish? I do not know what may come of this Bill. But I do know that the record of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be a dark one. I do not know which will be the blackest page in the history that makes up that record, that which will certainly tell of the base sordidness of the objects they have at heart, or that which may have to tell of the disasters to the Empire that will surely come if they chance to be successful in achieving these objects.
Colonel GREIG: People sometimes wonder why Scotland is so Radical. I think if any doubt or misunderstanding existed in the minds of those who wonder at that fact, the speech to which we have just listened, would dispel it very quickly. There is no one in this House for whom I have a greater respect than I have for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University, who has just sat down. But are we to believe that a Member for a university in Scotland so little understands his own fellow countrymen that he can regard the addition of a number of unenfranchised people in Scotland at the present time as being anything more than the addition of an ill-educated proletariat? What has become of the years that he has been at the head of the Scottish Education Department? His countrymen are left in such a state that he would not enfranchise them even to the extent of a few hundreds. Who are the hon. Gentleman's constituents? He tells us they are from the Highlands, from the Lowlands, from the great cities in Scotland; but he does not tell us that the whole 12.000 of those whom he represents are all of his way of thinking. Are these the men who go through Scotland teaching? Teaching what? Their teaching has lead to this—that at least Scotland is alive to the value of education and holds its own opinion firmly and strongly, and returns an increasing number of Radicals to this House.
It is said that this is not a popular measure, in the sense that it had not been sanctioned by popular views and popular desires. I am very much mistaken if you will not find in the election addresses of every Member from Scotland, certainly in the election addresses of 1910, a statement that they were in favour of the franchise embodied in this Bill. For myself, I can say it was in my address. And if you say we said nothing about it in the 1911 addresses—this argument has been used upon other occasions—directed to the Parliament Bill, not only in Scotland, but in all parts of Great Britain, I answer that the election addresses issued in 1911 contained the statement, "You may look at my 1910 address for my views on other subjects." Let me take the point of redistribution. How far the views of the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen University will commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench against the Bill this afternoon, I leave him to settle, because if I followed

1421
the Debate correctly the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench opposite was perfectly in favour of the simplification and extension of the franchise, and an hon. Member who spoke a few minutes ago was also in favour of the matter, subject to one condition. What was the condition? Simply that redistribution should accompany the extension of the franchise; and he especially indicated Ireland as the place where he would wish to see redistribution effected. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will only assist us in passing the Home Rule Bill the idea of redistribution will be carried into effect, because under that Bill the Members from Ireland to this House will be reduced to forty-two. That is a reduction of something like seventy from the present number, so that is the redistribution that will be carried out there. If I understood what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, this measure cannot become effective on the registers until 1914, so that without resorting to the Parliament Bill you can still within that one year from 1914 to the end of 1915, when this Parliament must come to an end, pass a Redistribution Bill, when we know how many electors will be brought on to the register. I only wish to say that if the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities will continue to preach the antiquated Toryism we have heard from him to-night in Scotland we shall be perfectly certain that in the next Parliament our seats will be perfectly safe.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I desire to explain the reason why, if the hon. Member for Coventry presses his proposal to a Division, I shall support him in the Division Lobby. The hon. Member who has just sat down has had the courage to say to us, "You Unionists are in favour of redistribution. Pass Home Rule, and then you will get redistribution." Does the hon. Member opposite really think that that is a serious contribution to this Debate? He knows quite well it has nothing to do with this question, because the Home Rule Bill is a proposal for disintegrating the Empire. If the Home Rule Bill incidentally reduces Irish representation, that is a matter we have to disregard altogether in regard to this Bill. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) said this was a great measure for democratising the House of Commons, and the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) told us the reason he was supporting this Bill was that it was going to
1422
remove a great injustice, and he said it was of equal importance to Welsh Disestablishment and the Home Rule Bill. Of course the real reason this Bill has been introduced is to try and secure the Liberal party possession of power. Everybody knows that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Everybody knows that, and we shall take care the country knows it. If hon. Members opposite doubt my assertion look what the Bill does? It makes a change in the registration law. But why is that made? I think very likely the calculations are wrong, but it is well known that hon. Members opposite think that by a change in the registration law they would stand to gain. Does anybody deny that on the other side of the House? Nobody denies it.
Then there is the abolition of plural voting. The right hon. Gentleman said quite frankly that he regarded that as a four to one gain for the Liberal party. Then there is the abolition of university seats. It is a curious coincidence that every one of those seats is occupied by a Conservative, and every change made by this Bill is one which will assist the Liberal party, and is intended to assist the Liberal party. Now look at the changes which are not done because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, "We do not wish to overload our Bill." What are they? There is the absentee voter. He is left disenfranchised because the right hon. Gentleman suspects they would mainly vote in the Conservative interest. Then there is proportional representation, and there is no change in that direction because right hon. Gentlemen opposite are well aware that they are now in possession of a majority grossly in excess of the votes given for them by the electors at the last election. And finally, and most striking of all, there is to be no redistribution. One hon. Member said you could not deal with the franchise and redistribution separately, because they were so intimately connected. The two subjects are intimately connected. You admit that you have got the grossest disproportion. You have seats with 300,000 population and seats with 16,000 population. That will be greatly increased by your Bill. Of course, every addition you make to the franchise increases these disproportions. That shows how essential it is, and how it almost always has been regarded as essential, that redistribution should go with any increase in the franchise. The most striking instance of all is the argument the right hon.

1423
Gentleman put forward in favour of his proposal to abolish university representation. He said it must be abolished because the university Members only represent an average of 5,000, whereas the ordinary Member of Parliament represents an average of 15,000. In that solitary case, and only in that case, the right hon. Gentleman thinks there ought to be a measure of redistribution, and the form of redistribution he adopts is to take away nine Conservative seats. I do not think any hon. Member, after the very brief description of what the Bill does and does not do, will doubt this is a purely party measure designed for party advantage of the party opposite.
All these matters, which I regard as of the greatest possible importance, and as making the Bill an extremely bad Bill, I do not think are comparable to the gross injustice of passing any additional franchise Bill without enfranchising the women of this country. That appears to me to be an absolutely intolerable proposal. I am amazed at the conduct of hon. Members opposite, more even than of hon. Members on my own side of the House. Hon. Members who sit on this side of the House fairly say they are Conservatives, and they therefore have a natural reluctance to change; but hon. Members opposite are pledged by an enormous majority to give the women the vote. Yet they will support this Government in introducing such a proposal as this without enfranchising women. They will go gaily into the Lobby, and will not care about their pledges as long as they keep this Government in office and secure an additional advantage at the polling booth for the Liberal party. I have always said the case for the enfranchisement of women was extremely strong, and I am not going to argue it to-night, but I would remind the House how important it is in the interests of justice and of women they should be given the vote. I take the punishment of law breakers when they are men and when they are women. When women break windows, very mistakenly and wrongly, as I have always thought, they are sentenced some to nine months, some to six months, some to four months, and only the very smallest offenders those who are young and perhaps misled by older persons, to two months. Then we have Tom Mann. He incites the troops not to obey their officer. He is guilty of a very serious offence, and he is sentenced by a judge we all respect to six months' imprisonment.
1424
What happens? An appeal is made. He is a man, and the Home Secretary instantly reduces his sentence to one month. I say that single instance is enough to show the gross injustice of the present electoral conditions. I shall therefore support the hon. Member for Coventry with my whole heart. If there were no other defect in the Bill at all, I should still vote with him in the Division, but I confess that in my view this Bill is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is an impudent piece of gerrymandering. It throws a very lurid light on the use which we said the party opposite would make of the Parliament Act, and which we see they are now making. We always said they would use their power under the Act to secure themselves in a. position of political advantage. That is exactly what they are doing. They have destroyed the Constitution and maimed the Second Chamber in order to give themselves a few additional votes at the poll. That is their first effort at constructive legislation after the passing of the Parliament Act, and one which their supporter the hon. Member for Middleton says they must press through at all hazards, even if they have to drop the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill.
Sir WILLIAM BYLES: The Noble Lord began his speech by saying that the Bill before the House was conceived in the interests of the Liberal party—that it was brought in with a desire that our interests should be served. I do not think that that is an altogether undesirable object. I frankly say we have been suffering from inequalities so long that it is high time somebody came to our rescue and tried to put us on a level with the Tories. The Noble Lord finds this sinister intent in the provisions for the abolition of plural voting and university seats and in those for registration. If it is designed for party advantage I am in favour of it, because we want to redress the inequalities under which we have so long suffered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division made a very effective point when he told us the Bill was too big to go through this Session, that we had undertaken too much. But the Noble Lord asks us to do much more. He complains because the Bill does not contain vast proposals for redistribution—a very much bigger job than the one now on the Table. So opponents of the measure think the Bill is both too big and too little. Let me say, with regard to dis-

1425
tribution, there is not a man on this side of the House who is not as anxious for it as anyone; perhaps we are far more anxious for it than hon. Members opposite. May I suggest to the Noble Lord if he would stop the kind of tactics used in this House last Friday—I believe he was one of those responsible—the Noble Lord shakes his head, so I at once exonerate him.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think the hon. Member could have been present last Friday, or he would have known that the principal offender was the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth).
Sir W. BYLES: If the Noble Lord would use his influence with his Friends to stop such tactics, which in my judgment were a discredit not so much to the Tory party as to the House of Commons, and which really bring us into discredit in the constituencies, there will be ample time for this Bill and a Redistribution Bill to pass. The only other point the Noble Lord made was that the enfranchisement of women is not included in the Bill. I imagine that was the main motive which led to the Noble Lord's intervention in the Debate. He knows that I am as strongly in favour of the enfranchisement of women as he is, and, therefore, will believe me when I say it was entirely unreasonable to expect the present Government should have added that question to this Bill. As a sincere and consistent friend, for a long time, of the cause of the enfranchisement of women, I think the present Government, considering how it is constituted, and what are the opinions of responsible people in it, from the Prime Minister downwards, have taken a course which is quite as far as could be expected in the direction the Noble Lord desires. The method proposed by the Prime Minister, namely, that the matter should be left to a free Amendment in the House of Commons, and that, if the Amendment is carried the Government will espouse it as the decision of the House of Commons, is quite as much as he or I or any of the women can expect. That he has got. That is all I have to say with reference to the speech of the Noble Lord. I am, and have been, as I hope everybody here knows, a true friend of democracy, and a true believer in it, and one who desires to see the whole people of this country, of whatever class, enfranchised. They all help us to produce the best wisdom of which the nation is capable, therefore I welcome this Bill, or any Bill, which brings large numbers to our assistance.
Colonel YATE: The President of the Board of Education stated that under the present system farmers' sons could be made lodgers, whereas labourers' sons were unable to get lodgers' votes. I represent an agricultural constituency containing 120 villages. For the last three or four years I have made a point of attending the Registration Courts and seeing how the business was carried on there. I can honestly say that my experience is that the farmers do not get their sons on the register, and that there are many of these sons well-conducted men, and men of mature age, well qualified to have a vote, who cannot get it, whereas in other parts of the country I have seen the sons of industrial labourers and others who, perhaps, have not attended school after the age of thirteen, who are absolutely uneducated, and who at the age of twenty-one are totally unfitted to vote, often getting the vote. I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was not accurate in that respect. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) in saying what an extraordinary irony of fate it is that we should have our Minister of Education trying to do his best to stop the small advantages given to education under the present system by disfranchising the universities and plural voters. Whatever the plural voter may be, we know that he was a man of good education, cleverness, and success in life, and that the votes given by him went some little way to restore the balance in favour of education in this country. Our Minister of Education is destroying the last advantage-possessed by education in this country. I should like to contrast his attitude with the attitude of Ministers of Education in foreign countries. If we take Belgium, for instance, we see there every citizen over twenty-five years of age qualified to vote. I hope later on to go into the question whether a man at the age of twenty-one or twenty-five should receive the vote. Many boys who leave school at thirteen are unqualified to vote at the age of twenty-one. In Belgium we see that two supplementary votes are given to citizens over twenty-five who have received the diploma of higher education, or a certificate of higher secondary education, while our Minister of Education gives our educated citizens no premium whatever, and destroys what little they have. Then, again, in Belgium two supplementary votes are given to

1427
those who are engaged in private professional practice, while our professional men are to be swamped by an electorate to be increased by three millions or more, the greater part of whom will probably be men of no education whatever. Then in Belgium every citizen over twenty-five years of age with a family is given a supplementary vote. No end of questions are now being raised about our decreasing birth rate, and there are proposals to tax bachelors, but we do not think of giving the man who brings up a family some encouragement in the shape of an extra vote. In Belgium a man who has an income of £4 a year from State funds or the Savings bank is given an extra supplementary vote. Why should we not encourage thrift in this country by giving men who have £4 a year from money in the savings bank an extra vote? These are all opportunities we are losing in this Bill, and I trust these questions will be taken into consideration.
Mr. PETO: I listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Byles) with amazement. He said the Noble Lord's (Lord Robert Cecil) complaint was that the Bill included too much. The point of the Noble Lord's speech, however, was not that the Bill included too much, but that every point it includes is a party point in favour of the Government. I also want to know why it does not include something which it does not include, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he arrived at that calculation that if an Amendment to include women were introduced it would mean an addition of 10,500,000 voters? Yet I find that although the long title of the Bill is "A Bill to amend the Law in respect to the Parliamentary and Local Government Franchise," as far as I can understand it, having heard every speech on the other side and the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there is really no proposal whatever to extend the franchise in the ordinary sense and meaning of those "words, lowering the franchise and making it possible for people with a smaller or lower qualification than they possess to-day to vote, but only to accelerate the registration and enable a larger proportion of those who are now qualified to vote to register their vote. If that is so I want to know why it is that the right hon. Gentleman assumes that if an Amendment in favour of women's suffrage is introduced
1428
it will necessarily allow two people, man and wife, to vote for the same qualification? I want to know that before I know whether to vote for or against the Bill. I am strongly in favour of the power of voting being given to women who are payers of rates and taxes, who are not married women, and are therefore not in any way represented through their husbands, but I am not in favour of placing 10,500,000 female voters on the registers of this country, when probably in the vast majority of cases that would mean two votes for one qualification.
The right hon. Gentleman said his purpose in introducing the Bill was in the interest of representative Government. If that is so, why is it that while he is so anxious to make it easier for people who have the qualification to get on to the register, he has in this Bill taken absolutely no steps to make it easier for people who are on the register to have the opportunity of recording their votes? The class of voters to whom I specially refer are sailors, soldiers, fishermen, commercial travellers, and all people who, for whatever reason, are very unlikely to be present on the actual voting day when their votes have to be registered. The vast majority are ratepayers and taxpayers, and the vast majority are on the register, but probably not 1 per cent. of them are ever allowed to vote at all. If you have only got very little time, if you can only manage to squeeze in a little Bill which will probably give fifty seats to one side and knock nine seats off the opponents on the other, why is it that you cannot possibly find time to give people already on the register the opportunity of recording their votes? I ask the House to consider who these people are. Take the merchant service. Probably not one in 100 of the certificated masters and officers ever get the chance of recording their votes. Take the fishing fleets. If herrings are in the bay, do you think that the fishermen are going to stop ashore to register their votes? Herrings only come on the coast once a year, and the fishermen are not going to miss the chance of catching them because there is a Parliamentary election going on. Hon. Members opposite say the Bill is being brought forward in the interest of the enfranchisement of the people, and yet they do not take the slightest trouble to enable these people to vote the day before. Surely it is admitted that the trade of Great Britain depends upon its oversea trade. In spite of every-

1429
thing, we have still over 50 per cent. of the merchant service of the world. It is perfectly true that the merchant service is manned by over 30 per cent. of foreigners, but it is also true, so far, at any rate, as the certificated masters and officers are concerned, that the vast majority of them are British subjects, and though the vast majority are ratepayers and taxpayers of this country, yet because they are engaged in a profession which is absolutely essential to every trade in this country, and are detached from the local considerations which very often blind the electorate at the moment of an election, we have the Government not taking the slightest step to enable even a percentage of these people to register their votes. Even with the difficulties that admittedly exist for enabling an absent voter to register his vote, even if you assume as an absolute postulate of the admission of an absent voter that he must be in a position to vote for the actual candidate who is nominated and there must be no proxy voting whatever, even with those two hard conditions, you could easily enfranchise, by the addition of one Clause, at least 50 per cent. of these people; and because you cannot do the whole thing is no reason why you should not attempt to make a beginning. You are attempting to pass ten Clauses of the most controversial nature, which we know from every speech made to-night will meet with opposition, because the women are not included, because too many women are included, because of this and that and every conceivable reason every Clause of your Bill will be debated and disputed, yet you could have added one Clause which would not have found an opponent on either side of the House if you had introduced a Clause which would enfranchise by simple means vast numbers of people who are just as well able as any constituent of any hon. Member in this House to exercise their vote properly.
If there is to be no serious attempt to enable these people who are now qualified to vote, on that account alone quite apart from the strong arguments which have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walton, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), with every one of whose arguments I agree, not only because I know that this is an opportunist proposal, simply to get through a Bill for party purposes, to split the question of redistribution and the question of registration or extension of the franchise—because it comes to the
1430
same thing in the end—into two questions, though they are absolutely bound together, and because I see no attempt to deal with one of the greatest injustices in our electoral matters to-day, no attempt, to enfranchise one of the greatest professions on which all the trades of the country depend, on that account alone I will vote against the introduction of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman said that you could not possibly deal with these two questions in one Bill. I think that that was the most insincere part of what I regard as a very insincere speech from start to finish. He said that they could not do it, because they must have experience of this great extension of the franchise, so that he and his Government would know who were qualified to vote in every constituency before redistributing the seats. What did he do? Almost without taking breath, he proceeded in the same sentence, in which he was dealing with the question of Kilkenny and Durham City, to say there was 16,000 electors in Durham City. He was immediately corrected by an hon. Member, and the right hon. Gentleman said he was wrong and meant 16,000 of population. The right hon. Gentleman had to admit that he could base his arguments on population, having got the census, and he could at least have redistributed these two seats of Durham City and Kilkenny, without any extension of the facilities of registration at all. He did not want to know how many voters there were for the hon. Member for Durham; not at all; he only brought forward the number of the population of the city of Durham, and out of his own mouth I can condemn him absolutely, for he is proceeding piecemeal with this question, and he purports to seriously put forward the argument that he needs to know the precise number of electors, while the whole of his contention was based on population. The House will see that I do not use too strong words when I stigmatise at least that part of his speech as most insincere.
Sir F. BANBURY: I propose to explain why, if there is a Division I shall vote against the introduction of this Bill. I understand that my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) is going to oppose the Motion on the ground that he thinks the franchise ought to be extended to women, and the Bill does not do so. If my Noble Friend goes to a Division I shall support him, but not because I think women ought to be included. I agree with the Prime Minister, if he will allow me to

1431
do so, that nothing could be worse for the future of this country than giving the vote to women. But it must be remembered that there has been no Amendment introduced, and therefore the question which will be put is that leave shall be given to bring in the Bill. From what I have heard of the Bill it is one of the worst Bills that it has ever been my misfortune to hear introduced into the House of Commons. I believe that the result of the Bill if carried would be extremely bad, not only for everyone who sits in this House, but for the country at large. I believe that the passing of the measure would overturn the ancient principle of the party opposite, that taxation and representation go together. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have dismissed their old principles, and have brought forward this Bill with the one object of securing their return at the next General Election. Hon. Members opposite taunt us with opposing this Bill because we see that it will lose us votes. I say we are supporting the principle which has been at the foundation of the representation of this country for centuries. Hon. Members opposite used to hold that principle, but they have thrown it to the winds for party purposes. It is the party to which I have the honour to belong who are endeavouring to support the traditions of both parties in the country, and to see that those men who have been successful in this life, and who have the greater stake in the country, should have proper voting power.
Hon. Members below the Gangway did not refuse the £400 per year. [Mr. MACVEAGH: "Neither did you."] When they got a stake in the country from the exertions of other people. When it is a question of rewarding people who by their own exertions succeeded in raising themselves, instead of rewarding people who have not got that sense of industry, hon. Members say we do not appreciate that: we will give the money to every ne'er do well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, certainly, the time has come when we have got to speak out. The time has come when people will speak out, and I think hon. Members will, at any rate, agree when I say they will not suppose I shall be the person who will keep silent when I feel deeply on a question. The time is approaching when a Division must be taken if there is a Division, and therefore I will not continue the discussion. I hope, on the Second Reading of the Bill, to put before the House certain principles which have been maintained for centuries by Englishmen, though they may not be agreeable to hon. Members below the Gangway, whose only chance of election is from the votes of the ignorant.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Parliamentary and Local Government Franchises and the Registration of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors, and to provide for the abolition of University Constituencies."
The House divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 50.

Division No. 97.]

AYES.

[10.58 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Devlin, Joseph

Agnew, Sir George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dickinson, W. H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Dillon, John

Alden, Percy

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Donelan, Captain A.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Cameron, Robert

Doris, William

Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duffy, William J.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Chancellor, Henry George

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Clancy, John Joseph

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

Clough, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Barton, William

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Essex, Richard Walter

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Falconer, James

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Farrell, James Patrick

Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Bentham, G. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cowan, W. H.

Ffrench, Peter

Black, Arthur W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Field, William

Boland, John Pius

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Fitzgibbon, John

Booth, Frederick Handel

Crooks, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bowerman, Charles W.

Crumley, Patrick

France, G. A.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Cullinan, John

Furness, Stephen

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Brunner, J. F. L.

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

Glanville, Harold James

Bryce, J. Annan

Dawes, J. A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

De Forest, Baron

Goldstone, Frank

Greig, Colonel J. W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Reddy, Michael

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Callum, John M.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Curdy, C. A.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

M'Kean, John

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Hackctt, J.

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Manfield, Harry

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Roe, Sir Thomas

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Martin, Joseph

Rowlands, James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rowntree, Arnold

Harwood, George

Meagher, Michael

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Hayward, Evan

Menzies, Sir Walter

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

Millar, James Duncan

Sheehy, David

Helme, Sir Norval Watson

Molloy, Michael

Shortt, Edward

Hemmerde, Edward George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Henry, Sir Charles

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Higham, John Sharp

Mooney, John J.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hinds, John

Morgan, George Hay

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Summers, James Woolley

Hodge, John

Morison, Hector

Sutherland, J. E.

Hogge, James Myles

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Muldoon, John

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Holt, Richard Durning

Munro, Robert

Tennant, Harold John

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Neilson, Francis

Toulmin, Sir George

John, Edward Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Norman, Sir Henry

Verney, Sir Harry

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Nuttall, Harry

Walton, Sir Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wardle, G. J.

Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

O'Doherty, Philip

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Donnell, Thomas

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Keating, Matthew

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Watt, Henry A.

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Webb, H.

Kelly, Edward

O'Malley, William

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

King, J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Whitehouse, John Howard

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wiles, Thomas

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Leach, Charles

Phillips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Williamson, Sir A.

Levy, Sir Maurce

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lundon, Thomas

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Winfrey, Richard

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

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

Lynch, A. A.

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

Young, William (Perth, East)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

Pringle, Wm. M. R.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Maclean, Donald

Radford, G. H.

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

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Macpherson, James Ian

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Goldsmith, Frank

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Aitken, Sir William Max

Grant, J. A.

Nicholson, William G. G. (Petersfield)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

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

Peto, Basil Edward

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Hills, John Waller

Rolleston, Sir John

Boyton, James

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hoare, S. J. G.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Horner, Andrew Long

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Keswick, Henry

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

Larmor, Sir J.

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., South port)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Dairymple, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Yate, Col. C. E.

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Fell, Arthur

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Magnus, Sir Philip

D. Mason and Viscount Wolmer.

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. A. Pease, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Burns, Mr. Birrell, Mr. McKinnon Wood, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Montagu. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, the 24th instant, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to raise a question arising out of the statement made by the Home Secretary in the course of his speech on the Second Reading of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. The statement is as follows:—
"Take Cardiff, and I will ask you to compare the work of the Calvinistic Methodist Forward Movement with the work of the Church of England. … The Calvinistic Methodist Forward Movement in Cardiff alone has no less than twenty-two halls and a Preventive Home. The halls have accommodation for 10,000. What are the corresponding figures for the whole of the Church of England throughout Cardiff? There are but thirteen churches of the Church of England in Cardiff, and to anybody who knows Cardiff the whole of the work of the Church of England in Cardiff is not comparable to the work done by one Free Church alone, the Calvinistic Methodist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1912, col. 1385.]
I have received the real figures, worked out by the Bishop of St. Asaph, and instead of thirteen Churches of the Church of England in Cardiff there are twenty-five and thirteen mission halls, which shows a very considerable error on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of there being twenty-two mission halls of the Calvinistic Methodists, there are only twenty-one, and that number is arrived at by counting separate rooms in the same hall as separate halls. Then, as regards slums, the chief slum parish in Cardiff is St. Mary's. There is a Church there, with three resident clergymen. There is no resident Nonconformist minister. It is true that there is a Calvinistic Methodist chapel with thirty-six adherents and eighty-three members of a Sunday school. As against that there are 697 communicants and 1,120 members of the English Church Sunday school. One would have thought that when a serious error like that was pointed out the Home Secretary would immediately have admitted his mistake and withdrawn it. Not a bit of it. That is not the way that this Welsh Bill has been brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman gets his secretary to
1436
write a long and evasive letter saying that, his error is justified by the fact that he was only referring to purely missionary efforts.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the-HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Is the hon. Gentleman quoting the letter?
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am quoting from his secretary's own letter The letter states:—
"He was only referring to purely missionary effort.
For that reason he justified leaving out the twenty-five Churches when he compares the Churches with the Calvinistic Methodists; and whereas he left the Churches out in the case of the Church of England and only included the mission halls, in the case of the Calvinistic Methodists he counted not only the mission halls but all the chapels at the same time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and "Nonsense."] I really think that my record for accuracy is a better one than that of the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the Debate on the Welsh Church Bill we have had false history and false figures. Only last week the hon. Member for the Newton Division raised this matter in the form of a question, and the right hon. Gentleman did not venture to withdraw or explain his figures. What he did was simply to repeat his old error. The mission work of the Church of England in Cardiff, he said, was less than that of the Calvinistic Methodists. How can he make that contention when every figure is against him, and when it has been shown clearly by hon. Members that the Church of England has thirty-eight Churches and mission rooms and the Calvinistic Methodists have only twenty-one, counting all these rooms as separate mission rooms? I have brought this question forward in order that the Home Secretary may really explain himself. We do not want long and evasive answers from his secretary, but we want a clear statement from the Home Secretary himself. There are two courses open to the Home Secretary. I dare say there is only one if he approaches the matter in the way he usually does, but I must credit him with behaving in the manner in which Ministers ordinarily behave, that is when they been misinformed and made false statements they will without hesitation withdraw them. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to take that course everybody on both sides will support his action, but if he does not we are driven to the conclusion that he is endeavouring to bolster up a bad case by

1437
figures that cannot be supported for a single moment on behalf of the Welsh Church Bill which we know has been supported by false history and false figures throughout. I leave it to the Home Secretary to make what explanation he can, and, at all events, to reply to those letters of the Bishop of St. Asaph, who, after all, has a right to speak. I ask for a plain answer to his letters. The figures he has quoted clearly show that the right hon. Gentleman has been in error, and that he owes an ample apology to the members of the Church of England.
Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: I desire to second everything my hon. Friend has said on this question. Perhaps I might ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he follows the advice he has given to us in discussing the Welsh Disestablishment question, and that is to go down to Wales and find out and gather, to use his own words, "your experience from Wales alone," as I have done. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to quote my words, but I took the opportunity in this House to point out the exact figures of the Church of England in Cardiff, and he might at least have gone as far as that if he did not wish to go to Wales and find out for himself. I say this not on behalf of myself, because to me this question is absolutely impersonal; but there are constituents behind me who are firm believers in their religion, and I do not think it right that the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else should attempt to get behind their backs when perhaps there is no personal representative of their own church to defend them. If the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were not nefarious in their reason they were at any rate insidious in the results they have had.
Mr. KING: I am sorry to intervene, but, if the House will allow me, I would like to explain that every night on which we have previously debated this Welsh Church question I have come down with a well prepared speech, and I have frequently risen and endeavoured to catch your eye. No doubt other better speakers have been called upon, but to-night when I have left my speech at home I have the good fortune to have six minutes left to me to deliver a speech which took me many hours to prepare. I know enough of the Welsh question to be somewhat struck by the force of the remarks made this evening on
1438
the opposite side. There was a speech delivered in the Second Reading Debate by the Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "McKenna."] I would like to observe that we on this side have listened patiently to everything that has been said on the other side, and I think it would only be the usual courtesy of debate to allow meat least a chance.
Mr. DIXON: It is courteous to let the Home Secretary speak.
Mr. KING: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-Square (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton), has got to speak first, so that we had better continue this Debate and finish it on another occasion.
Mr. DIXON: There is a serious charge made against the Home Secretary, Are you acting as his bonnet?
Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I rose for the purpose of calling for a reply from the Home Secretary, who has been challenged in this House of gross inaccuracy on the occasion of the Second Reading when nobody could answer him. He has been challenged in the most specific form, and he chooses to shelter himself behind the hon. Member.
Mr. McKENNA: No. I desire to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified in suggesting that I desire to shelter myself—
Mr. SPEAKER: I confess I did not understand why the Home Secretary did not rise. There were only six minutes in which to answer. The hon. Gentleman who is now in possession has not the speech with him, and I cannot, therefore, see what object he had in rising. I understand that the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) had given notice to the Home Secretary that he was going to raise this question, and, as only six minutes remained, I thought that would give an opportunity for the Home Secretary to have risen.
Mr. McKENNA: When my hon. Friend rose there were nine minutes. I should have been quite satisfied to take two minutes to reply to the infamous charge. I ask was the right hon. Gentleman justified in charging me with taking shelter behind the hon. Member, who is perfectly at liberty to rise to address the House when called upon by you.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the expression "taking shelter behind the hon. Member is an un-parliamentary one, I can only say I do not think it is.
Colonel GREIG: There was another expression used, on which I ask your ruling. An hon. Member on the back benches near you called out, while the hon. Member was speaking on this side, "Is he acting as a bonnet to the Home Secretary?"
Mr. SPEAKER: The word "bonnet" is a very well-known Parliamentary expression.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman has charged me with a misstatement in the Second Reading Debate. I gave the figures as twenty-two mission halls for the Calvinistic Methodist Forward Movement. I asked what were the corresponding figures for the Church of England. I gave the figures for the Church of England as thirteen. I should have said thirteen mission rooms, as I explained in a letter to the "Times." I spoke of the corresponding figures. The figures affecting the Calvinistic Methodists are that they have eleven chapels, and that they have got twenty-two halls, exactly as I described. I did not give thirty-three as the total: I gave twenty-two. I was speaking of mission halls, and I gave the number as twenty-two—as appear from the Report of the Royal Commission. The figures show that the Calvinistic Methodist Forward Movement have eight, and there are fourteen other rooms in which services are held at the same time as in the eight halls, and so twenty-two is the right figure for the Calvinistic Forward Movement. These are the halls of which I spoke. No matter what the Bishop of St. Asaph's may say, there are in addition eleven Calvinistic Methodists chapels in Cardiff. As to St. Mary's parish the facts are that within 500 yards of St. Mary's Church there are two Nonconformist chapels—one Wesleyan and one Calvinistic Methodist. I referred to the slum work. If the Bishop of St. Asaph confines himself to the parish area does he say the slum areas are coterminous with the parish area?—
And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIA (MAINTENANCE).
  SANATORIA (MAINTENANCE).
  EMPLOYMENT OF SONS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF SONS.
  CROWN SERVANTS.
  CROWN SERVANTS.
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.
  EMPLOYMENT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES.
  INSURANCE CARDS.
  INSURANCE CARDS.
  SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.
  SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.
  ACCIDENTS IN GOVERNMENT YARDS.
  ACCIDENTS IN GOVERNMENT YARDS.
  EXEMPTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS.
  EXEMPTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  Income Tax.
  Income Tax.
  Land Valuation.
  Land Valuation.
  Estate Duties.
  Estate Duties.
  Estate Duty (Rose Hotel, Folkestone).
  Estate Duty (Rose Hotel, Folkestone).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Industrial Council.
  Industrial Council.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Police Pensioners (Ireland).
  Police Pensioners (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Irish Imports (Countries of Origin).
  Irish Imports (Countries of Origin).
  Landing Facilities (County Clare).
  Landing Facilities (County Clare).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  School Dental Clinics (Ireland).
  School Dental Clinics (Ireland).
ROYAL NAVY.
  PARLIAMENTARY VISIT TO FLEET.
  PARLIAMENTARY VISIT TO FLEET.
  BRITISH AND FOREIGN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  BRITISH AND FOREIGN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  HOSPITAL STOPPAGES.
  HOSPITAL STOPPAGES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  BAYONETS.
  BAYONETS.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
  GENERAL OFFICERS (RATIO TO RANK AND FILE).
  GENERAL OFFICERS (RATIO TO RANK AND FILE).
  ARMY ESTIMATES (1893–1912).
  ARMY ESTIMATES (1893–1912).
  GENERAL OFFICERS' STAFFS.
  GENERAL OFFICERS' STAFFS.
  MILITARY CANTEENS (PIANISTS).
  MILITARY CANTEENS (PIANISTS).
  SMALL-ARM AMMUNITION (RESERVE).
  SMALL-ARM AMMUNITION (RESERVE).
  SWIMMING HORSES AT ALDERSHOT (DROWNING OF THREE MEN).
  SWIMMING HORSES AT ALDERSHOT (DROWNING OF THREE MEN).
  First Division Treatment (Suffragist Prisoners).
  First Division Treatment (Suffragist Prisoners).
  Metropolitan Police.
  Metropolitan Police.
  Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
  Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
  Seychelles Islands (Administration).
  Seychelles Islands (Administration).

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London United Tramways.

Shipley Urban District Council.

Glasgow Boundaries.

Glasgow Corporation (Water).

Great Western Railway.

Staffordshire Potteries Water.

Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity).

Cardiff Railway.

Midland Railway.

Scunthorpe Urban District Water.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

IVYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
DOVER CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 76.)

GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GRIMSBY FISH DOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
FLEETWOOD GAS BILL.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL.
ASHBORNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
LANARK COUNTY TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

D. Bedford,

M. Camden,

M. Zetland,

V. Falmouth,

L. Silchester (E. Longford);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 25 th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, dated 14th June, 1912, entitled the National Health Insurance (Decision of Questions) Regulations (Wales), 1912;
2. Provisional Regulations made by the Joint Committee established under the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, as to the payment and collection of contributions;
3. Provisional Regulation made by the Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, as to the payment and collection of contributions, dated 12th June, 1912;
4. (Insurance Stamps)—Regulations under Section 108 of the National Insurance Act, 1911:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 77.)

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the Royal Sanitary Institute; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.

BISHOP'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGITMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
6. The said Ethel Many Bishop shall not intermarry with the said Henry Raphael and any marriage celebrated between thorn shall be null and void.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, in accordance with the usual practice I move that this clause be omitted.
Amendment moved—
To leave out Clause 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): In asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time there is no need, fortunately, for me to repeat any part of the defence of the
76
policy of this measure which was so fully discussed in the debates in the House on the 21st and 22nd of February last. It is, perhaps, safe to assume that the convictions of no member of the House were materially altered by that discussion. Some very divergent views were expressed, and it is probably safe to conclude that those views are still held by those who maintained them. We discussed the question "about and about," and, to continue the quotation, we all of us came out by the same door wherein we went. I assume, therefore, that the noble Earl opposite (Lord Curzon), who was the protagonist on that occasion, maintains his views in the main, and I have certainly no reason to alter mine. I am further absolved from discussing the policy of the question by the fact that, so far as I am aware, there has been no change of opinion in India itself of such a character as to make further discussion necessary. The two principal sets of opponents of the policy—that is to say, English Calcutta and Mahomedan Dacca—I have no doubt retain the objections which they originally took to the Bill. On the other hand, I see, after observing as closely as I can, no signs of wavering in the general acceptance which the policy received in other parts of India; and even among those who were originally opposed to it there are signs, gratifying signs to us, of a tendency towards acceptance of the policy—a tendency which is indicated by a desire to make the best of it, and to obtain such consequent concessions as it is believed can be granted.
The Preamble of this Bill states the various Executive acts which have been performed in this country and in India under the powers that belong to His Majesty and to the respective Governments. It has been argued, although it is not a point, I think, on which it is worth while to dwell at any length, that these Executive acts to some extent suffer from being exercised under ancient and archaic Statutes which were passed in circumstances altogether different. It might be observed that all our British liberties, both as subjects of the Crown and as citizens, depend upon very much older Statutes than those which are here in question; but it is more to the point to remark that, as a matter of fact, all the powers which we exercise in relation to the Government of India, practically all the

77
main powers exorcised by the Secretary of State in Council, are simply transferred and taken over bodily from the powers formerly exercised by tie Court of Directors of the East India Company under the direction and control of the Board of Commissioners who at that time administered Indian affairs. The acts, therefore, which the Secretary of State in Council performs every week at the India Office are, if our critics will have it so, open to a kindred objection to that which seems to be taken to the exercise of the administrative powers which preceded this Bill and are mentioned in the Preamble.
The steps which were taken were five in number. They were as follow. The Secretary of State in Council declared, by the powers given him in the Act of 1853, that the Governor-General should no longer be Governor of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, but that a separate Governor should be appointed for that Presidency. That having been done, His Majesty was pleased to appoint a Governor of the Presidency in the person of Sir Thomas Carmichael, who up to that time had been Governor of Madras. The three other Executive steps were taken in India. The first was the proclamation by the Governor-General in Council of the new Province of Behar and Orissa under a Lieutenant-Governor; that was done under the Act of 1861. The second was the creation of Assam into a Chief Commissionership under the Act of 1854; and the third was the delimitation of the extent of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal.
I now come to the clauses of the Bill. The first clause declares that the Governor of Bengal should have all the rights, duties, and functions which the Governors of Madras and Bombay possess. The effect of this clause is to give the Governor of Bengal those extra powers given by the later enactments—that is to say, those subsequent to 1853—under which power was taken to apply to any new Presidency the powers which the Governors of the other Presidencies possessed up to that time. Then the House will observe that two provisos are attached to this first clause. Those provisos depend upon the fact that the powers of the Calcutta High Court are not, as matters stand, curtailed, although the area of Bengal is changed and the new
78
Lieutenant-Governorship is created. The power which is pointed to in proviso (a) is this, that the High Courts Acts of 1860 and 1911 give the Governor-General power to appoint temporary Judges for the High Court of Calcutta. Now those Judges, besides administering justice in Bengal itself, will administer it for the Lieutenant-Governorship of Behar and Orissa, and we think that this fact points to the denomination of such temporary Judges by the Governor-General and not by the Governor of Bengal. Proviso (b) also hinges on the fact that for the present we are dealing in no way with the High Court of Calcutta. The Advocate-General of Bengal has hitherto been the Law Officer of the Government of India and also of the Bengal Government; and so long as the two Governments inhabited the same capital it was a reasonable matter that this Advocate-General should be a member of the Legislative Council of Bengal. But now that the separation has taken place, and pending any permanent arrangements which are made in the future with regard to this appointment, that necessity does not exist, and power is accordingly taken in this proviso to absolve, if necessary, the legal adviser of the Government of India from being a member of the Bengal Council.
Clause 2 authorises the creation of an Executive Council for the new Lieutenant-Governorship of Behar and Orissa. As I dare say some of your Lordships may I remember, because the question was one which aroused some debate in 1909, the ordinary procedure for creating an Executive Council is by an Order which lies on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a period, I think, of 60 days. The object of that, of course, is to give Parliament the necessary control, and, if desired, the power of veto on the appointment of such an Executive Council. But since this Bill is being passed through Parliament it is clearly a simpler proceeding and one which would save time to insert the creation of that Executive Council in the Act rather than go through the more cumbersome procedure of allowing the appointment to lie on the Table of Parliament.
Clause 3 authorises the Governor-General to constitute Legislative Councils for territories under a Chief Commissioner. The prime object of the inclusion of this

79
provision is the appointment of a Legislative Council for Assam. Assam, having been part for the last few years of the Lieutenant-Governorship of Eastern Bengal and Assam, has enjoyed the advantages of a Legislative Council, and I am sure that the House will be disposed to agree that it would be not merely an unreasonable slight but a positive disadvantage to indict upon the inhabitants of Assam, who, as your Lordships know, represent for one thing one of the most important industries in India—it would he a slight upon them if they were to be deprived of this representation. That, as I say, was the prime reason for introducing tins provision. But it is also true that it will be desirable for the Government of India to take power to constitute a similar Council for the Central Provinces—a division which is quite right for such an enhancement of its governmental dignity, if I may use the phrase, and in which the advent of the Council will, as we know, be extremely welcome. Those are, indeed, the two Chief Commissionerships to which Councils are for the time being clearly applicable.
Clause 4 explains the changes and repeals set out in the two Parts of the Schedule. In Part I of the Schedule the Act of 1861 is amended by placing the Governor of Bengal in the same position as the Governors of Madras and Bombay for this purpose—namely, that the senior Governor should replace the Viceroy when for any reason there is no Viceroy. There has not, I believe, been in fact such a case since the lamentable death of Lord Mayo, because when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ampthill) took the place of the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Curzon) he was not, I think I am right in saying, Acting-Viceroy, but actual Viceroy for the time being. But it is clearly right that the Governor of Bengal should not be placed in an inferior position to that of his two brother Governors in this respect of automatic succession to a momentary vacancy in the Governorship-General. Part I of the Schedule also names the maximum figures for the two Legislative Councils of Bengal and of Behar and Orissa.
Then in Part II of the Schedule there are various repeals. The only one to which I need draw attention is the first—Sections 53 and 57 of the East India Company Act, 1793, which refers to the
80
filling up of vacancies in the Indian Civil Service. It is provided in this Act that Civil servants shall be employed in the Presidency to which they were originally allotted and to which they belonged. In the old days when this Act was passed that was a simple enough matter. All India was, like ancient Gaul, divided into three parts: it consisted of Madras and Bombay; all the rest of British India was included in the term Fort William in Bengal. It was therefore reasonable enough that the various divisions should be self-contained and complete. Now, of course, to confine the newly-formed Presidency of Bengal within such a strict rule as that would be contrary to the interests of the public service. But it is right to inform your Lordships that the effect of the repeal will be a somewhat wider one even than that which I have indicated, because the effect of the repeal is that the Civil servants of Madras and Bombay will also become interchangeable with those of Bengal in a manner which has not hitherto been strictly the case.
Perhaps I might also explain the point, it is a small one, in the second subsection of Clause 4—the power of the Governor-General in Council to make new distributions and arrangements of territories into and among the various Presidencies and Lieutenant-Governorships. There has been some doubt as to what the power of the Governor-General is in these respects. The legal assumption is that, although the Governor-General in Council is empowered to transfer any territory by alteration of boundaries from a Chief-Commissionership to a Presidency, or to a Lieutenant-Governorship, it is not possible for him, owing to the wording of the Act of Parliament, to carry out the reverse process. There seems to be no conceivable object in such a restriction, and it disappears under subsection (2) of Clause 4.
I am afraid I have detained the House at somewhat undue length over those technical explanations, but, although technical, the subject is one of such importance that it is advisable to make clear this measure, which sins even to an unusual extent in modern legislation in respect of being legislation by reference. I am not without hope that one of these days we shall be able to introduce a consolidating measure which will reduce to order the amazing tangle of all these old Acts of

81
Parliament relating to the Government of India. It will be possible, I hope, to do that without introducing any controversial matter, and even I should hope in the main without introducing anything which could be called new matter; and I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite who are interested in India will also agree that it would be a serviceable thing to do. At any rate, it would avoid the long and technical explanation which I have been obliged to give tins afternoon of matters which, though connected with a highly important subject, cannot in themselves be deemed to be of great importance.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: My Lords, the noble Marquess has treated tins Bill, it is true, with respect, but as if it were a Bill of no great importance. The Bill is in itself a very small Bill; it has the appearance almost of being a trumpery measure. It is concerned, as the noble Marquess told us, with the technical details arising out of the policy that has been pursued by his Government in India. There is not, therefore, very much in the clauses of the Bill which apparently it is necessary for us to discuss; but, of course, every one of your Lordships knows that the Bill masks what the Secretary of State himself, in an earlier Despatch, described as one of the most momentous changes that have ever taken place in the Government of India. Consequently it is impossible for some of us, at any rate, to consider the Bill without relation to the policy which it embodies. In the remarks which I have to make I shall, therefore, be compelled to travel rather beyond the ground that has been traversed by the noble Marquess, and to deal with the Bill in a fuller spirit than perhaps the actual phraseology of its clauses would seem to justify.
I think that Parliament has some right to complain of the manner in which it has been treated with reference to this transfer of the seat of Government in India. I am not alluding to the pronouncement that was made by His Majesty the King at Delhi. Whatever I had to say on that matter I said several months ago in your Lordships' House. I discharged my responsibility upon that occasion, and I should not think of repeating what I then said. But we were undoubtedly led by
82
what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the session to believe that the consent of Parliament would be asked by legislation, not merely to the technical details embraced by this Bill, but to the whole policy in its broader aspect. These were his words—
"The Government propose to challenge the judgment of Parliament in regard, first of all, to the removal of the seat of Government from Calcutta to Delhi."
Such has always been the procedure on previous occasions of great changes in the Government of India—notably, of course, with the Government of India Act of 1858—and such I believe was the original intention of the Government in the present case, for I have been told; on what I believe to be good authority, that this Bill as originally drafted was a very much larger affair than that which we are discussing this evening. But subsequently the Government appear to have modified their policy, and, as the Secretary of State indicated, all the Statutes and Acts of Government—I do not complain that they are archaic, to use his phrase—have been ransacked in order to find in them various sections or subsections which might justify the Government of India in proceeding as far as possible by Executive act—that is to say, by Proclamation and by notification in that country.
The result is that this Bill is a mere bantling, consisting of the odds and ends which could not be covered by the most vigilant search in the existing Statute-book. If you look at the Bill you will find no mention of Delhi in it at all. There is no mention even of the transfer of the seat of Government. You might really think, from the title of the Bill, that the important feature of the policy of the Government had been the appointment of a separate Governor of Fort William in Bengal, and that all we had to do was to consider the changes consequential upon that. I imagine that the transfer of the capital is really covered by the phrase "other administrative changes in the local government of India." Well, my Lords, if that be so I would say that so big a policy had never been described by so exiguous a title. This seems to me to be a very strange and debatable procedure. It is really a part of the mystery and secrecy that have attended these proceedings from the start. One might have thought that, with a policy so

83
popular as the Secretary of State has once again claimed the action of the Government to be, they would have sought every opportunity of obtaining public and Parliamentary sanction to their conduct. But that has not been the case, and their one idea seems, on the contrary, to have been to deprive us of any opportunity of saying anything about the matter at all.
This House is placed, therefore, in rather an invidious position. In the first place, we are called upon to give our assent to acts which the Secretary of State has distinctly told us have already been carried out. As he said, the new Governor of Bengal was appointed months ago, long before the administrative boundaries of his Province were determined. The same has been the case with regard to the Provinces of Behar and Orissa and of Assam. The same thing is going on at Delhi, where ground is being bought and the policy is being carried out. We are then in this position. We cannot amend this Bill even if it were desired, because the Bill only touches the fringes of the bigger policy which is behind, and because any amendment we might make would be utterly ineffective. Still less can we reject the Bill, because if we were to throw it out we should, of course, make the Government of India ridiculous, and should be thought to be guilty, although it would be an unjust suspicion, of disloyalty to the King. The Secretary of State did not defend himself with the plea, which has been urged in another place, that what the Government are doing by this Bill is the equivalent of what was done by the so-called Partition of Bengal for which my Government was responsible in 1905. That plea, if he had used it, would only hold good in so far as the readjustment of provincial boundaries was concerned. But you have gone beyond that. You have embarked upon a great policy embodying a transfer of the capital, costing millions of money, and, one may almost say, altering the whole basis of our rule in India. My point is that the whole of the larger aspects of your policy you have carried through without the consent of Parliament at all, and I imagine, whatever be the reception your policy has met with, that as regards your procedure this will stand out in history as one of the most irregular, and, as I think, most unconstitutional proceedings which have ever taken place with regard to the
84
Government of India, and you have created a model which I, for my part, firmly hope will never be imitated in the future.
The Bill, as I have said, deals with details, and I will only allude to two of the details to which the Secretary of State specifically called our attention. The first is Clause 2, which provides for the creation of an Executive Council in the new Province of Behar and Orissa. I regard this provision in the Bill as tantamount to an evasion of the Indian Councils Act of 1909. When we passed that Act the one condition on which your Lordships gave your consent to it—it was really part of a compromise with the Government—was this, that when any new Executive Council was to be created in India it should not be done until the draft Proclamation of the Viceroy constituting it had been laid on the Table of this House and received the assent of your Lordships. It was in the power of your Lordships' House, if you objected, to move an Address to the Crown, in which case, of course, the proposal would have fallen to the ground. What was our object in doing that? I think it was a little more than what the Secretary of State indicated just now. Our object was that each case should be considered on its merits as it arose; that we should have given to us here the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province concerned as to whether he wanted an Executive Council or not, and that we should thus know whether we were really creating something which was required by the needs of the Province. But now, instead of laying the Proclamation on the Table, the matter is dealt with by a clause in this Bill, and the Secretary of State tells us he has adopted this plan because the procedure is a simpler one. Does that cover the whole ground? In my view there is the greatest difference between the two situations. As I have said, under the procedure provided for by the Indian Councils Act it would have been in the power of this House alone, if it so chose, to stop the creation of such a Council, but under this Bill we can do nothing of the kind. We cannot cut out this single clause. Our hands are tied in the matter. We have no freedom. Therefore it does seem to me that the action of His Majesty's Government amounts to a distinct abrogation of the rights claimed only three years ago and enjoyed by this House.

85
May I ask a question about this Executive Council for Behar and Orissa? It is to cost, we have been told in the House of Commons, £13,300 per annum. May I ask who wants it? Has the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province asked for it? Is it required by the needs of the Province? You will have the rather absurd spectacle of Behar and Orissa, admittedly—I do not say it with any disrespect—one of the backward Provinces in India, with the full machinery of a Lieutenant-Governor and Executive Council, and side by side with it you will have the United Provinces, one of the most enlightened and progressive Provinces in India, with a Lieutenant-Governor, but with no Legislative Council at all. That is a real anomaly.
The second point arising out of the Bill is this. The Government state in the title of this Bill that its provisions are "consequential on the appointment of a separate Governor of Fort William in Bengal." But Clause 3, as explained by the noble Marquess, is obviously nothing of the sort. Under this clause you take power to create Legislative Councils, not merely for the Chief Commissionerships of Assam and the Central Provinces, as explained by the Secretary of State, but also for any or all Chief Commissionerships in India. Thus it might be, though I do not say it will arise, that in the future the Governor-General in Council, with or even without the consent of the Secretary of State, will create Legislative Councils in the North-West Frontier Province, or in Baluchistan, or in Ajmer or Coorg, or in the Andaman Islands, though I shudder to think what a Legislative Council in the Andaman Islands, constituted even of the most reputable of the inhabitants, might be. Whether that policy is a right or a wrong one, it is not consequential on the change of capital, it has nothing whatever to do with this Bill, and I venture to say that this clause—Clause 3—ought not to have found any place in this measure at all.
I pass from these smaller details to the much wider issues which are involved in this measure and which it is impossible to ignore. I hope I shall not repeat anything that I said in the debate in this House three months or more ago. I am satisfied with the protest I made on that occasion, and have no wish to renew it.
86
But there is one point arising out of that debate about which I must say something, because it was distinctly raised by a passage in the speech of the noble Marquess just now, and that is concerned with the degree of acceptance and popularity which this policy has obtained in India itself. I dare say your Lordships will remember that when the Government of India penned their Despatch on August 25 last year the writer of the Despatch in India, with all the enthusiasm of a happy parent contemplating his first born offspring—although, of course, the offspring at that time was not yet born—told us that this policy would excite a wave of enthusiasm throughout India, that the Mahomedans would receive it with unbounded gratification, and that unprecedented satisfaction would be the attitude of the bulk of the people. I have never seen a Despatch of the Government of India—they were much more dull in my days—which exhibited so fine a frenzy. Then the Secretary of State followed with his Despatch. He was much more cautious in his handling of the question, but still he will remember that there was one line purple patch in his Despatch about Rome and Constantinople and about satisfying the historic sense of millions; and in this House he taunted me with being a member of a small minority in this country and an infinitesimal minority in India. His Under-Secretary in the House of Commons has gone further than his Chief, because on more than one occasion he has said that the Government's policy has been—
"welcomed by the overwhelming bulk of the people of India, of all races and creeds, amid has opened up a new era of contentment and progress."
I think this last phrase is rather hard upon the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, and upon my noble friend Lord Minto, because your Lordships remember very well how frequently Lord Morley rose in this House and explained to us that he and my noble friend were the magicians who had exorcised discontent in India. Now we are told, on the authority of the Under-Secretary, that it was reserved for the noble Marquess the present Secretary of State to inaugurate a new era of contentment and progress.
I wonder how it was in the power of the Under-Secretary to ascertain what is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of India of all races and all creeds. I spent seven years in

87
India in the vain attempt to ascertain what that opinion on any subject was. But here is an Under-Secretary who has never been in India at all, but who, with the confidence of which Under-Secretaries alone are capable, is able to inform an astonished Great Britain of the fact. I venture to hazard the opinion that the vast majority of the population of India of all classes and creeds are absolutely ignorant that there has been any transfer of capital at all, and that of those who know anything about it the vast majority are absolutely indifferent—the fact is, it will not touch them in their everyday lives. But as regards those who do know and who will be affected I believe the state of affairs to be very different from what the noble Marquess has laid down. He said in his speech just now that there had been no wavering of opinion—I think that was the phrase—and that it did not matter what we said in this House, nobody's opinions were affected one way or the other. I think that is to represent the persuasiveness of the noble Marquess himself, not to mention other speakers, unduly low. I venture to say that the debate which took place some months ago did have a material effect, and that this debate will have some effect, though not altogether in the direction which the noble Marquess desires.
Let me ask your Lordships to listen for a moment to what I conceive to be the facts of the case in regard to the matter. What are the communities in India who constitute the "infinitesimal minority" for whom I speak? In the first place, the noble Marquess admitted just now that there is the British mercantile community in Calcutta. They are not a negligible factor. Their attitude with regard to this change has not been dictated by selfish or mercenary motives. They object to it, not because Calcutta will suffer—I do not think it will in the mercantile sense of the term—but because they regard this policy as involving a cruel waste of public money, because they distrust the financial methods by which the money is going to be raised, and because they regard with dismay the effect that will be exercised both upon the Government of India and upon commerce, in their opinion, by the removal of the capital of India to Delhi. So much for them. What about Bengal? As to the attitude of the Mahomedans of Bengal,
88
who after all number more than 25,000,000, there can be no doubt, because they recently passed a Resolution at the annual meeting of their League, in which they expressed their deep sense of regret and disappointment at the policy that had been carried out.
Then I turn to the Mahomedans of all India, nearly 70,000,000 of people, whose representatives, at the annual meeting of the All-India Moslem League in March last, passed this resolution—
"The All-India Moslem League places on record its deep sense of regret and disappointment at the annulment of the Partition of Bengal in utter disregard of Moslem feeling."
So much for Moslem feeling. Now what about the Hindus in Bengal, the very people to placate whom these great sacrifices, the sacrifice even of the pledged word of the Government, were made? Every one who has served in Calcutta knows that there are two principal native newspapers in that city—the Bengali, which is a strong supporter of the changes brought about by the Government, and the Amrita Bazar Patrika, which represents the most orthodox Hindu opinion. What does this latter journal say? It writes—
"The re-partition of Bengal, instead of appeasing public feeling in Bengal, has only embittered it. The mischief which certain so-called Bengali leaders and their English friends have done to Bengal by supporting these changes is simply incalculable…The Durbar announcements have given deep pain to the entire Bengal nation."
And at a meeting held at the town hall in Calcutta Babu Moti Lal Ghose, a very advanced native politician, claimed to voice the whole Bengali nation when he said that—
"The contemplated redistribution of territories will be a gross wrong to our kith and kin and a sore point to the entire Bengali nation."
The entire Bengali nation has over 80,000,000 people, so that if any weight attaches to the spokesman whom I have just quoted, the "infinitesimal minority" for whom I speak is swelling to very formidable dimensions.
There are two other classes which cannot be altogether despised. When we had our previous debate the Secretary of State claimed, with respect to Assam, that the reorganisation of Assam into a Lieutenant-Governorship would be thoroughly popular in Assam itself. Three

89
weeks after he made that statement there was a meeting of the Assam branch of the Indian Tea Association held at Dibrugarh, and at this meeting it was stated that the association—
"views the effect of this change with consternation and disquietude, as involving a regrettable breach of faith with those who stood by Government at a critical time, whilst the secrecy maintained, and making the King the mouthpiece of a political move, is one of its most discreditable features…The injurious effect of the administrative changes and the set-back to the whole Valley and the tea industry demands special attention."
The last section of opinion I will refer to is the European officers of Government in India. I do not venture to speak of the opinion of our officials in Madras and Bombay. I do not suppose that the change of capital will make any material difference to them in the future. I should imagine it to be the case, in view of the feelings with which, as we know, Calcutta has always been regarded by the outside Presidencies, that the bulk of the Civil servants in those two Presidencies regard the removal of the capital to Delhi with satisfaction. They will not, however, be directly affected. But if you take the opinion of all those officials in the other Provinces who will be affected, I venture to think you will find a different result. I am not an Under-Secretary and am not going to dogmatise about the opinion of the vast majority of this community. I can only speak of what is within my own knowledge, but I do say that so far as I have had opportunities, and they have been considerable opportunities, of ascertaining the views of the Service in Northern India, they regard these changes with suspicion and disquietude. I do not desire to labour this point, but I hope I have said enough to show that to speak of those who disagree with the policy of the Government as an "infinitesimal minority." when it is a minority that contains many scores of millions of people, is to place a severe strain upon language. I have shown that Bengal is not over happy about the change, that the Mahomedans regard it with dislike and apprehension, that the European community in Calcutta at any rate deeply resent it, that the Service, to the best of my own knowledge, in Northern India is by no means friendly, and these facts, for what they are worth, do not justify the Government in speaking in the terms they have done of the alleged numerical weakness of their critics.
90
I turn to what is, after all, the policy having been decided upon, the more important question that lies before the Government—that is the question of the cost of transferring the capital to Delhi. Your Lordships will remember the history of the case. In their Despatch the Government of India stated that they could not conceive that a larger sum than £4,000,000 sterling would be necessary, including three years' interest on capital until the works were completed. The Secretary of State, in his reply, with commendable caution did not endorse that estimate, but enjoined thoughtful preparation and continuous vigilance. In my speech in your Lordships' House I ventured to throw extreme doubt upon this estimate, and to say that in the opinion of those most competent to judge the estimate of the cost varied from £8,000,000 to £12,000,000 and that in my view it would be more likely to touch the latter figure. How has the matter progressed since then? It was discussed in the Budget debate in Calcutta at the end of March, and the Finance Minister of the Indian Government made the astonishing confession, then seven months after the policy had been approved, that the Government of India were not yet in possession of any estimates of the cost; but he did admit that the burden would be spread over a number of years, and would amount to several millions sterling—there was no limitation to three years or to £4,000,000. I venture to say that such a position is unprecedented in the financial history of this country or of India, or, I think, of any civilised country. The practice is, when you ask the consent of the taxpayers of a country to the provision of large sums of money, to give them complete estimates of the manner in which that money is going to be spent. But here we are all in the air; the Government of India have not the least idea what this experiment is going to cost; His Majesty's Government have no idea either. It seems to me, therefore, that this is the most gigantic leap in the dark that the financiers of India or of this country have ever taken. We have to consider the cost of this policy, not only in relation to the actual building of the new capital, but in relation to all the items of cost, to use the words of the Bill, that are "consequential" upon this policy. They are the direct result of your policy. India has to pay for them. The money will have to be found. And remember, too, that there

91
will be, not only the initial cost, but heavy recurring charges as well.
I have drawn up a list of the extra burdens that it seems to me will have to be borne by the taxpayers of India in consequence of this change, and I will briefly give them to your Lordships in order that you may form an idea of the tremendous area of financial charge that you are entering upon in accepting this change. First, I will take Bengal. (1) There is the extra cost of the new Governor of Bengal and his staff, which has been stated in the House of Commons to be £13,300 per annum. (2) There will be the cost of the new University at Dacca which the Government of India propose to create as a sop to the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal. I pass to Behar and Orissa. (3) There is the cost of the new capital at Patna, the provisional estimate for which has been stated in the House of Commons as between £333,000 and £400,000, and which I venture to say, from my experience in India, will be £500,000. (4) There will be the cost of a summer station for the Lieutenant-Governor of that Province, which will cost some tens of thousands more. (5) There is the cost of the Board of Revenue for Behar and Orissa, over £13,000 per annum. (6) There is the cost of the Executive Council which you are being asked to assent to in this Bill, £13,300 per annum. (7) There is the cost of the Legislative Council to be given to Behar and Orissa. (8) There will be at no distant date a claim for the institution of a University at Patna to balance that which has been given at Dacca. (9) There will be before long an agitation for the creation of a High Court for these Provinces at Patna. (10) There is the cost of the Legislative Council which you are going to give to the Central Provinces and which, in the terms of your Bill, though I think they are absurd, you claim as consequential upon your policy. (11) There is the cost of the increase which the Government contemplate in the staff of the Commerce and Industry Department in order to remove the apprehensions excited by the change of capital to Delhi.
Then I come to the capital itself. (12) There is the cost of the ground at Delhi which has already been taken up, and which the Viceroy has stated to be nearly £250,000. (13) There is the cost of the new city at Delhi, estimated by the Viceroy at £4,000,000 sterling. (14) There is the cost
92
of the new cantonment, a matter to which I shall presently allude, which will have to be instituted at Delhi in order to guard the new capital. (15) There is the cost of the temporary Delhi which is now being built to the north of the city in order to accommodate the officers of Government during the four or five years while the new city is being raised, and the whole of which will be sacrificed, because, as we know now, the new city is to be built in another quarter altogether. (16) I have read in the newspapers that a country retreat is even to be provided for the Governor six miles from Delhi in order that he may escape from the torrid and malarial climate of the new city. (17) There will be the loss on the Delhi Durban buildings and structures, the roads, railways, electric light, and water supply, which we were told in the Despatch of the Government of India would be of appreciable value to the Government as permanent works when the transfer was made. Obviously they will be of no use if the site has been changed. (18) Finally, there is the loss on the buildings at Dacca, many of which will no doubt never be used, and still more on the great group of Government buildings at Calcutta, some of them only just completed and some of them not yet finished, the lowest value of which I have seen estimated at £500,000. All of these buildings have been paid for by the Indian taxpayer, and the majority of them will either have to be parted with at a small price or will not be sold at all.
I think I have said enough to show that, whatever your policy may be in point of merit, it will be enormously costly, and that, whether you are giving the Indian taxpayer a boon or not, you are hanging a financial millstone round his neck which will weigh him down for many years to come. I should have thought, in these circumstances, that the least the Government of India could have done would have been to economise in the various directions where economy was possible. For instance, I should be tempted to ask, Why should they not have stayed, during the four or five years while the new Delhi is being built, in Calcutta, occupying the existing offices and buildings? They have been there 150 years. Could not they have stayed there 154? Was it not possible for the Viceroy and the new Governor to rub along together for that limited space of time? And even if you are so sick of Calcutta that you must rub the dust of

93
Calcutta off from the soles of your feet, why should not the Government of India have spent the next four or five years in Simla instead of incurring the enormous expense of going at once to Delhi and building a temporary capital which is going to be swept out of existence in a few years time? I venture to say that these proceedings have been attended by an utter disregard for economy.
Now may I add a word about what is really an equally important matter—the method of finance? When we had the Despatch before us the Government of India contemplated that the money should be raised by a special City of Delhi Loan of £4,000,000, carrying interest at 3½ per cent., to be guaranteed by Government. After a while this idea was abandoned, and we now know, on the authority of the Finance Minister in India, that the scheme is to be financed in the first place out of artificial surpluses and windfalls, and, secondly, out of ordinary loans raised by the Government of India either in this country or in India itself. In his Budget for the next year the Finance Minister is budgeting for a surplus of £1,500,000, purely arbitrary and fanciful, one crore of which is to be assigned to Delhi, and he proposes to devote the Rupee Loan of three crores of the present summer to the same purpose. Those of your Lordships who have followed Indian newspapers will have seen that this decision has met with very severe and authoritative criticism in India, both at the hands of the mercantile community in Calcutta and also at the hands of native opinion. There was even a discussion and a debate about it in Council, in which the opponents of this scheme mustered as many as sixteen as against thirty-nine.
I can very well understand the extreme reluctance which has been felt by His Majesty's Government in embarking upon a Delhi Loan. In this country, for instance, they cannot fail to be a good deal disturbed at the failure of their recent India Loan of £3,000,000, of which only 15 per cent. was taken up, and for which, in consequence of the price they had to pay to the underwriters, they are only receiving something like 91½ or 92 per cent. That is enough to show that the market here is not over favourable. Then as regards India, where your policy is declared by you to be so popular and where we all
94
know large stores of treasure exist, do you mean to say that the Delhi policy is not sufficiently popular to enable you to raise £4,000,000 or £6,000,000? If your pretensions are correct, you ought to have obtained it without the slightest difficulty at any moment. But, my Lords, the refusal of the Government to do so seems to me to throw a rather sinister light on their pretensions. The plans of the Government appear to me to involve very doubtful finance. There is, in the first place, the budgeting by the Finance Minister in India for what I call fancy surpluses—surpluses in excess of the requirements; secondly, there is the point about loans. Will any noble Lord tell me, if the money raised by ordinary loans in India and this country is to be shared between Delhi on the one hand and railways and irrigation works on the other, that the latter will not suffer?
I see opposite me Lord Inchcape, who a few years ago went out to India at the head of a Committee to inquire into the railway system. He proposed that the railway programme should be fixed at £12,500,000 per annum, to be raised partly by Sterling Loans here and partly by Rupee Loans in India. But that figure has never been reached. In 1911–12 the sum given was only £9,500,000. In the present financial year, 1912–13, the allotment is only £9,000,000, and so much of this money is required for existing lines that it is actually the fact that only from seventy to eighty new miles of railway are going to be taken in hand in India during the present year. That is a most unhappy and even deplorable state of affairs. If this money which is so urgently required to carry us up to the limit fixed by the noble Lord opposite for railways alone is to be taken for Delhi, it is inevitable that these works must suffer, and that you will be taking the money of the Indian taxpayer, not for the most remunerative form of expenditure such as railways and irrigation, but for the purely unproductive object of building your new capital on the plains of Delhi. Therefore it seems to me that the financial policy which the Government of India are adopting in this respect is an unsound one and will be injurious to India. It has this further disadvantage, that it leads to obscurity and mystery in the matter. If von had raised a Delhi Loan, either in India or

95
here, we should have known exactly where we stood and what money you were devoting to the object, but with driblets taken partly out of fancy surpluses and partly out of ordinary loans both in India and in England it will be impossible to know at any stage what is being spent on this Delhi scheme.
The last branch of the subject to which I must turn is Delhi itself and the site at Delhi. When we discussed the matter before, the speakers on the Government side expatiated on the historic associations of Delhi, and we were led to believe that the new city would be placed in close proximity to the ancient capital of the Moguls. His Majesty the King was even invited to lay two Coronation stones in the Royal Camp near the site of the Durbar. I ventured on that occasion to say that this was a very premature proceeding, and to point out that that part of the environment of Delhi is liable to be flooded in the monsoons and to be a hotbed of malaria when the rains had passed away. We now learn that the committee of experts which has been reporting on the subject has advised the Government of India to leave altogether this region of swamps to the north of Delhi and to transfer the new capital to the region of stones and snakes several miles to the south of Delhi in the desert. This is another illustration of the heavy price which has to be paid for the extreme precipitancy with which the Government have acted in the matter. This change of site makes absolutely ridiculous that part of the Despatch of the Government in India in which they stated that the costly works that had been undertaken for the Durbar would be valuable permanent works. Clearly they will have no such effect owing to the change of site. Upon this point may I ask whether the Secretary of State can tell us to-night where exactly the new site is—how far is it away from Delhi, and has it been finally determined? We were told that the committee of experts were to inspect the Delhi site first in the dry months of April and May; secondly, after the monsoon had broken; and, thirdly, when the rains had subsided; but as far as we can gather they have made up their minds without waiting for the second and third investigation.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: No, they have not made up their minds.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: I am glad to hear that. I was relying upon a statement which has been made and not contradicted in the newspapers. The inclination of opinion in India is, however, in favour of moving the capital from the proposed water-logged site to the stones and sands south of Delhi. It is therefore quite clear that your new Delhi will not be the Delhi of the Moguls; it will not be the Delhi of British associations; it will not be the Delhi of the Mutiny or the Ridge. It will be an entirely new Delhi, and there will be none of those associations to which we were led to attach so much importance. Your capital there will, in proportion to its distance from Delhi itself, be an artificial and isolated city, very much like the Summer Palace of the Emperor of China five or six miles away from the walls of Peking. There is another point which should not be overlooked. How about defending it? The gravest apprehensions have been expressed in many quarters as to the military and strategical vulnerability of the new Delhi. I say nothing as to that to-night. But I do say that you cannot plant down your Viceroy and your Government on a site several miles distant from the existing Delhi without protecting them. That means that, in addition to the Civil cantonment which, as it seems to me, you are going to set up, you will want a military cantonment near it in order to defend and protect it. For that purpose, so far as I know, the existing garrison of Delhi will be insufficient, and if the garrison of Delhi has to be increased this is an item of expenditure which His Majesty's Government must bear in mind.
And now I come to the last question which I will venture to put to the noble Marquess. I have endeavoured to show that public opinion in India is far from unanimous about these changes, that the Government of India themselves have so far no idea as to the cost, that their ideas have changed as to the question of site, and that it is doubtful whether the new Delhi that will be built can properly be called a Delhi at all. Now I ask the noble Marquess this question—What is there, then, to justify this great experiment and this enormous and costly expenditure? Who are to be the gainers by it? That is a question I am always putting, but I receive no reply. Who are to inhabit the new Delhi when you have built it? Of course, there will be the Viceroy and his

97
bodyguard and staff, the members of the Legislative and Executive Councils, the secretariat and the clerks of Government; there will be the Press and the Post Office, and all the paraphernalia of a highly organised administrative system. There will also be all the hangers-on of Government, and the persons who minister to the needs of a European community. Who else will there be? I believe His Majesty's Government attach great importance to the presence of the Princes at Delhi, and that it is contemplated by these potentates that they will purchase plots of ground and erect palaces or residences for themselves in close proximity to the Government buildings. I have even heard of intentions to found a Club of Princes with all the forms of entertainment to which we are used in great European cities—a race course, a golf course, and even an aerodrome. I should be the last person to deny the value of the close association of the Princes of India with the head of the Government. In an intimate and friendly association between the two lies one of the surest guarantees of the tranquility of India and the security of our rule. Nothing that I will ever say will in the smallest degree impair the weight that ought to be attached by every one to that fact. But, my Lords, is it altogether wise to contemplate in the creation of your new capital, if it is contemplated, that it shall become a sort of pleasure resort of the Princes of India, thereby taking them away from the responsibilities and duties which are naturally theirs in the states which they rule?
I am sorry, in the observations that I have made this afternoon, to have been so critical. I can truthfully say to the Secretary of State and to your Lordships that I would far sooner never say another word about this matter. It is a most distasteful thing to any one who has been at the head of the Government of India to get up and criticise the policy of a later Government, more especially if that Government happens to be presided over by a personal friend. But I should not be doing my duty as an ex-Viceroy if I did not take this and every opportunity that presents itself to me of protesting to your Lordships against that which I believe to be a great error of policy. There is one analogy which occurs to me. When I was at Lahore I was taken out to see the cantonment of Mian Mir, and I was
98
told the story of how an impetuous Commander-in-Chief more than sixty years ago had galloped out into the country and when asked by his staff where he would fix the cantonment of Lahore, he pulled up his horse and said "Here," and there it was placed. And since then many lacs of rupees have been wasted in attempting to make that site healthy for the soldier. I do hope that that analogy will not be in any sense repeated in this case. I am confident that in so far as expenditure and care will avoid it, you will do nothing that will be in the least degree injurious to the health and comfort of those who are going to serve you in the new capital, but I do say that the selection of Delhi in the manner in which it has been made has been almost equally precipitate in its character, and I say, further, that you are going to place upon the shoulders of the Indian taxpayer a very heavy burden for which, so far as I know, no adequate justification has yet been given.
THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, I have no intention of attempting to inflict a long speech upon your Lordships. It was only the other day that I expressed my views fully on the recent administrative changes in India, and I have no wish to repeat what I then said. Moreover, my noble friend Lord Curzon has dealt so fully with the Bill now before your Lordships, or rather with the momentous issues which lie hidden behind the Bill, that I shall limit myself to a very few remarks. The administrative changes themselves, I am afraid, we must accept as settled facts. We are still, however, entitled to safeguard as far as we can the working of the new machinery which is being introduced; to call attention, as my noble friend has done, to the vast expenditure which is about to be incurred; and to ask His Majesty's Government what means they propose to adopt to obtain the necessary funds. I therefore very fully associate myself with all the remarks that have fallen from my noble friend Lord Curzon.
I can hardly believe that His Majesty's Government still adhere to their estimate of £4,000,000 as the probable cost entailed by the change of capital. I cannot but think that the growth of experience must have led them to acknowledge that the expenditure will very much exceed that estimate. I understand that the idea of a Delhi Loan has been abandoned, and that

99
the money is to be raised by what has been aptly described as "fancy surpluses." But what I am most afraid of is that various Departments, upon the success of which the future of India so largely depends, may be stinted in order that this money may be obtained. How else is the money to be got? Is India to face the growing demands of future years with a millstone round her neck? She cannot. Her hands are sufficiently tied now by many things that have occurred. She is about to lose her opium revenue, and there is always the chance that famines and outside circumstances may make heavy calls upon her; and if the revenues of the great Departments are to be curtailed in favour of Delhi expenditure, all I can say is that the result will be most unfortunate for the people of India.
As regards the Bill itself, my noble friend has alluded to Clause 2, by which an Executive Council is to be conferred on the new Province of Behar and Orissa. I have a pretty distinct recollection of the discussion which occurred in your Lordships' House upon the Indian Councils Act of 1909, and my recollection is very clear that the decision arrived at then was that in the case of the Government of India proposing to grant an Executive Council to any Local Government, that proposition should lie on the Table of your Lordships' House for sixty days before it received official sanction. It may be argued that Clause 2 fulfils these conditions in that the Bill itself has been before the House for the stipulated time, but I cannot admit this, because the incorporation in the Bill of the clause in question really deprives Parliament of that separate consideration of the grant of a provincial Executive Council which was no doubt intended by the Councils Act of 1909. Personally I was always in favour of the extension of Executive Councils, but, of course, on the distinct understanding that the Local Government to which such Council was to be granted, and, above all, the Lieutenant-Governor of that Province, should be directly consulted and that they concurred with the Government of India as to the desirability of such a Council. Now we have no knowledge whatever as to whether the Lieutenant-Governor has been consulted. We ought to have that information before us. It is impossible to discuss the clause fairly without knowing the views of the Local Government and
100
the Lieutenant-Governor of Behar and Orissa; we should like to know whether they have expressed any opinion as to the desirability of a Council being granted to them.
There are other smaller matters which will be brought about by the change of the capital to Delhi which are hardly perhaps of Imperial concern, but to which, as a retired Viceroy, I may be allowed to make some allusion. As far as I know, we have never been told definitely what is going to happen in regard to Government House at Calcutta hitherto inhabited by the Viceroy, or what is to become of its contents. Government House is full of pictures of great interest largely connected with the history of Calcutta, commencing with the time of Warren Hastings. There is also a very fine collection of marble busts of Roman Emperors, said to have been taken from a French man-of-war during our war with France, and there are magnificent, chandeliers which formerly belonged to General Claude Martin, one of the old. French adventurers. All these articles have been of great historical interest to the people of Calcutta, and it seems to me that they have some right to inquire how they are going to be disposed of. Are they to be placed, to use an Indian term, in some "go down" until the new capital arises on the plains of Delhi? Again, what is to become of Barrackpur, the beautiful home of many Viceroys, full of stories of the past, with its magnificent park and grounds, laid out by Wellesley, where Lady Canning lies buried? I am told that the gardens have already become a picnicing ground for holiday makers. I think, my Lords, that the Indian public is justly entitled to know something as to these old Viceregal residences, fill as they are of British traditions.
I cannot agree with the noble Marquess opposite in what he told your Lordships as to the general satisfaction which exists throughout India in respect to the great administrative changes which are being made. I believe that during the King's visit Indian criticism was restrained by a chivalrous feeling of loyalty towards His Majesty. There was an earnest desire throughout India to avoid anything in the nature of criticism of the acts of His Majesty. But now that the glamour of the Durbar has begun to fade away I am bound

101
to say that from what I hear doubts are every day increasing as to the wisdom of these changes. I can assure your Lordships that I am still in very close touch with Indian opinion, both native and European, and I am afraid it is not too much to say that my information tells of an increasing wail of sorrow on the part of many who have been proud of India's past and who have been accustomed to look seriously into her future. I say so with very deep regret. In conclusion, I can only repeat what I said on the last occasion upon which addressed your Lordships—that owing to the methods adopted by His Majesty's Government, all we can now do is loyally and faithfully to avoid adding difficulties to the administrative changes we have felt it our duty to consider.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I am an inexperienced member of your Lordships' House, but I have been an attentive student of the course of procedure in this House and in another place, and I venture to say that never before has a Second Reading debate followed the course which this debate has followed up to the present. The criticisms that have been made upon the Bill before your Lordships' House are slight and not very much to the point. But the whole policy of His Majesty's Government, which had been so fully canvassed a short time ago, has been once more brought to your Lordships' notice. To those who are supporters of his Majesty's Government in this matter it seems that somewhat less than justice has been done in the absence of any intimation to them that the general question of policy would be again brought under discussion; otherwise some of us who are not ready speakers and have not been accustomed to take part in great debates would have been glad of an opportunity of marshalling the arguments which we know exist in support of the policy which has been carried into effect.
I propose, however, to follow as far as I can the course of the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Curzon. But before I enter into the subjects which he has discussed and which do not pertain directly to the Bill, I may be permitted to make one or two remarks upon the Bill itself. The only point of criticism to which the Bill appears to me to be open was that which was referred to by the noble Earl on the Cross
102
Benches (Lord Minto)—namely, the withdrawal of the opportunity for this House to discuss the question whether an Executive Council should be created for Behar and Orissa. It is, perhaps, known to some of your Lordships that when the Councils Bill of 1909 was before this House I took strong exception to the provisions for the creation of Executive Councils in Lieutenant-Governorships. I am of that opinion still. But I recognise that there is a radical difference between a proposal referring, let us say, to the United Provinces, and this proposal which refers to Behar and Orissa. Behar and Orissa and Chota Nagpur formed part of the Province of West Bengal, for which you Lordships agreed that a Council should be created. That Province of West Bengal is conterminous with the existing Province of Behar and Orissa in all respects, if the Burdwan and Presidency divisions be excluded. It would surely be taken as a breach of faith, as a withdrawal of a privilege conferred upon them by both Houses of Parliament, if the inhabitants of Behar, Chota Nagpur, and Orissa were now to be denied the advantages, if they be advantages, which flow from the creation of an Executive Council. It seems to me quite impossible that your Lordships could take such a retrograde action as that. Therefore, although I do not in the least waver in my opposition to the creation of Legislative Councils for Lieutenant-Governorships, I think your Lordships' House is bound to accept the Bill as it stands upon this provision. That is really all I have to say in regard to the Bill, which seems to me a suitable and appropriate instrument to carry into effect a policy which has been already approved.
I pass to the remarks which were made by the noble Earl. He states that the policy which has been carried out or is being carried out is unpopular in Bengal and throughout India. I have had opportunities of keeping myself informed of the progress of opinion in Bengal, and I would call your Lordships' attention to this salient fact, that the unrest with which we were troubled in the earlier years has entirely disappeared, and that at the present time the discontent which exists, or is said, to exist, really centres about two questions. One cause of discontent among certain sections of Bengalis is that in the delimitation of Behar, Orissa, and Chota Nagpur from Bengal certain Bengali-

103
speaking tracts have been included in the new Province. But these tracts have formed an integral part of the new Province for the last 150 years; they have formed an integral part of the Province ever since Bengal, Behar, and Orissa came into the possession of the British Government; and the idea that, because certain people speak the Bengali language in a district which is a Hindi-speaking district as a whole, these people should be excluded is merely an exaggeration of Bengali patriotism. Representations have been made, I know, by important men to their English friends on this subject, and the the latter have counselled their friends in Bengal that agitation on such a question as that would not commend itself to the judgment of Parliament or the Government. The next point upon which agitation exists in Bengal is that of the creation of a University at Dacca. The idea is that if a University is created at Dacca, the power of the Calcutta University over East Bengal will be lessened and the people of that part of the Province will become less amenable to influences from Calcutta, in educational matters at all events, than they would be if they remained under the University of Calcutta. That also is a matter of small importance, and one which will disappear when settled Government prevails, as I have no doubt it will throughout the Province.
As regards the discontent of the Service, I am able to speak with a degree of knowledge which I think is not inferior to that of the noble Earl, though I readily admit that his knowledge of this subject is great. It is certain that there is considerable discontent among the. Civil servants of the lower Province, and the reason is that they will no longer have a chance of a change of climate, after serving in Bengal, to the better and drier climate of Behar. But that is inherent in the nature of the division that was made. Besides, it is to be remembered that Bengal, although the climate is not so pleasant and salubrious as that of Behar, is not so had as the climate of many parts of India in which Civil servants serve. I myself have served in Eastern Bengal for several years, and I have served in the Central Province, and I prefer the climate of Eastern Bengal. I know of many civilians who never left the lower Provinces of Bengal but who served there with fair health
104
through their entire period of service. After all, India is not made for the Civil Service, but the Civil Service is made for India. They must take their chances, and there are many parts of the British Empire in which men work and reap honour and distinction which do not possess a climate so good as the climate of Bengal. As regards Delhi, I am unable from any degree of knowledge to speak of it. But when the noble Earl stated that there is throughout India, throughout Mahomedan India especially, no regard or appreciation for the historical reminiscences that attach to Delhi, I am afraid I am of a different opinion.
EARL CURZON of KEDLESTON: I did not say that.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINPORD: If so, I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I understood him to say that the removal to Delhi would not appeal to any great patriotic or historical associations to which the Mahomedans of India paid attention or had regard. If he did not say that, then my remarks are inappropriate. But if that was his meaning, then I wish to say that even in conversation with a Mahomedan gentleman in India, when he desires to say that a thing is unattainable he says "Delhi is far from here." The idea of Delhi clings to the Mahomedan mind in India, and in my opinion the establishment of the centre of British power at Delhi will have a powerful effect upon the Mahomedan population in India. It is quite true that the All-India Moslem League, to which reference has been made, appears to be discontented, but the All-India Moslem League seem to exist in London in greater vitality than in other parts of the world. How was it that some time ago when this Mahomedan agitation had shown signs of increase the president of the League, the Agha Khan, desired to dissociate himself from the attitude which the All-India Moslem League was assuming? I think too much importance is attachable to the declarations of exotic associations which find their centre in London. If we pursue the policy that we are now pursuing—a policy which has for its object the equal treatment of all classes in India—we shall be able to carry through to its legitimate conclusion the policy which was declared by His Majesty at Delhi.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, the debate that we have had to-day, though it has not been a prolonged one, has sufficiently shown the difficulty under which your Lordships address yourselves to this Bill. The speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down was devoted mainly to making good advice which he had given on previous occasions with great effect, and to justifying a change the principle of which was discussed in your Lordships' House a few months ago. But I think there has been a marked difference, in the interest taken in this discussion, between the part which is prospective and that which has already been settled by the policy announced by His Majesty's Government. My noble friend Lord Curzon put before the House in detail, and in a manner which even members of the Government who may disagree with his conclusions must have regarded as extremely forcible, the arguments which he brought forward four months ago when he first called your Lordships' attention to the apparent want of preparation, precaution, and foresight with which this vast change in regard to the capital of India had been introduced. I must say, unless the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has something to tell us which we have not heard up to now, that everything which has passed this evening and everything which has reached us either through the newspapers or through more confidential sources has borne out to the fullest extreme the apprehensions which were expressed on this side of the House by three ex-Viceroys that the Government had not realised the extent of the operation into which they had entered, that they had not calculated the cost, that they were not aware of the difficulties which would beset them after they undertook it, and, especially in regard to the finances of India, that the burden was one which was not merely of great magnitude but one which might prove almost intolerable.
In my recollection nothing was said in the debate in February last by the Government which suggested to us that the demolition, as it were, of the Viceregal edifice at Calcutta was to begin in preparation for this move which cannot possibly take place finally for five years to come. I cannot help thinking that what was said by Lord Minto does require some recognition from the Government. The Viceroy cannot have any permanent abode in the
106
plains for possibly five or six years. Government House at Calcutta, we understand, is being dismantled. Furniture is being sold which one would imagine would be required for the next occupant of the Lieutenant-Governorship of Bengal, who is to occupy the house. Everything has been rushed forward, and at a moment when, as Lord Curzon pointed out, even the site on which His Majesty planted the stone for the new Delhi has had to be abandoned, and when apparently the Government have not the smallest idea at what sort of cost they will be able to proceed on the new site six or seven miles distant.
I do not know whether the noble Marquess opposite faced the money difficulty. If so, I think we have some right at all events to have cleared away the position which has been set up by attempting to mix up this great change with the finance of the year. Lord Curzon spoke of fancy surpluses, and I will not amplify what he said on that point; but what I do wish the noble Marquess to remember is that this financial question is having a most damaging effect on the credit of India in the Stock Market. It is true that the whole finance of His Majesty's Government has caused a heavy fall in Government securities, which is not the case with other securities of the same character. Take the securities of the London, County Council, the largest borrower in this country and possessing the largest Budget except that of His Majesty's Government. The London County Council 3½ per cent. Stock five years ago stood at 97; to-day it stands at about 100. At the same time Government of India Stock, which stood at about 99½ when London County Council Stock was 97, is now down to, approximately, 91½. There must be some reason for that fall. The security of India is as good as ever it was; there is not even unrest to account for the drop. The security of London has not improved in the smallest degree—except by the better administration of the Unionist Party which now prevails on the London County Council. Yet there has been this remarkable change in the value of the two Stocks. I do not say it is going to ruin India if she has to erect the whole of these buildings at 4 per cent. But at the same time I do think it is an enormous increase on what was imagined when in the Despatch in August last we were told that £4,000,000 would approximately cover the whole of

107
this expenditure. It now appears that it is more likely to be £10,000,000, or £12,000,000, or even £15,000,000.
Unless the Government of India are prepared to do something very drastic the whole of the other services must be clipped in order to carry out the change to Delhi, against which encroachment I venture to record an emphatic protest. The Report of Lord Inchcape's Committee, referred to by Lord Curzon, has not been able to be acted upon. That Report, in my judgment, was made five or ten years too late. If the noble Lord and his colleagues had been sent out before and the policy had been taken up earlier we should have had many results, and I think the Finance Minister of India would probably tell us that we should have had many results which we are not likely to have now. I cannot contemplate without extreme apprehension the idea that for the next ten years the development of Indian railways is to be hampered in order to provide money for a change of capital, the advantages of which have been so freely challenged on this side of the House. I look upon it as a departure from the whole principle of economy on which we have been engaged in Indian finance for the last twenty years. The pace of the forward movement in the direction of railways and irrigation works requires to be quickened rather than retarded.
I cannot help asking the noble Marquess whether he has gone too far to make it impossible for him, not to change his policy, but to stop this, as it seems to us, gratuitous destruction of the existing system before it has been fully realised what the cost will be. I do not desire to go back on the policy announced by His Majesty the King in any respect; but so long as the buildings at Calcutta stand, so long as the various heads of Departments do not have their retreat to Calcutta cut off, it is possible to reconsider anything which may be found to be inadvisable and impossible to carry out. As we stand at present, however, the possibility of Calcutta being used as a residence for the Viceroy is being done away with, while the likelihood of supplying permanently what is required seems to be in a very nebulous future. I am certain that it is not only more loyal on our part but more far seeing to endeavour to secure that His Majesty's Proclamation is carried out economically,
108
rather than allow the change to Delhi to lie like a millstone round the neck of the other services in India. It must be so if the Government insist upon carrying it out at whatever cost, without regard, as we feel, even for healthy conditions and with the very probable result, which was indicated by my noble friend behind me, that ultimately Delhi may be only available for a very short period of residence, and the Government may be forced to the very thing which they must desire to prevent—namely, a great prolongation of residence at Simla rather than that the Government of India should be brought into greater contact with the people in the centre of the Dependency.
I appeal to the noble Marquess to say whether it is not possible to stop further operations at Calcutta until he is able to present to the House of Commons a real estimate of the cost and some memorandum which will make it clear that it is possible to carry out the change, that a site which is really satisfactory has been resolved upon, that the barracks which will have to be built as well as the public offices have been resolved upon—in fact that we have, what apparently we have not had up to now, a real scheme for making good this great change—a scheme the presentation of which ought, in my opinion, to have preceded the Proclamation rather than follow it, and a scheme which can be proved to us as likely to be of benefit to India in the future and not a handicap to the other services.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl who followed me and who started out upon the wider field of discussion should have maintained the tone of entirely unrelieved pessimism which we observed in the speech that he made in the month of February. Before I attempt to enter upon that wider field I will say one or two words upon the few points in relation to the Bill itself which were mentioned by the noble Earl, and, I think, touched upon by one or two other noble Lords who have spoken. In reply to the noble Earl I may say that it never was our intention to ask Parliament to do anything by this Bill which could properly be done by Executive act—that is to say, by Proclamation. He seemed to think that we had originally

109
intended to frame and introduce a much larger Bill, apparently covering the whole ground of the changes that have been made. I can assure him that that is not at all the case, but that we always intended to confine the Bill strictly to the points for which Parliamentary sanction was needed. Our object in doing so was this, and it is one which I should have thought would appeal to the noble Earl above all people in the world. If you create a precedent to oblige the Government of India to come to Parliament for sanction or for confirmation of their action whenever they take an Executive step which can be described as large or important, you thereby, of course, curtail and cut down what I venture to consider the quite reasonable and legitimate powers of the Government of India. Supposing we had taken Parliamentary sanction for those things which we were able to do by Proclamation. The next time that the Government of India, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and, of course, with Parliament always in the background—because Parliament can get rid of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State and the Government to which the Secretary of State belongs and therefore exercises control—the next time the Government of India wanted to take a step of much importance they would be taunted with the action that was taken in this case, and they would be told, "Why don't you come and ask leave of Parliament? It is true that in the technical sense you have Executive power, but who are you that you should venture to take a step of this kind without the leave of Parliament?" I hold a strong view on this point and I am certain that in limiting the Bill to the narrow path, as we have done, we have taken the right and proper course.
The noble Earl asked when has a change of at all these dimensions been made before without the leave of Parliament—such a change as a change of capital. The political capital of India, to all intents and purposes, for the last thirty or forty years has been Simla. The effective official Government of India for many years past has been at Simla. But where does the name of Simla occur in an Act of Parliament? The gradual visits to Simla, which began by the visit of the Viceroy to a health resort, turned in the process of years into the erection of Simla as the real political capital of India, and yet, so far as I know,
110
the name of Simla occurs in no Act of Parliament, and those changes were taken by the same Executive authority with which the transfer of the headquarters of the Government of India is now made to Delhi. The fact is, there is in reality no such place as the capital of India. The capital of India for political purposes is the place at which the Viceroy holds his Council, whether he be in camp or at Calcutta, or whether in the future he may be at Delhi. Therefore I think the noble Earl was travelling outside the political record of India when he laid blame upon for not having made the actual transfer to Delhi the subject of an Act of Parliament.
The two points in the Bill which were mentioned by the noble Earl, and upon one of which stress was also laid by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, appear in Clauses 2 and 3, and the complaint of both noble Earls was that we had evaded the provisions of the Councils Act of 1909, which enjoins the laying upon the Table of this House for sixty days of a Proclamation appointing an Executive Council, by inserting in this Bill a clause by which such a Council is created. The noble Earls argued that we are in reality evading the provisions of the Act of 1909 because, although it is apparently competent for them to deal with this clause in the Bill, yet all the circumstances, the well-known circumstances, of the declaration of this policy make it impossible for them to do so. But I would put this to both noble Earls. If this is so, if it is impossible to move an Amendment, which I have no reason to suppose they desire to do, in respect of the clause instituting this Executive Council, would it not be equally impossible for them, supposing the Proclamation were laid on the Table, to take exception to it and to prevent its becoming law? As it seems to me, the real objection of the noble Earls is to the fact that the Lieutenant-Governorship of Behar and Orissa was created and to the way, as they have stated, in which it was done; but that having been done, I confess I cannot see the faintest difference between the creation of the Executive Council by this clause in the Bill or by the alternative method of making the Proclamation and laying it upon the Table, because, if noble Lords think that their hands are tied, they would be tied in one case surely as much as in the other.
EARL CURZON of KEDLESTON: The difference is very obvious. If the Proclamation had been laid on the Table of this House, it would have been in the power of the House, had they desired to do so, to resist it by an Address to the Crown. In the present case it is not in their power to do so, as this Bill has been passed by the House of Commons. In the circumstances we know very well that, whatever action we might take, the clause would be reinserted in its present form in the House of Commons. Therefore our hands are tied. The difference between the two procedures is substantial.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Even if the House of Commons reinserted the clause it would be competent for the noble Earl to go on resisting, not the whole Bill, but that particular clause, and create, if he could, a great political crisis on the subject.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is the last thing one would wish to do.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That I understand; but I confess I do not see that the difference between the two methods of procedure is a serious one. Then the noble Earl treated Clause 3, dealing with Chief Commissionerships, as an excrescence on the Bill. I do not deny that in one sense it is an excrescence in that it gives some extra powers, as pointed out, to the Government of India over and above what is required by the Executive acts described in the Preamble, but I am not aware that we ever said that this Bill was to be entirely confined to the particular acts described in the Preamble. In those circumstances I cannot see that the addition of this not very formidable power can be held to constitute anything like a grievance either for the noble Earl or for this House generally.
Then the noble Earl very briskly combated my assertion that; the degree of acceptance with which this policy is met in India is not a discouraging one for us, and that, although in certain quarters there was still a dislike to the whole change—quarters which are quite familiar to us all—yet so far as India as a whole is concerned I take the liberty of believing the policy continued in favour. Both the noble Earls say that they have information to the contrary. I would by
112
I no means depreciate the means which either of them has of obtaining information from India, but I cannot help thinking that in a case like this you are very apt to obtain the kind of information you want, and I suspect that the people who correspond with both noble Earls on this matter are people who from the first were opposed to this policy, and that they have not seen much reason to change their mind, and that they do not, as a matter of fact, represent any new body of opinion on this subject. I say, my Lords, that you are apt in a case like this to get the sort of information you want. I see on the Front Bench opposite the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) with whom I had the honour and pleasure of co-operating with regard to the Union of South Africa, and I cannot help thinking that, if there had been anybody in England—I hope and believe there was nobody—who mistrusted and disliked that policy from the first in the manner in which these two noble Lords mistrust and dislike our policy in regard to India, he could have collected a number of individual opinions in South Africa, by no means all unimportant, to the effect that the policy of the Union carried with it all kinds of disadvantages, that it had positive dangers, and also might lead to a great expenditure of money. Consequently I cannot help to some extent discounting what the noble Earls tell me of the information which they receive.
The noble Earl opposite, I thought, somewhat hardly commented on the observation of my hon. friend Mr. Montagu in another place, to the effect that the great majority of the people of India were in favour of the change. The noble Earl spoke of the confidence which an Under-Secretary is apt to show. Well, the noble Earl himself was one of the most brilliant and eminent of Under-Secretaries, and he ought to take a kindly view of the tribe. I think that my hon. friend, who does not profess to know India at first hand, far less to know it as the noble Earl does, was justified in using this expression from the general information which he had received. It, of course, is true that there are millions of people in India to whom the transfer of the capital, or, indeed, almost anything else that happens, is of no serious moment, and the noble Earl is therefore entitled to say that the positive approval of all the hundreds of millions in India may not be extended

113
to this particular piece of policy. But when he is talking of the objections the noble Earl takes an entirely different view. Be counts, not merely as positive but as violent objectors, all the members of particular races or bodies whose spokesmen he is aware are opposed to this policy. He talks as if every Mahomedan in the Whole of Eastern Bengal, all these millions, was actively and poignantly concerned in the fact that the Lieutenant-Governorship of Eastern Bengal and Assam is abolished. What is true of one is, of course, equally true of the other—you will find that the spokesmen of the different bodies and races and of the different districts take a strong view, which is entertained, no doubt, in varying degrees by those who are not spokesmen, but there exists behind the spokesmen on both sides, both the majority who, as I hold, approve the policy on the whole, and the minority who object to it, a large body who are not very deeply concerned. It, of course, is the case that no referendum has been taken on this subject or is likely to be, and even noble Lords opposite who so cordially approve that device would not suggest, I take it, that a referendum should be held in India. It would be a long and an expensive business. I have seen and heard nothing, from a very close study both of the European and of the native Press, or from any other source at my disposal, which makes me think that any change of opinion adverse to this project of ours has taken place since His Majesty left India in January.
I am bound, however, to take rather strong exception to one observation which the noble Earl made, and which, if he will forgive my saying so, was really not a fair observation for him to make. He spoke of us as having created a University at Dacca in order to placate the Mahomedans. I will deal with that later; but he spoke of us as having placated the Hindus by the line of partition which we made, and he quoted one of the Hindu papers, the Amtrita Bazar Patrika, as showing that we had not succeeded in our work of placating them. It is quite true that that newspaper has from the first opposed the policy; but the fact is that there have been a certain number of extreme people on both sides who have disapproved of the policy because it is riot entirely worked out in their favour. What those who agree with that organ
114
would have liked would be not merely that Bengal should have been differently partitioned, but that it should have been so partitioned as to include in the new Bengal every village where the Bengali language is spoken. On the top of that they would have desired, no doubt, to retain the Viceroy in Calcutta, and they would also have liked to have a Governor of the type of Lord Carmichael, not a Civil servant but a Governor from England, in order to bring Bengal on an equality with Bombay and Madras. That was an altogether impossible policy, and I am quite certain that the noble Earl would himself agree. That being so, the mere fact that our policy is objected to from different ends for different reasons, and objected to in parts simply because different races and places find something which they do not consider entirely in their favour, I confess does not give us any serious uneasiness.
I pass to the strictures of the noble Earl on the question of cost—strictures which have been pressed with not less vigour by the noble Viscount who spoke last. The complaint, as I understand, is made that we do not produce quite complete estimates of the cost of the new capital or of the new seat of Government at Delhi—estimates which, unlike some other Indian estimates with which both noble Lords are as familiar as I am, are on no account to be exceeded by a rupee when the actual work is done, and meantime, while those estimates are being prepared—because I conceive that some time will be given to us for their preparation—the Government of India ought in their opinion to remain at Calcutta and carry on its business there in spite of the fact that Bengal has been raised to the status of a Presidency. I think it is only fair to point out that if my noble friend Lord Hardinge had merely considered his own comfort in the matter, that would have been undoubtedly the easiest course to take. It is very much pleasanter to live at Government House at Calcutta and amid those delights at Barrackpur, upon which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches laid such stress, pleasanter from the point of view of his personal comfort to continue there than to make his headquarters in a Circuit House at Delhi; and if my noble friend did not make the suggestion that that should be the course taken, you may be sure that it was a sense of duty only by which he was prompted. I have no doubt that one of the main

115
reasons which confirmed him in taking the course he did, in which I most entirely agree and which I should probably have suggested if it had not been suggested by Lord Hardinge himself, was that it would give no fair chance to the new Governor of Bengal or to the new system of government in Bengal if the Viceroy was to remain hanging on for two or three years until such time as his new quarters in Delhi were entirely ready for him.
While I am on that point I might, perhaps, answer the question which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, asked me about Barrackpur and about Government House at Calcutta. I understand that the arrangement is that Barrackpur will remain as an extra residence for the Government of Bengal. I have heard nothing about its becoming the prey of cheap trippers, and I sincerely hope that that will not be the case. The park, as I dare say noble Lords know, is the home of a golf club, but that is not a matter to which any occupant of the house is likely to take exception. As regards the contents of Government House at Calcutta, without knowing what details have been decided upon I do know that the most friendly arrangement as to their disposition has been arrived at between the Viceroy and Lord Carmichael. There has not been, so far as I am aware—in fact, I am not putting it forcibly enough, because I know as a fact that there has not been—any kind of friction or difference of opinion between those two gentlemen as to the present disposal of the contents of Government House or as regards their final disposition, and it is certainly not the case that any of the valuable contents will be neglected or stored, as the noble Earl said, in a "go down," where they might be damaged, until they are required. It is true that a certain part of the contents are the property of the Government of India and ought to be so treated and ought in time to be removed to Delhi. The Governor of Bengal was the Governor-General of India, but it was in his character as Governor-General rather than as Governor that at any rate a large number of those works of art came into his possession, and we think that they ought to follow the Governor-General when he changes his seat of Government. But that does not mean that Government House will be altogether emptied or turned into a barrack.
116
I come back to the general question of cost, and I turn once more to a remark, to which I said I took exception, of the noble Earl—the mention of the foundation of the University at Dacca as a sop to the Mahomedans, shortly to be followed, as he prophesied, by the institution of a University at Patna, which I presume he would regard as a sop to the Beharis. I am sorry the noble Earl should have taken that view of the institution of a University, and I cannot help thinking that it was from a quite natural desire to obtain those dialectical victories which he is so competent to secure that he mentioned the foundation of a University at Dacca in that strain. I have nothing whatever to conceal about the University of Dacca. It was my wish, and it was also Lord Hardinge's wish, that on going to Dacca for the first time since these changes were made he should inform the Mahomedan community there and the inhabitants of Dacca generally of the foundation of that University, but I altogether resent the imputation that the foundation of Universities in India, whether at Dacca, at Patna, at Rangoon, or anywhere else, is to be regarded as a sop to the inhabitants of those particular districts and done on political grounds, whereas they are placed there on educational grounds and no other.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: There would have been no University at Dacca if it had not been for this re-partition.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Oh, yes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl is good enough to conduct my Indian policy for me. I am obliged to him. It is one of the matters which I have at heart, and which Lord Hardinge also has at heart, that as far as possible—and, of course, matters cannot all be done at once or in a year or in two years—there should be a multiplication of residential Universities throughout India. I could name other places, but it is not worth while to enter into a discussion of this matter.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I presume that the cost of the University will be met in the ordinary manner out of revenue, and not out of the special loan?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The cost of the University will be met in the usual manner in which, when Universities are founded, the cost is met.
THE EARL OF CROMER: But not out of the loan?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: What loan?
THE EARL OF CROMER: The loan which I understand is to be made to bear the cost of the removal to Delhi.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Oh, no. The question of this University has no bearing whatever on the expense of moving to Delhi. I can reassure the noble Earl on that point. There is no connection whatever between the two things. I was glad that the Viceroy, on paying his first visit to Dacca, should be able to announce that the first fruits of the policy of multiplying Universities would be made at that place, where, as I am sure on the merits the noble Earl will agree, the foundation of a University is a good thing in itself.
Then as regards the site at Delhi, the House knows that we have been able to secure the advice of several gentlemen who are competent, either as engineers or as architects or as having a general knowledge of town planning, to give it with reference to this new site at Delhi which we have been examining. No final conclusion has been reached on the subject. It is desirable that they should see Delhi during or immediately after the rains in order to observe what the precise effect is in making certain portions of the land water-logged and what are the lands that escape. It is, I think, most probable that what is called the Durbar site—that is to say, the site of the camp over which the noble Earl presided as well as that in which His Majesty stayed—will not be used for the main buildings of the new Delhi. The actual site of those main buildings is not yet determined. There have been, as your Lordships may imagine, a great number of suggestions. I heard one distinguished military authority assert that there was no reason whatever why the most historical part of the Ridge should not be used for the erection either of a Government House or Government offices. He pooh-poohed the idea that it was anything but a military position, and held that if
118
it was the best site for the purpose it should thus be employed. On the other hand we should all, I suppose, agree that there is a vast body of both military and Civil opinion which regards all that part of the Ridge, which was so famous in the Siege, as sacred ground which ought not to be tampered with or interfered with in any way. The site, as I have mentioned, has not yet been decided upon, but I have little doubt that it will prove to be somewhat to the south of the Durbar camp. How far it may be desired to start it along that continuation of the Ridge, which, as the noble Earl will remember, skirts the whole of old Delhi on that side, I cannot possibly say, but I am told that the experts are well satisfied with the sanitary and drainage prospects of some site in that neighbourhood. There is no reason whatever to suppose that a site will be suggested at all as remote from the city as the noble Earl seemed to think possible, nor do I know of any reason why it should be so chosen.
I am not able, unfortunately, to give the noble Earl any information as to what is proposed in the direction of strengthening the garrison at Delhi or of providing cantonments for them, but I trust that one result of the change will be this, that in course of time, though not immediately, it will be possible to clear away from the Fort the whole of the barracks which now disfigure it—a change which ought to make it entirely what now is almost one of the finest monuments of its kind in the world. The noble Earl touched on one or two other points with regard to the future society which the Government of India would have at Delhi and the possibility that some of the Princes would have houses there. I take it that very little has been decided on this last point. It is, of course, possible that some of the native Princes whose States are in the more northern direction may like to have a house, large or small, in the neighbourhood of Delhi, but that is a matter upon which it is impossible to speak at present; and even if some of them do, I should hope that Delhi would not prove to be a Capua to them, as the noble Earl seemed to think likely to be the case, and that no disastrous consequences need necessarily happen.
A further word on the question of the cost and the means of meeting it. The noble Earl mentioned some figures in

119
relation to Behar quite correctly. The figures which were given were between £333,000 and £400,000. That was the provisional estimate that was adopted, and it would be safe, I think, to assume the ultimate cost as working out to something in the neighbourhood of the £500,000 which the noble Earl mentioned. The recurring cost is, of course, somewhat enhanced by the creation of an Executive Council, whose members, as noble Lords know, receive considerable salaries; but it is only fair to mention that the creation of an Executive Council, besides having its own merits for administrative purposes, also serves the purpose of giving opportunities for reward to meritorious public servants which to some extent may be diminished by the changes we are making. As regards Bengal, the figures as I have them, though I do not pretend that they are completely accurate, work out to a rise from £40,500, which was the cost of the Government of old Bengal, to £53,800—an excess of slightly over £13,000 a year in respect of the change from a Lieutenant-Governorship to a Presidency. I am sorry that I have not got the figures for the outlay for temporary quarters at Delhi. It will not, I am sure, reach a formidable total, and as soon as I know what they are I shall be happy to inform noble Lords opposite who are interested of the amount which is estimated. Before I leave the question of the site I might say that the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, thinking as he did that the new capital was about to be removed to a distance of several miles from the town, concluded therefrom that the whole of the Durbar facilities—the roads, electric light, and so on—would be wasted. That is not the case, because I understand that in any event it is contemplated that a part of that area will be laid out for purposes of public parks and recreation. It also seems to me probable that a part of the area, at any rate, is likely to be found quite fitted for a certain amount of building.
As to the method by which the money will be raised, our plan of raising it partly by way of ordinary loan and partly from revenue has been severely criticised on different grounds and from entirely different quarters. There are some people who say that we ought to have done all this financing from revenue, that we ought to pay our way as we go along, and that that is, indeed, the only honest method of
120
carrying out a transaction of the kind. But, my Lords, the Government of India were not prepared to take the risk of debiting the whole of the cost upon Delhi to current revenue. As noble Lords opposite very well know, you can never venture to speak with certainty of what your available revenue may be in India for a year or so hence. To promise, therefore, that you would pay these varying sums as you go along would have been too bold a step for the Government of India to take. But the method which appears to be favoured by noble Lords opposite is the precise contrary of that course. They think that we ought to have raised the whole of the money by means of a loan. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, does not agree. But that was the gist of the argument advanced by the noble Earl opposite, and it is a course which might have been pursued. We might have borrowed the whole of the money, and, if it was desired, extinguish the debt by means of a sinking fund.
We again go to South Africa for a parallel. There was the Transvaal Loan, which was raised all at once; there was no question of meeting that charge partly from revenue. But it does not seem in itself, apart from all other considerations, a very wise piece of economy to raise a large sum of money at once for transactions which must necessarily be spread over a number of years. What are you going to do with the money when you have got it until it is spent? Are you going to reinvest it somewhere? If so, that would be a rather strange and unusual operation for a Government to take. We venture to think, therefore, that the plan we are adopting, the combined method of paying for the annual expenditure so far as we can from surpluses, and, where the surplus is insufficient for that purpose, by an addition to the ordinary loans which we make every year, is the most sensible and feasible plan of any that could be suggested. And it has this advantage. The exact amount of revenue it is difficult to foretell for any year. The revenue from opium, for instance, is a transient revenue, a revenue which, if it does not in due course disappear altogether, is bound to diminish very greatly, and we are not, I think, doing anything unfair or unreasonable by the people of India in saving that this charge, which is to a great extent of a nature which might fairly be placed upon posterity, yet should be met so far as you

121
are in a position to do so from these transient and, if I may say so, fortunate sources of revenue which exist at this moment. There is, of course, the further argument, to which noble Lords have alluded, that if we were to go to the market now for a large sum of money—noble Lords opposite would probably make it £12,000,000 or £5,000,000 at least, holding the views they do with regard to these changes—if we were to go to the money market in England or in India for a sum of that kind we should have to pay dear for it. Well, that might not in itself be a matter of so much moment as the fact that we should be seriously crippling our own ordinary powers of borrowing, which, as noble Lords know, are none too active at this moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, could not resist the allusion which I have often heard him make before to the usually wild-cat character of our Treasury finance, which, as he maintains, reacts upon us in the Indian market. It is true, and I have no desire to attempt to discuss the reasons now, that the market for all gilt-edged securities is a bad one, and Indian Loans are no exception to that rule. But when the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, inquiries how it is, if this policy is so popular in India, we do not ask for the money there and get it in the twinkling of an eye. I cannot help feeling that again he was thinking of a dialectical score over my unhappy self, because nobody knows better than the noble Earl that it is one of the unfortunate facts, and also to sonic extent, I think, one of the mysteries of Indian life, that in India the capitalists do not come forward with large sums for Government security. As the noble Earl knows very well, the amount of holding in many of the Indian railways by Indian capitalists is almost nil. That is a large and an obscure question, and I am quite sure that the noble Earl knows very well that if we were to try to raise the money in India we should have to do one of two things—we should either have to treat the loan as an ordinary Government loan, which would have its inconveniences because it would not be easy, I fancy, to arrange for holders to transfer from one to the other, or else we might have to invent some new kind of financial arrangement in India in the shape of terminable bonds to be paid off by drawings or some arrangement of the kind foreign to the habits of
122
the Indian investor and liable to be regarded, therefore, with suspicion by him. That being so, I venture to think we are adopting a commonsense course in finding as much money as we can from our balances for the purpose of these annual payments and adding the rest to the ordinary loans, whether in India or here, which we raise every year for our current outlay.
I think that I have touched on the various points which have been mentioned by the noble Lords who have spoken. I am sorry, too, like the noble Earl opposite, that they thought it their duty to continue to adopt so critical a tone with regard to all these proposals. How far this debate may do good or do harm in India I have no desire to prophesy. I think it will be regarded there as exemplifying the truth of what I ventured to say at the beginning of my observations, that we none of us have seen any material reason to change the opinions which we formed in a close examination of this matter; and I can only express the final hope that the gloomy predictions of sonic of the noble Lords opposite may be falsified, and that it will be found that this great change will come about, as it will, gradually and without disturbance, and that in all its features it will prove to be for the benefit of His Majesty's subjects in India.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mac Donnell, who has left the House, complained of us for having allowed this debate to travel so far afield. He seemed to regard it as going beyond the scope of the Bill on the Table. I was glad to observe that the noble Marquess did not support that complaint. Indeed, it would have been difficult for him to do so, for, of course, this Bill, although in appearance it is limited to some technical alterations in the law, really is inseparably connected with the whole of the great question which was raised by the speech of my noble friend behind me, Lord Curzon, and as he reminded the House we were distinctly promised, certainly by the Prime Minister and I think by the noble Marquess himself, that His Majesty's Ministers would challenge the judgment of Parliament in regard to the removal of the seat of Government from Calcutta to Delhi. I therefore make no apology on behalf of my noble friends who have spoken on this side of the House for the scope of their

123
observations. Still less am I moved by the argument winch fell from the noble Marquess just now when he told us that one of the reasons of His Majesty's Government for doing as much as they could without legislation was that it would be a bad thing in the interests of the Government of India that their action should require what he called "constant Parliamentary confirmation." Surely the noble Marquess will not contend that this is an ordinary case. The changes which have been initiated by His Majesty's Ministers have been described by them in the most magniloquent language as constituting—
"a bold stroke of statesmanship which will give unprecedented satisfaction and will for ever associate so unique an event as the visit of the reigning Sovereign to his Indian subjects with a new era in the history of India."
This surely separates the whole of these proposals entirely from ordinary administrative and Executive changes for which the concurrence of Parliament might perhaps not be considered indispensable.
With regard to the question of change of capital, nothing that we have heard to-night has removed the misgivings which we expressed at first and which we still feel. We still regard it as a change of doubtful expediency and one decided upon without sufficient consideration. I am not going at this hour of the evening to enter into details. But surely the proper test for the suitability of the site of a capital is not whether it happens to occupy mathematically a central position on the map, not whether it is regarded with approval by one section of the community or another, but whether it is a site the use of which is compatible with the efficient administration of the Government. In our view that test is not complied with in the case of an arrangement which requires that the Government of India should divide the year between the hill station of Simla and the brand-new official headquarters winch are going to be constructed in the neighbourhood of Delhi, out of the main current of public life and remote from all those surroundings which have given so much importance to the presence of the Government of India in the great city of Calcutta. Then with regard to the popularity of the change. I freely admit that there is a conflict of evidence upon that point. But do not let us be told by the noble Marquess that
124
the evidence is all one way. The noble Marquess suggested to us that some of the evidence which had been furnished to us was, as it were, made to order. He said you can get the kind of evidence you like. But is the noble Marquess quite sure that, particularly in an Eastern country, this does not apply even more strongly to evidence collected by Government officials?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I correct the noble Marquess in one respect? I was far from hinting that any of the evidence which had reached noble Lords opposite was of a manufactured kind. What I ventured to point out was this, that where there exists a difference of opinion and the distinguished correspondent here is known to hold one set of views strongly, he is likely to receive only letters of agreement and not letters of difference.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Marquess admits at any rate that there is a difference of opinion. We have always believed that that difference of opinion was a considerable one, and that those who hold our view of the case were not, as the noble Marquess has once or twice suggested, an "infinitesimal minority." The opinions which have been cited are not what the noble Marquess called merely individual opinions. They are the opinions of great bodies of the community having their official organs and their official spokesmen, like the All-India Moslem League and like the organisations which comprise the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal. There is one section pf public opinion of which perhaps hardly enough has been said—the opinion of the commercial classes of Calcutta. I wonder if the noble Marquess carries in his mind—I am sure he has seen it—a paper that was published a few days ago by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce upon the question of the location of the Department of Commerce and Industry and the location of the Currency Department. They think it almost superfluous to point out that a Commercial Department which is permanently located at a distance of 1,000 miles more or less from the two chief centres of trade and industry cannot be a Commercial Department in the true sense of the term; and then they point out that they are not by any means consoled by some ingenious arrangements, which I understand are proposed, under

125
which officials of these two Departments are to tour during a certain part of the year in the Provinces. They go on to say—
"For nine months of the year the Department will be completely cut, off from the commercial centres of India. What merchants want is ready and convenient access to the responsible financial, commercial, and railway officers of Government, the officers who are in authority and with whom the decision in important cases rests."
That is, I think, a very weighty expression of opinion from a body entitled to every respect.
Then only half a dozen words with regard to the vexed question of the site. One proposition which has been affirmed from these Benches has not been disputed—I mean that the site was selected without consultation, or at any rate without sufficient consultation, with those who were best qualified to give advice to the Government of India on such a matter. Not only was our statement not denied, but I remember quite well that the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, who is not here this evening, gave us the reason. He said the Government could not consult freely because if they had consulted people and the news had leaked out there would probably have been an agitation, and the Government did not want to have an agitation and therefore they kept the secret. It is not quite easy to read between the lines of the noble Marquess's statement as to our precise position with regard to the Delhi site. The noble Marquess told us that no final conclusion had been arrived at, but we gathered that at any rate the Durbar site was not likely to be adopted. The noble Marquess does not contradict me, and I therefore assume that it is so. Is that not rather a serious condemnation of the course which was taken in this matter? Was it quite wise to invite the Sovereign with so much formality to lay a foundation stone until you knew whether the place where that stone was to be laid was likely to be suitable or not for the new capital?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It was quite clear to everybody, including the illustrious layer of the stone, that it was not certain or even I may say probable that the place where the stone was laid would be the actual site of Government House or of the Government buildings, but that it would form part of the new capital. Of that there is no reason to doubt.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Not the actual site, but the approximate site. Surely the point was that His Majesty was invited to designate a particular spot, and upon that particular spot or in the neighbourhood of it, at His Majesty's command, the new capital was to arise. That is the way it would be looked upon by an Eastern people. It now appears that the capital might arise at any point within an area of 35 square miles. As to the cost, we have again and again expressed our entire disbelief in the figure of £4,000,000, and the noble Marquess did not attempt this evening to assure us that £1,000,000 would be anywhere near the mark. We are perfectly certain that it will not be. The noble Marquess said he would not tell us that it would not be exceeded by a rupee. That is not what we ask. We want to know whether it may, as some people have told us, be, not £4,000,000, but £8,000,000 or £12,000,000. The noble Marquess, I thought, did not follow very closely the extremely carefully conceived statement of my noble friend behind me when he dwelt upon the incidental expenses which would be inseparable from this change of capital; and we are quite right to call attention to these incidental expenses, because I remember that in the Government of India's Despatch they took credit to themselves for the incidental savings which would be made in consequence of the alteration in the site of the capital. Arty one who has had experience of building operations knows what a deadly thing the charge for extras is when you come to get your bill, and I feel convinced that the Government of India will have a very bad quarter of an hour over their extras when the day of reckoning comes.
I am not going to detain your Lordships longer at this hour. I will only notice one point in the Bill itself. May I venture to say that I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Curzon when he insisted upon the significance of the change under which these new Executive Councils are to be called into existence in virtue of the powers conferred by this Bill. The operation is an entirely different one from the operation of the present law. Under the law as it, now stands you are required, before you can create a new Executive Council, to lay your Proclamation upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and it would be open to this

127
House, by carrying an Address against the Proclamation, to put an absolute stop to the whole transaction. That, of course, it is impossible to do when you come to a Bill. If we were to fall back upon our strict rights and throw out the second clause of the Bill the noble Marquess knows quite well what would happen. There would be the usual conflict between the two Houses; we should be accused of obstruction, and we should probably be confronted in the end with the choice of either withdrawing our Amendment or of seeing the Bill abandoned by His Majesty's Government.
There were other points about which I should have liked to say a few words, but I feel that the ground has been sufficiently covered by my noble friend behind me. Let me say once more that I think we have acted not only strictly within our rights, but that we have fulfilled what was a duty which we could not avoid by drawing attention to these points. We have done so. We have made our protest; it remains on record; and, as my noble friend who spoke just now said, we shall be well pleased if our misgivings should prove to be exaggerated, and if these changes when carried into effect produce results conducive to the contentment and well-being of the people of India.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

DUBLIN AND SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for To-morrow.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.