Sitting of 5 November 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read a second time and committed.
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to present 20 Petitions from the Borough of Dudley and part of the Northern Division of Worcester bearing 6,040 signatures praying this Honourable House not to pass the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
Mr. MOUNT: I beg to present 45 Petitions from parishes in the Newbury Division of Berkshire containing 7,492 signatures praying the House not to pass the Established Church (Wales) Bill.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Taunton, in the room of William Robert Wellesley, Viscount Peel, Manor of Northstead.—[Lord Balcarres.]
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Urban District Council of Larne [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. Fenwick reported from the Committee of Selection—That they had discharged the following Member from
998
Standing Committee A: Mr. George Roberts; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Shops Act (1912) Amendment Bill): Mr. Pointer.
Mr. Fenwick further reported from the Committee—That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Hildred Carlile; and had apointed in substitution: Mr. Norman Craig.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information concerning the murder of the Colombians Serrano and Gonzolas, the violation and enslavement of their wives, and the massacre of their employés, which took place on the Putumayo about the end of the year 1908; and whether any persons were brought to justice for these crimes?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Owing to the lapse of time and the lack of reliable ocular evidence it has not been possible to determine the exact circumstances in which these crimes were committed. Such employés of the company as may have taken part in them and have been in the company's service at the time of Sir R. Casement's first visit to the Putumayo are likely to be among those against whom warrants are out.

  Anglo-Peruvian Treaty.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked whether His Majesty's Government has any Reports upon the existence of an active slave trade in boys and girls at the Peruvian city of Iquitos; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will call the attention of the Peruvian Government to this violation of the Anglo-Peruvian Treaty of 1852?
  Sir E. GREY: We have no evidence to show that such a trade is being carried on at Iquitos.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked whether the Peruvian Amazon Company's steamers frequently carried slaves to the city of Iquitos; and whether His Majesty's Government has any reason to believe that this practice has been discontinued?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information to show the prevalence of such a practice either now or in the past.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received any applications for information and advice from any financiers concerning making advances to any of the combatant parties in the Balkan war; and whether he is prepared to give to such financiers the information and counsel, but not the support, of the Foreign Office.
  Sir E. GREY: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards all loans to any belligerent is that financiers must decide in such matters for themselves and that, whatever decision is reached by such financiers, is taken at their own risk. My reply to any inquiries of this nature has been limited to this statement and I have no knowledge of whether loans have been made to any combatants since the war broke out. During the Russo-Japanese war loans to one or both combatants were brought out at London, Paris and Berlin.
  Mr. FELLasked if it is proposed to send any men-of-war to Salonika or to Beyrout for the protection of the lives and property of British or other subjects which may be endangered by the course of events?
  Sir E. GREY: One of His Majesty's vessels arrived at Salonika on 1st November, where the situation was, in the opinion of His Majesty's Consul-General, such as to render its presence desirable. No such report has been received from His Majesty's Consul-General at Beyrout, and, consequently, no war vessel has been sent by His Majesty's Government to that port.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received intimation that the allied Balkan States are ready to negotiate terms of peace with Turkey, but are not prepared to accept negotiations for peace through the great Powers; and whether, in view of the victories of the allies, Their right to make terms with Turkey will be fully recognised?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not received such an intimation from the Balkan States as the hon. Member describes; but, so far as I am aware, no one, in view of the results of the war up to date, will be disposed to dispute the right of the Balkan States to
  1000
  formulate when they please the terms on which they would be prepared to conclude peace; and I do not think that the great Powers have been, or will be, more slow than other people to adjust their own views to the inarch of events.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any prospect of any of the great Powers being in a position to offer mediation in order to bring the parties together, following the precedent set by the United States of America at the close of the war between Russia and Japan?
  Sir E. GREY: I have private notice of a question on that point, and I will answer this question with it later.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask the right lion. Gentleman now whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" newspaper yesterday, that the Porte has telegraphed to its Ambassadors to inform the Governments of the great Powers that it would welcome assistance in bringing about a suspension of hostilites, and whether the right hon. Gentleman can now make a statement with regard to the position in the Near East?
  Sir E. GREY: I only got the notice of the hon. Member's question as I entered the House. In answer to it, and to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Morrell), I must point out it is the case that the Porte has made an appeal to the Powers, but though views are being exchanged between the Powers on the subject, it is, and must be, a very delicate matter for the Powers to interfere between two belligerents unless they do so at the request of both.

  Egypt.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether any scheme is in contemplation for the establishment in Egypt of a chamber of deputies; and, if so, whether he can say what will be the method of election and composition of such a body.
  Sir E. GREY: Reforms have always been in contemplation, but no scheme is before me at the present moment.

  Morocco (France and Spain).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the agreement recently made between France and Spain with regard to Morocco; whether it

  1001
  has yet been approved by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether they have received assurances that the new Customs tariff in the Spanish zone will not be less favourable to British trade than that hitherto existing?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand that the agreement, though its terms have been settled, has not yet been signed, and it has not been communicated to His Majesty's Government. In any case, the Customs tariff for British trade in Morocco is regulated by treaty, and cannot be altered without the consent of His Majesty's Government.

  Persia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs if he can yet give any further information as to the financial situation in Persia and the raising of a loan by the Persian Government; and if he can state whether any steps are being taken to summon a new Mejliss in accordance with the Constitution of the country?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not in a position to add to the information given in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member on October 22nd regarding the financial situation; the answer to the second question is in the negative, though I understand that there is some prospect of the matter receiving early consideration.
  Mr. D. MASON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the parties would lie more inclined to lend to Persia if constitutional Government were restored?
  Sir E. GREY: That must be a very hypothetical question.

  Midnapur Case.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether the appellate bench in the Midnapur ease found the Advocate General's objection that there was no cause of action was good, and that the suit, which cost the taxpayers upwards of £10,000 and occupied the Calcutta High Court, owing, as the appellate bench found, to the admission by Mr. Justice Fletcher of irrelevant matter, 192 working days, should have been dismissed in limine; and, if so, what steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such an incident?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The Advocate General did not contend, nor
  1002
  did the Appellate Court hold, that there was no cause of action; nor did the Appellate Court find that the suit should have been dismissed in limine on the ground that there was no cause of action.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the hon. Gentleman read the judgment?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, I have. In the Court of Appeal two judges held that there were causes of action, but that they were barred by the Statute of Limitations.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the Secretary of State propose to take any action in view of the very serious incidents which have resulted?
  Mr. BAKER: I have answered that question already.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is it not the case this suit was decided on a mere question of procedure not touching the merits at all?
  Mr. BAKER: It is a fact that the two actions were barred by the Statute of Limitations.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Docs the hon. Gentleman know that it cost upwards of £10,000 for 102 working days?
  Mr. BAKER: I think that, figure is correct. I answered that question on a previous day.

  Calcutta High Court (Mr. Justice Fletcher's Judgments).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Secretary of State has decided not to compensate Messrs. Clarke and Weston for the sufferings they have undergone in consequence of judgments given by Mr. Justice Fletcher, of the Calcutta High Court, which have subsequently and after long intervals been reversed on appeal?
  Mr. H. BAKER: As regards Mr. Clarke. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22nd October. The case of Mr. Weston has not yet come before the Secretary of State in Council, as was explained in answer to the hon. Member's question on 21st October.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has it been finally decided not to compensate either of these gentlemen for the undeserved sufferings they have undergone?
  Mr. BAKER: I have explained that Mr. Clarke was allowed to go on deputation instead of on furlough, and I have just

  1003
  explained that with regard to Mr. Weston his case has not yet come before the Secretary of State.

  Burma Critic (Editor's Sentence).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether Mr. William Channing Arnold, B.A., Oxon, the editor of the "Burma Critic," has been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for criticising in his newspaper the action of a local magistrate in acquit ting an officer charged with indecently assaulting a young woman; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to secure his release or the imposition of some other penalty more proportionate to the alleged offence?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I have already stated that a full report of all the circumstances connected with this case has been called for by the Secretary of State. Pending its receipt the Secretary of State can express no opinion on the merits of the case.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the hon. Member whether, when the report is received it will have the personal attention of the Secretary of State and his full consideration?
  Mr. BAKER: Undoubtedly it will, but we had better wait until then.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that this gentleman is lingering in prison? How long will it be before this report is received?
  Mr. BAKER: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State is aware of that fact, and he will get the report at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it not possible to release this man pending the action which the mother of this girl is bringing?
  Mr. BAKER: I cannot answer that question without, notice. There are legal proceedings in the way.

  Loans (India).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, as representing the Secretary of State for India, if he will state how many firms are on the approved list of borrowers to whom loans are granted on security from the India Office balances; whether Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company are in-
  1004
  cluded; and when they and the other firms were placed on the list?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The list contains the names of sixty-one firms, of whom twenty-eight were on the list in 1895, sixteen were added between 1895 and 1905, and seventeen between 1905 and 1912. Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company have been on the list since 1887.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked whether there is any reason of public policy which prevents the publication of the names of the approved borrowers to whom loans are granted on security from the India Office balances?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The relation of the Secretary of State to the firms included in the list is similar to that between a bank and the customers to whom it lends on security, and is therefore regarded as confidential. It has always been so regarded by the India Office and the Secretary of State is of opinion that this is in the public interest. I am, however, able to say that in the present instance if it is desired the information shall be given to the House.
  Mr. R. HARCOURTasked what were the. Secretary of State's reasons for employing Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company to purchase silver during the present year?
  Mr. H. BAKER: As I recently explained to the House, the Secretary of State had reason to believe that some speculation for a rise in silver was in progress when the purchases were about to be begun, and he therefore thought it essential that the purchases should be made as secretly as possible. For this reason it was considered desirable to employ a firm known not to have acted before in this connection for the India Office rather than one whose operations would probably have been suspected by the market to be on behalf of the India Office. There are only four firms who act as silver brokers on a large scale; two had previously been employed by the Bank of England acting on behalf of the India Office; and the Secretary of State was fully satisfied that, of the two remaining ones, Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company were the more suitable to be employed for purchases of the magnitude required.
  Mr. KEBTY-FLETCHER: Is the hon. Member aware that the head of the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company is the

  1005
  brother of the Under-Secretary of State for India? Is he aware of that?
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Are we to take it that the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has got silver cheaper through Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company than he could have done through any other firm?
  Mr. BAKER: The Secretary of State is certainly satisfied that the action he took resulted in a public advantage financially.
  Mr. R. HARCOURTasked whether the hon. Gentleman will say what part, if any, was taken by the Under-Secretary of State for India in the arrangements for the purchase of silver in the present year and in the management of the temporary loans granted to approved borrowers from the cash balances at the India Office?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The first purchase of silver in the present year was made on a recommendation of the Finance Committee of the Council of India, dated 27th February, 1912, in the following terms: "The Finance Committee recommend that their Chairman, or, in his absence, Mr. Currie, be authorised to arrange for the purchase of not more than £1,000,000 of silver, if he thinks fit, through such agency and in such manner as he thinks advisable. The Committee would draw attention to the importance of secrecy." This recommendation was approved by the Secretary of State and the Council of India; and the purchase was accordingly made under the instructions of Sir Felix Schuster, the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Subsequent purchases were decided on in the same manner. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is not a Member of the Finance Committee or of the Council of India, and I am assured that the papers show, and it is also within the distinct recollection of the members of the India Office concerned, that he took no part in the matter and was not consulted at any stage. With regard to the loans referred to in the latter part of the question, they are arranged by the Secretary of State's broker under the daily supervision of the Accountant-General of the India Office and the more general supervision of the Finance Committee, to whom all transactions are submitted at their weekly meeting and whose Chairman is consulted on any point outside the ordinary routine. It has never been the practice of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to take part
  1006
  in these transactions, and the present Under-Secretary has never done so on any occasion.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Secretary of State does not think, however correct the attitude of the Under-Secretary may be, it is better that he should be in his place when Parliament is sitting to answer questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.
  Mr. R. HARCOURTasked whether the hon. Gentleman will say to how many firms on the approved list of borrowers loans have been made on security from the India Office balances in the present year?
  Mr. H. BAKER: During the year 1912 loans have been made on security to forty-three firms on the approved list of borrowers.

  Army Rifle (New Pattern).
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the new pattern of rifle for the Army has now been approved; and, if so, whether a specimen rifle can be placed in the Tea Room for the inspection of hon. Members?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The new pattern rifle has not yet been finally approved, but a number of rifles are being made for issue to the troops for trial. It is regretted that a specimen cannot at present be spared to be placed in the Tea Room.
  Mr. ALAN SYKES: Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have a specimen rifle to be sent at the same time to the headquarters of the various Territorial units?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think that would be worth while, and it must be some little time before the rifle can be issued. It will be exhibited in the Tea Room of the House of Commons, and hon. Members will see the type of rifle the Army are going to have.

  Viscount Wolseley and Earl Roberts.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on 16th May, 1889, attention was directed by means of questions in the House of Commons to remarks of a political character made by Viscount Wolseley I in a speech at Oxford, delivered by him

  1007
  in a private and not in an official capacity, and that Mr. Edward Stanhope, who was then Secretary of State for War in a Unionist Administration, stated that he was unable to defend Lord Wolseley's language and had so informed him; and on what grounds has a similar course not been pursued in reference to the recent speech of Lord Roberts respecting the German Empire, which is on terms of amity with this country, having regard to Lord Roberts's official position as a salaried field marshal, the salaried colonel of the Irish Guards, and the salaried colonel commandant of the Royal Artillery, and to the effect liable to be produced by the condonation of a breach of military regulations in the case of a highly-placed offender and the severity of the punishment in similar cases of less distinguished persons?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: On a point of Order. Before this question is answered may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the words "highly-placed offender" is a fit and proper expression to put on our Notice Paper in regard to Lord Roberts?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I am sure that the word "offender" must have been put in owing, unfortunately, to my indistinct writing. It should have been "highly-placed officer," and I did not use the word "offender," If I had seen the question on the Paper I would have called attention to this point.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether that expression should have been allowed to appear on our Notice Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid my attention was not specially directed to it, otherwise I should not have allowed it. I think the explanation given by the hon. Member is obviously the right one.
  Colonel SEELY: I assumed that the word was meant for "officer," and I had not noticed the word "offender" at all, and I think it did so appear when the question was first put. In regard to the first part of the question, the facts are as stated. As regards the second part of the question, the present case is dissimilar. The questions arising out of Lord Roberts's speech are diplomatic in character and were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Tuesday last, the 29th ultimo.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that the effect of a speech of this kind by a gentleman of Lord Roberts's position is to vilify a foreign Power?
  Colonel BURN: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he or the Members on the Front Government Bench have ever read a book by General Von Bernhardi, entitled "Germany and the Next War?"
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if this speech had been made by an officer of lower rank or by a non-commissioned officer instead of by a general officer, it would have been dealt with by him as Secretary of State?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

  Army Recruiting (Ireland).
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War how the number of 2,549 men, who were enlisted in Ireland during the past year, compares with the figures of the previous ten years; whether he can give the figures for the years 1871–81 and 1881–91; and, if there has been a decrease in the number of men enlisting annually in Ireland during these years, to what cause that decrease is attributed?
  Colonel SEELY: The yearly averages for the periods required are as follows:—

  1871–1880

  2,936

  1881–1890

  3,363

  1891–1900

  3,625

  1901–1st Oct., 1910

  3,245

  These figures appear to follow the alteration in the population of those of military age.

  Army Horses (Classification).
  Mr. WHELERasked the Secretary of State for War whether his scheme of classification of horses for Army purposes is being carried out throughout Ireland; and, if so, whether owners of horses in Ireland will also be compelled to part with their horses on mobilisation?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply to both questions is in the affirmative.
  Mr. WHELER: May I ask whether that condition will hold good in the event of the Home Rule Bill being granted for Ireland?
  Colonel SEELY: Certainly.

  Territorial Force
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the war between Turkey and the Balkan States has been practically decided within one month from the declaration of hostilities, he proposes to review the whole basis of the system on which the Territorial Force is constructed, in order to secure that the force, after mobilisation, should have six months' training before it takes the field?
  Colonel SEELY: As naval considerations appear necessarily to be largely excluded from any conclusions to be drawn from recent events in Eastern Europe, the fact alleged in the question could hardly have any bearing on our military system.
  Sir H. CARLILE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is still of the same opinion as his predecessor that six months would be allowed the Territorial Force for training subsequent to the declaration of war?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

  Army Administrative Staff (Salisbury).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War what were the reasons for granting a special ration allowance, in the absence of barrack accommodation, of 1s. per day to soldiers on the administrative staff at Salisbury in 1901, and continuing it for eleven years until October, 1912, and then reducing it by 50 per cent., although in the interval the cost of living has risen, and the purchasing power of money decreased, by over 10 per cent.; and whether it is the opinion of the general officer commanding the district that the recent deduction of 3s. 6d. per week in such allowance in an expensive town such as Salisbury, and in the absence of the proficiency pay enjoyed by other arms of the Service, is calculated to affect injuriously the efficiency of this branch of the Service?
  Mr. H. BAKER: The record of the reasons for granting the allowance has been destroyed, as I have already stated; and I am consequently unable to say what the reasons were. The reason for withdrawing the allowance is that, as matters stand to-day, there is no sufficient ground for treating those concerned at Salisbury differently from those similarly situated elsewhere.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the hon. Member suggest that because the records have been destroyed these men are to be deprived of this allowance of 3s. 6d. for a week which they have received for eleven years?
  Mr. H. BAKER: No, Sir, nothing of the kind. The records were destroyed in the ordinary course; and, so far as the allowance is concerned, I think these men have been very fortunate in retaining it so long.
  Sir R. POLE-CAREW: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that to treat soldiers in this way is likely to be good for recruiting?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

  War Office Typist-Controller.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked if, in filling the position of typist-controller at the War Office, the permanent staff of the Department has on two occasions been passed over in favour of persons from outside; whether the claims and qualifications of the present superintendents were fully considered before Miss Roads was appointed to fill the vacancy caused by Miss Murby's transfer; what are the respective duties of typist-controller and typist superintendents; and what duties, apart from the routine work of taking down letters from dictation and typing, were performed by Miss Roads in her previous position of private shorthand writer to the Secretary of State?
  Colonel SEELY: When the War Office staff was transferred to the new building and the various sections of the typists were amalgamated in one branch, it was considered expedient to create a new appointment of controller for regulating the distribution of the work amongst so large a staff and for disciplinary purposes. The capabilities of the superintendents then serving in the branch were fully considered, but it was held to be necessary in the best interests of the service to select a candidate from outside. On the occurrence of the recent vacancy the capabilities of the staff were again considered, but it was again found impracticable to select a member of that staff. The superintendents take a share of the work of typing and control the work of the various sub-sections, and the controller exercises general supervision. She is not required to do typing work herself. Miss Roads held the position of confidential clerk to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Is the House to understand that out of fifty-one typists there was nobody capable of taking this position, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what were the duties of Miss Roads as his private secretary?
  Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first part of the question, I have answered it already. I am informed there was nobody on this occasion, as on the previous occasion, who was considered capable of fulfilling these particular duties. With regard to the second part of the question, the lady was my confidential typist, as she had acted to other Members of the House, including the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, it was the greatest possible inconvenience to me she was given this appointment.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Are we to understand the appointment, was made subsequent to the discussion in this House with regard to patronage and appointments and the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry?
  Colonel SEELY: As far as I am aware, it has nothing to do with any Committee appointed by this House.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand Miss Roads had had no experience whatever of supervision before she was appointed?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know exactly what experience she had had. I know she had had a great deal of valuable experience of all kinds, at least, so I have been informed; but, as I say, I have, nothing to do with it. It is a great inconvenience to me. She is undoubtedly a most competent young lady and was so considered by those who appointed her.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the appointment was made subsequent to the discussion which took place in the House with regard to patronage and appointments?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. The appointment was made six weeks ago or something of that kind.
  Mr. FRED HALL: I am referring to the discussion which took place—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put his question down.

  Local Rates (Savings).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give figures to show the amount of saving in the local rates which has been effected by the Road Improvement Fund and the Old Age Pensions Act; and how much in the pound that saving represents for the agricultural ratepayer annually?
  The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The total Grants in England and Wales towards works within Administrative Counties actually made by the Road Board or awaiting further details for completion amount to £852,000, which may be taken to represent the saving to local rates effected by the Road Improvement Fund during the last two years. With regard to the effect of the Old Age Pensions Acts I understand that the annual saving to the poor rate in England and Wales amounts to something over £1,000,000. Taking the country as a whole the saving to local rates effected by the Road Improvement Fund and the Old Age Pensions Acts amounts to about 2½d. in the £. I would however, remind the hon. Member that the great bulk of the moneys granted by the Road Board has been given towards road improvements in rural areas, and that the saving to the poor rate by the removal of the pauper disqualification has been much larger in rural unions than in urban areas. The amount actually saved to the agricultural ratepayer varies, of course from district to district, but the saving to this class of ratepayer through the Old Age Pensions Acts alone has been found to amount to as much as 6d. in the £.

  Harbour Grants (East Fife)
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked what progress has been made by the Development Commissioners in considering the applications for harbour Grants received from the various fishing centres in the East of Fife; whether the Commissioners have obtained a Report on the subject of these applications from their expert engineer; and whether they now propose to take action upon his Report?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I understand that the Development Commissioners have been furnished with a Report by an expert engineer on certain fishing harbours on the east coast of Fife. From this Report it appears

  1013
  that the cost of making one harbour able to meet the requirements of all the fishing ports interested would be so great that the Commissioners are compelled to regard it as prohibitive. They are consequently considering the alternative of assistance for minor improvements at the several harbours; and for that purpose are causing inquiry to be made as to the local resources available in each case.

  Chief Constables (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland how many chief constables in the counties of Scotland were over seventy years of age at the date of the coming into operation of the Police Amendment Act on 1st January, 1911; and how many of these have since retired?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am informed that on the 1st January, 1911, there were three chief constables of counties in Scotland who were over seventy years of age. One of these officers has since retired and one has died.
  Mr. WATTasked whether His Majesty's Inspector of Forces for Scotland has in any of his Annual Reports regarding the efficiency of the various forces issued since 1st January, 1911, recommended that chief constables over seventy years of age should not be eligible for further service?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Two Annual Reports have been issued since the date mentioned by my hon. Friend—namely, the Reports for 1910 and 1911 (Command Papers 5600 of 1911 and 6131 of 1912). As my hon. Friend will see, they do not contain any such recommendation.

  Bankruptcy Law (Scotland) (Civil Servants' Exemptions).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether, in connection with any proposed legislation following upon the Report of the Departmental Committee on Bankruptcy Law of Scotland Amendment, he has considered the question of terminating the exemption of Civil servants' salaries from diligence for civil debt; and, if so, whether it is proposed to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question of the exemption from diligence of Civil servants' salaries was not within the scope of the remit to the Departmental Committee, and was not considered by them. The Committee recommend, however, the
  1014
  extension of section 149 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1856, to all salaries payable by the Treasury, whereby the salary of a Civil servant would, in the event of his being sequestrated, be available in such, part as the Treasury sanctioned for the benefit of his creditors.

  Light Horse Breeding (Scotland).
  Captain GILMOURasked what policy the Board of Agriculture for Scotland intend to adopt with regard to the administration of the Grant for the improvement of light horse breeding in Scotland recently transferred to their jurisdiction; and if they intend to create an advisory council, similar to that which exists in England, for this purpose?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The administration of the Grant referred to was only transferred to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on 1st November, 1912, and the Board have not yet decided the question raised in the last part of the question.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what form the Grant will take?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I must ask for notice of that question It cannot be answered in a Word.

  Shetland Shell Fisheries.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland if the Scottish Fishery Board have made inquiry into the suitability of certain areas in Shetland for the cultivation of oysters, mussels, and other shell fish; and, if so, if he will provide the Zetland County Council with any Report thereon furnished by the Scottish Fishery Board?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Fishery Board for Scotland have been making inquiries into the matters referred to, and are considering what has been reported, but I regret I am unable to communicate any of the Reports as suggested in the question until they have received full consideration.

  Education (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether the Advisory Committee on Education was consulted about the policy of inclusive fees; and what decision they came to; (2) if My Lords claim to have any power in the internal management of the Scottish universities, and, if so, what jurisdiction do they claim, or whether he can state if their

  1015
  power is merely concerned with the constitution of the universities and their governing bodies; (3) the date of the meeting of My Lords where it was agreed not to increase the additional Giants to Edinburgh University unless the university adopted an inclusive fee in medicine and applied science; and (4) whether he is aware of the existence of an extra-mural I school in medicine in Edinburgh, the use fullness of which might be seriously crippled by the adoption of an inclusive fee in medicine at Edinburgh University; and whether he can say what the attitude of my Lords is towards the extra-mural schools?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: These questions of my hon. Friend all appear to be founded upon misapprehensions. I do not know what my hon. Friend means by the phrase "Advisory Committee on Education." If by the term "My Lords" my hon. Friend means the Scotch Education Department, he is mistaken in supposing that it has anything to do with the question of inclusive fees at, or with the internal management or constitution of, the Scottish universities. The other questions raised by my hon. Friend do not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that "My Lords" have refused a Grant to Scottish universities unless they will adopt an inclusive fee for medicine and applied sciences?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will my hon. Friend tell me whom he means by "My Lords"?
  Mr. HOGGE: Presumably the Secretary for Scotland ought to know who "My Lords" are.
  Mr. PIRIE: He does not know anything.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would point out to my hon. Friend there are "My Lords" of the Scottish Education Committee of the Privy Council, there are "My Lords" of the Treasury, and there are other "My Lords."
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before making the requisition on the Scottish universities, the Treasury consulted the Scottish Education Department?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot answer a general question like that. It is a very wide question, and I would ask the
  1016
  hon. Member to look up the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, where he will learn something about the arrangement.
  Mr. PIRIE: Is it not perfectly evident, from the nature of my hon. Friend's question, that he is referring to that nebulous body, the Scottish Education Board?

  Public Trustees (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received communications from various societies of law agents in Scotland suggesting, as an alternative to the institution of a public trustee for Scotland, a compulsory audit of all trust accounts; whether his Department is prepared to accept this method of dealing with trust accounts; and whether, if adopted, it can be brought about by an administrative order or does it require legislation?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have received representations of the character referred to by my hon. Friend, but I do not know why the compulsory audit of trust accounts should be put forward as an alternative to the institution of a public trustee in Scotland, as the two proposals have different objects and each is compatible with the other. I am not yet prepared to make any statement with regard to the second part of the question. In answer to the last part of the question, I may say that, the compulsory audit of trust accounts would require legislation.

  Crinan Canal.
  Mr. WATTasked whether any estimate by engineers has been made for the repair of the Crinan Canal, in Argyllshire; if so, will he say what amount will be required to put it in thorough working condition; and how that compares with the expense of a new Crinan Canal in the present locus?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, particularly that of Mr. Groves, the Resident Engineer of the Canal.

  River Pearl Fishing (Scotland).
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland (1) if his attention has been called to the increasing scarcity of pearls obtained from the rivers of Scotland during recent years; and, in view of the fact that the river pearl fishing

  1017
  industry in other countries, more especially in Germany, is in a flourishing condition; whether he? will take steps to resuscitate what is at present practically a dying industry in Scotland by instituting a close time for pearl fishing, and prohibiting the indiscriminate destruction of immature mussels; and (2) whether pearl fishing in any of the principal pearl-yielding rivers, the Spey, Tay, Esk, Dee, and Don has ever been prohibited for any length of time, so as to give the rivers a rest; and if he is aware that stretches in the important pearl-yielding rivers in Bavaria and Saxony are allowed to rest for periods of about ten years when such stretches have been completely fished over?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention had not been specially directed to the matter referred to by my lion. Friend, and I should be glad to receive particulars of the evidence on which his statement is based, and also any information as to the regulations of pearl fishing in the rivers of Bavaria and Saxony to which he refers. I am not aware that pearl fishing in any if the Scottish rivers has ever been regulated by the Legislature, and new legislation would be necessary for such regulation.
  Mr. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, among his other multifarious duties, if he will take the trouble to refer to the "Encyclopædia Britannica." Vol. XVIII., page 448, which will give him all the information asked for? Further, may I ask if this question of pearl fishing comes under the Fishery Board for Scotland or the Board of Agriculture? or has it to be dealt with by "My Lords"?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have said there is no legislation on the subject, and that is an answer to the question.
  Mr. PIRIE: Under which Board does it come?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no legislation to place it under any Department.

  India Office.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that the India Office shall have some separate representation during the remainder of this Session in the House, seeing that no means exist except by questions of bringing any matter connected with Indian administration before Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In the absence of the Under-Secretary of State, questions on matters of Indian administration have been answered by my Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office from information furnished by, and with the full authority of, the Secretary of State for India.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does not the Order Paper to-day illustrate the inconvenience of the absence of the Secretary of State in another place and of the Under-Secretary in another country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, because the answers are given with the full authority of the Secretary of State.
  Sir H. CRAIK: In the case of voluntary and foreseen absence has it not been usual to appoint some one directly concerned with the administration on behalf of which the answers are given, and has it not been only in cases of illness and other unforeseen absence that a substitute from another Department has acted in the place of the absent Minister?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went to India exactly the same course was pursued.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider there are certain Members of the Opposition who know everything about India?

  Land Values Committee.
  Mr. WEIGALLasked why the Government adopted the means of a secret inquiry to obtain information in reference to questions affecting the landed interests instead of the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It was considered that information with regard to certain points could most usefully and expeditiously be collected by the unofficial body, to which I presume the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. WEIGALL: Are we to assume that the Government do not desire unpartisan information but only fraudulent information for electioneering purposes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member must not understand anything of the kind.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the

  1019
  land inquiry which is being conducted with his sanction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will take steps to prevent any use being made for political purposes of the evidence, or parts thereof, which is being collected until the whole of the evidence has been published, as promised recently by the Chancellor, and until official steps have been taken to test its accuracy and impartiality?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that my right lion. Friend has promised to publish the whole of the evidence, nor do I know to what particular circumstance the hon. Member refers. The Committee are an unofficial body and arrange their own procedure, but I cannot doubt that they will discourage any premature use being made of the evidence which is being collected.

  Appointments for Ministers' Private Secretaries.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked the Prime Minister whether, in the particulars recently furnished by him of cases in which the private secretaries of Members of the Government had been given permanent positions in the Civil Service, he included the appointment of such persons as Commissioners under the National Insurance Act in either England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Commissionerships under the National Insurance Act are not, except in the case of the chairmen of the Commissions, permanent appointments in the Civil Service, and therefore were not included in the particulars which I recently gave the hon. Member in reply to his question, but I understand that the only private secretary appointed to a commissionership was Mr. J. Rowland, who became a Welsh Insurance Commissioner, and this appointment is not permanent.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the area of land acquired under the Small Holdings Act of 1892?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Eight hundred and eighty-one acres.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury when and by
  1020
  whom orders have been given to the pension officers of county Longford to object to persons in receipt of pensions for three years in that county; whether this is being done by order of the Treasury or in pursuance of any directions issued specially to Irish officers; and will he direct that the cases objected to be examined into by a special Local Government Board official?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As regards the first two parts of the question, I will refer the hon. Member to my answer to his previous question of the 22nd October. As regards the third part, I have no authority to give directions to the Local Government Board as to the steps to be taken in reference to cases brought before them on appeal.
  Mr. FARRELL: Am I to understand from that reply that the right, hon. Gentleman's Department does not interfere with this matter at all?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No. I am informed that no special order has been given.
  Mr. FARRELL: Speaking generally, does the Department interfere with decisions, or correct decisions of the Local Government Board for Ireland?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think we have anything to do with the Local Government Board in Ireland. It is the pension officers we have to deal with.

  Customs and Excise Service.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked what is the total number of unattached officers at present serving in the Customs branch of the Customs and Excise service; what is their rate of overtime remuneration; and when will the Departmental Committee's Report on the subject of hours and allowances be issued?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There are some 340 unattached officers now serving on the Customs side. No overtime, is being paid to them at present. It is hoped that the Regulations giving effect to the Amalgamation Committee's recommendations as to hours and overtime pay will be issued very shortly.

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Official Residence).
  Mr. FRED HALLasked what is the value placed upon the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Downing Street for the purposes of assessing Income Tax?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been treated as exempt from Income Tax since the year 1858.

  Lace Imports.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of the lace imported into this country in the years 1910 and 1911; whether the Government of Hungary is giving cash Grants, free land, and exemption for ten years from local and Imperial taxation to lace makers from England who, unable to face free foreign competition, are transferring their factories thither; and whether he will obtain official confirmation of these facts and communicate the result to this House?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The value of the imports of "cotton lace and articles thereof" into the United Kingdom in 1910 was £2,542,000 and in 19tl £2,539,000. A large proportion of this lace is, however, re-exported, and the net imports on balance only amounted to £1,189,000 in 1910 and £1,343,000 in 1911. During the same periods the value of "cotton lace and patent net and articles thereof" of British manufacture exported from this country was £4,244,000 and £3,936,000, respectively. I am aware that the Hungarian Ministry have power to accord various encouragements to new factories in the form of monetary subventions, exemption from taxation, and otherwise, under the law of 1899 concerning the development of national industry, particulars of which were published in July, 1907, in No. 663 of the Miscellaneous Series of Consular Reports. I have no official information as to any recent accord of such State assistance to factories in British hands, but I will endeavour to obtain it.

  Motor Traffic (Metropolis).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the London Traffic Branch has had under review the facts relating to the dangers of the streets and the fatalities due to motor vehicles; and whether any recommendations have been, or will be, made with a view to improving the existing conditions?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The study of the problem of traffic in Greater London generally is amongst the duties of the London Traffic Branch, and is dealt with in the
  1022
  annual Reports issued by the branch. Their suggestions do not, however, deal specially with the prevention of accidents to persons using the streets, except in so far as road improvements, affording better facilities for traffic, may tend to diminish accidents.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that under the circumstances the time has arrived when a Traffic Board should be formed, as recommended by the Select. Committee in 1905?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The suggestion will be considered.
  Mr. LOUGH: Has the Board of Trade any statutory authority for spending money in connection with this Traffic Department, or alleged Traffic Department?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Load Line.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether it was with the advice of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, or any body of shipowners, that the Board of Trade in 1906 decided to raise the load line of British ships?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee did not exist before 1907. My right hon. Friend stated on Thursday last the statutory action taken by the Board of Trade in connection with the matter, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  House Letting (Scotland) Act.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain rating authorities in Scotland have been advised that Section 9 of the House Letting Act is incapable of effective application, and that they have no longer power to grant, as formerly, exemptions from rates to the very poorest class of the community; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware that certain rating authorities have been advised as stated by the hon. Baronet, but I am informed that other rating authorities are devising methods for continuing to grant exemptions from rates to poor occupiers of small dwelling houses. I am watching the matter carefully.

  Helmsdale Harbour (Drowning of Fisherman).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether, with regard to the drowning of a fisherman, William MacAngus, at the Helmsdale Harbour, Sutherland, on 13th August, 1012, he is aware that five weeks elapsed after the accident before the Procurator Fiscal made personal investigation in the case; whether the master and crew of the steamer, two coopers who were passengers, and the pilot, whom William Mac-Angus was assisting, should have been seen as possible witnesses; whether the Procurator Fiscal has seen or communicated directly with any possible witness other than the pilot; whether the Procurator Fiscal has reported that William MacAngus's cries were heard astern of the steamer, that no effort was made to save him, that no lifebuoys or lights were available, and that no alarm was raised; and whether, as this man was killed in the course of his industrial employment, it was not incumbent on the sheriff, in terms of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, to hold an inquiry into the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Inquiry by the Procurator Fiscal was delayed in the hope that the body might be recovered and in order that conclusive evidence as to the cause of death might thus be obtained. The Procurator Fiscal examined five other witnesses in addition to the pilot. He did not report on the points mentioned in my hon. Friend's question. In my opinion the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act, 1895, does not apply in the particular circumstances of this case.
  Mr. MORTON: Is this not an industrial case that comes expressly under the Act of 1895?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir, according to my information it is not so.
  Mr. MORTON: Does not the Act of 1895 state distinctly that the sheriff must hold an Inquiry?
  Mr. URE: Yes, Sir.

  Sheriff-Substitutes (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether a new sheriff-substitute has been appointed by him to Portree, Isle of Skye; and, if so, will he say whom he has appointed and to what branch of the legal
  1024
  profession he belonged; what is his standing in that profession; and whether he has any knowledge of the Gaelic language, which is the only language spoken by the majority of the people, in his jurisdiction?
  Mr. URE: Mr. C. P. Boswell has been appointed as sheriff-substitute at Portree. He is a member of the Scottish Bar of upwards of twenty-two years' standing. He does not know Gaelic. A knowledge of that language is not required for the efficient performance of the duties of the office.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not a fact that the inhabitants under this jurisdiction can speak no other language than Gaelic?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir. There are five to one of the number who can speak English. The exact figures, according to the last Census, are 1,959 who speak Gaelic alone, and 10,007 who speak English as well.
  Mr. WATTasked how many solicitors there are in Scotland, and how many sheriff-substituteships these hold among them; how many practising advocates there are, and how many sheriff-substituteships they hold among them; and why so few of the former have been appointed, especially in the last three years?
  Mr. URE: The number of solicitors is approximately 3,397, of practising advocates approximately 198. Four sheriffs substitute are solicitors, forty-five are advocates. There is no reason for the fact to which my hon. Friend calls attention in the last part of the question except a desire to secure the services of the best men for the office.
  Mr. WATT: Is the only stronghold of privilege which the right hon. Gentleman is not going to attack the Bar in Scotland?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it not a fact that a solicitor in large practice would never look at a sheriff-substituteship?
  Mr. URE: Yes, that is so.

  Mine Inspectors (Additional Appointments).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the remaining additional sub-inspectors of mines, to be provided under the scheme recently sanctioned by the Treasury, will be appointed; and how many of these additional appointments will be allocated to Scotland?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I understand that the Board for Mining Examinations hope to complete their consideration of the applications for appointment which have been sent in by the end of this month. If so, the examination of the candidates who receive a nomination will take place early in the New Year. Two of the remaining appointments will be allocated to Scotland.

  Debtors in Prison.
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked what was the aggregate amount of debt owed by the 16,030 debtors and civil process prisoners committed to prison last year; and what was the approximate cost to the State of their maintenance during imprisonment?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would not be possible to give the information which my hon. Friend asks for. The amount of debt for which a prisoner is actually committed is often only a very small proportion of the debt owed by him. Nor could the cost of maintenance of debtor prisoners be calculated without minute and prolonged research. I have considered whether future Returns could be extended so as to give any part of the information which my hon. Friend desires; but the preparation of the prison Returns already involves a great deal of labour to the prison staff, and I cannot add to it without the strongest reasons. In this case I do not think any further information is required to show the need for amending the law as to imprisonment for debt at the earliest opportunity.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it a fact that of the total number of prisoners in English prisons one half are there for debt?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no.
  Sir W. BYLES: Did not your predecessors tell us—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman really must give notice.
  Mr. ROWNTREEasked in view of the statement in the Report of the Prison Commissioners that, of the total number of persons committed to prison in one year, over 50 per cent, were committed in default of paying a fine on the one hand, what was the aggregate amount of these fines; and, on the other hand, what was the approximate cost to the State of maintaining these persons during imprisonment?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prison Commissioners have not these figures, and it would be impossible to obtain them without an increase of the clerical staff of the prisons. I would add that rather less than 20 per cent, of the persons fined are sent to prison in default of payment. The imprisonment the latter undergo must be regarded not only as actual punishment for the offences they have committed, but also as the influence which enforces the penalties paid by the remaining 80 per cent.

  Isle of Man (Chief Constable).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Home Secretary if he has any jurisdiction over the constabulary of the Isle of Man; and, if so, will he state what former appointments have been held by Colonel Madoc, now chief constable of the island, and for what reasons he left them?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Isle of Man Constabulary is not under my jurisdiction, and the chief constable is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor under the terms of an insular Act. Lord Raglan informs me that Colonel Madoc served with the Cape Mounted Rifles from 1890 till the war in South Africa. In November, 1900, he was appointed Major in the South African Constabulary, and rose to be Acting Inspector-General of that corps in 1908. On the amalgamation of the South African Constabulary and the Johannesburg Police he was appointed Deputy-Commissioner and Second in Command of the Transvaal Police. He was retired in 1910 on the amalgamation of the Police of the four Colonies.

  Taxi-Cab Driver (Arrest for Drunkenness).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the arrest of a taxi-cab driver on a charge of being drunk while in charge of a cab at Charing Cross on 24th October, and that, although he was taken to Cannon Row Police Station, no charge was made against him, and he was allowed to go free; and whether, seeing that the man was a life abstainer, the Chief Commissioner will compensate the man for loss of time caused by his arrest on a false charge?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have inquired into this case, and am informed that this taxi-cab driver at three o'clock in the after noon in Cockspur Street drove into a

  1027
  street refuge, and his condition was such that a constable on duty there concluded that he was under the influence of drink and took him to the police station. There the divisional surgeon examined him, and certified that, though he was in a shaky condition and unfit to be in charge of a motor, he was not drunk. In the circumstances I think the constable's action was justified, and it is not proposed to give compensation.

  Motor Bus Drivers and Conductors.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked whether it is the practice of the Chief Commissioner of Police, when licensing men for service as London County Council tram-drivers and conductors, to inquire as to rates of pay and hours of labour and conditions of employment under the London County Council; and, if this is so, will the Chief Commissioner take the necessary steps to ensure that men who are licensed for service under the motor trust controlling the motor omnibuses shall receive as good conditions as to rates of pay and hours of labour as under the London County Council?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and consequently the second part does not arise.

  Prison Officers (Eight-Hour Day).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that in almost all the Government Departments an eight-hour working day is recognised; and if he can see his way clear to extend the eight-hour principle to all the officers and prison warders in the various prisons?
  Mr. McKENNA: The conditions of employment in the prison service are necessarily very different from those of most Government Departments. The hours of prison warders were reduced from ten hours to nine hours a day last April, and the hours cannot be further reduced without a dislocation of the service. The normal working day of most of the staff ends at 4.30 p.m.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Could not the hours be reduced by one per day to bring them to eight?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should not like to commit myself to any definite statement.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, according to the information available at the Local Government Board, over 2,300 persons of sixteen years of age and upwards, and over 750 under sixteen years of age, suffering from tuberculosis, were being treated in the Poor Law infirmaries and Metropolitan Asylums Board's institutions, many of whom presumably would be entitled, under the National Insurance Act, to sanatoria benefits; that the cost of the treatment of these patients involves a very large expenditure, which is at present a charge upon the poor rates of the Metropolis; and can he say what provision out of the National Health Insurance Funds it is intended to make for these cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The National Health Insurance Fund can only be charged with the cost of treating insured persons and the dependants of insured persons, but the National Insurance Act and the Finance Act, 1911, have made available a sum of £1,500,000 to aid the provision of sanatoria and other institutions in which both insured and non-insured persons may receive treatment.
    Mr. FELLasked if certain definite sums have been assigned for the payment of the sanatoria benefits under the National Insurance Act; and if these sums form a part of the general fund and will be available for the general expenses of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Definite sums are allocated under Section 16 (2) of the National Insurance Act for the provision of sanatorium benefit. These sums are not available for other purposes of the Act.
    Mr. FELL: Will they not be available for benefits other than sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No. The Act definitely allocates certain sums that must be devoted to sanatorium benefit.

    EARLSTOWN INDUSTRIAL, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, LIMITED.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the National Health Insurance Joint Committee have yet been able to come to any decision with regard to the application of

    1029
    the Earlstown Industrial Co-operative Society, Limited, under Sub-section (7) of Section 47 of the National Insurance Act; and whether, seeing that the application is endorsed by both employers and employés, he will see that it is granted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The application has been approved, and the special order is being issued accordingly.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in the revised system of payment of the doctors for their services under the National Insurance Act, any difference will be made in the mileage allowance for urban and country practitioners, respectively?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No part of the new Grant which Parliament will be asked to make is specifically ear-marked for mileage, but this does not prevent an arrangement for this purpose being made. The distribution of the total sum to be provided for medical remuneration, and the assignment of special portions to special services, is largely a matter for the medical profession, and any proposals which appear to command the general support of the profession will receive careful consideration.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the expenses under this head of the rural, practitioners are considerably more than those of the urban practitioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is so, but rural practitioners would have several compensating advantages in other arrangements such as the provision of drugs.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask if the remuneration left to the doctors will depend upon the largeness or the smallness of the amount they require for mileage?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No special payment for mileage will be included in the total amount, amounting I think to something like 9s. per head for doctors and drugs.
    Sir H. CRAIK: The doctors will lose as the mileage increases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The doctors will get the mileage allowance.
    Mr. FALCONER: May I ask whether any allowance for mileage to country doctors will necessarily come off the allowance to the town doctors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not necessarily; it all depends upon what representations are made by the medical profession to us as to how best to distribute the money.
    Mr. LLOYD: Will not the doctors loss if the mileage increases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The mileage will be paid to the doctors?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Out of the General Fund?

    LACE TRADE OUTWORKERS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether it is competent to Mr. Pope, who is investigating the application of the National Insurance Act to the Nottingham lace trade outworkers, to recommend that these people should be allowed to contract out in view to the alleviation of the hardships they suffer from the compulsory collection of the tax?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is competent for Mr. Pope to recommend any course of action possible under the terms of the National Insurance Act with a view to meeting difficulties resulting from the operation of the special Order with regard to married women outworkers. The Act does not, however, provide for contracting out by individual employers of outworkers.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the matter be reconsidered in view of this very great hardship?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait until we receive the report from Mr. Pope on the whole subject.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that report is likely to be received?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Evidence is being taken at the present time. There will be no delay in presenting it.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION.
    Mr. FELLasked what is the rate of weekly wages paid to the women typewriters at the head office in Westminster of the National Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The remuneration for the work in question is at the usual service rates, namely, typists, 20s., rising by an increment of 2s. to 26s. a week; shorthand typists, 26s., rising by an increment of 2s.to 31s. a week; superintendents,

    1031
    35s. a week. The typists employed temporarily by the Commissioners are paid from 20s. to 25s. per week.
    Mr. FELL: Do any of these ladies receive as little as 15s. a week1?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: On the information given to me, certainly not. I hope not, at all events.

    STORE LABOURERS' CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will inquire into the case of Mr. Alexander C. Paterson, of 245, Caledonian Road, Motherwell, who is being compelled against his will, after having appealed to the Umpire, to pay contributions under the National Insurance Act, although he is a store labourer and not employed in an insured trade, nor is he ever likely to be in a position to claim unemployment benefit?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I undersand that Mr. Paterson is a store labourer, employed by a firm of bridge, girder, and tank builders and constructional workers. The Umpire has decided that work of this class is an insured trade, and, further, that store labourers in the business of any firm engaged in an insured trade are themselves insured workmen. I presume that Mr. Paterson is being required to contribute in accordance with these decisions of the Umpire, with which I have no power to interfere. Mr. Paterson, being an insured workmen, will have exactly the same right to unemployment benefit as all other insured workmen.

    BOARD OF TRADE AND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSION.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a full and complete statement as to the reasons which induced the Board of Trade to discharge Mrs. Best both from service in the Labour Exchange and Insurance Departments of the Board of Trade and National Insurance Commission; if there is still a sum of money, namely, £22 0s. 2d., due to Mrs. Best remaining unpaid; and whether he is aware that Mrs. Best and her child are at this moment suffering very severely owing to the refusal of his Department to pay her what is admitted to be due to her?
    Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: As has already been stated in reply to a question asked
    1032
    by the Member for Barrow-in-Furness on 14th October, the decision to dispense with the services of the officer in question was only arrived at after a careful investigation which received my personal attention, and which showed she was not suited to the work of a Labour Exchange. A claim for £22 0s. 2d. was received from Mrs. Best, and of this sum £19 0s. 10d.r which was admittedly due to her, has been sent to her representatives. Thus the amount which is in question is £2 19s. 4d. only. The figures are now in course of adjustment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: When was the £19 sent to Mrs. Best and how long has the money been owing? Also, why was not Mrs. Best allowed to take up the appointment to which she was appointed under the Health Insurance Commission?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member must give me notice.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have given notice in the question.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman asks if there is a sum of money still due to Mrs. Best. I have answered that. Ho is asking a further question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It is in the question on the Paper.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot see any such point as the hon. Member now raises.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I asked for a complete statement of the reasons which induced the Board of Trade to discharge Mrs. Best from service in the Labour Exchange and Insurance Department.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have answered that she was discharged as being found unfit for the post. I have answered the further question as to the sum of money. The fact that she is suffering is the only point I have not dealt with. That is a matter on which the Department has no information at all.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the Prime Minister kindly make a statement about the business to-morrow night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the Criminal Law Amendment Bill be concluded tonight, we shall take no business after 10.30 to-morrow night. If that Bill be not concluded to-night the discussion will be continued to-morrow night.

  WAR IN BALKANS.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement in regard to the position at Constantinople, and in particular with reference to the rumour in the papers as to British action?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no foundation whatever for the report that any warning of any kind has boon given by His Majesty's Government to the Bulgarian Government. The movements and intentions of British ships are those stated by the Prime Minister yesterday. They are, I believe, precisely similar to the action which has been, or is being, taken by the other Powers to protect the lives of their respective communities, if need be, in a temporary emergency; and they are the result of communications which have passed between the Powers as the result of opinions expressed by the other Ambassadors equally with the British Ambassador at Constantinople. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's request for actual news, so far as we know, the situation at Constantinople remains as it was yesterday. I should describe it as being apprehension of what may occur in the city of Constantinople itself as the result of future developments in the war proceeding at the gates of Constantinople. Nothing untoward in the city itself has yet happened.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL (CLOSURE).
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: In reference to the notice which appears on the Paper, may I ask whether there is any precedent for such a Closure Resolution in the case of a contentious Bill, and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to
  1060
  grant some days at any rate of free discussion of the matter to the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  [Progress, 4th November.—Thirteenth Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Composition of Irish House of Commons).
    (1) The Irish House of Commons shall consist of one hundred and sixty-four members, returned by the constituencies in Ireland named in the First Part of the First Schedule to this Act in accordance with that Schedule, and elected by the same electors and in the same manner as members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
    (2) The Irish House of Commons when summoned shall, unless sooner dissolved, have continuance for five years from the day on which the summons directs the House to meet and no longer.
    (3) After three years from the passing of this Act, the Irish Parliament may alter, as respects the Irish House of Commons, the qualification of the electors, the mode of election, the constituencies, and the distribution of the members of the House among the constituencies, provided that m any new distribution the number of the members of the House shall not be altered, and due regard shall be had to the population of the constituencies other than university constituencies.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "same electors and" ["and elected by the same electors and in the same manner"], and to insert instead thereof the words "local government electors but otherwise."
    The Amendment which I now submit proposes to substitute for the Parliamentary register the local government register for the election of members of the Irish Parliament. The effect of carrying the Amendment will be to give votes to women for the Irish Parliament. The Irish local government register is somewhat wider than the local government register in England and Wales. It is the Parliamentary register. That is to say,

    1061
    the local government register in Ireland is the Parliamentary register except as regards women voters. The effect of this Amendment, roughly, will be to give votes to women on precisely the same terms as to men. I may say at the outset that I do not move the Amendment in any hostile spirit or in any way as opposing Home Rule. I have so far, as have also the other Members whose names are associated with mine in this proposal, given consistent support to the Home Rule Bill. But I move the Amendment because I think that at a time like this, when the demand of women for enfranchisement is so widespread and urgent, it is impossible to let such an opportunity as this pass without endeavouring to secure for them representation in the Parliament now proposed to be set up in Ireland. Indeed, the surprise is rather that any attempt should be made in these days to set up a now representative authority and to exclude women from representation in that authority. I do not propose to advance any argument in favour of the abstract question of votes for women. I do not think it is necessary indeed to do so in a House of Commons containing more than 400 Members who are pledged to the principle of women's enfranchisement. I shall confine myself, therefore, strictly to the proposal contained in the Amendment, namely, the enfranchisement of women for the Irish Parliament.
    In one sense the claim for the enfranchisement of women under this Bill is rather stronger than the general claim for their enfranchisement—that is to say, there are those who have objections to the enfranchisement of women for an Imperial Parliament like this, but who quite approve of the enfranchisement of women for subordinate Parliaments and for local government authorities. My hon. Friend, for instance, the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Mr. MacCallum Scott), has only one objection to the enfranchisement of women for the Imperial Parliament, and his objection is that he thinks the exercise or control of political power should be in the hands of those who would have to exercise physical force in cases of necessity. Then there are those who object to the enfranchisement of women for this House because this House is concerned with great Imperial questions and with the control of the Army and Navy. Indeed, the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Women's Franchise Bill in the early part of this Session said that if it were a pro-
    1062
    posal for giving votes to women for local Parliaments—that is to say, in England, Scotland, or Ireland—then his attitude might be considerably modified. I submit that the Parliament it is proposed to set up in Ireland is one to which none of these questions are delegated. The Irish party in the Irish Parliament will have no control of Imperial affairs. It will have nothing whatever to do with the Army or the Navy. Its only control over physical forces will be the same that is possessed by the municipalities of this country; that is to say, the control of the police. Indeed, there is no vital or fundamental difference between the functions proposed for the Irish Parliament and the functions of a big municipality. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) yesterday said that this new Parliament was not a Parliament—that the work of this Parliament would be concerned with the daily life and the daily needs of humble and poor people. The London County Council looks after the daily lives and the daily needs of a population 50 per cent, larger than the population of Ireland. The local government authorities, therefore, in which women have a part in local government, deal with revenues amounting to £100,000,000 a year, about 60 per cent, of which is raised by taxation.
    This Irish Parliament, too, would have to deal with the administration of those matters which vitally affect the industrial population of the country and the lives of the people. We decided a week ago, without qualification, that these matters should be left to the Irish Parliament. That is work in which women are very deeply and vitally interested. I submit, therefore, that the free participation of women in local administration, and the privilege of inviting women to take part in the election of local representatives, is an analogy which is very close indeed. This position, indeed, appears to have been accepted by His Majesty's Ministers, for in 1907, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced the Council Bill, he proposed that women should take part in the election of the representatives on the council. The Chief Secretary on that occasion said:—
    "The elective members of the council will be elected by the local government electors in the constituencies set out in a Schedule to the Bill. …. I should be sorry if women were not allowed to take part in any good work which may be within reach of anyone in their country."
    I hope when the right hon. Gentleman speaks in the Debate he will tell the House that he still holds the view he expressed

    1063
    five years ago, and that he will be sorry if this Home Rule Bill were passed and no opportunity given to women to take part in the government of their own country. At a later period the right to take part in local government, and even in such local government as is proposed to be conferred on Ireland by this Bill, was recognised by two other Members of the Government. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in the sensational speech he delivered in Dundee a few weeks ago, when he submitted his proposals for a number of subordinate Parliaments, said that here would be a splendid opportunity for the exercise of women's activities. The Lord Chancellor, speaking just about a year ago, gave expression to an opinion of a similar character. He said:—
    "Suppose devolution takes place …"
    It is now taking place.
    "Suppose Imperial affairs are left to the Imperial Parliament, and local matters affecting Scotland, England and Wales are to be left to local Parliaments, are you to exclude women from these local Parliaments, which are not concerned with the Imperial Army and Navy? You cannot do it consistently after what you have done about local government and education."
    4.0 P.M.
    Therefore we have the express support of three Members of the present Government for my Amendment. It is important to remember that we are setting a precedent, and that if we pass this Home Rule Bill excluding women's representation it will be quoted when we come to deal with Scotland, Wales, and probably a half-dozen other sub-divisions of the country. What will happen if it is going to be left to each of these subordinate bodies to settle the question whether women should have representation or not? It means that the women's struggle is going to be carried on four, five, six, or more times over. We have an illustration of that at this very moment in the United States of America, where to-day women are voting in six States for the election of President, while in the remaining forty-two States they cannot vote. The reason for this difference has been that this question has been left to the States themselves to settle and has not been dealt with by the federal Government. I hope, if you are going to embark upon a scheme of devolution in this country, that we shall not find such a difficulty as they now have to deal with in the United States of America. I now come to the question whether there is any demand in Ireland for such a policy as I now submit. Of course, I must admit
    1064
    there has not been that widespread agitation for Woman Suffrage in Ireland that there has been in other parts of the United Kingdom. The same thing applies to every other popular question in Ireland, because the activities of the Irish people have been absorbed in the one question of getting Home Rule. But notwithstanding that there is a Woman Suffrage movement in Ireland which is strongly supported. Quite recently a number of demonstrations—large, enthusiastic, unanimous, and representative have been held in Ireland. One was recently held in Dublin, and these societies were represented:—The Irish Women's Franchise League, the Irish Women's Suffrage Societies, Belfast, Bangor, and Derry, the Irish Women's Suffrage Federation, the Irish Women's Reform League, the Waterford Branch of the Franchise League, the Belfast. Women's Non-militant Suffrage Society, the Suffrage Societies of Lisburn, Armagh, Newry and Warrenpoint, the Irish League of Women's Suffrage, London, and then a name which I will not attempt to pronounce because it is written in Irish, and the Irish drapers' assistants, from which delegates were present.
    We shall probably be told in the course of this Debate that if there is a Woman Suffrage movement in Ireland it is confined to Dublin, yet here is this demonstration which had delegates from the counties Tipperary, Galway, Mayo, Wicklow, Sligo, Westmeath, Clave, Roscommon, Kilkenny, Kerry, Louth, and Waterford. The organised Labour movement in Ireland has unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the extension of the franchise to women in Ireland, and, even more important as being an expression representing Irish opinion, the County Councils of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Galway, all Nationalist bodies, have passed resolutions asking the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women. In addition to that the City Councils of Dublin, Cork, and Limerick have done the same, but the City Council of Dublin has done more than that. Eighteen months ago the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Town Clerk, and members of the Corporation of Dublin came to the Bar of this House. So enthusiastic are the City Corporation of Dublin about this question that they sent the Lord Mayor and his friends to this House to urge the passing of a law at once giving a measure of enfranchisement for Irish women and the women of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will permit me to read two or three para-

    1065
    graphs from the petition which was then presented to this House, because they state the case so well for the enfranchisement of Irish women, and the general argument for the enfranchisement of women so sensibly, that it is much better than anything which I shall be able to say. The petition says, that the petitioners—
    "desire to express their earnest hope that the present, disabilities under which the Parliamentary franchise is withheld from women in the United Kingdom may be removed. That numbers of women taxpayers subject to such disabilities are resident in the City of Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland."
    I may interpose this remark, that, so far as I can calculate if my Amendment is carried, it would enfranchise about 100,000 women. There are about 700,000 local government electors of whom about 100,000 are women Of these no fewer than 70,000 are women who are owning and managing their own farms and who have all the responsibilities of men in the same position. The petition goes on—
    "that vast numbers of women, owing to the completely changed conditions of modern life, as compared with the former order of things, have been forced into the domain of competitive employment, and they are compelled to take their part in the struggle for life, and are consequently as much concerned in the influencing of legislation as men. That, as the Legislature has already conceded the municipal franchise to women in the United Kingdom, the further concession to women of the Parliamentary franchise seems but an act of natural justice whereby the may be enabled to bring about reforms affecting women as a class. That the legislation heretofore enacted in the direct interests of women has only partly dealt with their grievances, and leaves much to be done to place them on a plane of social and economic equality with men. That legislation intended to meet the growing social and economic needs of women cannot be framed so as to be useful or effective while women are debarred from exercising the Parliamentary franchise, and that by the removal of existing disabilities your honourable House would be enabled to ascertain the legislative needs of women better than under present conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1911, cols. 1529–1530.]
    It may be asked, what about the opinion of the representatives of Ireland in this House? In 1911 when the Women's Franchise Bill was voted upon, only nine members of the Irish Nationalist party voted against it. With regard to the vote in the early part of this year, I am quite sure that it will not be denied by the Irish party that the Irish vote then given was not given at all on the merits of Woman Suffrage. It was given out of consideration for Home Rule, and therefore we are justified in thinking that the opinion of the Irish representatives on this question was given when their votes were taken directly upon it, and when only nine Nationalist Members voted against it. Now the Irish Nationalist Members either represent Ireland or they do not. Surely they are not going to say flat when there
    1066
    was a clear issue in this House, and the majority of them voted in favour of it, they were not voting as representing what they believed to be the opinion of the Irish people?
    An HON. MEMBER: How many voted in favour of it?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Only nine voted against it. The Irish party I believe on that occasion contributed a larger percentage in favour of it than any other party in this House except the Labour party. What has the suffrage movement in Ireland done? It has united women of all creeds and of all parties. We had Protestant and Catholic women, Nationalist and Unionist women, all joined together in demanding enfranchisement after the Home Rule Bill has become law. Now I wish to touch upon a matter which I am quite sure will be raised later in this Debate. It will be put forward no doubt that this is a matter which ought to be left to the Irish Parliament. But we are setting up a Constitution for Ireland. What is the aim of the Constitution? We are trying to frame and to get a representative Government for Ireland. This House has certain duties and responsibilities from which it cannot divest itself. It is the duty of this House in setting up a Constitution to sec that every class and every interest in Ireland is represented, protected and safeguarded by the provisions of the Constitution. The greater part of the discussion which so far has taken place on this Home Rule Bill has been with regard to safeguards under the Bill. The hon. Member for Waterford has stated more than once that he would be prepared to grant safeguards to any dozen men in Ireland who felt that they needed safeguards for the protection of their interests, but is it only the interests of men which have to be safeguarded?
    We are proposing to consider the interests of every little section and every small body of men, yet in Ireland you have a majority of women and there is to be no safeguard whatever for them in this Bill. They are to be, to use a phrase of the Bill, a transferred service. They are not considered to be so important as the Post Office Savings Bank. The Government will not trust the Irish people with the management of the Post Office Savings Bank, but they will trust the Irish Parliament with the control of nearly two millions of women. This is to be a transferred service. It is placed in the same

    1067
    category as drainage and the Congested Districts Board. Women under this Bill are to be placed in the same category and are to be regulated in the same way as swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease. The last shred of justification for leaving this question for settlement by the Irish Parliament disappears when the announcement was made, with regard to the election of the Senate last week. Surely, if we have a right to say that Ireland shall not determine the constitution of her Senate, we have a right to say what franchise shall be adopted, at any rate as a beginning, for elections to the Irish Parliament. This is not really a question of leaving it to the Irish Parliament at all. We cannot leave it to the Irish Parliament. We are setting it up up and what we are doing is to depart from precedent. The precedent is the adoption of the local government franchise, but we therefore are imposing upon Ireland a franchise which is not suitable to the kind of government we are setting up. As soon as we have finished the various stages of this Bill we are going to take up the consideration of a franchise Bill. That franchise Bill applies to Ireland as well as to other parts of the United Kingdom, and, of course, we must assume that both the Home Rule Bill and the Franchise Bill are going to be passed, and, if they be, then the Franchise Act is going to apply to Ireland after the Irish Parliament has been set up. The Irish Parliament is to meet in 1913, and the Franchise Act is to come into operation in 1914. Therefore, what we are going to do is to leave the Irish Parliament to settle their own affairs after three years, and then twelve months after the Irish Parliament is assembled the Act of Parliament passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom is to come into operation and alter the Irish franchise for the election of subsequent Irish Parliaments. Therefore your position is altogether untenable and illogical and inconsistent, and leaving it to the Irish Parliament means that you are going to make the Irish party settle their own franchise and let the Irish party settle the franchise of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the vote given by the Irish Nationalists in the early part of this Session, in all human probability we should have had votes for women for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the Nationalist party can really
    1068
    determine what the franchise shall be in the United Kingdom. They are going to have power to do that even when they get Home Rule, for there will still be forty-two Irish Members in this House, and it is not at all an improbable assumption that such a number of Members will be able to sway the balance upon this and other important questions in the future. Therefore I submit to you that on this point there is not a shred of logic or of reason in the contention that this question ought to be left to the Irish Parliament. We cannot divest ourselves of responsibility in this matter.
    There are two other matters to which I wish to refer. The first three years of the Irish Parliament will be important. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) yesterday referred to questions such as social reform, housing, and the like, to be dealt with in the early years of the Irish Parliament. Surely those are questions with which women are entitled to deal. Irish Nationalists who are democrats certainly ought to agree that the Irish Parliament should be representative of all those whose interests may be affected by their legislation. It is important that the right trend should be given to Irish social legislation. As soon as the Irish Parliament is set up, whether they believe it or not at present, they will discover that there is a very strong feeling on this subject in Ireland, and if it were settled now it would relieve the Irish Parliament of a good deal of anxiety during the first three years. I submit that for these reasons they ought to support this Amendment. Indeed, Home Rule is a misnomer so long as those who manage home affairs have no part whatever in Home Rule. Ireland has a proud record in the past in regard to her treatment of women. Ireland threw open her colleges and schools of surgery to women in this country when they were denied entrance to the surgery schools here. Trinity College gave degrees to the women of Oxford and Cambridge when they were denied degrees at those universities. I hope Irish Members are not going to stop there, and that they are not going to sully their proud record by refusing this Amendment at a time when their long-cherished desire is going to be realised, and will not deny women a share in the consummation of this long struggle. Women have fought side by side with the men in their struggle for Home Rule, and I am sure that Irish Members will be the first to show some gratitude for the great

    1069
    services the women of Ireland have rendered to the Nationalist movement. This Bill should be a democratic Bill, and every section of Ireland should be represented. If my Amendment be not incorporated in the Bill, then it is not a Home Rule Bill, and the Irish Parliament cannot have the advantage which it ought to have, so long as half the population is totally unrepresented.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I, like some of my colleagues sitting upon this bench, certainly should like to see the principle of Woman Suffrage cautiously introduced into our electoral system, and I confidently look forward very soon to have an opportunity of giving effect to my moderate and sensible views on this subject in the Lobby of this House. But we here, this afternoon, are on Clause 9 of this Government of Ireland Bill, and I should like to ask the Committee most carefully to remember that by the provisions of the Bill the Irish electoral roll will be the same as that of Members returned by the constituencies to the Imperial Parliament. That is a matter which I want to bring home to the minds of everybody in the Committee. Before many weeks are over we shall in the Imperial Parliament, in which the Irish Members are fully represented, have an opportunity, quite free from any entanglement of Home Rule or anything else, free also from what many people find trying to them, the crack of the party Whip, to decide for ourselves, one way or the other, upon a variety of questions connected with Woman Suffrage on the floor of this House. My hon. Friend below the Gangway, who has just delivered one of his well-knitted and closely reasoned speeches, referred to opinion in Ireland—Irish opinion is reflected by the representatives from Ireland, whether they sit above or below the Gangway opposite—and I may say, with the most perfect truth, that there is a great body of opinion in Ireland in favour of some measure such as he proposes. I hardly know that I should be authorised or justified from my knowledge to say exactly to what extent, but there is a large body of opinion in Ireland in favour of the principle of Woman Suffrage. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] There is undoubtedly, unless all means of expounding opinion are, worthless—which really sometimes is almost brought home to my mind—unless what are called the ordinary channels,
    1070
    and indeed channels of communication at all, are not to be relied upon, I say unhesitatingly there is a body of opinion, I do not say how large, in favour of some measure of Woman Suffrage.
    The hon. Member went on to say that there are a number of Irish Members below the Gangway, and I daresay above it also, who are themselves in this House advocates of some measure of Woman Suffrage. They will have, then, in a few weeks' time the opportunity to which I have referred of settling what the electoral roll is to be of the Imperial Parliament, and under the provisions of Clause 9, whatever decision we come to on that matter, automatically and at once, becomes the governing decision of the electoral roll of the Irish Parliament. Therefore, when we settle this question in a few weeks' time, we shall be settling it with the full knowledge that when the Home Rule Bill passes, anything we introduce by way of extending the suffrage to women will be the prerogative of Irish women, just as much as of those who are in England, Scotland, or Wales. The electoral roll will become augmented and increased by the addition of women to it. When we decide this question, then we shall be deciding it, not only for this country, not only for Scotland and Wales, but for Ireland, who will still have forty-two Members in the Imperial Parliament—we will settle it for the Irish Parliament itself. If, on the other hand, the opponents of Woman Suffrage should succeed—and I trust they will not—in preventing an amendment of the law, and in excluding altogether women from a moderate or extended franchise and from the operations of our electoral system, then the Irish Parliament would be in a better position than we should be in England, because, after three years, they will be able themselves, if they are so minded, and after the experience which they have gained, to add women to their electoral roll.
    The question therefore we have now to consider is whether it is reasonable and just at this moment, having regard to the complicated questions which await decision en the floor of this House, and will carry with them the consequences I have referred to, to proceed to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Somewhat reluctantly I am most clearly of opinion that we ought to do nothing of the kind, and that we should allow this question to remain over for a short time to be

    1071
    decided on, the floor of this House, and Irish opinion in the North and South and East and West will be represented here, and Irish representatives, voting free from any party ties or other obligations, will be perfectly able to express the opinions they entertain as to this matter. Some, I know, are for it and some against it, but they will have that opportunity. Whatever this House decides with reference to our electoral roll will be binding under Clause 9 on the Irish Parliament and its electors. I do not think my hon. Friend can rely very much upon the dates that he put forward. I do not think we are in a position at the present moment to assign any date, whether 1913 or 1914, to the passing of this particular measure under discussion at the present time. I do not think that the question of date enters very materially into our consideration; but a discussion of this matter, with a full representation of Irish opinion, which I quite agree is of the utmost importance, will be obtained in this House in a very short time. That is my reason for thinking that the Government do well to resist the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    The hon. Member referred to the Irish Council Bill, and he quoted some language of mine. Of course, I do not withdraw from that language in any sense or way; not to have included Woman Suffrage in such a measure as the Council Bill would have been a retrograde step; it would have been to deprive women of the power they possess in matters of administration, and it would certainly have been a course for which I personally would never have made myself responsible. We were not then dealing with a legislative assembly or an assembly with any powers to make laws whatsoever, and therefore as women were already on the plane of recognition by common con sent and without controversy they were included. I go further in that direction, and would include women to a certain extent for legislative purposes. In the Council Bill we did not ask this House to alter its mind in any shape or way on the question of Woman Suffrage for legislative questions, but I felt perfectly justified and indeed bound, not to exclude the local government female voter from a measure which had nothing whatever to do with legislation. It was entirely confined to administrative functions. I do not want in any way to forestall the Debate which will come on on the Franchise Bill when
    1072
    the whole House, and all parts of the House, and the Irish Members as well as all others, will have their opportunity of expressing their opinions. I do say that now at this moment to introduce into this measure a kind of preliminary canter as to what our opinions may be on female suffrage, is an unwise and inequitable proposal, and one we should do well to reject In saying that I leave the whole question open, and I am sure we shall all rejoice when the great question of Woman Suffrage in its various shades and divisions comes on to be further discussed and voted on in a free House of Commons by all the representatives of the different nationalities who compose it. The Government cannot therefore accept this Amendment.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I rise with the very greatest pleasure to support this Amendment. I must confess the arguments of the Chief Secretary do not impress me as either logical or appropriate to the question under discussion. After all we are an Imperial Parliament, and we have now to decide what form of Constitution we should delegate to Ireland. There are 103 Irish Members in this House, and the question before us is one which we cannot decide apart from Ireland, and on which the voice of Ireland will be heard. It is a question on which responsibility attaches to Ireland with England and the other parts of the United Kingdom. I think, believing as I do in Woman Suffrage, that those of us who are in favour of it ought to vote for this Amendment. If any Member is in favour of Woman Suffrage, it seems to me he is bound to consider his responsibility in the matter, and to consider whether in drawing up a Constitution for Ireland he ought to embrace this power of giving to Ireland's women the right to vote equally with men. As I believe in Woman Suffrage, I feel bound to support this Amendment. Apart from the question of responsibility, there is the other question of tactics on the part of the Irish party. I desire to make an appeal to the Irish party on this occasion. I observe that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) is present, and I appeal to him or to any other representative Irishman as to what is their attitude with regard to this question of Woman Suffrage. If he or any other Member of the Irish party can assure this House that when the time arrives to which the Chief Secretary has

    1073
    alluded, namely, the greater question of the Franchise Bill, that the Irish party will approach this question quite unfettered, and that they will discuss it on its merits, and, as we believe the majority of the Irish Members are in favour of Woman Suffrage, that they will be free to express their views and give their votes on that occasion, that I believe would certainly reassure a very considerable number of Members on this side of the House.
    I was very glad to note the enthusiastic support of the Chief Secretary to the principle of Woman Suffrage, and I hope that we will hear his voice as well as have his vote when the occasion arises. I say again if the Irish Party will assure this House now that they will come to this question, as I believe they will, with some regard to the merits of the question itself, that I think I would go a long way to reassure hon. Members on this side. What can be their object in opposing Woman Suffrage? I apprehend that the only opposition on the part of the Irish party is that they believe in some way or another their attitude with regard to Woman Suffrage will endanger Home Rule. I believe that I am right in that assumption, and possibly some Member of the Irish party later on will inform me whether I am right or not. That is to say, that their action both to-day and later on will be governed by the consideration whether by supporting Woman Suffrage they will advance Home Rule or retard it. I submit, particularly on this Amendment, they ought not to be governed even by that consideration, because this is essentially a local matter. It is an Amendment which ought to command the support of a very considerable number of Members on both sides of the House who may perhaps object to Woman Suffrage on the larger scale, but who may support it on this Amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Irish Members to-day will not allow any ideas with regard to Home Rule to govern their procedure, but will vote on the merits of this Amendment, namely, as to whether they believe in granting to Ireland the right of women to take part in the government of local affairs or not. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), in Ins very able and closely reasoned speech, as the Chief Secretary described it, showed us that this was a very essential matter for Irish women. The questions which are to be discussed by the Irish Parliament will be largely of a local and domestic character. We know that there are some two
    1074
    million women in Ireland, and that this proposal will enfranchise at least one hundred thousand. What is more natural than that in giving to Ireland a Constitution we should have some regard for the important part which women play in the composition of that country?
    To revert to the question of the attitude of the Irish Members, while I agree that a great deal will depend to-day on which decision they take up on this question, I would submit that in voting against Woman Suffrage they are doing something which I believe, far more than they themselves imagine, although I pay my tribute to their great Parliamentary skill and ability, will raise an enemy to the cause of Home Rule which they have little idea of. They do not understand the feeling in this country with regard to this question. For the moment the more militant sections are quiescent, and a large number of other women are hoping against hope that possibly this Parliament, which, as has been pointed out, contains406 supporters of Woman Suffrage, may have the great honour and distinction of granting the Parliamentary franchise to women. If the Irish party to-day use their votes to bring about a defeat of this Amendment, and if they use their influence and vote to defeat the greater Amendment when it comes before this House later on, then I believe that they are doing and will be doing an act which, more than anything else, may retard the great ideal and great hope which they have with regard to Home Rule. The Irish party may say, How do you reconcile or make that statement? I submit if Home Rule passes—that is, if this Bill is passed and sent to the Lords, and if the Franchise Bill is passed and also sent up there, and if this Amendment is defeated, and if the greater Amendment is also defeated, that you will create, of course, as every hon. Member must know, a great body of exasperation, discontent, and unrest, among the women, not only of Ireland, but of the United Kingdom. If those scenes of which we have had experience in the past are repeated, and if Ministers of the Crown are subjected to those indignities and those outrages which we all deprecate, and which certainly no one could for a moment excuse, then those who believe in Woman Suffrage will naturally say that that intolerable state of affairs cannot continue, and people will ask: What is the real cause of the disturbance? They will in that way come to the

    1075
    real root cause, and if they believe in Woman Suffrage they will say, For Heaven's sake, why not grant it?
    I believe, further, by such action, you will lay the foundation of a feeling which will make itself so felt in this House in the intervening two years that have to elapse before Home Rule and the Franchise Bill are passed, that a great many things may happen. Therefore, if through your action you create the discontent and dissatisfaction and unrest leading to disturbances and outrages, you are bound to have a great deal of unrest. The ordinary man, perhaps, does not feel it one way or the other, but he docs believe in dignified and orderly government, and if he observes that Ministers of the Crown are not heard with respect he resents that, because he believes the Ministers of the State should be treated with proper respect by the citizens, irrespective of their political opinions. Therefore I submit if those outrages continue, and if that unrest and undignified proceedings throughout the country continue, they will generate an opinion which will be felt in this House, and which may lead to an adverse vote here. Therefore I appeal to the Irish party that though by their action they may think they are advancing Home Rule, they may be doing the very worst thing they could do for the advancement of that cause. I therefore ask the Irish Members to weigh well their votes on this occasion. It has been pointed out that the great majority of the Irish votes are in favour of Woman Suffrage, and particularly in favour of Woman Suffrage for their own local affairs. It is on that ground that I hope they will recognise that not only does this question deserve their votes and their support, but even also in the interests of Home Rule, which I know they put first and foremost, they should give the Amendment of my hon. Friend their most hearty support.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to say a very few words before this Debate comes to a close in order to explain the vote which I am going to give. In the first place allow me to say that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) did not at all mean in proposing his Amendment any hostility to Home Rule, because we recognise thoroughly that amongst those who have ardently supported the cause of Home Rule the hon. Member for Blackburn has been always foremost. Therefore, his action will not be taken as
    1076
    meaning any hostility to Home Rule, but will be taken rather as an indication of the keen and consistent interest which he has always manifested in the movement for Woman Suffrage. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last rather relied in his speech somewhat on a tone which might perhaps be interpreted by some as meaning a threat towards those who are interested in Home Rule, if they did not support the Amendment which is now before the House. The hon. Gentleman laid some stress upon the consequences which would be likely to follow to the Home Rule movement in case an adverse vote were given en this occasion. I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself, who is such a good and tried friend of the Irish people, will recognise that an argument of that kind is the very last argument to appeal to Irishmen. Therefore, I am sure the hon. Gentleman really did not intend that part of his argument in that direction. I do not for a moment waver in the support which I have consistently given all through my life in this House to the movement to confer the franchise on women. It is considerably over twenty-five years ago since I first gave a vote in this House in favour of Woman Suffrage, and anything I have been able to do in support of that movement, inside and outside the House, I have been glad to do. Therefore I am sure the hon. Member for Blackburn and his Friends will recognise that in the attitude which I personally take up on this occasion I am actuated, not in the least degree by any desire to retard Woman Suffrage, but, on the contrary, by the firm opinion that to attempt to confer the franchise upon women by the method of this Amendment would not be successful, and would tend to prejudice the ultimate success of the movement.
    What view do I, as a consistent supporter of Woman Suffrage, take on this matter? I say that this question of all questions ought to be left to the decision of the Irish people themselves. The hon. Member for Blackburn entered into some calculations as to the exact strength of Irish opinion for and against Woman Suffrage. He gave the number of votes cast against the Conciliation Bill of last year, and said also, quite truly, that a large number of Members voted in its favour. I am not prepared to gauge exactly the strength of the opinion on this question in Ireland or in the ranks of the Irish party. I am not prepared to say upon which side the balance rests, but that there is a very

    1077
    strong division of opinion cannot be denied. I say that the matter should be left to the Irish people, in the confident belief that an Irish Parliament would take the earliest opportunity to confer the franchise upon women. I endorse to the fullest extent everything the hon. Member for Blackburn said as to the advisability of allowing women to take a full share in all those matters of the government of the people which will be within the scope of the Irish Parliament under the provisions of this Bill; but I cannot altogether agree with him that it is the business of this House, when framing a Constitution for Ireland, to settle matters of franchise. I may be wrong, but my recollection at the moment is that in every one of the Constitutions framed by this House for the various self-governing portions of the Empire, matters of franchise, and particularly this very question of conferring voting powers upon women, have been left to the local Parliaments themselves. Throughout the length and breadth of Australia to-day women have the power to vote at elections, and that power was conferred by the various Parliaments of Australia one ofter another. It was not settled by this House, and I believe it would have been considered by the people of those States an improper thing if a matter of this kind had been settled by this House irrespective of the opinion of the people of the States. The Parliaments of Australia and other self-governing States were given the right to deal with this question, and they have dealt with it. I submit that the proper and consistent course to-day is to follow the precedents and to do what was done when establishing Parliaments in every other portion of the Empire.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn said that there might be some complication if the Franchise Bill became law with the Woman Suffrage Amendment embodied in it, and if this Bill became law, without the present Amendment being adopted. I do not enter into any speculation as to the exact date when either this Bill or the Franchise Bill will actually become law; but I submit to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends that it is upon the Franchise Bill that the real opportunity will come of giving a full and free vote upon the merits of the question. I do not believe for a single moment that when the Division is taken this evening the votes of hon. Members will be confined at all to the merits of Woman Suffrage. Other motives will
    1078
    actuate many Members. It is because I believe that a vote taken this afternoon will prejudice and jeopardise the chances of an Amendment of this character being inserted in the Franchise Bill that I regret this Amendment of the hon. Member, though I fully appreciate the motive which has prompted his action. The Chief Secretary said that when the Franchise Bill is brought forward there will be a free and unfettered vote on the question of Woman Suffrage. That statement was received with some derision by Members of the Opposition. I really do not know why. As far as I understand, the position of the Prime Minister has always been quite clear and has never changed on this matter. As I understand, when the Woman Suffrage Amendment is proposed to the Franchise Bill, it will be loft absolutely freely to the decision of the House, the Government Whips will not be put on, and the question will be decided by the unfettered judgment of the Members of all parties.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no pressure put on the Irish Members themselves?
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am really at a loss to understand what exactly is meant by that question.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the same process take place as on the Conciliation Bill, when in consequence of the pressure put on Irish Members the Bill was lost?
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: As far as I know, there has never been any pressure put upon Irish Members in this matter. I do not know from what direction the pressure is supposed to come, but I can assure the hon. Member with absolute frankness that this question of the franchise for women has never within my recollection been made a party question with the Irish party. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will take that from me, in spite of the various rumours as to pressure which from time to time has been circulated. If the Franchise Bill is introduced, a Woman Suffrage Amendment proposed, and the Prime Minister adopts the course which he has always undertaken to adopt, of leaving the matter to the free and unfettered judgment of the House. I am quite sure that Members of the Irish party will approach the question on its merits. A vote will then be taken on the merits of the question, which, in my opinion, cannot

    1079
    be the case to-day. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the Irish people had given a lead in their treatment of women in various directions. That is true, and we are very proud of it. That fact in itself is the very best guarantee that could be given that in this matter the Irish people are to be trusted to do what is broad-minded and liberal when the opportunity is afforded to them. I would most earnestly appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to recognise in this matter what is after all the very first principle of Home Rule. The Irish people are certainly the people to settle this question for themselves. There may be a very wide difference of opinion as to how the matter would be dealt with by an Irish Parliament, but personally I believe it would be anxious to enlist in its support and for the government of the country every possible help that could be obtained. It is my strong conviction that an Irish Parliament would speedily follow the example of the Australian Parliaments and confer the franchise on women. At any rate, it is eminently a question to be left to the Irish people themselves. If this were an attempt to confer the franchise upon the women of the United Kingdom generally, I could better understand it; but to select Ireland, and Ireland alone, does not seem to me to be quite consistent. If the Franchise Bill is so amended as to extend the franchise to women, it will operate in Ireland as in Scotland, Wales, and England. In my opinion it is not dealing quite fairly by the question—though I am sure the hon. Member for Blackburn means to be fair—to endeavour to have it introduced, as it were, by a side wind and applied to Ireland, and Ireland alone.
    5.0 P.M.
    I appeal most earnestly to hon. Gentlemen opposite to give me credit for some sincerity in this matter. I have supported the Woman Suffrage movement in season and out of season for a great number of years. I am still quite unshaken in my devotion to the principle. I think the case which has been made out is unanswerable. I appeal to hon. Members to recognise that the attitude taken up by Irish Members who hold my view—and of course they do not all feel the same way—is dictated by a strong feeling that more harm than good would be done to the movement by dealing with it in the manner suggested. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are far-sighted politicians, must
    1080
    realise that it is perfectly futile to expect that the Division to-night will be taken on the merits of the question. We heard last night, as we have heard before from the Opposition, speeches and declarations to the effect that they will vote for Amendments though they do not believe in them, in the hope that they will complicate the passage of the Home Rule Bill. Hon. Memvoted for proportional representation who did not in the least degree believe in that method of election. They did so frankly in order to embarrass the Government in reference to this Bill. Who can doubt—the hon. Member for Blackburn will be the last to do so—that at half-past seven this evening the same attitude will be adopted by large a number of hon. Members? The Division, whatever the result may be, will not and cannot be a true reflection of the opinion of hon. Members upon the question of Votes for Women. A number of votes will be given for the Amendment by Members who are actuated simply by a desire to complicate and retard the passage of the Home Rule Bill. It is for that reason that I regret very much that this question, to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn and myself are, I may say, quite devoted, should be surrounded by an atmosphere of unreality, and should be attended by circumstances which make it quite impossible for a clear decision to be arrived at. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to recognise the principle of Home Rule in this matter; to trust the Irish people in this as in other matters, and to allow the Irish Parliament to deal with this question, as other Parliaments set up by this House in various portions of the Empire have dealt with it. I ask them to recognise that the vote taken will not by any means be a vote for or against the principle of Woman Suffrage, but it will be a vote complicated largely by a strong desire on the part of many Members to leave this essentially Home Rule question in Ireland to the settlement of the Irish people.
    I hope the hon. Member for Blackburn, in the cause to which he is devoted, and which I think is a good cause, will not upon this occasion allow his opinions and those of his Friends to have a Division taken which will be no real Division, but will hamper Members when the proper time comes to decide this question upon the Franchise Bill; and that he will believe me when I say that on that Franchise Bill, and then only, will a real and

    1081
    fair and unfettered opportunity be given to get the true decision of this House upon the question of votes for women. If he takes that view he will not press his Amendment to a Division. If he does so, I regret it will not be in my power to support him, and that upon two grounds: First of all, I believe that this matter should really be left to the Irish Parliament. That is the precedent; that is what has happened in every other similar case. No Parliament has been established where this matter has been settled by this House. It has been left to the people of the various self-governing districts. On that ground first I oppose the Amendment; and, secondly I oppose it even more strongly on the ground that I am absolutely convinced that more harm than good will be done by a Division taken to-night to the cause to which the hon. Member and myself are devoted.
    Mr. W. F. ROCH: I am sure many of us who are supporters of this Amendment are grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken when he said that he realised quite well that we who supported it wore not bad friends of Home Rule. I can assure him, speaking for myself, that I only support this Amendment and speak in favour of it because of my belief that the enfranchisement of women is as fundamental a justice as is the granting of Home Rule to Ireland. I will pass in a moment or two to the arguments he used. But I would just like to say a few words, and a few words only, about the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. First of all, I am sure the supporters of Woman Suffrage are glad to recognise that his faith in their cause is still undimmed, and that he has again given expression to his well-known views, in spite of somewhat unkind treatment which has been meted out to him by a portion of the women. But now both he and the hon. Member who has just spoken will forgive me for saying that when they say they are going to support Woman Suffrage on some future occasion that that is a somewhat familiar argument. Their answer is always, "It is not thus or now." In the historic words of the Liberal party we must "Wait and See." The whole basis of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman and the whole basis of the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Redmond) was based upon this. They both said that in a very short time, "a free opportunity will be given to you to settle this question." I venture to
    1082
    submit that if I am able to show that that is just what will not arise then the whole basis of their argument goes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite and the other Nationalist Members will forgive me if I say—and I do not wish to say anything unkind even if I may seem to say so—that the hon. Member has assured us of his undying faith in Woman Suffrage. On a critical occasion this Session, when his vote would have been of great value, and his support would not have boon an academic support, he and many of his friends from Ireland, who have been with us before, for some unknown reasons—they were not given expression to—were not found in the Division Lobby when the time came. The general argument put forward against this Amendment is that a free opportunity will be given us when the Franchise Bill comes on. But will it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn pointed out, for three years the Irish Parliament has no power whatever to interfere with the existing franchise. Then comes the Franchise Bill, which will establish Woman Suffrage—the very thing which they are now opposing. I venture to say if the Irish Members are going to oppose Woman Suffrage now, can we, in spite of what they say, hope that they will vote for Woman Suffrage which will apply to them under the Franchise Bill, while they are against it at the present time? That is the very great difficulty which I am in. I support Woman Suffrage, and I support this Amendment. If the hon. Members are logical and say they will not have it now, but they will only support it with their votes on the Franchise Bill, they will probably interfere—if the Bill is to apply to Ireland—with the franchise being given to the United Kingdom.
    That is the fundamental difficulty with which we are met. Speaking for myself, if that were removed, it might very much affect the view I have taken upon this Amendment. I said that I would say something to the Irish Members. We have some reason to doubt what may happen. I referred a moment ago to the Conciliation Bill of this Session when old Friends were not with us at a critical time. Why? There were some hon. Members of somewhat weak faith who, because windows were broken, broke their pledges by way of contrast. Other Members, also from Ireland, could not have been offended at the unorthodox way of carrying on agitation, for of all Members the Irish

    1083
    Members, in view of the history of their agitations, could not have been offended or insulted at windows broken. How did they behave? Every Member sitting as a Nationalist Member for an Irish constituency who was against Woman Suffrage voted against the Bill, whilst of those who were supposed to be in favour of the Bill not a single one was found in the Lobby! I say to the Irish Members any faith is quite as strong and undimmed in Irish Home Rule as it is in Woman Suffrage, but they will forgive mc for saying that they then played a selfish game. It is just as well to talk quite frankly and not to say one thing in the Lobby or the Smoking Room and to use soft words to the Irish Members in this House. They have played a selfish game. I can assure them, not by way of making any threats, that selfish games react upon the people who play them. I say the time has now come for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford to say quite faithfully that not only that this free opportunity will be given, but that when it is given to vote hon. Members opposite will not be away in Ireland attending to their farms and such like. I do think that we are entitled to be absolutely satisfied that these genuine supporters of the movement from Ireland will not fail us when the Women's Franchise Bill comes before the House. I have said these words perfectly candidly and freely, with no feeling of hostility, but saying exactly what I mean, and I think that I have put the point which is in the minds of a great many who are supporting this Amendment, with a view to, in fairness to us, to clearing up any bitterness that may have got into the Debate.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The discussion to which we have just listened throws a most interesting light upon the difficulties of the coalition. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare a very conciliatory speech directed at the hon. Members on the opposite side. He said although he was still in favour of Woman Suffrage, on this occasion he would be unable to give his vote for it. In like manner he was opposed to the Budget, but was unable to vote—
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Not at all, I was not opposed to the Budget.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but certainly he has not heard the
    1084
    opinions of his constituents. He knows perfectly well that the community as a whole were opposed to the Budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps I am travelling a little wide of the mark, but the principle of hon. Members behind me and opposite seems to me is, "You scratch me and I'll scratch you." The hon. Member opposite, under the honeyed phrases with which he commenced his speech, hid the underlying bitterness which was in his heart. He remembered well that the hon. Member for Clare and his colleagues failed him on the occasion when he hoped that they would be in the Lobby to support him on the one subject on which he feels strongly. Now we know the log-rolling which goes on on both sides of the House. But I have only risen to say that I can support the Amendment. I can claim what a great many hon. Members who sit behind me cannot, that is consistency in this matter. I have either voted or paired in favour of Woman Suffrage on other occasions. I should like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is an obvious farce. We all know perfectly well this Home Rule Bill is dead, and will never come to anything. May I therefore appeal to hon. Members opposite to vote logically on this question?
    We have been told, to satisfy the fears of hon. Members and the people of this country, and also the apprehensions of Ulster, that this is not to be a great sovereign independent Parliament; it is merely going to be an Assembly for settling the local affairs of Ireland. We know perfectly well that in local assemblies women are allowed to vote. If this is going to be merely a deliberative local assembly why should not the women be allowed to vote? The hon. Member for Clare, for some reason best known to himself, was certainly rather apprehensive as to how his action was going to affect hon. Members opposite. He said: "Why not allow the Irish people to settle this in their own way when they have their Parliament?" If he and his friends represent anything do they not represent the Irish people; are they not perfectly well aware of the views of their constituents on this question, and is it not possible to put into this Home Rule Bill, into which already a great deal has been put, an Amendment that women shall or shall not be allowed to vote? I appeal to the House to vote according to-their consciences on this question, and to vote logically.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: The most entertaining of the speeches we have listened to, certainly the most strange, is that which was delivered a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Clare. He has reiterated, I do not know really how many times, that he is entirely devoted to the principle embedded in the Amendment—which he is about to do his best to defeat! He said that for twenty-five years he has been a consistent supporter of Woman Suffrage, and he only deserts it now when the occasion arises that he might give some effect to his belief! He appears to me to be like that type of man of whom we have heard who is assiduous in his courtship until someone in authority asks him what are his intentions, and then he blushes and runs away. After all, the only sort of objection which we have heard urged to this Amendment from the Government, and from the hon. Member for Clare, representing the Nationalist party, is that this matter is a matter which should properly be left to be determined by the Irish Parliament. If I understand aright the speech of the Chief Secretary his contention has entirely gone by the board, because the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that under the provisions of Clause 9, as it stands, if the franchise were extended to women of this country by the Government Bill—which is expected to pass during the present Session—that that extension of the franchise would take effect not merely in this country, but in Ireland as well. In that case it will not be left to be decided by an Irish Parliament; it will be inflicted upon an Irish Parliament by the Imperial Parliament. Therefore, as far as the Government themselves are concerned, it is absolutely illogical and inconsistent for them to maintain that this Parliament is not competent to deal with the question or cannot properly deal with it. We are told that in the course of the present Session the very thing may be done by this Parliament which hon. Members below the Gangway deprecate being done by this Amendment. Let us take the other supposition! Suppose the Women's Franchise Amendment, which we understand is to be proposed to the Government Bill is not carried, and I think there is very great danger it will not be carried, what would be the effect then? The effect would be that under this Bill and the Franchise Bill of the Government, we shall have denied the suffrage to the women of Ireland, and it appears to me that that position would not only
    1086
    be unfortunate but illogical. I can perfectly well understand it would not do to enfranchise women voters for the Imperial Parliament and deny them the franchise for a subordinate Parliament; but surely the converse is not true. It would be perfectly consistent and proper that women should be enfranchised so far as a subordinate Parliament is concerned, while denied the vote for the Imperial Parliament dealing with larger concerns. Therefore on both those grounds it would be illogical and unnecessary to take the ground that it is not for us but for the Irish Parliament to determine this matter. The hon. Member for East Clare reiterated very strongly that this was a matter for the Irish Parliament, and he went on immediately to say that as soon as it came up in the Irish Parliament he felt confident the Irish Parliament would give the votes to women. If that is the view he takes, and I suppose he speaks on behalf of his colleagues—
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, no.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Well, his view is likely to be shared by many of his colleagues, and he told us he believes the franchise would be given to women by an Irish Parliament. That is what he thinks, and if that is so, where in the world comes in his fear of doing it in advance and in this Parliament, instead of waiting for it to be done in Dublin? If the Irish Parliament representing the Irish people, are prepared to enfranchise women immediately, where is the great objection to having it done here and now? I have not heard from the hon. Member or the Chief Secretary any ground whatever of the slightest objection to this matter being done by the present Parliament. Their only excuse is that it might probably be done by the Irish Parliament. Those of us who are in favour of this Amendment perfectly well admit that it is a matter which might properly be left to the Irish Parliament; but those who are against us must go further, and show that what merely could be done by the Irish Parliament would be improper if done by this Parliament. That is what they have entirely failed to do. I think that those who hold that the Parliament we are setting up in Ireland is to be in any sense a subordinate Parliament ought to be ready to confer this franchise on women for that Parliament. They cannot object, as is objected on the larger aspect of this question, that this is an experiment which should be adopted very carefully and cautiously, because we have

    1087
    already experimented in regard to this very Constitution we are sitting up. It has already been pointed out in relation to other Amendments that the Constitution given to the Irish Senate is entirely experimental. We have adopted proportional representation in regard to that House. That is an experiment absolutely untried so far as our own experience is concerned. Therefore, unless this House is going to set its face absolutely on principle against the idea of enfranchising women, it surely ought to be prepared to make an experiment of this sort in relation to this subordinate Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn appealed to expressions of opinion or promises with regard to devolution which have been made by more than one Cabinet Minister in the past. It was very touching to hear the hon. Member make that appeal on the ground of those speeches. I think if the hon. Member had our experience and could view the matter as we do on this side of the House, he would be less disposed to place any reliance upon promises of that sort. We on this side, from the experience we have gained, have come to know that when a promise or a pledge of that sort is given by a Member of the Government the last hope has disappeared of its being carried out. I think the hon. Member for Blackburn anticipated an objection that might be raised to this Amendment—that there was no effective demand for the franchise on the part of the women in Ireland. I think his expression was "effective demand." It is perfectly true that there has been, so far, at all events, no such noisy demand for the franchise for women in Ireland as has characterised the movement in this country.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: We have had no hatchet throwing, anyhow.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: There has been no such noisy demand, but is it a fatal objection that there has been no noisy demand? Because if so, I should like to point out that the advocates of Woman Suffrage are then in this very embarrassing position: It is objected to give the franchise in Ireland because there is no noisy demand, while it is objected to give the franchise in this country because there has been a noisy demand. For my part, I think it would be the very best possible proof of the effectiveness of the demand that it was unnoisy but quite
    1088
    persistent, and the franchise should be conceded to women in Ireland, where we have not had window-breaking and militancy of that sort, in order that women might see the sort of agitation to which the Parliament of the United Kingdom is apt to pay attention and respect. On the general question, the reason why women in Ireland have even a better right to the franchise than the women in this country is this: It is quite true, of course, that a large number of women are among the employed classes in this country, but in Ireland that is perhaps true to a still greater extent. The chief industry in Ireland, as everyone knows, is agriculture, and, although I do not know the exact figures, there are a very large number of women in Ireland who are themselves owners of farms, owners in many cases of the tenant right under the Purchase Acts. One of the most important matters which is being conceded to the Irish Parliament is, of course, the control of legislation dealing with land, and it appears to me to be a most extraordinary anomaly that when you are setting up a brand new Constitution for the Irish people, large numbers of women who are concerned in the chief industry of the country should be denied any sort of voice or control in the Constitution under which they are to live. The hon. Member for Blackburn paid a tribute, and, I think, a very well deserved tribute, to the treatment hitherto afforded in Ireland to the women of that country. The hon. Member for Blackburn appealed to hon. Members below the Gangway on the ground that he did not want them to sully the record of the past with regard to their treatment of women. I entirely share and endorse his tribute, with this single exception: I am sorry to say that that record does appear to me to have been very seriously sullied in connection, and only in connection, with the political movement. It is one of the evils of passions let loose by the introduction of this Home Rule legislation. We are not likely to forget that very latest exhibition of the treatment of women in Ireland by people represented by hon. Members below the Gangway in the attacks with bludgeons and knives at Castle Dawson and elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members may say "Oh, oh!" as much as they like, and I perfectly understand that that is an episode they do not want to have repeated. Nevertheless, I am not in the least degree deterred from taking this opportunity or any other for exposing the treatment of Irish women

    1089
    solely in connection with this political movement. I am satisfied that hon. Members are as thoroughly ashamed of that episode as we are, but if they are anxious to have that episode and similar ones wiped out, the least they can do is to endorse the appeal of the hon. Member for Blackburn, and show that they are prepared to give to the women of their country the same rights as they give to men. There is no reason why it should not be done, and this is the opportunity they have of showing what their intentions are.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I think the spirit of the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will be an indication to many men in this House of how far this Amendment is going to be used simply as a political weapon for the purpose of inflicting injury upon the Home Rule Bill. I will not pursue that further. I did not intend to take part in this Debate, and I have only risen because of the personal appeal made to me by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) and the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. David Mason). I think it would be discourteous on my part if I did not make some response to that appeal. I say quite frankly to the Committee I cannot hope to say anything fresh or original on the question. Our position has been put before the Committee by ray hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) with sufficient clearness. It is impossible for any advocate for Woman Suffrage to hold that the decision on this Amendment will be a decision for or against the cause he has at heart, because there will be, as is evident from my hon. Friend's speech, a number of men who are in favour of Woman Suffrage voting against this Amendment, and a number of men who are against Woman Suffrage voting for purely wrecking purposes in favour of it. What is our position? This is purely a domestic question, and we would like, if it were possible for us to do so, to settle it for ourselves in our own Parliament. I have no means of judging the feeling in Ireland in favour of Woman Suffrage, but that opinion would speedily develop under an Irish Parliament, and under the provisions of this Bill there would be power given to the Irish Parliament to settle the question for itself. But it is said you cannot leave it over to be settled under the provisions in this Bill to an Irish Parliament because the question is coming up upon the Fran-
    1090
    chise Bill. Very well! If it comes up on the Franchise Bill and the Woman Suffrage Amendment is carried, then, as the Chief Secretary pointed out, it automatically becomes part of the Irish Constitution. If it is not so decided, and if this House by a majority decides against the Woman Suffrage Amendment in the Franchise Bill, would it not be an intolerably unfair thing that you should force it on Ireland alone without an opportunity being given to the Irish people to consider it. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. W. F. Roch) says that he does not trust the Irish Members on this matter.
    Mr. W. F. ROCH: I said I looked upon them with some suspicion after what happened earlier this week.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: My hon. Friend says he looks upon us with some suspicion, and apparently he is afraid that a genuine vote cannot be taken on the question, so far as my hon. Friends are concerned. The Prime Minister has declared that it shall be a free vote for the Liberal party, and the Government Whips shall not be put on. I have no hesitation in saying that it will be a free vote on the merits of the general question by the Members of the Irish party.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure we are all anxious to know exactly what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford means. What I am anxious to know is whether he means that the Irish Members will vote in something like the proportion they have voted before, or in point of fact, that none of them will vote for it?
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: If the Noble Lord considers this matter for a moment I think he will admit that that is an extremely unfair question. I do not at the present moment honestly know what the opinion of the majority of the Irish party is on this question of Woman Suffrage. I know that last year when a vote was taken only nine voted against the Bill, and only thirty out of eighty-six voted for it. Honestly, I do not know if a vote were taken on the merits of this question how the majority of the Irish party would vote. I think I know that the position of Woman Suffrage in the minds of some Members of the Irish party, at any rate, has not been improved by some of the proceedings that have been connected with the movement, and certainly not by some of the attacks that have been made on Home Rule and oh the Irish party by

    1091
    those who profess to represent the women of this country. For myself I absolutely assure the House that none of those proceedings have had the slightest influence upon my mind, and I should hope will not have an influence on the minds of many Members of the Irish party. What I say is this, that the Members of the Irish party will be as free to vote on the merits of this question as the Members of the Liberal party will be under the pledge of the Prime Minister. I do not think it is fair to push me any further than that. I appeal to my hon. Friends who are in favour of this Bill not to allow themselves to be made tools of by those who are not friends of Woman Suffrage at all, but who think they see in this Amendment an opportunity of striking a blow at the Government. My position in a word is this: If the Woman Franchise Amendment is carried in the Franchise Bill automatically it applies to Ireland, whatever our views are, and if it is not put in the Franchise Bill then it is an unfair thing to force it upon Ireland before we have had an opportunity, as we would have under Home Rule, of deciding it for ourselves. I would not have inflicted these few words upon the Committee were it not that I felt I was bound, in courtesy, to make some reply to hon. Members who appealed to me.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I am rather surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford on this question has thought fit to deliver a bitter attack upon my hon. Friend who supported this Amendment, whom he has charged with putting forward this Amendment purely for political purposes. Let us see what the position is. My hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate are all of them consistent supporters of the Woman Suffrage movement, and they have voted and spoken in favour of it in this House and outside, and to accuse them because they have adopted the same attitude, of doing so for political purposes is to make a barefaced charge which is without a shadow of foundation. The Committee know that I am a determined opponent of the Woman Suffrage in regard to Parliamentary elections. Therefore I am glad that on this occasion the Government have taken the line they have, because it will prevent what I should regard as an unfair advantage being taken of this particular Bill to give the Woman Suffrage movement a privileged position which I do not think it ought to obtain. To insinuate as the hon. and learned
    1092
    Member for Waterford has done that hon. Members below the Gangway are being made tools of by my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment is absurd. Where does this Amendment come from? It has been moved by an hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, and it has been; supported by the hon. Member for Blackburn in a speech of great earnestness and great ability, and also by hon. Members of the Liberal party who share his views, and to make an attack against the Unionist party and to say that this is a political move is only to make another of those baseless charges which are so often made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who are constantly trying to persuade this; House that their one desire is to conciliate my hon. Friends and act in harmony with them. What the hon. and learned Member said in this respect is a very poor way of attempting to conciliate those with whom we want to work in the future government of Ireland.
    As I have already said, I am opposed to Woman Suffrage in regard to Parliamentary elections, and I need not trouble the Committee with the general grounds of my opposition. I am very glad that the Government have taken the line they have. On this matter I am speaking only for myself, and although I am opposed to the extension of the franchise to women at Parliamentary elections if I thought that the hon. Member for Blackburn had accurately described the Bill we are now discussing, I am bound to say that I should be prepared to vote for the Amendment. I have always supported the granting of the franchise to women for municipal purposes, and I was a Member of the Government which passed the County Councils Bill which gave Women's Franchise in the case of county government as it was enjoying in municipalities. But is this a municipal Bill? Let us nee exactly where we stand. The hon. Member for Blackburn quoted some words used by one of the Nationalist Members in which he said that this is only a Bill to do certain municipal things. Is there any man here who ever heard of a Bill conferring municipal powers which conferred upon a municipality Customs rights, the right to control their own Post Office, and appoint their own Ministers? The thing is ridiculous. Have the municipalities of Manchester or Leeds any of those powers which will be conferred upon Ireland by this Bill? There is no comparison of any kind to be made between those municipalities. I have no doubt

    1093
    as regards my vote, and I may say that the description given by the hon. Member for Blackburn is not only inaccurate but misleading, because this is not a municipal Bill at all. This Bill will confer what is intended by the promoters, namely, a sovereign Parliament, and in that Parliament I shall not assent to the introduction of the franchise for women. For those reasons I shall vote against this Amendment.
    I shall give that vote on my own account, and I know many of my colleagues will vote, as they have voted before, in favour of the franchise being extended to women. Hon. Members opposite who were anxious to obtain some justification for the attitude taken up by some hon. Members will derive some comfort from the speeches they have heard from the Leader of the Irish party. The hon. and learned Member has told ns that when the time comes to have Woman Suffrage debated on the Franchise Bill, that then his party will be free to vote as they like. That declaration must have made the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite water. How glad many hon. Members opposite would be to have the privilege of voting as they like. Now what is this unfettered Debate we are looking forward to on the Franchise Bill? We have a specimen of it here. We have been discussing a question to which hon. Gentlemen opposite attach the greatest importance. They believe it is a question that lies at the very foundation of progress, and they think it is quite as important a question as the extension of Home Rule to Ireland, and yet that is a question which is being debated on Closure by compartment rules which limit us to two or three hours of debate. If that is the idea of unfettered debate which we shall get under the Franchise Bill, I submit that you have no right to make use of this Bill to give Women's Franchise an unfair advantage. This is not the occasion when a change of this sort ought to be made if it is to be made at all. I hold that if this House is of opinion that a change so great and so far-reaching as this is to be made in our Constitution, you have no right to do it until you have given the people of this country an opportunity of saying whether they desire it to be done or not.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: It is a very difficult thing for any hon. Member of this House to disregard the earnest appeal which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and those
    1094
    who have supported Home Rule for the last twenty-five years naturally pay a great deal of attention to the opinion of the Leader of the Irish party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I am not ashamed of it. I do not, however, feel that the arguments he has adduced are conclusive. We have had two lines of arguments taken up on this occasion both of which are mutually destructive. On the one hand we are told that this matter should be left over for consideration to the occasion when the Franchise Bill is considered, and on the other hand we are told that it is a matter which should be settled by the Irish Parliament. Those are two mutually destructive propositions. An hon. Member opposite said, "Supposing this question is not settled in the negative in the Franchise Bill, it will still be open to the Irish Parliament three years after it has met to confer the franchise on women." I think the hon. Member is mistaken, and if he will look at Clause 45, Sub-section (1) of the Home Rule Bill he will find it is provided that—
    "The Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this Act, or of any Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom after the passing of this Act and extending to Ireland."
    As I read Clause 41, if the Franchise Bill is passed without extending the franchise to women there would be no power whatsoever to the Irish Parliament to give women the franchise in three years' time or at any other time. That is a very important point, to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway and the Committee generally. It is a perfect absurdity we should settle the franchise for Ireland under this Bill, and that then it should be upset by an Imperial Franchise Bill to be discussed in a few weeks' time. The logical course would be to exempt Ireland altogether from the Franchise Bill, and that we should deal with the question of Irish franchise, male or female, under this Bill. Just imagine the confusion that may arise as the Bill stands. Supposing the Franchise Bill is passed into law by the Imperial Parliament giving female suffrage, and supposing the Imperial Parliament pass another Bill altering the franchise again, that will automatically alter the Irish franchise whatever the Irish Parliament has done. You would have a system of see-saw between the franchise established by the Imperial Parliament and the franchise

    1095
    established by the Irish Parliament. Surely that system could not possibly continue and ought never to exist. If I am right in my interpretation of Clause 41—
    Mr. LEIF JONES: My hon. Friend has left out the special words
    "except as is specially provided by this Act."
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, at the end of three years, but, in the meantime, Ireland may have female suffrage. I admit it seems to me very obscure, but I cannot for the life of me see why Ireland should not be exempt altogether from the Franchise Bill. Why should the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond), if the Irish Parliament is to deal with the franchise, say, "Do not deal with it to-day; wait until another occasion, when that other occasion deals with an entirely different set of circumstances." Many of the arguments which have been adduced against female suffrage have been on the ground that it would be wrong to give women the vote in matters of Imperial defence and in matters dealing with the Empire, and many of those who are opposed to it on that ground would be in favour of giving women the suffrage in the case of a Parliament dealing with subordinate matters like the Irish Parliament. When the hon. and learned Member says we are being made tools of, after all that is not an argument which can affect anyone who wants to see female suffrage introduced. We shall be glad to have all the votes we can possibly obtain on this subject, and it is not for us to go too closely into the psychology as to why votes are given in this House. Nobody knows that better than the hon. and learned Gentleman. The case of Ireland is substantially and essentially different from the case of the Imperial Parliament, and I feel very strongly that this question ought to be settled on this Bill.
    The hon. and learned Member says an attempt may be made to wreck the Bill on this question. Why? Why should there not be the same freedom to vote on this question to-day as we are promised on the Franchise Bill? If the Government are right to give an unfettered vote on the important question as to whether the women of the United Kingdom are to vote for the Imperial Parliament, it seems to me absurd that we are not to have a free
    1096
    vote on the smaller question, whether the Irish women are to vote for the Irish Parliament. The hon. Member for Clare, who has most sincerely supported Woman Suffrage up to the present day, tells us he is convinced the Irish people want their women folk to share in their new Parliament. Then why not use this opportunity to allow them to come in now, and not in three years time? We are told it is a question for the Irish people to settle themselves, but surely hon. Members opposite are capable of settling it. They have not told us the Irish people do not want the Irish women to have the suffrage. The hon. Member for Clare said exactly the opposite. He said in his opinion an Irish Parliament would give women the vote.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND:I said I believed the Irish Parliament, when established, would grant the suffrage to women. I did not say the majority of the Irish representatives are in favour of it. I regret to say that is not so.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The Irish people, I suppose, will elect an Irish Parliament in favour of giving the suffrage to women, and, if the Irish people want it, I do not see why we should be prevented from carrying out what the Irish people want. After all, we have to settle the franchise. It is perfectly useless to tell us this is a question which must be left over. We are settling the franchise under Clause 9 now. How can you have a Parliament without first having an electorate, and how can you have an electorate unless you settle the franchise? We have therefore to-day to determine what that franchise ought to be and what the electorate ought to be, and, if that is the case, we are entitled to express our view whether the Irish Parliament is to be elected by the people of Ireland, men and women, or only by a section of the people of Ireland, namely, the men of Ireland. I do not see how anyone who sincerely believes in the vast importance of Woman Suffrage and who has supported it on all occasions can, whatever embarrassment may be caused, depart from their principle and neglect this opportunity of supporting the demand legitimately made by large numbers of women in Ireland and supported by a large number of the men of Ireland. Nothing struck me more when I was in Dublin on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit than the large number of enthusiastic women in the streets and at the windows, evidently as

    1097
    keen on the national cause as any men. Are you going to refuse to allow all those people, after all their enthusiasm, the fruits of that for which they have fought? If so, it is not at all like the gallantry usually displayed by Irishmen towards the weaker sex. I am disappointed and disheartened that the hon. Member for Clare, in his eloquent championship of Woman Suffrage, has not carried his party with him into the Lobby unanimously in support of the Amendment.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should, I know, be wasting my time if I were to make any appeal to the Irish party. They would naturally say to me, "You are an opponent of this Bill, and anything you advocate is probably against the interests of the Bill. Therefore, the more you advocate any particular cause the more we will act in opposition to that cause." I do not propose, for that reason, to make any appeal to them. I have no right to do so; but I do want to ask one or two questions of the Irish party. The hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond) said this Amendment was supported by Unionists who are not, generally speaking, in favour of female suffrage, because it was complicating the Home Rule Bill and putting difficulties in the way of its passage. Why will it complicate the Home Rule Bill? What is there to be afraid of? What is the reason at the back of all this? What, to use a colloquial phrase, is "the real nigger in the fence?" I do not see what he is afraid of. Why are the Government putting on their Whips against this? What is at the bottom of it? What is the secret history of the opposition to this Amendment? I have not the least idea myself. I ask for information. It is not, apparently, that the Chief Secretary is opposed to it on its merits. I do not think the Chief Secretary's speech can even have convinced the Chief Secretary himself. It is quite plain he has no objection to this Amendment. He would be very glad to see it passed if left to himself. There is this curious doctrine. For some reason or other, if you give votes to women in Ireland, you imperil Home Rule. I admit, if I believed that, it might make me still stronger in support of this Amendment, but I cannot in the least see why it should imperil the Bill. I cannot in the least understand what is the reason which is supposed to actuate those who are opposed to Home Rule in voting for this Amendment.
    The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and the hon.
    1098
    Member for Clare say the proper time to raise this question is on the Franchise Bill, and you should not deal with it at all here. The hon. Member for Waterford says specifically there should be a free vote of the Irish party when we come to the Franchise Bill. I interrupted him—perhaps I had no right to do so, and I am sorry if I was discourteous—because I was anxious to know exactly what that meant The hon. Member for Clare had previously told the Committee there had never been any pressure of the Irish party in connection with the question of Woman Suffrage. He told us expressly they have always voted exactly as they thought right. It had never been made a party question. We have this strange fact: On the Conciliation Bill none of them voted for it. It will be very poor consolation to us, who really have this cause at heart and are not supporting this Amendment, if I can convince hon. Members from Ireland, because we are on this occasion opposed to Home Rule, but really because we believe women ought to have the suffrage, if we are told when we come to the Franchise Bill: "Oh, yes, the Irish Members were perfectly free, but it so happened by one of those curious brain waves which sometimes spread a uniform opinion over a body of men that they all voted one way against the Franchise Amendment, and none of them voted in favour of it." It will not matter to us whether that was the result of a Whip from the hon. and learned Member for Waterford or whether it was the result of a brain wave in the Irish party. What does it really mean? Are we going to be restored to the position in which this question was treated before the last Conciliation Bill, sometimes more and sometimes less, voting in favour of Woman Suffrage, but a certain proportion of the Irish party always voting and very often a majority voting for Woman Suffrage?
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Of those voting?
    6.0 P.M.
    Lord R. CECIL: I mean of those voting. That is the real question we want answered. It is no use using phrases of an ambiguous character. If any effect is to be made on those who are supporting this Amendment dealing with the franchise grievance we must really know what is meant by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford when he speaks of freedom to vote. The hon. and learned Member is good enough to suggest that he means the

    1099
    same thing as the Prime Minister. I hope that no secret influence is being put on the Liberal party not to support their principles on this occasion. I am sure the Chief Secretary would not be a party to the exercise of any such influence. I am sure other Members of the Government would not approve of it. But I am not so sure of all the Members of the Government. At any rate, we do know that a number of Liberals did vote for the Conciliation Bill, although some did not who we had hoped would. We know that no Irish Member voted for it, and, therefore, it is not quite enough for us to be told that the position will be the same with the Irish as it was at the time of the Conciliation Bill, and that no change is to be made because it has never been a party question. What we want to get at is, and to this I should like a clear and straight answer—
    Mr. LEIF JONES: As I understand the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, he has promised that the Members of the Irish party shall have the same liberty as the Liberals on this question. According to the declaration of the Prime Minister, we Liberals are absolutely free, and, therefore, I understand that the Nationalist Members also will be absolutely free.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I quite understand the hon. Member's point of view, but the hon. Member for Clare has said that the Irish party were as perfectly free, as the Liberal party is now, at the time of the Conciliation Bill. That is the point we want to get at. I do not question in any way any statement made by any Member of this House. At the same time, it does not matter to us Suffragists whether it is freedom from party Whips, uncoupled with intellectual bondage, or whether it is party Whip bondage, as well as intellectual. What we want to know is, Are the Irish Members, or any of them, going to support this franchise Amendment? That is the only point which it is desirable for us to ascertain without any question of chopping logic. Whether or not the Irish Members are technically free is a matter of no importance. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about your own party?"] A large number of us will support the Amendment and a large number will vote against it. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division will unquestionably vote against it; so will the hon. Member for the City of London, and
    1100
    so, too, will the latest recruit to the Tory party. But I know that a large number of Members will vote in favour of it. May I just say this about this Amendment? The hon. Member for Blackburn, in moving it, said it would put women and men on exactly equal terms as far as the suffrage is concerned. No doubt that is perfectly right and true, but, as a matter of fact, it is not going to enfranchise anything like an equal number of women and men. It will only enfranchise about one-eighth of the number of women as compared with the men. The real question is whether it is right for us, from any point of view, whether supporters or opponents of the Bill, that we should deal with this question now, or whether we should leave it to be dealt with by the Irish Parliament. That is the strong point which is made against it. You cannot leave it alone. You have to provide some suffrage for the Irish Parliament. If you provide the present Parliamentary suffrage, you are settling the question in one way. If you are bringing in women, you are settling it in another way. It has been pointed out that if you bring them in you cannot disfranchise them afterwards: you are doing a thing which is irrevocable. But you are doing many things equally irrevocable. There is the question of the Senate, the question of the limitation of the powers of the Irish Parliament, and I do not understand why this particular question should be singled out for exceptional treatment. Why should it be said we ought not to deal with this question, though we may deal with many other questions affecting the Constitution of Ireland?
    We must act in this matter to the best of our judgment. If we think it is a desirable thing in itself, we must do it, and leave it to the Irish Parliament afterwards to alter it, should it think fit, should it ever come into existence. We are told that by doing this we prejudge the question. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division, with whose speech I do not quarrel, and who has always been an opponent of Woman Suffrage, made a perfectly frank and explicit declaration that he is opposed to this Amendment, because he is opposed to Woman Suffrage. He said, with great truth, there has been much misapprehension with regard to the Irish Parliament being on all fours with county councils in England. I cannot dispute either of his propositions. But I do submit to my right hon. Friend that the Irish Parliament is not quite in

    1101
    the same position, even taking the view which he takes himself, that it is much too like a sovereign Parliament—that it is not quite in the same position as the British Parliament. It is not to have any control over foreign affairs or over the Army and the Navy. Therefore to vote for Woman Suffrage in reference to that is not the same issue. The question whether we should vote for Woman Suffrage when it comes to the Franchise Bill is another issue. I confess I am really puzzled at the Chief Secretary's suggestion that we ought to wait for the Franchise Bill. Surely the time to deal with this question of the constituencies for the Irish Parliament is on the Bill, and to say that it ought to be dealt with by this curious system of legislation by reference, when we come to deal with the Franchise Bill for the United Kingdom, seems to me a most astonishing proposition to put forward.
    I cannot help saying this to the many supporters of the suffrage in this Committee that there is always some reason why they should not vote for the franchise being given to women. I know the right hon. Gentleman himself has voted for it in times past, and I have every confidence he will vote for it in the future. But the general effect on the women themselves is deplorable. They come over and over again to this House, they present their demand in every kind of way, and, as long as it is a mere debating question, a mere Resolution or Bill, which is not to go any further, everybody is ready to vote for them, and it is carried by an enormous majority. But the moment there is any reality, and chance that the suffrage will become effective, there is always some excellent reason why, on that particular occasion, it is impossible to grant it. I put it to lion, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, is this a really fair way of dealing with a great question? It happens I have to attend a great meeting of women this evening. What am I to say to them? What message am I to take from this House? Is it to be again my fate to say that everybody admits your demand is unassailable? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Well, not everybody, but a large majority. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Am I to say that man after man got up and supported it, that the hon. Member for Clare and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary are in favour of the suffrage, but yet again on this occasion, as on so many other occasions, there were fatal objections to grant-
    1102
    ing it? I confess I think if any body of men were submitted to treatment like that we should make allowances for great irritation on their part, and many very unjustifiable actions. I have done my very utmost, and I shall continue to do it, to prevent any breach of the law on the part of the women. I believe it to be thoroughly unjustifiable and extremely regrettable. But I must say that the House of Commons does not give us much assistance in controlling these women. If they are against the suffrage let hon. Members in Heaven's name say so; let us know where we stand; do not say "we are in favour of it in principle but in practice we must vote against it."
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I think the Noble Lord had better exercise his own judgment as to the message he will take from this House to the meeting which he is to attend to-night. As regards the question before the House, if it were a question of female suffrage in general I say, without hesitation, I am against it. I voted against it in eight or nine Parliaments in addition to this Parliament, and I hope before long to have the pleasure of voting against it again. This particular form in which it now appears is not a form of franchise for this Parliament. If we were discussing a Federal Bill I should say that each division of the United Kingdom to be provided with its own Parliament should decide for itself whether or not there should be Woman Suffrage. But this is not a Federal Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite just now said it was not even a local Legislature, because it included a separate Post Office. I must say in passing I am against a separate Post Office, but, with one or two exceptional points like that, I count this as a local Legislature, and I could not ask for it any less powers than I would for any local Legislature either in Ireland or in my own country. As this is not a federal proposal I think it would have been wise if the Government had pledged itself so to continue devolution further in this Parliament. I, like the Noble Lord opposite, am prepared to use my own judgment on this vote. I think women ought to have the vote in local Legislatures, but, so long as war remains a possibility in the world, and I think it is likely to remain so for some time to come, I am against Woman Suffrage in a Parliament which is entrusted with the conduct of the foreign relations of an Empire like ours. I do not think it would add to the strength of this House

    1103
    or to the strength of the Empire, and, therefore, so far as I ever give a vote, it will be against female suffrage in this House. But in a domestic Legislature I think it would be a great advantage to have the women as voters for local purposes. Therefore I shall vote for the Amendment on this occasion. We have not any precedent in other parts of the Empire, because where female suffrage has been given, in Australia and elsewhere, it has been under a federal scheme.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: No.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: Yes, it was in Australia.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The franchise was extended to women in various States of Australia at different times.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: So far as my recollection goes—I speak subject to correction—more than one of the divisions of Australia had female suffrage before they came into the Federation.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is so.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: There is nothing of that kind here. Therefore there is no precedent for it. I do not think that any of these overseas' precedents apply, and therefore we have to judge by our own requirements. As I have said already, if this were a Federal Bill I should be in favour of Ireland deciding for herself whether or not she desired Woman Suffrage, and I should claim that also for my own country, but as this is not a Federal Bill, and as I can hardly follow all the various reasons, however interesting, which have been given for voting this way or that on the Bill, I am prepared to use my own judgment, and as I am strongly opposed to female suffrage for this House, and as I support it for local Legislatures, I shall vote for this Amendment, which applies Woman Suffrage to a local Legislature. This is the first time I have had to do it. I hope that if my position is not interesting, at any rate it is plain.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I rise to support the Amendment, and to give the Committee two or three reasons why I think all Members who are in favour of Woman Suffrage should certainly support it. The hon.
    1104
    Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) appealed specially to us on these benches to consider the Amendment from the point of view of Home Rule and the point of view of the Irish people settling this matter for themselves. I think that question has been argued sufficiently, and I could say very little more upon it than has already been said by other hon. Members, and nothing which would lead us much further. I should like to say that I think hon. Members from Ireland must remember that this is a matter upon which we are called upon to vote here. We have to cast a vote one way or the other, and in asking us not to vote for the Amendment they are asking us to vote against something which we believe is really fundamental to the progress of this and other nations. Already hon. Gentlemen opposite have stretched our allegiance, my allegiance, at any rate, to Home Rule very considerably. In this Bill at the present time there are several Clauses which I detest with all my soul. I hate the proposition to set up a Senate in Ireland. I dislike the proposition that forty-two Irish Members are to come here and vote on English domestic questions, while, at the same time, we are not to be allowed to vote on Irish domestic questions. These are matters I am perfectly willing to-waive—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—because I want to see the question settled, and I will chance what happens in regard to those questions; but when it comes down to a question of vital principle like this, hon. Members from Ireland ought to remember that there are some questions upon which those of us who really believe in them cannot give way at all. On the question whether women shall vote or not, I wonder whether anyone here realises that we have taken away the power of this House to deal with factory legislation in Ireland, and that in future that will be left entirely in the hands of the Irish Parliament. One of the reasons why I want women to have a vote in this House is because I want the women's point of view with regard to factory and industrial legislation to be heard in this House, as I do not believe it is heard now. The reason I want the Amendment carried is because I am anxious that the voice of the industrial Irish women shall be heard in the Irish Parliament. I am no more willing to leave that question to be settled later on by men in Ireland than I am willing to leave the question to be settled later here. What I mean is,

    1105
    that I am not willing to postpone a vote on that matter until some future time.
    The other point put to us was that hon. Members will support this Amendment because it is a wrecking Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) put that point of view very strongly before those who sit on these benches. As a matter of fact, upon almost every question that comes up we are asked to decide it from that point of view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not think either side can throw stones at the other about it, for it seems to me that we are all very much in the same boat. It is not merely upon this side, but upon that side also. The position we find ourselves in in this House is that you very seldom are allowed to give a vote on the principle of the matter before the House. Whether the opposition comes from this side or the other makes no difference. Every now and then the Government of the day does give way on the matter. I want to press the point made from this side and also from the other side, namely, that if the Government is in earnest, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is in earnest, in saying that Members are free to vote as they please, why is it that on this Amendment we are not to have that freedom? There is a smaller principle involved in regard to Woman Suffrage than there is in regard to the general Franchise Bill. The point was made by the hon. Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) that peace and war do not come within the ken of the Irish Parliament at all, although the Bill is an extension of local government, and there is more power given than county councils have in this country. The very reason why numbers of people object to the vote being granted to women is that the Imperial Assembly has the decision of peace and war. In the Irish Parliament they will not have that decision. Therefore I do not understand why it is that the Prime Minister and the Government will not allow Members to vote to-night according to their consciences. Something was said as to the reasons which should induce people not to vote. I refer to the things that have happened outside the House. Surely no one who sits on the benches opposite is going to be so squeamish nowadays as to take one side or the other because people have done violent things. I road the other day a speech made by the late Mr. Gladstone in this House in defending some Irish people because they
    1106
    had done something they had no business to do, in which he said:—
    "In every great movement there are always some people who feel so strongly that they very often do things they ought not to do."
    The same thing has happened here. I should like to join with the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), and ask what does the House of Commons expect when the hon. Member for East Clare stands up this afternoon and tells us what a friend he is of Woman Suffrage, and then goes on to say he is going into the Lobby to-night to vote against, it. The one thing that the women outside who really believe in this cause and who are fighting for it are always saying is, there is not one of us in this House who can be trusted. No one has yet asked why the 400 Members who pledged themselves at the last election to vote for Woman Suffrage should not vote for it to-night. It is only party expediency and the exigencies of the Government. The women outside do not believe that any of us believe the statements we make when we are up for election. This is an excellent opportunity for getting rid of that belief, and to show that Members of this House, irrespective of what happens to the Government, will go into the Lobby for what they believe in. Whether we think it is a wrecking Amendment or not, I think it is one of the things upon which we ought to stand for principle, and whatever happens to the Government, I hope that the Members on the Liberal side, who, in the words of the "Daily News,"
    "consider that Woman Suffrage stands right in the van of the Liberal programme"
    are going into the Lobby to-night to vote in favour of this Amendment. I always understood that Irish Members tested every question by its effect on Home Rule. I do not know whether I shall be saying something impertinent in this, but I always understood that when they voted against us when we wanted a minimum wage for miners, and on no end of other things, their excuse was that their one aim was to keep this Government in power in order to get Home Rule through. I am not out making any threats, or issuing any warnings. They have to settle for themselves what is the best policy for them, but I have to say from my small knowledge of people outside this House, that there is growing up a strong feeling of resentment that eighty Irish Members in this Parliament—
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not eighty!
    Mr. LANSBURY: Whatever their number is—should cast their votes relentlessly on the subjects which come before us with only one object in view, that of carrying Home Rule. You may carry it through this Session, but I would point out that there are two more Sessions to come. We were told by some Irish Members on the Conciliation Committee that they were going to vote with us. There were some of them actually working on the Committee, but suddenly, for some reason or other, they withdrew, and never voted at all. There is growing up a strong feeling of resentment against the Irish party for always putting a pistol to our heads in this fashion. I am perfectly certain that if the cause of Woman Suffrage is going to be wrecked by Irish Members you will reap exactly what you sow.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has drawn a picture of the relations between the Nationalist party in this House and the legislation of this country which very few even of my most ardent friends from Ulster could or would have drawn without, at all events, bringing down upon their heads the virtuous indignation of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He has not only told us that he, for his own part, deeply resents the presence among us of a body of Gentlemen who do not vote—this is his view—upon the merits of the question which is before them, but steadily pursue a purely Irish policy in this House, using the Government of the day for that Irish policy, and supporting the Government of the day through thick and thin, whatever that Government may do, or whatever that Government may propose, so long as the Government do not give up the Home Rule policy. That is the picture which is drawn by the hon. Gentleman who, I believe, is a consistent and ardent Home Ruler.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear.
    Mr. BALFOUR: A picture which, in its main outlines, was drawn once before this evening by the hon. Gentleman who very ably moved the Amendment at an earlier hour. He also pointed out, not perhaps with the same indignant passion which has moved the hon. Member (Mr. Lansbury), but in perfectly unmistakeable language, that we suffer at this moment under that particular Parliamentary disease, and I was glad to see that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, when a question touches something in which they are interested, are quite as much alive to the
    1108
    evils and dangers and difficulties of the present Parliamentary situation as any of us on these benches. The hon. Gentleman tells us there is a growing feeling outside that we should not at the same time give to Ireland the right to manage its own affairs and the right to mismanage ours. I hope that feeling is growing and there will be an opportunity doubtless before our proceedings are finished, even under the present truncated system of Debate, for the hon. Gentleman to show how deeply he feels the evil which he has just indignantly denounced.
    I need hardly say I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in the general proposition which he has advanced and in his particular application of it; for though I am confident I am not one of the 400 who are alleged to have given a pledge on the subject at the last election I have through my whole Parliamentary life—not a short one—been a consistent and steady supporter of some moderate measure of enfranchisement. Of course, therefore, I shall vote to-day, as I have voted so often before, in favour of an Amendment which is a moderate measure of enfranchisement. I also think that many who differ from me on the broader principle might yet not feel it difficult to go into the same Lobby. I agree in fact with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro-Ferguson). He is a steady opponent of Woman Suffrage as applied to an Imperial Assembly and to Imperial Affairs, but he is a strong supporter of Woman Suffrage as applied to local affairs; and he says, I think with great force, that although the Parliament the Government propose to give to Ireland is certainly much more than a county council, or a borough council, it is claimed by the very authors of the Bill and by the Gentlemen who are clamouring below the Gangway that we are not creating in any sense, either legal or substantial, an Assembly which has the elements of sovereignty in it. I believe the framers of the Bill are wrong. I believe, substantially and practically, the Parliament we are setting up has substantially a very large number of the attributes which, at all events, the Legislatures of our Dominions possess.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) yesterday explained that in his view the Parliament we were setting up in Dublin was not going to be an Irish reflection of this Parliament, but was going to be an Assembly dealing with very different affairs in a very different spirit—

    1109
    dealing, I think he said, in a humble way with the humble wants of humble people. If that view of this Bill be the correct view, I cannot understand how any man can vote against this Amendment, because even the most determined opponents of Woman Suffrage are agreed, as I understand it, that in local affairs they play, under modern conditions, not only a useful but an absolutely necessary part in the machinery of public government and administration. Those who agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), and think that whenever you come to such questions as those of the Navy, the Army, foreign policy, diplomacy, Imperial affairs, from all such matters women should be excluded, will, of course, vote against the inclusion of women in any Suffrage Bill for the Imperial Parliament. But why should they vote against this Amendment? Even those who take the darkest view of this Bill do not, at all events, suppose that the Irish Parliament is going directly to have command of drilled forces except the Irish Constabulary. We do not suppose they are going to be able to build a navy, and I do not suppose they will have foreign representatives and a separate foreign policy. If that be so, I do not understand why the most convinced opponent of Woman Suffrage in this House should feel the least hesitation in voting for this Amendment. These women are not going to launch hostile armies against foreign Powers while not themselves fighting. They are not going to use physical force on a great scale. The broad contention against female suffrage, as I understand it, has no application to this Amendment at all. It goes beside it and beyond it, and it certainly appears to me that even those who take the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro-Ferguson) might with a good conscience go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. Under these circumstances, of course, I shall not hesitate. If I held this particular view against Woman Suffrage, I should still be inclined to vote for the Amendment. Holding, as I do, that that view gives too narrow an extension to the idea of Woman Suffrage, and believing that a moderate measure of female suffrage would be good all round, I, of course, having held these views and supported them consistently through all these many years, have no choice as to what Lobby I shall vote in.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I had no intention of taking any part in
    1110
    this Debate—I think there are many reasons why I should prefer not to do so—but the very interesting and instructive speech to which we have just listened tempts me to make one or two observations relevant to the vote which the Committee is going to give. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present at an earlier stage of the Debate when his Friend and colleague (Mr. Walter Long) was addressing the House.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I was not.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman had been present he would have found by anticipation a reply to every one of the arguments he put before the Committee. It is very amusing dialetically, though I do not know that it is a very profitable way of consuming Parliamentary time, to see the agility with which hon. and right hon. Members opposite—and there is no one whose agility dialectically can compare with that of the right hon. Gentleman—can jump from one horse to another in discussing the arguments which arise upon this Bill. At one moment you have here a most dangerous rival to the Imperial Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman tells us, he thinks that it is so full of every kind of potentiality of sovereignty that it can exercise the utmost injury to the relations of the two Kingdoms, but at another moment, as for instance in the larger part of the speech to which we have just listened, he invokes the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy), and brings it down to the level of a purely local body dealing in a humble way with humble affairs, and he says, "those of you who object to female suffrage in regard to a sovereign Parliament need have no fear when you are dealing with this twopenny-halfpenny Assembly."
    Mr. BALFOUR: What I said was that those who believe that this was a local Parliament, even if they objected to female suffrage, might and ought to vote for the Amendment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am only pointing out the skill with which the right hon. Gentleman did this. He fished in both streams. He was attempting to angle for votes for this Amendment. I am going to point out that those who, like myself, are consistent opponents of Woman Suffrage, just, as he truly says, he has been a consistent supporter, do not base, and never have based, our objections to the

    1111
    enfranchisement of women for Parliamentary purposes upon the sovereign character of the Parliament for which those votes are to be given. It is the character, the scale, the quality of the affairs with which that Parliament has to deal. Here we are dealing with a Parliament which, at the least, is empowered by the first Clause in the Bill—it is a legislative body—to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. It is a Bill which sets up an Executive responsible to that Parliament and empowered to discharge all the ordinary affairs of administration. It is in regard to a body possessed of these qualities, be our arguments good or bad, that those of us who object to female suffrage have always said, that in our opinion it is not expedient to confer the Parliamentary vote upon women. Look round the Empire. This is the only sovereign Parliament in the Empire. There is not a single case in the smallest Colony or in the largest Dominion to which this Imperial Parliament has delegated, the legislative authority in which we have made it a condition, as this Amendment proposes, to make a condition in Ireland, to the grant of that authority or that autonomy that women should be admitted to the franchise. It would be an entirely unprecedented thing in the constitutional development of this Empire, if we were to say to a community which we are endowing for the first time with full self-governing institutions, "in this vital matter of the franchise we are going from the first to insist, whether you like it or not, whether it is in accordance with the wish of the majority of your citizens or not, that women shall have the vote." I am quite certain I can appeal with confidence to all who are acquainted with our constitutional history to say that there is no parallel for such a proceeding.
    I do not wish to argue the merits of Woman Suffrage. I am at issue, not only with the right hon. Gentleman, but with a very large number of my own friends and colleagues, and I am in agreement, on the other hand, with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long) and some of those who sit on the benches behind him. But without entering in the least degree into the merits or demerits of Woman Suffrage as applicable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any other self-governing assembly in any part of the British Empire, I do venture to submit that on that principle this is a matter on which
    1112
    we ought to leave, in the first instance, the newly-created legislature to judge for itself. This is an Amendment that ought not to be accepted. It is quite true, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) pointed out, that if subsequently we alter the suffrage as regards the United Kingdom, that alteration would automatically under the provisions of this Bill apply to the Irish Legislature. That would be an alteration which would be made for the Kingdom as a whole, in the first instance, and not merely under this Bill for Ireland in anticipation, possibly the mistaken anticipation, of the concluson to which Parliament may ultimately come as to the Kingdom as a whole. Let me point out further—I am not going to be rash enough to prophesy or to indicate any judgment of my own as to what is likely to happen when that question comes up for decision as it will before this Session is over—that even if this Parliament were to enact for the United Kingdom as a whole a suffrage in which women as well as men were to be entitled to the vote, it would still, under the powers of this Bill, be in the competence of the Irish Parliament, after three years, to alter the suffrage, to take it away from women, and to act in accordance with Irish opinion.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: So it would be in any case if this Amendment were passed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I agree; but with all respect, I do not think that is a very relevant interruption of the argument I am submitting. I agree that would be competent either way, but I am only pointing out that the automatic application to Ireland of Woman Suffrage, were it enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, would be a matter on which, under this Bill, the Irish Parliament could alter the law and establish a system for itself. The real question for us to consider is very simple. Are we going, in the first instance, and without knowing Irish opinion in regard to the matter, to insist on a condition in the grant of self-government to Ireland which we have applied nowhere else in the length and breadth of the British Empire, and which, I think, would be eminently unjust?
    Mr. HUGH LAW: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) complained that Irish representatives are accustomed to cast their votes with only

    1113
    one object in view, that of carrying Home Rule. I think the course of the Debate since he spoke will probably have caused the hon. Member to reflect that in the case of the Irish Members that is inevitable. After all, it was for that purpose we were sent here. We were not elected on the question of Woman Suffrage, we were elected to advance Home Rule, and we are bound to make that our first consideration. All our actions and personal ambitions, whether on this question or any other, must be subject to that, and it implies no dishonour on the part of any of us, but the reverse, if we have now and again to sink our own private convictions with regard to particular matters other than that in order that we may advance the cause for which we are sent here. I speak quite frankly—though I suppose in a declaration of this sort I may be under suspicion in present circumstances—and say that, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) I am a convinced Suffragist. I look upon this question not as one in which men are arrayed against women. I look upon it primarily as an Irish question, and I ask myself, What is it that Irish women themselves desire? From that point of view I confess I think there can be only one answer. I am bound to answer that, if I look to the desires of Irish women themselves in the matter, I cannot be constrained to believe there is among them any such demand for the exercise of the suffrage as ought to cause us to deflect our policy. It has already been pointed out in perfectly plain language in the declaration made by my hon. Friend, and later by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), that when the House comes to consider this question on the Franchise Bill the Irish party, as well as every other party, will be able to vote with perfect freedom. I desire to say, for my own part, that, assuming the House is so free, and subject to what I have said as to the paramount importance of Home Rule in all our eyes it is my intention to vote for the extension of the franchise to women.
    We are now dealing with a purely Irish question, and I ask is there an effective demand among Irish women for the franchise? I am bound to say that I think there is not. My hon. Friend (Mr. Snowden), who moved this Amendment, gave to the House a list of certain franchise societies which, he said, had supported a resolution in favour of the
    1114
    extension of the franchise to women in Ireland. I have no means of knowing, but I should be somewhat surprised if the membership of these societies was large in proportion to the general body of women in Ireland. If the franchise were to be extended under this Bill to the women of Ireland, I do not say we should be doing Irish women an injustice. I am willing to extend it. I believe it would be for the good of this country and for the good of Ireland that the franchise should be extended. I will not say, therefore, that if we were to extend it here by this Amendment we would be doing a wrong to women in Ireland, but I say we should be doing something which the great body of women in Ireland do not at present ask, and which, I think, exercising the best judgment I can, would be rather displeasing than otherwise to the majority. If I were convinced that the majority of Irish women ardently desired the franchise, I should find it, in spite of everything else, impossible to vote against this Amendment. If I believed that such a proportion of Irish women wore in favour of this proposal, as I believe are in favour of Woman Franchise in England, I should find myself in a different position; but I am as honestly convinced as I am of anything that that is not the case in Ireland. I dare say that time will come, but it is not the case at this moment, and if yon pass the Amendment you will be forcing Woman Suffrage, not only on the men of Ireland, but on the women of Ireland, I do not say against their will, but without any effective demand from them.
    When I say "effective demand"—the words have been used more than once—I do not mean a militant demand. I do not call that an effective demand. I think militancy has been exceedingly ineffective except in exciting hostility to Woman Suffrage. I mean such evidence from our own experience and knowledge through conversation with men and women, as would bring any person of average judgment to the conviction that there exists in any country among the women of that country a real desire for the conferring of the vote upon them comparable to that which exists among Irishmen and women in favour of the passage of this Bill as a whole. What may come I do not know. My own belief is that this is a cause which, sooner or later, is bound to win, whether in Ireland or anywhere else. There will be a time—there are signs of it—but it is not yet, when there will be a real movement among

    1115
    women themselves, an effective demand, for the franchise, such as does not exist at this moment. I think my hon. Friend opposite may rest absolutely assured that Irish men, who, as he said, have a proud record in the matter of the treatment of women, who were among the first in Europe to open the doors of their universities to them, when Irish women ask for the vote will not deny it. At the present moment I am convinced that among Irish women themselves there is no such demand as should justify us in imperilling Home Rule even in the very slightest degree in order to extend the franchise to them.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I am entirely in favour of the view put forward on behalf of the Government that this matter should be left for settlement by the Irish Parliament, if and when such an Assembly ever exists. My reason for saying so is not because I have any particular admiration for the new Parliament which is to be created, but because it will be possible to consult the electors of the country whether they wish to have Woman Suffrage or not. In this country the change may be forced on the electors without ever being consulted, because if is a question which cuts across the usual party divisions. I do not sec how with the present distribution of parties it would be possible to consult the people of the country whether they wish this change to be made or not, except by a Referendum. But in Ireland it would be possible to ask the people whether they wish such a change or not. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. Hugh Law), in the view that there is not in Ireland any extensive demand for this change. I am not expressing what my opinion would be one way or another, but I think if such a change is ever to be introduced in this or any other country, the electors should have an opportunity of expressing their view as to whether they wish the change to be made or not. I was not impressed by the argument of the Prime Minister that Woman Franchise had never been imposed upon other subordinate Legislatures formed throughout the Empire, because there is a great difference between the present case, in which Members representing the country in which the subordinate Legislature is to be set up are present assisting in their deliberations, and the case of other
    1116
    countries where there are no such members present. But although I do not agree with the arguments of the Prime Minister I am, as far as it is possible to conceive myself to be in agreement with the present Government, in agreement with the suggestion made on their part that the matter should be left to be settled by an Irish Parliament, if it ever exists, though it is rather difficult to understand when it is going to be settled by an Irish Parliament if the Franchise Bill comes before this House some time early in the New Year, because if that should pass it would be settled without any express reference to the people of Ireland to determine whether they are in favour of it or not. But I do not feel in the position to support the Amendment, and that disposes of the suggestion that we are always ready to support anything that may be a wrecking Amendment of the Bill.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: The position in which the Committee is this afternoon is somewhat unusual. Apparently there are no party leads, even though there are going to be Party Whips, and though the Government is to put its Whips at the door Member after Member among the supporters of the Government has informed the Committee that he is going to follow his own conscience for once. In venturing to address the Committee on this subject, I, too, am speaking for myself and myself only. The whole of the party with which I am associated believe in Woman Suffrage and will support it, I believe, when the time comes, with its votes. The only question which is in some doubt in the minds of some Members this afternoon is whether as a matter of actual fact the question of Woman Suffrage is or is not raised by this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. H. Law) told us that he was in a peculiar position, and according to his own speech he was. He says that if he felt there was an effective demand in Ireland for the franchise he would vote for it, but because he thinks there is not an effective demand in Ireland for the franchise he is not going to vote for it this afternoon. That is an intelligible position, but the sequel is not quite so intelligible. He says that when the Reform Bill comes on, although it is going to apply to Ireland just as much as it applies to England, he is going to vote for an Amendment to that Bill which will impose upon Irish women the necessity of voting. Surely the narrow differences of

    1117
    three months does not involve the quos lion of principle. If my hon. Friend is going to vote for giving the Irish women votes in January, why is he going to oppose giving them votes in November?
    Mr. HUGH LAW: To vote against the Women's Amendment on the Franchise Bill would be to refuse the vote to a very large body of women in this country who do want it. A vote against this Amendment merely prevents the immediate application of the Woman Suffrage to the one portion of these islands in which, in my judgment, there is no effective demand for it. I do not think that we should be doing any wrong to the women in Ireland even if we did extend the vote to them, but I do not think, on the other hand, that we should be doing anything which the majority of them desire. I see no reason to go out of our way on this occasion to extend the vote in that particular portion of the country where the women themselves least desire it.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Surely the interruption has been very interesting. It shows that my hon. Friend is in an extremely difficult position. He would like to vote one way and he cannot. He is going to vote the other way, and he wants to give an excuse for it. There is not the least doubt from the position which my hon. Friend takes up that he is bound to vote for an Amendment to the Reform Bill excluding Ireland from its scope so far as women's franchise is concerned, and that he does not mean to do it, and he justifies his not meaning to do it by stating that even if we imposed the franchise upon Irish women we are doing them no injustice. What is left of his argument in favour of voting against this Amendment I really do not understand, fie is going to do it two or three months hence, and if he does it now he is imposing no injustice. I think I will leave him to reconcile his position as best he can. My position is quite plain. I am in favour of Woman Suffrage. If the Amendment dealt with something which was in the nature of giving powers to the Irish Parliament, I should say, as I said regarding the Industrial Legislation Amendment, that it must be handed over to the Irish Parliament. If we are going to give. Home Rule, we must give Home Rule. But this is not one of that sort of questions. Whether Irish women have the vote or not is not a question as to whether we have full confidence in the good judgment and good sense of
    1118
    the Irish representatives when they sit in Ireland. Whether we are going to vote in favour of this Amendment or not depends upon whether we take the view that henceforth every Constitution given by this Parliament to subordinate Parliaments is or is not going to contain a provision for Woman Suffrage. That is a totally different question, and imposes upon us a totally different responsibility from many of the Amendments that have been raised hitherto.
    The Prime Minister has said that there is no precedent for this. But history has not all been written. The British Constitution is not something to which we are going to add no comma and no paragraph, and, so far as I am concerned, I will be only too delighted this afternoon by my vote to establish a new precedent, so that when further Constitutions are going to be imposed by this House it will be impossible for any Prime Minister, whether Liberal or Conservative, to say that there is no precedent so far as women's votes are concerned. We stand in this position. We are giving Ireland a new Constitution. When hon. Members go back to Ireland and ask the women to support them by canvassing and so on, they are not going to have any sort of political or conscientious scruples regarding the fitness or unfitness of Irish women to exercise the vote. They are going to ask them to do everything involved in exercising the vote except actually taking up the pencil and making a mark opposite the name of one of the candidates. Every substantial exercise of judgment, every operation that is necessary in order to exercise the vote, is done now by women in this country, in Ireland and wherever there are women's organisations supporting men. That is a fact to which we cannot possibly shut our eyes. A second fact is this: The Irish Parliament is going to be a domestic Parliament. It is going to deal pre-eminently with questions of public health, of housing, of the family, of factory legislation, and questions that deal with the building up inside Ireland of those domestic and those communal virtues in which women's experience is so very precious and so very important. If we ever can or will be justified in insisting that women's influence shall be an essential part and parcel of a Constitution proposed by this House, we are justified in insisting on it this afternoon.
    Besides, there is the outside question to which the Noble Lord the Member for

    1119
    Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) has referred. This House is constantly saying that in a majority it is in favour of Woman Suffrage. I would like to associate myself with what is said in that respect. Nothing can irritate outside public opinion, more particularly the opinion of women, more than this, that when this House is constantly telling them it is in favour of the franchise for them, it is always declining to do something to show effectively that its opinion is really going to influence the Statute Book of this country. My own opinions, I hope, about what is called militancy are perfectly well known. I think it has been one of the most disastrous and most deplorable things that have happened in the whole course of this controversy. I believe that had it not broken out, had it not been pursued by means which were approaching to insanity rather than to reason, the position of women's franchise inside and outside this House would have been such, that the majority here in favour of Woman Suffrage would have been bound to have given effective voice to its opinions. This House must remember that women have got human nature as well as men, and it must know perfectly well that it is exceedingly difficult for it to explain its position to women who are insisting that the vote shall be given, except in such a way as to suggest to them that we are very dishonest representatives who are not willing to carry out our pledges. If that view becomes widespread, if it becomes general, then most unfortunate results will happen. I am bound to say that in voting as I am going to vote this afternoon, I am going to take that into account as well. I believe it is the duty of Members of this House, in giving a Constitution to Ireland, or any other country, to take upon themselves the full responsibility which they have got as the authors and originators of that Constitution. It is not a thing which is subject to the ordinary operation of Home Rule in any way. It is subject to cur responsibility, and we cannot possibly shuffle off that responsibility by saying that we will give power to that subordinate Legislature after three years to change the position. We have got this afternoon to say whether we ourselves are or are not in favour of a Constitution which grants women the franchise. If we are, we must vote for this Amendment. If we are not, we must vote against it. But because I believe that the majority of
    1120
    Members in this House favour Woman Suffrage I hope that this Amendment will be carried.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I do not know whether I heard the speech of the hon. Member opposite rightly, but I understood him to say at one moment that in his judgment the question now before us does not raise the subject of Woman Suffrage. But be that as it may, I cannot agree with him in that opinion. I differ with him, and, unlike the hon. Member who told us that on this occasion he spoke entirely for himself, I believe that if I asked the Committee's indulgence for a few moments to oppose by my voice as well as my vote the Amendment which is now before us, I should represent the view of men, and women too, in vast numbers throughout the country, when I say that it is my intention most distinctly to give my vote against this proposal. The hon. Member and some of his Friends appeared to agree and be greatly taken with the speech of my right hon. Friend who sits beside me (Mr. Balfour), who spoke only a short time ago. Like my right hon. Friend, I, too, listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), with which my right hon. Friend was so taken that he said to the House, "If it be true that after all, the Parliament we are going to give to Ireland is to be only a Parliament dealing with purely local affairs, why should anyone hesitate who is in favour of female suffrage to give his vote in favour of the Amendment?" The argument of my right hon. Friend is based on an "if," and a very large "if" it is. How many Nationalist Members below the Gangway will agree with the description which is now put before them, of a Parliament to be granted to them under this Bill, that it is a Parliament to enable them to deal with purely local affairs and with nothing else. Those who believe that this is their view of the situation may do anything they please as far as I am concerned, but I believe it to be a totally and wholly misleading one.
    If ever this Bill became law—I do not expect to see it myself—we shall very soon find out how totally mistaken is the description applied to the Bill on this particular occasion by various Members this afternoon. My right hon. Friend and myself, as he reminded me, have always differed on this question for a period of something like forty years. I think it was very nearly about that time that, on one occasion after a Woman Suffrage Bill had been read a second time in this House, it

    1121
    fell to my lot to lead another charge against it upon a stage of the Bill which at that time was open to us, namely, on the question "That the Bill do now go into Committee," and on that occasion I was successful in defeating it by a very considerable majority. I will tell Members something of great interest to many of them. I had the support of a most distinguished recruit, sitting upon the opposite side of the House, who had previously voted for and supported Bills for female suffrage. The Bill, on this particular occasion, was introduced by the late Mr. Jacob Bright, who was one of the great supporters of the movement. That afternoon I found to my surprise and great delight that I had a most powerful recruit in his own brother, Mr. John Bright, who had previously always supported this movement. With great manliness and courage he got up in his place to admit that, after full consideration, he had entirely changed his views upon this question. The ground he gave for it was that upon mature consideration he had come to the conclusion that the right to vote carried and must carry with it the right to be voted for. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]
    Mr. Bright was quite right; that is what certainly many of the advocates of female suffrage have in their mind or up their sleeve, so to speak, and, with perfect logic, it must ultimately and certainly come to that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am not going to enter into the question on its merits, beyond saying that though there are innumerable arguments which may be adduced in its support, there is this one which overrides all others, that it cannot stop there. Once you grant the vote to women, sooner or later you must be prepared to see them sitting in this House, on the same benches as ourselves, taking the same part in Governments and in Cabinets, and everything else in political life, on a perfect footing of equality with men. That is a position which I, at all events, am not prepared to assist or aid, nor do I believe it is in the best interests of the country. On those grounds, and more particularly on an occasion when no great question of this kind ought in my opinion to be settled by a side-wind, as it would be if we voted in its favour on this occasion, I shall give my hearty and complete opposition to the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAM GLADSTONE: To my mind there appears to be so much to be
    1122
    said, whatever its merits, against this Amendment, that I am inclined to think that strategic motives have led to its appearance on the Paper. I am afraid that the advocates of Woman Suffrage will be tempted to stipulate, should this Amendment be defeated, that the Irish Members, and perhaps other Members who are strongly in favour of Home Rule, when this House comes to the Amendment for Woman Suffrage on the Franchise and Registration Bill, will, out of gratitude, support them upon an Amendment which would give them very much more than this Amendment does. Those of us who are Home Rulers as well as Woman Suffragists should at least remember that this Amendment tacks on a very controversial and very critical issue to the Bill before the Committee, a measure which I should have thought is already large enough and important enough of itself without being made the vehicle of another controversy. I appeal to all who are Home Rulers and inclined to support this Amendment not to endanger or subordinate the interests of a cause which, after twenty-seven years of waiting and struggling, has secured the unanimous support of the Liberal party for the sake of a measure which is very far from having secured the unanimous support of the Liberal party, and which very rightly is going to be dealt with as a separate measure.
    I want to put this to the advocates of Woman Suffrage on this side of the House: Whether they will not admit that the movement in favour of Woman Suffrage is weakest of all in Ireland? I may be expecting them to admit a great deal, but when the movement in Ireland is compared with what it is in any other part of the United Kingdom it is admitted to be far weaker and more backward in that country than anywhere else. I want to know why the. Irish Parliament is to be made the first to adopt Women's Suffrage. I, like many others, take the ground that it is a matter which should be left to the settlement of the Irish people. I put it to Woman Suffragists on this side of the House that that is a very fair arrangement indeed, and it is just to those who are in favour and those who are opposed to Woman Suffrage. I regret that they have not so far seen their way to accept the very fair basis of agreement that has been laid down. After all, this Amendment must tell against the movement in favour of Woman Suffrage, because people are bound to ask themselves why it is that the advocates of

    1123
    Woman Suffrage are not prepared to leave it to the Irish Parliament. They will be bound to infer, of course, that the advocates of Woman Suffrage are so fearful of the Irish people that they will not leave the question to the Irish Parliament.
    I thought that this Home Rule Bill was to be a full and final recognition of the fact that the system of attempting to force things upon the Irish people was an utter, a total and a dismal failure. I feel that no man who is a real Home Ruler can consistently attempt to force upon the Irish people in this Bill, which is supposed to give them self-government, that which this very Bill declares is to be left and should be left to the settlement of the Irish people. To my mind this Amendment is a denial and a flat contradiction of that essential principle of Home Rule. I come to what I consider the most objectionable part of this Amendment, and it is that the Trish people are not pressing it forward. This proposal is being pressed forward from the headquarters of the movement,
    and it is a thoroughly un-Irish movement. I think that it is a complete exposure of this Amendment that not a single Irish Member either above or below the Gangway opposite has been found to propose it, or second it, or put his name on the Paper in favour of it. The very least that the advocates of Woman Suffrage could have done before they came dow nto this House and asked it to pass Woman Suffrage for Ireland, was to make sure that they could prove to this House that at least a majority of Irish Members and at least a majority of the Irish people are in favour of it. If Woman Suffrage is to come in Ireland, do not let it be imported compulsorily under this Bill to that country. If Woman Suffrage is to come in Ireland, let it be of national, natural, and indigenous growth.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 314; Noes, 141.

    Division No. 291.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Field, William

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fleming, Valentine

    Armitage, Robert

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Clough, William

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Barnston, Harry

    Cotton, William Francis

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Barton, William

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cullinan, John

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hackett, John

    Bentham, G. J.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Delany, William

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dillon, John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Boland, John Pius

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Doris, William

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hayward, Evan

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hazleton, Richard

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Falconer, James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Molloy, Michael

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Higham, John Sharp

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Mooney, John J.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morrell, Philip

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L (Cleveland)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Morrison-Bell, Major A, C. (Honiton)

    Samuel, J (Stockton)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Munro, R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Neilson, Francis

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones. W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Dowd, John

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Ogden, Fred

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Malley, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thynne, Lord A.

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wadsworth, John

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Lloyd, G. A.

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Waring, Walter

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Pirie, Duncan Vernon

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Webb, H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han.S.)

    Radford, G. H.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Winterton, Earl

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

    Manfiield, Harry

    Kendall, Athelstan

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    McKenna, Rt Hon. Reginald

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Martin, Joseph

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Younger, Sir George

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Meagher, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Brace, William

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bull, Sir William James

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Crooks, William

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cave, George

    Fell, Arthur

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gilhooly, James

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Chambers, James

    Gill, A. H.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Goldman, C. S.

    Betheil, Sir J. H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Goldstone, Frank

    Bird, Alfred

    Clynes, John R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Boyton, James

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    1126

    1127

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stanier, Beville

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hodge, John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Parker, James Halifax

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Watt, Henry A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomy B'ghs)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    King, J.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lansbury, George

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool., W. Derby)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Snowden and Mr. Dickinson.

    It being after Half-past Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, successively to put forthwith the Questions on an Amendment proposed by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dis-
    pose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 215.

    Division No. 292.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Adamson, William

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

    Falconer, James

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

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Armitage, Robert

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Clough, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Field, William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barnes, George N.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Furness, Stephen

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Barton, William

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crooks, William

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Cullinan, John

    Glanville, Harold James

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Boland, John Pius

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Delany, William

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dickinson, W. H.

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

    Brace, William

    Dillon, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hackett, John

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Doris, William

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Duffy, William J.

    Hancock, John George

    Bryce, John Annan

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robinson, Sydney

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hayward, Evan

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Rowlands, James

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hodge, John

    Munro, Robert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    Neilson, Francis

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nolan, Joseph

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sheehy, David

    John, Edward Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    O'Dowd, John

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Joyce, Michael

    Ogden, Fred

    Sutherland, John E.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Grady, James

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Malley, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    King, Joseph

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wadsworth, John

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Leach, Charles

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wardle, George J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Waring, Walter

    Lewis, John Herbert

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pointer, Joseph

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Webb, H.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wiles, Thomas

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

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

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Radford, George Heynes

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

    M'Kean, John

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, Michael

    Winfrey, Richard

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

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

    Redmond, Wiliam (Clare, E.)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Manfield, Harry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Martin, Joseph

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Barrie, H. T.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Campion, W. R.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bird, Alfred

    Cassel, Felix

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Boyton, James

    Cator, John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Barnston, Harry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Cave, George

    1130

    1131

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill Wood, Samuel

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Chaloner, Col R. G. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Chambers, James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Edmund

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Rutherford, Watson (L'rpool, W. Derby)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Snowden, Philip

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lansbury, George

    Stanier, Beville

    Doughty, Sir George

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Stewart, Gershom

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Greene, W. R.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

    Gretton, John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Moore, William

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

    Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Winterton, Earl

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Nield, Herbert

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    White and Mr. MacCaw.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Money Bills.)
    (1) Bills appropriating revenue or money, or imposing taxation shall originate only in the Irish House of Commons, but a Bill shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or money, or to impose taxation by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the payment or appropriation of fees for licences or fees for services under the Bill.
    (2) The Irish House of Commons shall not adopt or pass any Resolution, Address, or Bill for the appropriation for any pur-
    1132
    pose of any part of the public revenue of Ireland or of any tax, except in pursuance of a recommendation from the Lord Lieutenant in the Session in which the Vote. Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
    (3) The Irish Senate may not reject any Bill which deals only with the imposition of taxation or appropriation of revenue or money for the services of the Irish Government, and may not amend any Bill so far as the Bill imposes taxation or appropriates revenue or money for the services of the Irish Government, and the Irish Senate may not amend any Bill so as to increase any proposed charges or burden on the people.
    (4) Any Bill which appropriates revenue or money for the ordinary annual services of the Irish Government shall deal only with that appropriation.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, in Sub section (2), after the word "any"
    ["adopt of pass any Resolution"], to insert the word "Vote."
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 319, Noes, 206.

    Division No. 293.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Doris, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Adamson, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Keating, M.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Armitage, R.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    King, J.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Falconer, James

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Farrell, James Patrick

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Barnes, G. N.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Field, William

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

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Leach, Charles

    Barton, W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    France, G. A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Furness, Stephen

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Lundon, T.

    Bentham, G. J.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Gill, A. H.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Boland, John Pius

    Glanville, H. J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brace, William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Brunner, John F, L.

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

    M'Kean, John

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hackett, J.

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hancock, J. G.

    Manfield, Harry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Martin, Joseph

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon, c. F. G.

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Clough, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Molloy, M.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hayward, Evan

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morrell, Philip

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Muldoon, John

    Cotton, William Francis

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Munro, R.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hodge, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Crooks, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Cullinan, John

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Neilson, Francis

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hudson, Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

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

    Hughes, S. L.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Delany, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dennian, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dillon, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Conner, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tennant, Harold John

    O'Dowd, John

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Ogden, Fred

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Grady, James

    Roberts, diaries H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Malley, William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wadsworth, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    O'Shee, James John

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Rowlands, James

    Wardle, George J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Waring, Walter

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Watt, Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Webb, H.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Scan Ian, Thomas

    White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir C. E.

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Scott, A MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Wiles, Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

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

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

    Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Snowden, Philip

    Winfrey, Richard

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborouqh)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Reddy, M.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Clay, Capt. H. Spender

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Baird, J. L.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Barnston, H.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Home, W. S. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Falle, B. G.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Bird, A.

    Fell, Arthur

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Boyton, J.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fleming, Valentine

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Campion, W. R.

    Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Goldman, C. S.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Cassel, Felix

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Cator, John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

    Cautley, H. S.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Cave, George

    Gretton, John

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hail, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Chambers, James

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    1136

    1137

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thompson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Touche, George Alexander

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Royds, Edmund

    Valentia, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Moore, William

    Salter, Clavell

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

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sanders, Robert A.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Nield, Herbert

    Stanier, Beville

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Starkey, John R.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Yate, Col. C E.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Younger, Sir George

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Willoughby and Mr. Brassey.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Without a word of discussion!
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 316; Noes, 199.

    Division No. 294.]

    AYES.

    [8.5 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Furness, Stephen

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clough, William

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Adamson, William

    Clynes, J. R.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Gilhooly, James

    Agar-Robartes, Hon, T. C. R.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gill, A. H.

    Agnew, Sir George

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ginnell, Lawrence

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Armitage, R.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Crooks, William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Barlow. Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cullinan, John

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

    Hackett, J.

    Barton, W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hancock, John George

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    De Forest, Baron

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Delany, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Bentham, G. J.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Bethell, Sir J. H

    Dillon, John

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Doris, William

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Duffy, William J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Brace, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Higham, John Sharp

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Falconer, J.

    Hodge, John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ffrench, Peter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Field, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hughes, S. L.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    France, G. A.

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nannetti, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Neilson, Francis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sheehy, David

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    King, J.

    Ogden, Fred

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    O'Grady, James

    Smyth, Thomas F.

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

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

    Snowden, P.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    O'Malley, William

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd, Cock'rmth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Leach, Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thomas, James Henry

    Lundon, T.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    McGhee, Richard

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wadsworth, John

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    M'Kean, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Waring, Walter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Manfiield, Harry

    Radford, G. H.

    Webb, H.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South shields)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Martin, Joseph

    Reddy, M.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Molloy, M.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

    Mooney, J. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Muldoon, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Munro, R.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cave, George

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bird, A.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Boyton, J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Baird, J. L.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Chambers, James

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bull, Sir William James

    Clay, Captain H. Spender

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Barnston, Harry

    Campion, W. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cassel, Felix

    Croft, Henry Page

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cator, John

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Dixon, Charles H.

    1140

    1141

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Royds, Edmund

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Falle, B. G.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Fell, Arthur

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Stanier, Beville

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Long, Rt. Hon Walter

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Starkey, John R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. s.)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mackindor, Hallord J.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Greene, W. R.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gretton, John

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

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Moore, William

    Valentia, viscount

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

    Nield, Herbert

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Winterton, Earl

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hoare, Samuel J. G.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Hohler, G. F.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Younger, Sir George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Arnold Ward and Mr. Neville.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Disagreement between Two Houses of Irish Parliament.)
    (1) If the Irish House of Commons pass any Bill and the Irish Senate reject or fail to pass it, or pass it with Amendments to which the Irish House of Commons will not agree, and if the Irish House of Commons in the next Session again pass the Bill with or without any Amendments which have been made or agreed to by the Irish Senate, and the Irish Senate reject or fail to pass it, or pass it with Amendments to which the Irish House of Commons will not agree, the Lord Lieutenant may during that Session convene a joint sitting of the members of the two Houses.
    (2) The members present at any such joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the Irish House of Commons, and upon the Amendments (if any) which have been made therein by the one House and not agreed to by the other; and any such Amendments which are affirmed by a
    1142
    majority of the total number of members of the two Houses present at the sitting shall be taken to have been carried.
    (3) If the Bill with the Amendments (if any) so taken to have been carried is affirmed by a majority of the total number of members of the two Houses present at any such sitting, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "any" ["Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the word "public."
    The effect of this Amendment will be that the procedure of the Joint Session shall take effect only in the ease of what is known here as a public Bill—a public Bill not in contradistinction to what is known as a private Member's Bill, but in contradistinction to local and personal Bills which go to Committee upstairs. The result will be that the private Bills in Ireland will go through their

    1143
    various stages, and have their fate ultimately settled, by the same procedure as here. The history of this question is somewhat interesting. The Parliament Act, as brought in last year, applied to every description of Bill indiscriminately. The first Clause in the Act applied to Public Money Bills and to Private Money Bills. That is to say, the first Clause as originally drafted would apply to some rating matter or some public grant affecting only some particular body. That under the first draft of the Bill would pass as a Money Bill and the House of Lords would have nothing to do with it. I moved an Amendment to the first Clause that it should only apply to Public Bills, and so convincing and sound were my arguments that the Government were unable to withstand them and accepted my Amendment, which was intended to meet a case of what may be called Private Money Bills. That was a class of Bill which one may imagine and which are not very common, and, as far as that goes, this particular Amendment in regard to Ireland would not apply, and I do not quote that as a precedent. I recall that history because we have already passed without any discussion the provision as to Money Bills in the Irish Parliament, but when we come to Clause 2 of the Parliament Act the same consideration arises, and I remember that the Attorney-General resisted my Amendment to the Parliament Act, but Members spoke from different sides in favour of it, and in the end the Prime Minister said he would reconsider the matter and the Amendment was accepted on the Report.
    I only want to assimilate the Irish practice to the present British practice. I want the same procedure with regard to Private Bills applied to Ireland as to this country. What impressed the Committee in the Debates on the Parliament Act were two considerations. First of all, that to apply the machinery of the Parliament Act—and the argument is applicable to a Joint Session in this Clause—to private Bills would really destroy the judicial character of the tribunals that hear private Bills at the present time. At the present time private Bills go through what you may call a judicial process. The Committee sitting to hear them have a sense of judicial responsibility, and it is uncommon that their decisions are upset in the House. They are sometimes challenged, but I say confidently that it is only in the very small number of cases that they are upset. It was felt that to apply the machinery of the
    1144
    Parliament Act to this class of Bills would at once introduce the party spirit because the whole object and purpose of the Parliament Act was to ensure that the party in power in the House of Commons should be able ultimately to carry its Bill if the party stood together for the requisite length of time. That introduces the fighting party element at once, and I think that very largely weighed with the Committee in excluding private Bills from the purview of the Parliament Act. But there was another, and in one sense a less important consideration, one of mere practical convenience, and that was that it would upset the whole machinery of private Bill legislation if the provisions of the Parliament Act were to apply to these private Bills, because private Bills at present as a matter of convenience and as a matter of convenience only, are sometimes introduced in one House and sometimes in another. By that means there is no great congestion of public business. Those introduced in the Lords come down here afterwards, and Bills introduced here go to the Lords afterwards at a convenient time. If the provisions of the Parliament Act applied to private Bills, all private Bills will have to be introduced into the Commons, so that if accepted there will be no use going through the racket of a House of Lords Committee in the first instance, which after all would not decide the fate of the Bill if the House of Commons remained of the same mind with regard to it. But it was pointed out by one speaker after another that real congestion of business would result, and that the whole of the procedure would be thrown into confusion. These were the two reasons that induced the Government to accept this Amendment in the Parliament Bill, and I submit something of the same kind would be necessary here if you are to set Parliamentary machinery in Ireland fairly going upon a proper basis.
    I assume, though I do not find it anywhere in the Bill, that it is intended that the system of private Bill legislation established and exercised by the Irish Parliament will be the same as here, that there shall be established Committees appointed under Standing Order, and that the judicial character of the procedure shall be maintained. It would be very serious if it were not maintained, and it would intensify the fear of some of my hon. Friends if an Irish Parliament were to legislate upon local and personal matters without that sense of responsibility which the system of Private Bill Committees certainly does impose

    1145
    upon Members of this House by the declaration that they are adjudicating in matters in which they have no interest for them or their constituencies. I assume it is intended that that procedure should be set up in Ireland. I think if we had time and opportunity we should try and insist upon that; but, as I say, I assume that is the intention of the Government, and if that is so I submit that the same rules as apply in this Parliament ought to apply in the Irish Parliament. If you had a different procedure, if you have these private Bills brought in under the same kind of procedure as public Bills, and resisted and debated, and that then a bare majority of the Joint Session is to prevail, you will entirely destroy the whole judicial fabric on which private Bill procedure ought to based in the Irish Parliament. There you would have precisely the same difficulty as was pointed out here, if all these private Bills have to be introduced in one House, because clearly the promoters would introduce them in the Commons in Ireland and not in the Senate if the Senate have only a delaying power of one year with regard to them.
    If you want this Bill to work as an Act, if you want the Senate to take an honourable and efficient part, you ought to endow it with the proper powers of a Second Chamber, and you ought not to deprive it of its proper sense of responsibility with regard to private Bills, which happily both Houses in this Parliament hitherto have acted upon. If you break that procedure down, and allow private Bills to be treated as ordinary matters of party controversy, you will be starting your Parliamentary machinery in Ireland, where party feeling runs so very high, under the worst auspices. If you have a Belfast Corporation Bill or a Cork Corporation Bill, or any Bill of that kind, which is not to be treated judicially but by the same machinery of public Bills, you will be intensifying the bitterness of party spirit, which, God knows, will be bad enough in any case in Ireland. I, therefore, submit you should follow the English precedent. There is this much difference between the machinery here and the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act usually allows two years, and then the will of the House of Commons is absolutely to prevail. Under this measure there is only one year's delay, after which the will of the Joint Session is to prevail. Except in very rare cases the will of the Joint Session will be the will of the Irish House of Commons, and
    1146
    it really interposes only a year's delay. I submit that all the arguments for including this word "public" in the Parliament Act apply equally in the place of the present Bill, and for the sake of the proper working of the Irish Parliament, and in order to give it a chance to work properly and secure the confidence of promoters and opponents of private Bills in the Irish Parliament, I think it is necessary that the Senate should have concurrent powers.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has referred to what took place in the discussions on the Parliament Act, and he stated that the arguments were strongly in favour of limiting a similar Clause to this to public Bills. On this occasion his arguments are going to prevail. We are particularly anxious not to interfere with the judicial character when dealing with private Bills. For that reason I think it would be better to avoid party controversies over private Bills of this character, and I accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government.
    Mr. MOORE: Now the Government have accepted this Amendment, as a result we have got one procedure on private Bills and another procedure for public Bills. Perhaps the Government would tell us which constitutes the safeguard for the minority. These are all supposed to be safeguards for the minority, and I should like to know in this case which is the safeguard.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I did not use the word "safeguard" at all. This was an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member opposite and I accepted it. If the hon. and learned Member opposite asks me, I think they are both safeguards. There is a safeguard in regard to the public Bills provided by the joint sittings and there is a safeguard in regard to private Bills which you do not get in the ordinary way.
    Mr. MOORE: We have now got two equally inconsistent safeguards, and the Government say they are both equally good. In the eyes of the Government they are all safeguards, although mutually destructive of each other. I do not attach much value to this safeguard. I think it is very unfortunate to-night that there is no representative of the Government sitting on the Front Bench who possesses any knowledge of Ireland, and therefore we are at the mercy of hon. Gentlemen

    1147
    opposite who do not understand these things. I think there ought to be some Minister present who has some knowledge of Ireland when these matters are under discussion.
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): But hon. Members opposite have insisted upon me governing Ireland so far as the Post Office is concerned.
    Mr. MOORE: Yes, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has anything to do with Ireland at all, and if he only knew what honest people think of his administration in Ireland he would not boast of it. I am sorry that we have no Irish representative on the Front Bench who has been professing safeguards and who knows what they mean. We are told that a private Bill has a safeguard. That proceeds on the assumption that we are going to have the same procedure in an Irish House of Parliament that we have here. If either of the Ministers representing the Government knew anything about Ireland they would never suggest that argument except as a joke. Suppose, for example, that a Bill comes up from Belfast to the Irish Parliament. The Belfast Corporation are frequently wanting Bills, and now you are going to put them under the tyranny of the Dublin Parliament, where they will have to go to get any local or personal Bill passed which they may require for the development of the city. Even in this House they have been attacked when they have brought private Bills forward, and they have had to make concessions to the Nationalists to get their Bills through. Whenever Belfast in the past wished to have a drainage scheme or a fresh water supply, the Nationalist Members here have said to them, "You shall not have this measure unless you give some representation to the Nationalists of Belfast. If you do not do this we will not let you sweep away slums in Belfast and that is our power in this House." What would this danger be in the Dublin Parliament? [An HON. MEMBER: "It would be no danger."] Let the hon. Member who interrupts me go back to his constituency and tell the electors that they are going to have English procedure in the Dublin Parliament, and see what the result will be.
    The Irish Parliament will have its own Standing Orders which will enable them to move that the Belfast Bill shall be taken
    1148
    in Committee of the Whole House, and what will be the result? You have taken good care of this in your safeguards. You have 164 Members, and if ever you have any Ulster members you will have about thirty of them. You have no regulations for setting up Committees. The Irish Parliament will make its own Standing Orders and Regulations for dealing with the business and even a worm will turn. Members of the Irish Parliament will say that you have no right to interfere with the sovereign power, and there is nothing to prevent a Minister in an Irish Parliament saying, "I beg to move that this Belfast Bill be sent to a Committee of the Whole House." Then you will have 164 Members in the Lower House with thirty Ulster representatives and do you think the Belfast Bill will have any chance in that House? The thing is too absurd, and yet that is one of the Government's safeguards which we are asked to be content with. Take the other safeguard. There is not to be a Joint Session, and the Belfast Bill is to take the course the Bill would take here. I do not know how proportional representation is going to work out, but I know it would not be supported by hon. Members below the Gangway if they thought Unionists were going to get anything out of it. The Attorney-General says that one is absolutely the same safeguard as the other, but I think they are both shams, and because they are shams I am quite indifferent to them. One result is that the Government are wholly unable to lay down any reason in the world why a local and personal Bill, which may affect persons in the matter of money a great deal more than a public Bill, is to be treated one way and the public Bill another way. A great deal of injustice can be done by private Bills. I will take, for example, the Corporation of Dublin. If it was suggested to them that the only place that would suit them for a pumping station was the Freemasons Hall in Molesworth Street, they would bring in a Bill and deal with that in Committee of the Whole House, and that would be carried unanimously, and the same majority in the Senate would confirm it. Why should there be any difference in the treatment of a local and personal Bill, which may involve any amount of money and a great deal of hardship and the treatment of a public Bill? There will be no Division because the Government has accepted the Amendment, but still the matter might be cleared up as soon as the Chief Secretary comes in or if the Government were for

    1149
    once to unmuzzle the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. T. W. Russell), who has some knowledge of Ireland on both sides of him. If he was let loose tonight, we might have a little worry at him, and, though we might not accept his statement, still he might throw some light on a question which seems to me to be left in absolute darkness by the Ministers on the Front Treasury Bench.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the acceptance of this Amendment does not constitute any safeguard. Nevertheless, I am glad the Government have accepted it. There is one point my hon. Friend has made which I think the Government might reasonably consider. We have no security whatever that the procedure in the Irish Parliament will follow the analogy of the procedure here. Consequently, if you merely put in the words as proposed by my hon. Friend making the Clause read, "If the Irish House of Commons pass any public Bill" it really will not be enough, because we do not know there will be the distinction in the Irish Parliament between public and private Bills as they are known here, and this will be an Act of Parliament governing the procedure in the Irish Parliament. Therefore, if I should be in order I should like to move, as an Amendment to my hon. Friend's Amendment, that instead of putting in the word "public" we should put in these words: "Bill which if introduced in the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be a public Bill." If the Government would accept the Amendment in that rather extended form, I think it would get over the difficulty which otherwise it appears to me may render this Amendment of no avail, namely, that of putting in an allusion to a procedure which may be absolutely unknown in the Irish Parliament, and which has no definition in the Bill making it clear. I therefore hope the Government will see their way to accept my Amendment which I think would clear up a doubtful point.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am quite ready to consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member, but I could not accept the Amendment in that form. There are obvious difficulties in the way of accepting that, but what I am going to do to try and meet his view is to see whether it is necessary to introduce any words to qualify the word "public," and, if so, to introduce them on Report. I do not think it will be necessary, because until the Irish Parliament have Standing Orders of their own
    1150
    the procedure there will naturally be governed by the procedure here. The Irish Parliament can then deal with it and make its own Standing Orders in regard to it. I do not think it is really necessary to introduce words, but I do think it is worth considering it carefully, and I am prepared to do that.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for what he has said. It appears to me, from what he has said himself, some such words will be necessary. It is quite true that until some Standing Order is introduced in the Irish Parliament our procedure will govern the procedure there, but there will be no security that the Standing Orders in the Irish Parliament will have any regard to our procedure here. Therefore I do think some such words as I have suggested will be necessary to make the Amendment of any value.
    Mr. WATT: I am rather surprised this discussion has been allowed to proceed, because the Amendment was accepted by the Government.
    Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in criticising your ruling?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I have not given any ruling, but I beg to inform the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) that the acceptance by the Government of an Amendment does not control the action of the Chair.
    Mr. WATT: I apologise for any reflection which it may be thought I was making upon the Chair, but I only meant it as a preliminary canter to the few observations I have to make. The doctrine of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh (Mr. Moore) was a most extraordinary one. He assumes the Parliament to be set up in Ireland will be a corrupt Assembly, and, in order to be saved from that corruption, in the case of private Bills, he desires the same system that holds in this House should hold in Ireland, and that they should be sent upstairs to a few Members instead of being dealt with on the floor of the House by the whole Assembly. Three or four members of a corrupt Assembly are, by his hypothesis, to be purer and less easily corrupted than the? 64 members of the institution to be set up. That, I ventured to say, is an Irish doctrine that will not find acceptance in this Committee. The system he advocated for private measures, namely, the sending of them upstairs to a judicial body, is an antiquated

    1151
    and worn-out system inherited in this House centuries ago, and is one that ought to be abandoned, and one which would never be accepted by an up-to-date Assembly. There is, first, connected with the judicial body the burden of counsel, briefed at tremendous expense. That is a great disadvantage to those who are bringing before this House any private business. The expenses work up to such an enormous extent that local authorities—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now endeavouring to air a grievance which is not directly relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. WATT: I thought I was in order on that point. The system advocated by the hon. and learned Member was that these judicial bodies, consisting of three or four Members, sitting on private Bills, should be initiated in Ireland, and I was endeavouring to show that if the whole Assembly is corrupt, then a fortiori a few Members sitting upstairs must also be corrupt. I think I have shown the argument of the hon. and learned Member will not hold water for a moment.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The Attorney-General told us he is prepared to put in suitable words.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: There ought not to be any misapprehension about this. I said I would give the suggestion of the hon. Member careful consideration, and if I thought words were necessary I would then introduce them upon Report.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The proposal is to put into the Bill words which will ensure that only what are known in this House as public Bills should be subject to the Joint Session operation of the Bill. My difficulty is this: It is admitted that the Irish Parliament, when formed, will have the power of defining by Standing Order what a public Bill is, and their definition of a public Bill may be entirely different from what this House considers to be a public Bill. They may disregard the traditions of this House, and may, perfectly properly, regard a local Bill extending the boundaries of a city or dealing with drainage as a public Bill, whereas, of course, at the present time in this House these Bills are known as private Bills. Therefore the introduction of the words conceded by the Attorney-General would not entirely
    1152
    satisfy our ideas with reference to this matter. It seems that the right left to the Irish Parliament to define by Standing Order what a public Bill is, would leave us in very much the same condition as we are at present. I submit that this Bill itself should define, once and for all, exactly what classes of Bills are to be subject to this Joint Session treatment, and what classes are to remain subject to the procedure which exists at the present time in this House of Commons with regard to private Bills.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: The Attorney-General has certainly removed a misapprehension I was under the impression that his promise went a little further than it did. I understand now that he undertakes to consider this point, and if he comes to the conclusion that any such words as I suggest are necessary, he will, at a later stage, introduce them. I am sure he will not think me discourteous if I say that that is not quite enough. It is just possible that, on consideration, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may arrive at a conclusion unsatisfactory to us. Before we let this matter go I should like to have some assurance that when the Attorney-General has considered this matter we shall have an opportunity of reviewing his decision. Suppose he arrives at a conclusion that no such words are necessary, and that is quite possible, I think we ought to have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Committee on the point, and, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman can go a little further and promise some opportunity for discussion at a later stage, I should like to have my Amendment considered by the Committee.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am afraid I cannot, go any further than I have already done in order to meet the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I thought I was meeting him very fairly. I quite appreciate his point. I have told him I will consider it with the draftsmen in order to see whether it is necessary to introduce these words, and I shall be prepared to communicate with him as soon as I arrive at a decision, and to explain to him the reasons for that decision. I cannot do more than that. When he asks me to give further opportunities for discussion that is a pledge which I cannot possibly make.
    Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if we are right in assuming, now that the Government

    1153
    have accepted the Amendment, it means that the Irish House of Commons will deal with any public Bill in the present interpretation and not in the Irish interpretation, whatever it may be. Is that what is intended? We want to maintain a public Bill in the sense it is used in this House at the present time. We do not want an Irish Parliament to be able to say, "They may call it a public Bill in England, but we are not going to do so." Is it the Attorney-General's intention that the words "public Bill," accepted by the Government to-night, mean a public Bill as at present accepted in the present House of Commons, or do they mean a public Bill in whatever sense a future Irish Parliament may determine?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My point in agreeing to consider the words was to see whether it was necessary to put in any words in order to qualify the words "public Bill" by some such words as are suggested by the hon. Gentleman. But I certainly never intended for one moment to say I was going to introduce words into this Bill which would take away from the Irish Parliament the power given them to make their own Standing Orders whenever the Irish Parliament is constituted. On the contrary, I have pointed out that that power is given to them by a subsequent Clause in the Bill. I have no intention of taking that away; I would never consent to stereotype for the Irish Parliament a procedure which we have in this House, and which may be changed at any moment. In no circumstances should we be justified in imposing on the Irish Parliament for all time an obligation to take a course which it should decide for itself, as we decide for ourselves.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am sorry the Attorney-General has not been able to reassure us. It comes to this: that under the words "public Bill" the Irish Parliament will have the power to make such Standing Orders as they please; they will have a right to include any class of Bill they think fit in the category of public Bills, and they will therefore be able to include such Bills as I have mentioned. Consequently the Amendment which the Government have accepted, unless qualified by the words proposed by my hon. Friend, will be no safeguard and no improvement on the Bill at all, and I therefore hope my hon. Friend will proceed to a Division.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it better that we should be quite clear as to
    1154
    the position in which we now stand. The only Amendment at present before the Committee is that in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hope) and is to insert the word "public" before "Bill." We really must deal with that before we proceed with any other Amendment.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Is it not open to me to move an Amendment to that Amendment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is open to the hon. Member to move an Amendment to an Amendment, but not to this particular Amendment. The Amendment would be after the hon. Member for Sheffield, namely, "that any Bill introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be a public Bill."
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I do not think you are quite interpreting the words correctly. I propose, after the word "any," to insert the words "Bill which would be."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must get rid of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield. Does he propose to withdraw it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Amendment having been accepted by the Government, I do not think we can agree to its withdrawal.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think my hon. Friend could move some amplification of the word "Bill" which would clearly carry out his object. It would want but very little change in the words read out. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for accepting this Amendment, but I find myself in a rather curious and unexpected position. I hope that this Bill will not pass, but if it should pass I shall have the consolation of knowing that my name will go down to posterity as having been one of the founders of the Irish Constitution, because the Government have accepted my Amendment.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill" ["If the Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the words "that is to say, any Bill which if introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be a public Bill."
    I do not wish to be too persistent, but I am sure the Attorney-General will forgive me if I point out to him that the assurance he has given really does not quite meet my

    1155
    point. All that he has told us is that he will give the matter his consideration, and he has been good enough to say that he will communicate with me—it is very kind and considerate of him—as to the decision he arrives at after consultation with the draftsman. I am sure it is no slight to the great authority of the Attorney-General, which I fully recognise, to say that there may be differences of opinion upon this fact among authorities as weighty as his own.
    Mr. WATT: On a point of Order. In regard to the discretion you, Mr. Maclean, exercise in choosing Amendments upon the Paper which you desire the Committee to discuss, are we to understand that you admit a manuscript Amendment to override those on the Paper?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, I do accept the Amendment.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I had nearly concluded my argument when I was interrupted by another "canter over the course." All that we have got from the right hon. Gentleman is a promise that he will consider the matter and tell us his decision. I am not pitting my opinion against his, but hon. Gentlemen on this side, of equal authority with him, may arrive at a different conclusion. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman conveys to us, after he has given his most mature consideration to the point, and after he has consulted the draftsman, that he has come to the conclusion that no words are necessary, that may not be our conclusion, and it is only from the point of view that the assurance appears to be unsatisfactory that I move the Amendment.
    9.0 P.M.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The position which I take in regard to this matter has already been explained by me; at any rate I have made it quite clear. I do not really think that the words are necessary. I have considered them, and have been considering them while the hon. Member was putting forward his argument, and it does not seem to me that you want the words at all. At the same time I said I would consider them, and I will consider them in view of the doubt expressed by the hon. Member. But you must be quite clear about this, that I am not considering the question of introducing words which will have the effect of limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament. I do not want there to be any misapprehension about that. In
    1156
    matter of this kind, when I am giving an undertaking, it is necessary that we should understand each other completely. What I have considered, and what I have promised to consider is whether it is necessary to introduce any such words in order to make clear what is meant by "a public Bill," and not words limiting a later Clause conferring powers on the Irish Parliament. To that view I adhere, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way not to persist in this Amendment. Even supposing you have a Division upon it, and assuming for a moment that the hon. Gentleman carries his point, it will not take us one step further in the direction of limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament, it will only have said what is meant by a public Bill. I do not think there can be any doubt as to what is the meaning of a public Bill, when you are dealing with a public Bill as we understand it in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I suggest to him that these words really would not assist the matter or carry it one step further.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: It appears to me that the Attorney-General has really introduced quite a new point, because he now says that this Amendment, even if carried, would not limit the powers of the Irish Parliament in this regard. Does the right hon. Gentleman really give that opinion? I should have imagined that if this Clause were to read—
    "If the Irish House of Commons pass any public Bill, that is to say"—
    then follow the words of my Amendment, that that would govern for all time the procedure under this Clause for the Joint Session; in other words, that no Bill would be subject to Joint Session procedure if it could be shown that it was a Bill which would be a public Bill in this Parliament. The Attorney-General has said that he purposely limits his consideration in away which would prevent this from being a permanent safeguard, so far as it is a safeguard, and which would open up in the future the possibility of the Irish Parliament doing away with the effect of the Amendment he has already accepted. I understood that his acceptance of my hon. Friend's Amendment to put in the word "public," meant that it was to secure in the Irish Parliament that what we call "public Bills" would not be subject to this Joint Session procedure. It is merely with the intention of removing any

    1157
    ambiguity which may remain that I wish to add words making it still clearer. The Attorney-General has now shown that there was not merely a necessity for making the point clear, but, in point of fact, that there is a substantive point here, and that he does not want the effect to be introduced which my hon. Friend meant and which is certainly the object of my Amendment. I submit with great humility to the right hon. Gentleman that he must be wrong in saying that if my Amendment were passed—I do not flatter myself that it will be—it would stereotype the procedure in the Irish Parliament, which is the very thing I want to do. So far as the point is an important one at all, and I think it has a certain amount of importance, the last few words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman convinced I me that it will be necessary to take the opinion of the Committee upon the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think the Attorney-General has been following the example of the Turkish soldiers in the field in that he has not yet been able to avail himself of the commissariat arrangements of the House. He cannot mean to say that the powers given under Clause 38 override the present Clause. If they override the Amendment of my hon. Friend, why should they override that any more than the rest of the Clause. If they override the powers of the Irish Parliament as to legislation with regard to private or public Bills, why should they not override the whole provision of the Joint Session and the rest? Surely these powers must be organic, and whatever is done in Clause 38 must be subject to them. As a matter of fact I should rather ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain, if he feels able to do so, on what words in Clause 38 he relies, because it does not seem to me that it bears on the point at all—
    "All existing laws, institutions, and authorities in Ireland, whether judicial, administrative, or ministerial, and all existing taxes in Ireland shall, except as otherwise provided, continue as if this Act had not passed."
    I do not see that there is anything in that, because the procedure of this House is not the existing law, institution, or authority in Ireland. Then go to the latter part.
    "With the modifications necessary for adapting them to this Act."
    That does not bear upon it.
    1158
    "And subject, as respects matters within the powers of the Irish Parliament under this Act, to repeal, abolition, alteration, and adaptation in the manner and to the extent authorised by this Act."
    Surely that means that the other provisions of this Act govern this, and not that this overrides the other provisions of this Act. I really submit that that must be so, and the argument of the Attorney-General either must be wrong or else, if he is right, he must mean that the powers under Clause 38—a thing I cannot conceive;—will enable the Irish Members to get over all the restrictions in this Clause 11 and, I presume, in other Clauses. If that is not so, will he inform us exactly what is the case?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I suggested the view about the words to the hon. Gentleman which occurred to me. He does not accept that. He means something else, as I follow from what he said. It depends on what interpretation you would put upon them. It is not necessary or desirable that I should discuss the meaning of the words. He is satisfied with them. I will accept it that his intention is carried out in the words. If that is the case I could not think of accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman drop the whole of the argument he based on Clause 38?
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not drop anything.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then can he explain why does he not drop it? It is evident he cannot.
    Mr. MOORE: We were told by the Attorney-General that in this Clause we had two safeguards. I asked which was the safeguard, and he said there were two. Now he has explained the safeguard later on by pointing out that it is a safeguard which the Irish Parliament have power to do away with the moment they sit. It is like all the Government safeguards. We always come back to the same thing—the absolute unreality of them. I really fail to understand the position. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that what happened was this. The hon. Member (Mr. Ronald M'Neill) said he wanted something put into the Clause which would show that it was to be a public Act within the accepted meaning of this House, and the Attorney-General said he did not think

    1159
    that was necessary. He would consider whether any words were necessary. In the course of the subsequent proceedings it turned out that that was the last thing the Attorney-General wanted. He wants to have "public Act" as it may be defined by an Irish Parliament, and he says the last thing he would do would be to interfere with the power of the Irish Parliament to make anything they please a public Act. It seems to me we are only wasting time, and I hope, just to clear the matter up and to let the Committee decide whether this is a real safeguard or not, and whether we are to have a public Bill within the meaning of the House of Commons or within the meaning of the fantastic reforms which will take place on College Green, if ever they can get together, we may be allowed to decide whether it should be an English one or an Irish one. On this side of the House we shall vote for the safety and security of the United Kingdom, a practice which we have enjoyed up to the present.
    Mr. WATT: I wish to ask the Attorney-General on no account to have anything to do with the Amendment. Hon. Members opposite with that "public Bill" shall be defined as understood in this House, but it will have to be in this House at present, because there is no reason why the expression "public Bill," although it has a meaning at the present time, should not be altered in its meaning even in this House. The Orders of this House are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered, and any day it may be the view of the House that the Standing Order dealing with public Bills shall be altered, so that if the question of further definitions of "public Bills" were put in and were limited to the meaning at present understood in this House, it would have no effect.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 242.

    Division No. 295.]

    AYES.

    [9.11 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Amery, L. C. H. S.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Nield, Herbert

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gretton, John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Barrie, Hugh T.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campion, W. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cautley, H. S.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Falle, Bertram Godfrey

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Fell, Arthur

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Mount, William Arthur

    Moore and Mr. R. M'Neill.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Armitage, Robert

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Adamson, William

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Barton, William

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hayward, Evan

    O Shee, James John

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hodge, John

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, N.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brace, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pirle, Duncan V.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hudson, Walter

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

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

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    John, Edward Thomas

    Radford, George Heynes

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, Michael

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Clough, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Clynes, John R.

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Robinson, Sidney

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crean, Eugene

    King, Joseph

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rowlands, James

    Cullinan, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

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

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Leach, Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    De Forest, Baron

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Sheehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Doris, William

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Duffy, William J.

    McGhee, Richard

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Snowden, P.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Thomas, J. H.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Falconer, James

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meagher, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Ffrench, Peter

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Field, William

    Molloy, Michael

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Mooney, John J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Muldoon, John

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Munro, Robert

    Watt, Henry A.

    Ginnell, L.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Webb, H.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Neilson, Francis

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Hackett, John

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hancock, John George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

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

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Dowd, John

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Grady, James

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Harmsworth, R. L (Caithness-shire)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Malley, William

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. GOD FREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) after the
    1162
    word "Bill" ["If the Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the

    1163
    words" which is sent up to the Irish Senate at least one month before the end of the Session."
    I very much hope that the Government may see their way to accept this Amendment. Personally, I should have liked to have made it a little bit stronger and to have proposed that the period should be six weeks or two months, but I thought that in this very moderate form the Government might see their way to accept the Amendment. As a matter of fact the words of the Amendment are taken almost precisely from Clause 2 of the Parliament Act. I would remind the Committee that these words were not inserted at the suggestion of the Opposition on account of any Amendment proposed by us. They were put in originally when the Government framed their measure. They were put in with a deliberate purpose. The Government put them in in order to guard the interest of the Upper Chamber in this country, and in the general interest of public policy. It seems to me if they were put in the Parliament Act in the interest of the House of Lords here, it is far more necessary to put them in when you are framing an entirely new Constitution in another country.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It will be accepted.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am extremely glad that I am relieved from having to make any further remarks, and I am exceedingly grateful to the Government for having accepted my Amendment.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to say that the reason why the words were not originally put in was that we were taking the textual provision in the South Africa Act, which is the only Constitution within the Empire where a joint sitting on these lines is included. The words "one month" do not there appear. They do appear in the Parliament Act, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that this safeguard should be inserted—[An HON. MEMBER: "Condition."]—the word safeguard is taboo, but if this condition should be accepted, the Government cannot possibly say that it is an unreasonable Amendment. I hope, however, the acceptance of this Amendment will not be the signal for three-quarters of an hour's Debate as in the case of the last Amendment
    Mr. MOORE: I protest against the last words used by the Postmaster-General. He seems to forget that we are working under the guillotine, and that whether we like it or not the guillotine will fall at half-past ten. The Postmaster-General has the insolence to get up and complain that we occupied three-quarters of an hour on the last Amendment when we were discussing an Irish question. I think it is an insolent statement which ought to be withdrawn. I know we will not be allowed to discuss things in the Irish Parliament, but we are now in the United Parliament, and we are here to fight our corner, and we will fight our corner, in spite of sneers and protests entirely unworthy of the Government Bench when we are gagged and guillotined at every turn. After that I think the Committee would be well advised to discuss this proposal. The Postmaster-General said it is not a safeguard. I understood that he withdrew the word safeguard.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In deference to your susceptibilities.
    Mr. MOORE: I am not aware that I am so very susceptible. I understand insolence when it is meant, and I treat it as such. This is only a part of the Government sham. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that is recognised, even on the Labour benches. Under this proposal, of course, there will be a certain amount of delay by putting in the words "one month." We will be at the mercy of the Irish Parliament. They can have as many Sessions as they like in a year. The whole of these limitations proceed on the idea that the Irish Parliament will be a slavish model of this Parliament. It is the last thing they will do. It would be possible for any member in the Irish Parliament to get up and say, "They do this in the English Parliament; we will have our own rules and regulations." It all comes back to the same thing. When you pack the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons it is immaterial to the minority what paper conditions of this sort you put in the Bill. All I hope is that the Government will not add to their impostures in the way of concessions and the conciliatory nature of their safeguards by going through the country and trumpeting them. We do not accept them as such. The whole thing is unreal, and we hope that there will not be any more safeguards of this sort.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I do not want at all to impose upon the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat weary sense of the inferiority of the rest of mankind, but I wish to point out that this is one of the few Clauses which for an hour or two we have been able to discuss in the true Committee spirit, more or less in detail. We had not gone through one line before the Government felt constrained to accept two Amendments, thereby showing the faultiness of their own draftsmanship, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he thinks the result would have been supposing we had had an opportunity of discussing the whole of this Bill in the same detail? Supposing the last Clause, which we accepted without a word of discussion an hour ago, had been discussed in full, how many Amendments does anyone suppose the Government would have felt themselves bound to accept owing to the bad draftsmanship put into this Bill? I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment, but it only shows how necessary it is, in order to make this Bill hold water at all, that it should be properly discussed.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Bill" ["pass any Bill"], to insert the words "other than a Bill which contains any provision affecting the qualification of Irish Parliamentary electors or affecting the right to vote at any Irish Parliamentary election."
    As the Bill stands power will be given to the party in power in the Irish Parliament after three years to enfranchise or disfranchise any section or class of the Irish electorate. The only buffer, I hardly dare say safeguard, would be the assent of the Senate. If we could suppose under the present arrangement that the Senate would be of a different complexion from the House of Commons in Ireland, then it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the Senate, but there would have to be a Joint Session, and we all know that there are only forty members of the Senate, whose votes would be merely one in four, so that the alleged safeguard is really no safeguard in this case. By this Bill the Government place the whole affairs of Ireland in the hands of one political party, one of the nationalities, one of the sects in Ireland, and when they are making such an experiment as this with such dangerous
    1166
    material, the least they could do would be to insert some real safeguard for the minority. One of the real safeguards which they could insert would be the acceptance of this Amendment. At all events, it would give the minority in Ireland the assurance that the opportunity of voting at an election would not be tampered with. I know it would be said that no Irish Government would ever think of bringing in a Bill to affect the right of their opponents to vote. I know that it is supposed that as soon as this Bill is passed all the people in Ireland will become angels. That has been demonstrated on several occasions. They are going to change their nature completely. But, even so, I would like to see some safeguard of this kind inserted. Is it impossible to imagine after some years, when there might be a change coming over the electorate in Ireland, that the party in power, seeing their majority dwindling, would try to change the electoral arrangements in their own favour? It is perfectly clear that any frequent changes in the electoral arrangements in the country are very detrimental and quite undemocratic. It would be admitted that if there was any good, valid reason for changing the electorate in Ireland such a change would be accepted by the Imperial Parliament. I think the Imperial Parliament, standing outside the arena of party politics in Ireland, would be able to have a clearer vision, to see more exactly whether it was desirable that there should be a change in the electorate. Therefore I desire to insert words which will ensure to the minority that the electorate would not be changed without the consent of the Imperial Parliament.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: In support of this Amendment I wish to adopt the arguments of my hon. Friend, and also to urge another point which may have escaped his notice. The object of this Amendment is to give full powers to the Irish Senate, in respect of a Franchise Bill or a Redistribution Bill or a Bill of that character, that there should not be ipso facto a joint sitting, that there should be some safeguard against gerrymandering constituencies or tampering with the rights of electors such as has been known in the history of this country before now. May I recall the precedents that occurred which are a matter of histor5r now over the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill of 1884? On that occasion there was a great deal of suspicion of manipulating

    1167
    constituencies and of redistributing it on unfair grounds, in such a way that in certain constituencies one party should get an advantage, because certain portions of what ought to belong to those constituencies were cut away and given to some other constituencies where the party majority was already sufficiently assured. No doubt if the late Sir Charles Dilke was in this House he would be able to tell us a great deal of what occurred on that occasion, but the point is that the House of Lords took a considerable part in those discussions and refused to pass the Franchise Bill until a fair scheme of redistribution was agreed to, and in the end they had considerable influence in securing the fairness of the redistribution proposals. That is one reason why I am anxious that the Irish Senate should be put, at any rate, in the same position so that they can prevent the Irish House of Commons from manipulating the electorate to the advantage of the party momentarily in power. And unless you have some Amendment such as my hon. Friend proposes which will bring that about, I think you run a somewhat serious risk. That is only one side of the question. There is another side to which I want to call the attention of the Government. Since the Bill was introduced the Government have accepted the principle that the Irish Senate shall be an elective body, and, if the Irish Senate is an elective body, therefore directly in touch with the constituencies, and directly concerned with the electorate and with the boundaries of those constituencies, surely it is right and proper that they should have a full voice in any Franchise Bill that might be introduced. I cannot myself see how, bearing in mind that the Government has accepted the elective principle for the Irish Senate, they can possibly say that the Irish Senate is to have no voice whatever in a Franchise Bill or a Redistribution Bill. Yet, unless this Amendment be accepted by the Government, that is the position.
    Attention called to the fact that there were not forty Members present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I do not know what exactly was the object of the hon. Member for Stoke in calling attention to the fact that there were not forty Mem-
    1168
    bers present. There were plenty of Unionists here, while Ministerialists and Nationalists were absent. I do not know whether the argument I was addressing to the Committee was particularly unpleasant to the hon. Member and lead him to-move a count, but it is quite conceivable that it was so. It will give me the satisfaction of repeating more clearly perhaps, for the edification of those Members who were not present, the point I am making—it is that since the elective principle has been introduced into the Irish Senate, it is plain that the Irish Senate ought to have a full voice in any Franchise or Redistribution Bill submitted to the Irish Parliament. That is the object of this Amendment, and there is, to my mind, a very strong case why it should be accepted. I do not think it is fair or right from any point of view to exclude this Senate from a full voice on such a Bill, now that it has been put on an elective basis. I shall regret very greatly if the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment, in common fairness and common justice to the new Constitution which they are setting up.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: There is one point which has not been touched upon, and in regard to which, unless this Amendment be accepted—and I trust the Government is prepared to accept it—it seems to me very possible that the University of Dublin might be disfranchised without the consent of the Senate. This is the more probable having regard to the Amendment accepted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the part of the Government, namely, that the University of Dublin is now withdrawn from the purview of the Irish Parliament and its rights and privileges are to be protected by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. For that reason the temptation might be strong on the part of the Irish Parliament to withdraw the representation of two members for the University of Dublin, which is granted by this Bill. I think, for that reason only, if for no other, it is very desirable indeed that the Government should accept this Amendment.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON: There would appear to be a great deal more in this Amendment than at first sight appears. The Government must remember that there are three sets of people who are interested in the qualification of the Irish Parliamentary electors and their right to vote. The first, the

    1169
    electors themselves, or the people from whom the electors are chosen, or selected, or by whatever process you may adopt; secondly, the Senate, because the Senate is to be elected by the same body of electors who elect the Lower House; and, thirdly, the Lower House. And what you are going to do, if you do not accept this Amendment, is to leave the sole determination of the question in the hands of the Lower House. There can be no doubt whatever about that; because the Lower House is more than four to one of the Senate, and if they have a joint sitting, the Lower House can easily outvote the Senate, or outvote the Senate and a minority of their own body that might happen to be of the same view as the Senate.
    This is not a case of accepting an Amendment which might affect the principle of the Bill. We are only proposing the Amendment for the purpose of giving fair play to the electorate and to the Senate. You have an elective Senate. You are not in the same position as you were when you introduced the Parliament Bill, and were dealing with a non-elective body, and chose to put certain restrictions upon it. You are dealing with an elective body with a direct interest in preserving the rights of the electors who are to elect the senators. You have, also, in this only the delay of legislation, because by this Amendment, so far as I can see, the Senate, which is vitally interested in the matter, and will have the right of refusing to pass a Bill which has passed the Lower House, will see that the electors themselves are consulted upon questions which vitally concern them. The only thing that can happen if the Amendment be accepted is that the Lower House cannot by force of numbers, and by the provision which enables them to have a joint sitting when the two Houses do not agree, force upon the body a change in the qualification of the electors without the electors themselves having an opportunity to express their opinion upon the proposal. I cannot see on what principle, whether Liberal or democratic, you can refuse to allow an Amendment which will only secure the rights of the people, whose interests are affected, to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion in the ordinary, legitimate, and constitutional way.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first place the hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he thinks the Irish Parliament will have power to alter completely
    1170
    the qualifications that exist in the Irish Senate. That is not so.
    Mr. GORDON: As I understood the matter, and if I am wrong I hope I shall be corrected, the Senate is to be elected by provinces, but by the same electors that elect the Members of the Lower House.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first instance there will only be one register of electors for all purposes, but the Irish Parliament has power, under Clause 9, Subsection (3), to alter the qualification for electors so far as relates to the Irish House of Commons, and to that alone. The electors of the Irish Senate are to be the same as the electors for members to serve in the Imperial Parliament. The constitution of the Senate and the electors of the Senate, all that is retained as part of the points of Imperial legislation, and the only powers conferred on the Irish Parliament have to deal with the electors of the Irish House of Commons. If the hon. Member will be good enough to refer to the Amendment carried with respect to the elected Senate, and which does not appear on the face of the Bill, he will find that what I have stated is the case. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment is also, I think, under a misapprehension, since he said that the effect of his Amendment would be to remove the alteration of the electorate for the Irish House of Commons from the province of the Irish Parliament, and to retain it in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. He said he thought this matter ought to be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. This Clause, of course, only deals with the case where there is a deadlock between the two Houses of the Irish Parliament, and his suggestion is that where such a deadlock occurs in the case of a Bill dealing with the qualifications of electors that there should be no means of resolving that deadlock, and that the provision of a Joint Sitting should not apply to that case. That is a proposal which the Government, of course, cannot accept. We see no reason for picking out this one portion of the whole province of legislation and saying that the principle of a Joint Session shall not apply there while it shall apply in all other cases as the means of resolving deadlocks. The hon. Member for Aston Manor (Mr. E. Cecil) said that now you had an elected Senate and no longer a nominated Senate you ought to give it larger powers. I could understand that on the ground that we had now an elected Senate, you should vote

    1171
    against the whole principle of the Joint Sitting, and should vote against this whole Clause, but I submit to him that the fact that we have changed the constitution of the Senate is no reason why we should take one set of laws and say: "This shall not be subject to the principle of a Joint Sitting while the other laws shall be so subject."
    Our Constitution has never recognised any distinction between fundamental laws and non-fundamental laws, between organic and non-organic laws, and you cannot properly try to create some new category of legislation to which the ordinary principle of Parliamentary action shall not apply. This matter, of course, was discussed at great length on the Parliament Bill last year, and no fewer than twenty-three classes of legislation were proposed to be omitted from the legislation which was to be subject to the provision of the Parliament Bill. The House of Commons did not accept that view, and the Parliament Bill was passed without making any attempt to discriminate between those numerous classes of what were supposed to be organic laws and ordinary legislation dealt with by Parliament. Least of all in this case would it be necessary to exclude this particular group of measures. The idea is that an Irish Parliament, if not checked by a Senate, might pass laws deliberately to exclude from the register those persons who would not vote for the then dominant majority in the Irish House of Commons. In the first place it surely cannot be believed by the House at large, whatever may be the view of particular individual Members opposite, that any Parliament in any part of the world would endeavour to pass outrageous legislation of that kind. But even if it were possible that such an attempt should be made unquestionably the Imperial Government here, under the influence of the Imperial Parliament, would never for a moment allow such a Bill of that character to reach the Statute Book.
    Mr. MOORE: How could they stop it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: By refusing the Royal Assent. Undoubtedly, if the Irish Parliament were to pass a Bill to the effect that no Protestant should be added to the electoral register for the Irish Parliament, such a Bill would immediately be vetoed with the unanimous support of British public opinion. The contingency as obviously an impossible one, but since
    1172
    we are dealing with impossible contingencies I think it is legitimate to point out what the result would be. Therefore this proposal is unnecessary. The suggestion is that the Irish Senate should have an absolute Veto on any legislation, no matter what it might be, which the Irish House of Commons might choose to pass altering in any way the qualifications of the electors who are to vote for the Irish Parliament. We cannot agree that there should be such a Veto, and we think the provisions for dealing with a deadlock in other cases should apply to a deadlock in this. Under Acts already passed by this Parliament and Constitutions already established within the Empire with the assent of the Imperial Parliament by Imperial legislation which provides for a joint sitting in certain cases between the two Houses—that is to say, the South African Constitution and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution—no such demand has been made in the past to draw a distinction between this class of legislation and others. We invite the Committee therefore to adhere to precedent, and not to attempt to make this distinction.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the special and exceptional case mentioned by me, namely, with regard to the electoral rights of the University of Dublin. I had Amendments down to Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, the object of which was to safeguard those interests as regards the Dublin Parliament. The case is distinctly exceptional. Having regard to the fact that the rights of the University of Dublin have been withdrawn from the purview of the Irish Parliament, it stands altogether apart from the other constituencies, and the temptation might be very strong indeed on the part of the Irish House of Commons to destroy the electoral rights which are given to Dublin University under this Bill. For that reason, I think, it is very important indeed, in order that those interests shall be safeguarded that this particular Amendment should be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the matter.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must apologise to the hon. Member, but I should have thought it was quite obvious if Dublin University was entirely excluded from the puview of the Irish Parliament and was, to use a term that has been used in Ireland, denationalised, of course it would not have special representation in the Irish

    1173
    Parliament. It would follow as a matter of course, and therefore this question would not in any case arise if Dublin University is excluded.
    Mr. MOORE: Will it be represented here?
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask if it is the intention to withdraw the representation of Dublin University from the Irish Parliament and from the Senate?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The point does not arise in this Clause, but the answer-is in the affirmative.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: This Amendment really brings us back to Sub-section (3) of Clause 9, which provides—
    "After three years from the passing of this Act the Irish Parliament may alter as respects the Irish House of Commons the qualification of the electors, the mode of election, the constituencies."
    Therefore it can take away the franchise from these constituencies, and my hon.
    Friend is perfectly right when he says that the Dublin Parliament could under this Clause disfranchise Dublin University. When asked what would be done if an injustice of this kind were passed by the Irish Parliament, the Postmaster-General said, "Oh, there is the Veto." But the Committee forgets that the possibility of the Veto being exercised is repudiated by Members from Ireland; they say that they will not have it, and if the Veto was exercised civil war or revolution would result. We all know that it can never be exercised. It is one of those sham safeguards introduced as a show-card, but having no reality about it. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment which would give, for what it is worth, power to the Irish Senate to say whether or not any such alteration in the franchise was or was not to take place.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 260.

    Division No. 296.]

    AYES.

    10.0 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Moore, William

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Bagot, Liet.-Colonel J.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nield, Herbert

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gretton, John

    Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Poliock, Ernest Murray

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barrie, H. T.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campion, W. R.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Stanier, Beville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Touche, George Alxander

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker, Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Hamilton Benn and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Greenwood, Granvile G. (Peterborough)

    Munro, Robert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Adamson, William

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

    Neilson, Francis

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

    Gulland, John William

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Armitage, Robert

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hackett, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barton, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Dowd, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Grady, James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boland, John Pius

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Shee, James John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brace, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hudson, Walter

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pointer, Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Reddy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kelly, Edward

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Crooks, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cullinan, J.

    King, J.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lamb, Ernest H.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Robinson, Sidney

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Delany, William

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Dillon, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

    Doris, William

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland))

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Essex, Richard Walter

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Simon, Sir Arthur Allsebrook

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Falconer, James

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Snowden, Philip

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Manfield, Harry

    Sutherland, John E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Thomas, J. H.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Molloy, Michael

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Ginned, Laurence

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mooney, John J.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Muldoon, John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    1176

    1177

    Wardle, George J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Webb, H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard.

    Sir HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "Bill" ["Irish House of Commons pass any Bill"], to insert the words, "other than a Bill which affects the constitution of either House of the Irish Parliament, or the relations of one of those Houses to the other House."
    This Amendment is to except from the purview of this Clause, Bills which affect the constitution of the House or their relation to each other. The Clause deals with causes of disagreement between the two Houses, and provides that under certain circumstances joint sittings of both Houses may be ordered by the Lord Lieutenant for the discussion of the matter in dispute, and that the majority of this joint sitting shall prevail. I am of opinion—rightly or wrongly—that the Constitution which we are going to set up ought to be a matter which ought to be altogether outside this Joint Session. I believe myself that this should either be in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, or that the Veto of the Senate should be allowed. If that be not so, then it seems to me possible that the Lower House will have the opportunity of so gerrymandering the Constitution that the minority, for whom by-the-bye the right hon. Gentleman opposite and those who sit behind him have always declared that they meant to provide any possible safeguard—would be in infinitely worse position than that which I venture to think anyone in this House would desire to see them. While we are engaged in setting up this new Constitution, we are labouring under very grave difficulties. We have no power whatever, either to consider closely, or even to reasonably discuss various phases of great importance of the new Constitution. One of the proposals comes under the category in question, namely, the number of members that shall constitute both of these Houses. One hundred and sixty, I believe, is the number that it is proposed shall constitute the Lower House, and forty is the number for the Senate. I cannot for a moment understand on what principle His Majesty's Government have based the numbers for either of these two Houses. Our opinion upon this side of the House is perfectly definite, that 160 is greatly too many for
    1178
    the Lower House, if forty is to be the number for the Senate. What House is so constituted in any civilised country that has to be a check upon the Lower House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, a check upon the Lower House, a very useful check, and we have an example at the present moment of the absolute necessity of a check of some kind.
    We are suffering from a serious congestion in this House, simply because the Upper House is no check at the present moment. I say that as an old Member of this House, and one who views with the utmost gravity the position we occupy at the present time. At all events, when we have the creation which we are modelling in our own hands, we have some little right to say that we will at all events try, whatever our feelings may be concerning this grave question of Home Rule for Ireland, that this new creation shall not, if we on this side can prevent it, suffer as we are suffering now. What we have in view, I think, is to try and see that we do nothing in any way or shape to weaken the position of the minority under the new Constitution. Therefore if we consider that in such a grave question as that of the Constitution we are going to permit a Joint Session of these two Houses, we ought to be allowed to look at the numbers that constitute both the Houses. We find they are 160 in the Lower House, and forty in the Upper House, or 200 together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—who will be jointly assembled for discussion. I do not think there is any fault in my arithmetic. What I state is a simple proposition, so simple that it is even within the bounds of the reason of those hon. Gentlemen who are criticising me at the present moment. I wish I could bring that reason to bear on some other things, but I am afraid it is quite impossible, for one will see the usual submission to the crack of the party Whip of Members who will vote for any number that may be chosen. To go back to my argument, the prevalence of the majority will be the sole check which the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench appear to be so delightfully anxious to provide for the minority—for whose

    1179
    welfare they care nothing at all! I think my contention is a perfectly correct one. If they did care they would not have 160 Members in the Lower House and forty in the Upper. They would see perfectly well that with these numbers it is perfectly impossible for there to be any check whatever upon the Government. Nay, more, I am almost forced to believe that the Government have deliberately chosen these numbers in order that there may be no check upon the majority. It is perfectly open for them to give reasons. I have listened very closely to the Debate without—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is going a little wide. What we are concerned with is this Amendment and the constitution of the Houses.
    Sir HARRY SAMUEL: Yes, but if I may say so, the constitution of these Houses depends upon these numbers, absolutely and entirely, for by these numbers there is no check. Therefore, if my Amendment is in order, surely I am in order in basing my argument upon the numbers? I bow to your ruling. I did think what I have stated was an argument which would be in order. I shall not pursue it any further. It seems to me that my argument must have great strength, or else hon. Members below the Gangway would not be so very anxious that it should not be heard. Hon. Members below the Gangway have often said that they would go any length to give protection to the minority. If that be so, I think they ought to hear any arguments that are advanced in that direction. I am of opinion that if His Majesty's Government really desire to give safeguards to the minority, they should accept this Amendment. If, on the other hand, they refuse it, I can only say that it is another example of the manner in which this Bill is conceived and the method by which it is being carried.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: We are dealing now with the Clause which provides that in case there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses there should be a Joint Sitting, and that the Members of the two Houses should vote together. To that the hon. Member moves an Amendment to the effect that this procedure shall not apply with regard to three classes of Bills—Bills which would alter the constitution of the Senate, Bills which would alter the constitution of the Irish House of Commons, and
    1180
    Bills which would affect the relations between the two Houses. With regard to the first of these Bills, those relating to the constitution of the Senate, the matter would never arise in the Irish Parliament, because the Irish Parliament has nothing whatever to say to the constitution of the Senate, which is laid down once and for all by this Act, and the Irish Parliament has no power to alter any of the provisions of this Act.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONdissented.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member shakes his head, but surely that is so. The Irish Parliament has no power to pass any Bill that would have any effect in altering the provisions of this Act except and in so far as this Act allows it to do so, and it does not allow it to do so in respect of the constitution of the Senate. Therefore, the first case the hon. Member has raised—that is, a Bill passed by the Irish House of Commons affecting the constitution of the Irish Senate—can never arise. The third case stands upon the same footing. The Irish House of Commons will never be able to pass any Bill which would have the force of law dealing with relations of the two Houses of Parliament. That also is laid down by this very Clause and other Clauses in this Bill, and they will not have power to modify them. Therefore the case the hon. Member has presented merely comes down to the one of the Irish House of Commons passing a Bill affecting the qualification of electors for the Irish House of Commons, and that is precisely the point we discussed upon the last Amendment, and which the Committee has already decided. The Irish House of Commons cannot alter the numbers of its own body. The number, 164, is laid down by this Bill and cannot be altered by an Irish Act. It can itself deal with the redistribution of seats, but it can only do so having regard to the basis of population, and the only matter therefore which is left within the cognisance of the Irish Parliament which has any relation to these matters is that it may alter the qualification of electors and the mode of voting at election. We see no reason why this particular matter should be withdrawn from the procedure for settling deadlocks laid down for every Legislature. I do not propose to repeat the speech I made on the last Amendment, but I say the reasons which lead us to suggest to the Committee that they should not attempt to discriminate between this class of legislation and

    1181
    other legislation outside the mode by which deadlocks should be settled, apply equally to this Amendment.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that his reply hardly meets the case presented by my hon. Friend. Let me put this to him. The germ of this Clause is the institution of a Parliament for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 41 because Clause 41 is the foundation of his reply, and he said the Irish Parliament shall not have power to repeal or alter any provision of this Act except as specially provided by this Act. That is perfectly true, as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. It is true that the Irish Parliament has no specific power to repeal or alter the provisions of this Act, but there is a great deal by which they could, by what I might call exegesis—putting a gloss upon the provisions of this Act—do something which would alter the provisions of the constitution of either House or alter the relations between the two Houses. It is entirely within the competence of the Irish House of Commons, as I read this Bill, to pass a short Act defining what the Session is to be. They can make a Session anything they like, and they can run a coach-and-four through the whole of this Clause. They can evade its provisions by setting up a definition of what a public Bill is to be. We suggested a definition a moment ago and the right hon. Gentleman refused it. They can set up a definition as to what a Money Bill is to be. The right hon. Gentleman says that they cannot deal with the constitution of the Senate, but he is quite wrong. No doubt his argument was privately supplied to him by one of the ingenious gentlemen whose business it is to supply arguments to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman forgets entirely that the Senate is now an elected body, and inasmuch as the Irish Parliament has the right under the Clause which we have just passed under the guillotine to alter the franchise it follows that the Irish House of Commons has a right to alter the body from which that House is drawn.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is not so.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer me to the exact passage in the Bill dealing with this point, I shall be very glad.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Clause says that three years after the passing of the Act the Irish Parliament may alter as respects the Irish House of Commons the qualification of the electors.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In that case I say frankly that what the right hon. Gentleman has said appears to be a satisfactory answer, but that still leaves one party, and it is still within the power of the Irish House of Commons to alter the membership from which its own body is drawn. The right hon. Gentleman says that we discussed that on the last Amendment, but it was only in relation to the Irish House of Commons and not the mutual arrangements of the two bodies. I submit, in spite of all he has said and the certain air of victory with which he repeated his argument, that I do not think he has answered the case which my hon. Friend presented quite clearly to the Committee.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that the change in the qualification of the electors for the House of Commons would automatically affect the qualification for the Senate. Was that point provided for in the Amendment put in the Bill the other day? Are there to be two registers kept in that case, one for the electors of the House of Commons and another for the Senate. I understood that the Senate was to be elected on the principle of proportional representation—
    The CHAIRMAN: That point was dealt with on the last Amendment. This Amendment is different and deals with the constitution of either House, and I take constitution to mean the number of members.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was only following the point the Postmaster-General himself had made. He made the point that the qualification for the Senate election was a different one and could not be changed by the House of Commons. I say I understood from what happened the other day that the Senate will be elected by the same body of electors qualified in the same way as they are to vote for members of the House of Commons. If that is so, any change in the electors for the members of the House of Commons would automatically affect the constituency for the Senate. If that is not so, I would ask the Postmaster-General to explain by what terms it is not so. Does he in that case

    1183
    suppose two registers will have to be created for the election of the two different Houses? I think we ought to have some light on this matter.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 314.

    Division No. 297.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Royds, Edmund

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Campion, W. R.

    Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cassel, Felix

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cator, John

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central

    Cave, George

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Winterton, Earl

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Malcolm, Ian

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Younger, Sir George

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    H. Samuel and Mr. Nield.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Adamson, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Barnes, George N.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barton, William

    Gulland, John William

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Molloy, Michael

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hackett, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Bentham, George J.

    Hancock, John George

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mooney, John J.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morrell, Philip

    Boland, John Pius

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Muldoon, John

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Munro, Robert

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R C.

    Brace, William

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Murray, Cant. Hon. Arthur C.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Neilson, Francis

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hayward, Evan

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nolan, Joseph

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Burns, Kt. Hon. John

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Nuttall, Harry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Dowd, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Ogden, Fred

    Clough, William

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Grady, James

    Clynes, John R.

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Crocks, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

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

    Cullinan, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Joyce, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Pointer, Joseph

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

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    De Forest, Baron

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    King, Joseph

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

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Dillon, John

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

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Doris, William

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Radford, G. H.

    Duffy, William J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Leach, Charles

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Reddy, Michael

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Field, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robinson, Sidney

    Fitzgibbon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roch, Walter F.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    M'Kean, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Ginnell, Laurence

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

    Rowlands, James

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Glanville, Harold James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Manfield, Harry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Martin, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Gles., Bridgeton)

    1186

    1187

    Sheehy, David

    Verney, Sir Harry

    White, Patrick (Heath, North)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Wadsworth, John

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Snowden, Philip

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Wardle, G. J.

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Waring, Walter

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Winfrey, Richard

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Webb, H.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    It being Half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, successively to put forth with the Question on an Amendment moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the
    Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 194.

    Division No. 298.]

    AYES.

    [10.37 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crean, Eugene

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Adamson, William

    Crooks, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire).

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cullinan, J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.).

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Armitage, Robert

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    De Forest, Baron

    Hayward, Evan

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Delany, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Barnes, George N.

    Dillon, John

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Doris, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Barton, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hinds, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hodge, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boland, John Pius

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Falconer, J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brace, William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Field, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Bryce, John Annan

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Joyce, Michael

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. c.

    Keating, Matthew

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kelly, Edward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W,

    Goldstone, Frank

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    King, Joseph

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Clough, William

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Gulland, John William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hackett, J.

    Leach, Charles

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hancock, John George

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Grady, James

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    O'Malley, William

    Sheehy, David

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    McGhee, Richard

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Snowden, Philip

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sutherland, John E.

    M'Kean, John

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Manfield, Harry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Verney, Sir H.

    Martin, Joseph

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wadsworth, John

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

    Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Meagher, Michael

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Radford, George Heynes

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Molloy, Michael

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H

    Wardle, George J.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Waring, Walter

    Mend, Sir Alfred M.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Reddy, M.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Mooney, John J.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Worrell, Philip

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Webb, H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Kendall, Athelstan

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Muldoon, John

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Munro, Robert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Neilson, Francis

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Williamson, sir Archibald

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rowlands, James

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    O'Dowd, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard.

    Ogden, Fred

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Doughty, Sir George

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Campion, W. R.

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cassel, Felix

    Fell, Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Cator, John

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cave, George

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Forster, Henry William

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Barnston, Harry

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Barrie, H. T.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Beach, Hon Michael Hugh Hicks

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Bird, Alfred

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Gretton, John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Boyton, James

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Dixon, C. H.

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    1190

    1191

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Stanier, Beville

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stewart Gershom

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Moore, William

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot Lord Edmund

    Hohler, G. F.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Nield, Herbert

    Tryon, Captain Geoge Clement

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

    Randles, Sir John S.

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

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Winterton, Earl

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Royds, Edmund

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

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

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Younger, Sir George

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Malcolm and Viscount Castlereagh.

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    CLAUSE 12.—(Privileges, Qualifications, etc., of Members of Irish Parliament.)
    (1) The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Irish Senate and of the Irish House of Commons, and of the members and of the committees of the Irish Senate and the Irish House of Commons, shall be such as may be defined by Irish Act, but so that they shall never exceed those for the time being held and enjoyed by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its Members and Committees, and, until so defined, shall be those held and enjoyed by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and its Members and Committees at the date of the passing of this Act.
    (2) The law, as for the time being in force, relating to the qualification and disqualification of Members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the taking of any oath required to be taken by a Member of that House, shall apply to members of the Irish House of Commons.
    (3) Any peer, whether of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England, Scotland, or Ireland, shall be qualified to be a member of either House.
    (4) A member of either House shall be incapable of being nominated or elected,
    1192
    or of sitting, as a member of the other House, but an Irish Minister who is a member of either House shall have the right to sit and speak in both Houses, but shall vote only in the House of which he is a member.
    (5) A member of either House may resign his seat by giving notice of resignation to the person and in the manner directed by Standing Orders of the House, or if there is no such direction, by notice in writing of resignation sent to the Lord Lieutenant, and his seat shall become vacant on notice of resignation being given.
    (6) The powers of either House shall not be affected by any vacancy therein, or by any defect in the nomination, election, or qualification, of any member thereof.
    (7) His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that the holders of the offices in the Irish Executive named in the Order shall not be disqualified for being members of either House of the Irish Parliament by reason of holding office under the Crown, and except as otherwise provided by Irish Act, the Order shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, but on acceptance of any such office the seat of any such person in the Irish House of Commons shall be vacated unless he has

    1193
    accepted the office in succession to some other of the said offices.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) after the word "of" ["shall apply to members of the Irish House of
    Commons], to insert the words "the Irish Senate and."
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 195.

    Division No. 299.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Joyce, Michael

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Keating, Matthew

    Adamson, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Falconer, James

    King, Joseph

    Armitage, Robert

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Field, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Barnes, G. N.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Leach, Charles

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Furness, Stephen

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Barton, William

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Lundon, T.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bentham, George J.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Goldstone, Frank

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    MacGhee, Richard

    Boland, John Pius

    Greig, Colonel James William

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brace, William

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

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Gulland, John William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Hackett, J.

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hall, F. (Yorks, (Normanton)

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

    Bryce, John Annan

    Hancock, John George

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Manfield, Harry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Martin, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molloy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Clynes, John R.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mooney, John J.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Morgan, George Hay

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morrell, Philip

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hinds, John

    Munro, Robert

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hodge, John

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

    Crooks, William

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Cullinan, John

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hudson, Walter

    Neilson, Francis

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Norman, Sir Henry

    De Forest, Baron

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Delany, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nuttall, Harry

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Doris, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    O'Dowd, John

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Ogden, Fred

    O'Grady, James

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Roberts, C. H. (Lincoln)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    O'Malley, William

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wadsworth, John

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

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    O'Shee, James John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Waring, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Rowlands, James

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Watt, Henry A.

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Webb, H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath North)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sheehy, David

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Snowden, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Winfrey, Richard

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Reddy, Michael

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Thomas, James Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Baird, John Laurence

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Balcarres, Lord

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Barnston, Harry

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Barrie, H. T.

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fell, Arthur

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Kerr,-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bird, Alfred

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Forster, Henry William

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Boyton, James

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bull, Sir William James

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Campion, W. R.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gretton, John

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Cassel, Felix

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Cator, John

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Macmaster, Donald

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

    Cave, George

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hall, Marshall, (E. Toxteth)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Moore, William

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    1196

    1197

    Mount, William Arthur

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sanders, Robert A.

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Nield, Herbert

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Stanier, Beville

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Winterton, Earl

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

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

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Yate, Col. C. E

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Younger, Sir George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Touche, George Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Ormsby-Gore and Mr. Lloyd.

    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 312; Noes, 193.

    Division No. 300.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Crooks, William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Adamson, William

    Cullinan, J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Armitage, Robert

    De Forest, Baron

    Hayward, Evan

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Delany, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Doris, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barnes, George N.

    Duffy, William J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Hinds, John

    Barton, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hodge, John

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Hudson, Walter

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Falconer, James

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Boland, John Pius

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    John, Edward Thomas

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Field, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brace, William

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Furness, Stephen

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Bryce, John Annan

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Keating, Matthew

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gladstone, W. G. C

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Glanville, H. J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goldstone, Frank

    Kilbride, Denis

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    King, Joseph

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

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Clough, William

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

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Gulland, John W.

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Leach, Charles

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hackett, J.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hancock, John George

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

    O'Malley, William

    Scanlan, Thomas

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    O'Shee, James John

    Sheehy, David

    Macpherson, James Ian

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Snowden, Philip

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Manfield, Harry

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pointer, Joseph

    Tennant, Harold John

    Martin, Joseph

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Meagher, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Verney, Sir H.

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Wadsworth, John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Radford, George Heynes

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Mooney, John J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wardle, G. J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Waring, Walter

    Morrell, Philip

    Reddy, M.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Munro, Robert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Webb, H.

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Neilson, Francis

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Roch, Walter F.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Rowlands, James

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    O'Dowd, John

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Ogden, Fred

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    O'Grady, James

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    W. Benn and Mr. G. Howard.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Campion, W. R.

    Fell, Arthur

    Aitken, Sir William Max

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cassel, Felix

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Cator, John

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Forster, Henry William

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Cave, George

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A (Worc'r.)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Barnston, Harry

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Gretton, John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bird, Alfred

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Boyton, James

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bull, Sir William James

    Doughty, Sir George

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Fade, Bertram Godfray

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    1200

    1201

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hohler, G. F.

    Moore, William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Horner, A. L.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Nield, Herbert

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, Noth)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Touche, George Alexander

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Pole-Carew, sir R.

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Randles, Sir John S.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rawlinson, Frederick Peel

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

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Roes, Sir J. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Winterton, Earl

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

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, West)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Kerr-Smiley and Mr. Worthington-Evans.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stanier, Beville

    Committee report Progress; to sit again (to-morrow (Wednesday).

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Suppression of Brothels).
(1) Section thirteen of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, shall, so far as it relates to brothels, be amended by inserting after the word "occupier" the words "or person in charge."
(2) Any person who is convicted of a third or subsequent offence against the said Section thirteen shall beliable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred pounds or, in the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour, and in addition to any such penalty or imprisonment, may be required by the court to enter into a recognisance with or without sureties or in Scotland to grant a bond of caution to be of good behaviour for any period not exceeding twelve months, and in default of entering into such recognisance, or granting such bond such person may be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded in respect of his said offence.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not propose to move my Amendment to leave out the Clause. The discussion is limited to an hour, and therefore I think it is advisable to confine it, as far as possible, to the more important points.
Mr. LAMB: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "so far as it relates to brothels." I shall, like the hon. Baronet, limit my remarks to the smallest possible space. I do not think it is necessary to argue afresh my Amendment, for hon. Members who have followed the course of this Bill in Committee upstairs, will be fully cognisant of the points raised by it. I do want to emphasise the fact that Clause 3 seeks to strengthen the Act of 1885 by making it apply to the person in charge as well as the tenant, lessee, or occupier, whereas the words which I am seeking to delete, if allowed to stand, will have the effect of narrowing the scope of the Bill. By deleting them we shall again widen the issue. The words I seek to delete were inserted upstairs by the narrow majority of one vote, eighteen to seventeen, and I may remind the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he voted in the minority. The principal point raised by the Amendment is the fact that since the Act of 1885 a new type of building has grown up in the shape of great blocks of flats, some of

1203
which we desire purposely to bring within the scope of this Act. We feel that a case was undoubtedly made out upstairs for the inclusion of these flats, and also the inclusion of single tenants. When I remind the House of the great development that has taken place of recent years in this matter, and the strong feeling that has been aroused in the country by the insertion of these words, I think the House will readily recognise the need for again widening the scope of the Section by the deletion of the words, so that the person in charge of these great blocks of flats will also be implicated as well as those in charge of brothels only, as in the words inserted upstairs.
Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Mover of this Amendment bases his case to some extent on the alleged feeling in the country in favour of the re-insertion of these words. I would like to point out that practically the whole, agitation in the country—
Mr. LAMB: May I say, I seek to delete these words, not to re-insert them.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Yes, I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Practically the whole case in the country has been fought on the question of white slavery. Our point in asking that these words be retained is that their retention will not in any way interfere with the suppression of the white slave traffic. The words were inserted in the Standing Committee to prevent any danger of the prostitute living on her own, and subject to no external control, from being harried and driven from the house or flat which she occupies. No one upstairs objected to strengthening the law as regards brothels. We felt if there is white slavery it finds its best recruiting ground in brothels. Even if the brothel-keeper is not actually a white slaver, he depends very largely upon the white slave traffic for recruits, and we do not in any way oppose the first Sub-section of this Clause so long as its operation is limited to brothels. The existing law in the principal Act clearly recognises this distinction, because under Section 13 it is an offence for the tenant to keep a brothel and also the landlord to allow his premises to be let for the
1204
purpose of a brothel; but there is no offence in the landlord letting his premises for the purpose of habitual prostitution. If the House strikes out the limiting words as proposed by the hon. Member you make the person in charge liable where the premises are used for the purpose of habitual prostitution. We have never succeeded in getting any definition from the Law Officers of what the "person in charge" really means.
I believe by putting in these words "person in charge" and accepting them in case of habitual prostitution you will for the first time make it an offence on the part of a landlord to allow premises to be used for habitual prostitution. What do the words "person in charge" cover. I think it is quite arguable that if you ring the bell and the door is opened to you by a maid, and you find the occupier is out and the maid is left in charge of the premises she would be made liable to prosecution. She is knowingly permitting the premises to be used, for as I shall show under Section 13 it is an offence under the existing law—although certainly prosecutions are never taken—to permit premises to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. Any prostitute who uses her own premises is permitting them to be used—that was the opinion of several barristers on the Committee upstairs—and therefore the maid who serves the prostitute in her own rooms is permitting the premises to be used when by going to the police she could take steps to prevent their continued use for that purpose.
The agent who lets flats is also responsible. He is in charge on behalf of the landlord and there are no limiting words. He lets flats, knowingly lets them, to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. In most cases these flats are held upon short tenancies. The agent permits them to be used by not exercising his power of giving notice and turning the prostitute out. I think it is quite clear if you do not limit the words to brothels the effect of this Amendment will be in certain districts where there is a feeling in that direction to make it practically impossible for the prostitute living upon her own to get accommodation. I know there are many people who honestly believe you can stamp out vice and prostitution by repressive measures. I do not agree with that, and I do not think that public opinion agrees with it. That is why I believe

1205
there has never been up till now any prosecution of a prostitute living on her own under Section 2 for being the occupier of premises and allowing them to be used for the purposes of habitual prostitution.
I do not think that we can be so confident of the immunity of prostitutes if this Amendment, is carried. The people in the country who hold very extreme views will undoubtedly, if the hon. Member has his way, bring pressure to bear on Watch Committees to institute proceedings against the persons in charge and public opinion in that case is less to be depended upon because the direct effect upon the women is less easy to see. It will be more difficult for public opinion to realise that by striking at the maid, the agent, or the landlord they really are striking at the woman. It will be argued that the maid, agent, or landlord ought to receive no sympathy, because they are living on the wages or rent earned by the immorality of another person, but the real person who will suffer will be the prostitute, because it will become more dangerous to allow her to occupy the premises, and therefore the price will go up and the result will be that a large number of them will be driven on to the streets. I do not suggest that the Home Office are going to prosecute. The Home Secretary told us in Committee that this Clause was only pointed at brothels, and if that is so he might keep these limiting words in. The right hon. Gentleman said that all our fears were groundless on this particular question of harrying a prostitute who was not in a brothel, and he led us to believe that this Clause was only intended for use in the case of brothels.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No, no.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: That is what we wish to bring about. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks I believe that the police do not wish to go in for the persecution of these women living in separate apartments. Local authorities will be sure to suffer from a great deal of pressure to attack these women. I was talking to a Member of this House who recently was the mayor of a metropolitan borough, and he told me that as the law now stands there was continual pressure to prosecute these women living on their own, and his opinion
1206
was if that course were adopted, instead of decreasing white slavery you would very much increase it, because the natural result would be that the woman, finding it impossible to live unmolested in her own rooms, would pay one of these scoundrels to let her call him her husband, and then she would find it much easier to evade those who try to persecute her. The real hardship is that these prostitutes cannot find a way to earn a living otherwise. We have been continually told if we wanted to learn the facts that we ought to read the book entitled "The Daughters of Ishmael." It is a terrible revelation of the methods of the white slave traffic, but the moral I drew from it was the unwillingness of society to give these women a second chance. A woman was trapped to her ruin; she wished to get work and go back to her family, but all these courses were impossible owing to the action of public opinion. That woman was driven into a continuance of a life of shame, and no doubt if that book is a true picture, as we are told, there are many cases of the same kind in this country. I suggest those who wish to stamp out this evil ought to educate public opinion. You will not do any good by driving these women out of their rooms and into the parks and streets. This Bill was carried, and only carried by the agitation against white slavery. I do not believe that one person in a hundred who has spoken in favour of striking out these words which limit it to brothels, and protect the prostitute living on her own, have read the Clause in the principal Act. They do not understand the danger. I believe there is absolutely no demand on the part of public opinion to interfere with a woman living on her own account, and I believe those who wish to suppress the white slave traffic, as we do, will be taking a very ill-advised step in that interest if they go beyond public opinion and make it possible to bring prosecutions which the general opinion of the country will think unjust.
Mr. McKENNA: If I do not agree with the hon. Member, it is not because I fail to recognise either the fearlessness with which he has presented his case, or the point of view which he takes upon this subject. I do not think the hon. Member has himself appreciated the meaning of the Amendment. I shall have to trouble the House for its very close attention while I read the actual Subsection of Clause 13 of the original Act of

1207
1885, to which this Bill is an Amendment. Under Section 13 of the Act of 1885, that is to say, under the present law,
"Any person who, being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permits such premises, or any part thereof, to be used as a brothel, or for the purpose of habitual prostitution"
is liable to certain punishments. That is the existing law, and, if there is anything in the argument of the hon. Member about the harrying of prostitutes, and the driving of them from house to house, it must have been true for the last twenty-seven years, ever since the Act of 1885 was passed, and I am not aware the hon. Member produced the smallest evidence in support of the case which he has endeavoured to make. That is the present law, and has been the law for twenty-seven years. What is the Amendment which it is proposed to make? It is proposed to add after the words "being the tenant, lessee, or occupier," the words "or person in charge." It does not seem to be, nor is it, a very serious extension of the law. One would have supposed that the words "tenant, lessee, or occupier," would have covered by themselves all persons who could be responsible for carrying on or for permitting anything which went on in the house, but it has been found by experience that those words do not cover the grossest case of all, and it is in order to meet that gross case this Amendment was proposed in the original Bill. What is the case? I would remind the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Wilson), who was so positive in his memory that I had stated I only intended the Sub-section to apply to brothels, that as I voted against it I could hardly have stated that in those broad terms.
The hon. Member, who is so positive, does not really recollect what occurred. The facts are the police report that at the present time in London, and no doubt the practice will be extended to other cities in the world, blocks of flats are built in which numbers of prostitutes live, and inasmuch as each of them has got a separate door to her own flat, a block of flats cannot be treated as a brothel. They are separate tenancies or houses, consequently Sub-section (3) of Clause 13 of the Act of 1885, which applies to brothels, does not apply to these blocks of flats. Technically each flat in these blocks is separately occupied, consequently the block of flats as a whole is not a brothel. They are
1208
the kind of premises which ought to be dealt with, because although they are not technically brothels, they are in fact brothels. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will leave hon. Members to conjecture for themselves what are the interior conditions of these blocks of flats. You may have ten, twelve, or eighteen, even all behind one front door.
Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Was not the case that in which in one building there were eighteen flats, with one front door—the case of Durose and Wilson; did not the magistrate hold it was a brothel, and did not the judge uphold his decision?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes, and that is a case very strongly in my favour. In the particular circumstances of that case the magistrate held that it was a brothel. The Court was not willing to upset the magistrate's decision on the evidence. But it only needs a little ingenuity in order to avoid the consequences in that case, and it is in order to avoid that exercise of ingenuity that this Amendment is now sought. I will go back to what I was saying.
Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: What ingenuity?
Mr. McKENNA: Let me read what occurred in the case of Durose and Wilson:—
"The appellant was employed by the owner as a porter in charge of a block of eighteen flats, among the tenants of which were twelve women who were in the habit of bringing men to them for the purpose of prostitution. There was no evidence to distinguish the occupier of any particular flat, nor whether there were other tenants as well as the said women; nor was it proved that any one flat was used by more than one woman. The premises consisted of one large building, the external appearance of which was that of one large house. Internally each flat was 'self-contained,' and could be occupied as a separate dwelling. There was only one street door, giving access to the common staircase. The appellant knew and connived at the purpose for which the women used the premises, and was convicted of being wilfully a party to the continued use of the premises or part thereof as a brothel."
What does this Amendment do? It asks the House to establish by law that the magistrates shall hereafter in cases of that kind treat these premises as brothels for this particular purpose. That is all that this Amendment does.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: It does not do anything of the sort.
Mr. McKENNA: Section 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act lays it down that where premises are used as a brothel the agent of the landlord is liable. The person in charge is obviously the agent of the landlord for the purpose of

1209
this Sub-section, and we seek to provide that in such a case of flats as I have mentioned, they shall be taken as a whole, and the person in charge made liable. Unless we have the power given in the Amendment of my hon. Friend in the case of premises used habitually for the purposes of prostitution, then the agent of the responsible person will not be liable. It is quite true that in the case of the block of flats to which I have referred the magistrate held that the premises were to be treated as a brothel, but that decision might not be binding in any other set of circumstances. We wish to guarantee by this Amendment that the porter or the person in charge, who is the really responsible person for the time being, shall be liable where blocks of flats of this kind are used for the purposes of habitual prostitution. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Walter Guinness) suggested that under this Amendment the maid who opened the front door might be held to be liable. The maid could not be said to be knowingly permitting the premises to be used. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the maid must also be in a position to prevent the premises being used. If you cannot prevent, you cannot permit.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: Could she not go to the police and ask for a prosecution under Sub-section (3)?
Mr. McKENNA: She would have no power to prevent. The person in charge is the person who is responsible. Before the person in charge can be convicted it must be shown that the person in charge was a person who knowingly permitted the thing to be done. The words of Subsection (3) are confined at the present time to the tenant, lessee or occupier, and it is found, as a matter of fact, in order to avoid the effect of Sub-section (3), that the tenant does not live upon the premises, and there is no occupier in the ordinary sense, there is no lessee to be found, but there is a person in charge who is managing the premises and who is the person who, in substance and in fact, is knowingly permitting it to be carried on. This Amendment consequently does no more than render Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1885 really operative in the case of blocks of flats. Outside the cases I have mentioned it does not extend the Act of 1885 one iota. As I began by saying, so I must conclude with saying that the argument of the hon. Member for Bury St.
1210
Edmunds was directed against the Act of 1885, and if there has been any harrying, that harrying must have been going on for twenty-seven years and does not relate to this particular Amendment.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The Home Secretary has devoted most of his speech not to the Amendment before the House, but to another Amendment. I wish to speak with the greatest respect of his motives. I should not shrink, if I thought the Act of 1885 was oppressive, from amending it, but certainly I should ask the House to shrink from extending its operations. I conceive, on the right hon. Gentleman's own case, that this Amendment would extend the operations of the Act of 1885, because by striking out these words he would bring the penal Clauses of this Act to bear upon precisely the case of single flats occupied independently by prostitutes under no control or influence. I challenge anyone with legal knowledge on the front bench, to deny that that would be the effect of this. There is no need for any of us to deplore immorality, but we know that immorality exists. The object of this Bill, of which I have been a very warm supporter, is not to deal with immorality, but with the monstrous traffic by which men, by fraud, duress, misrepresentation, by the use of drugs, condemn unhappy women to a life of unspeakable horror.
That is what has obtained the immense support that it has received in the country, and I say, though I know I shall be misrepresented for saying it, that it is positively wrong for the Government, after eleven o'clock, to endeavour, under the cover of this most honest and sincere motive, which actuates everyone, who is supporting the Bill, to introduce Amendments which will extend the operations of Acts with which it does not purport as a whole to deal. Let me associate myself in the most cordial manner with my hon. Friend in what he said with regard to the scope of this measure. Nobody proposes to punish men for immorality, but what do you propose, if I am right, by this Clause, to do with these unhappy women? They are pursuing their miserable calling, but, so far as they can, with decency, living independently, under the control of no one, not giving their gains to anyone, living separately and in flats. Do you imagine it is possible to stop that by legislation?
Mr. McKENNA: That is the Act of 1885.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I do not care I whether it is the Act of 1885 or not. By this Amendment you are extending the operation of the Act of 1885 by harrying and hunting these unfortunate and unhappy women who are the victims of society. The true way, and by far the most powerful argument that you can use against immorality, is by enlisting the feelings of chivalry that men have for any woman however degraded. But the State, represented by the Government upon this occasion, so far from echoing and voicing that honourable feeling, is putting itself at the head of society not in punishing immorality, but in punishing the unhappy victims of society. Let me assure the House that no one has a greater detestation of the offence against which the Bill is aimed than I have. I dislike Hogging intensely, but I think the mischief so horrible and the creatures so horrible who minister to procuration, that I cast a vote without a doubt in favour of flogging. When it comes to increasing the law against these unhappy women, I say that the good feeling of this House in its chivalrous sense ought to protest against it.
Mr. CAWLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very eloquent speech, but it does not apply to the Amendment. There is not one word in the Amendment which will alter the position of a single woman referred to by the right hon. Gentleman [HON. MEMBERS: Yes, it will."] The Act of 1885 makes the occupiers of flats liable. The woman herself is the occupier, and the Sub-section extends the provision in the Act of 1885 to the "person in charge." That is the Amendment [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Sir F. BANBURY: The Amendment is to leave out the words "so far as it relates to brothels."
Mr. CAWLEY: If the hon. Baronet will look at the Sub-section in the Act of 1885 to which this refers he will see that the occupier is made liable, and all that Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 does is to extend the liability applicable to an occupier to a person in charge. The Act of 1885 may or may not be too strong. I think it is too strong. I think the Act of 1885 does allow attacks on these women which should not be allowed. Whether that is right or wrong I defy anybody to say that Section 13 of the Act of 1885 is extended one atom against these women themselves.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I desire first of all to thank the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) for his admirable speech. I do not think I have ever listened to a speech so effective in this House, or in a better cause, because this is a case where the House of Commons ought to think very carefully before they alter the law. These women are absolutely unprotected. Most of us know very little about it, and it would be a great disaster if we increased the power of the police over these women. The Home Secretary made it quite clear, I think, that the law as it stands at present makes it illegal for single women to live on their own as prostitutes. The law is as follows:—
"Any person who … being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or for the purposes of habitual prostitution …"
There is therefore no doubt that it is illegal to let premises to a single woman where she carries on the trade of prostitution. It has been illegal for twenty-seven years, and the law has been allowed naturally to become a dead letter. I do not think this House wishes by amending Acts to enforce what the common sense of the police has allowed to become a dead letter. I think it would be most undesirable that we should go back on the decision of the Committee upstairs, where this matter was debated day after day, and cut out these words which were put in upstairs simply to protect a woman living on her own from the fearful alternative which the advocates of this Bill seem to wish to throw in her path. After all, if she finds, the police dropping their present attitude, harassing her, driving her off the streets or chivying her out of the houses, she has a simple way of escape, that is, to get a man and pay him part of her earnings to become a bully and a procurer. We have had enough legislation surely to stop immoral crime, and to give the police powers to make people moral. Suppose, instead of trying to make people moral by Act of Parliament, you try to make men a little more decent in their minds. I have had countless communications from religious bodies not only in reference to Clause 1, but also to cut out these words in Clause 3, in order to make it, as they explained, more uncomfortable for these prostitutes to carry on their business.
Mr. PIRIE: That is Christian charity.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes. That is not our business as legislators. Our business as legislators is to do away with those social conditions which create prostitution. Women are driven into this life through poverty very often, through not being able to have a decent life of their own, not being able to marry; and it seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy when you have created those conditions which create prostitution, to suggest these processes simply to solve and soothe your consciences.
Mr. HUGH LAW: It is obvious that the House is in a great difficulty. If these words stand it will probably be very difficult, as the Home Secretary has said, to deal with the class of case to which he referred. On the other hand, if these words go out, and no other limitation whatever is put in, we cannot be altogether sure that the dangers to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred will not arise. I am afraid that as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wedgwood) pointed out, there might be cases of that sort in which the unhappy woman, finding it more difficult to obtain rooms, might be forced to take a nominal husband, who would be nothing more or less than a bully. I am informed from a quarter entirely friendly to this Bill, that that is not merely a danger, but a certain fact. Anybody who has studied this matter at all knows that these women are already harassed, worried, and bullied by a set of sharks perhaps more than any other class in the community, and I do think we ought to do nothing in this House which will add to that evil. I am acting merely for myself in the matter, and appeal to the Government in view of the feeling in all quarters of the House to reconsider the position, and leave the matter to the free decision of the House.
Mr. LEE: It is necessary I should say a word or two as the Member who originally introduced this Bill. This is the one Clause which personally I never regarded with any particular enthusiasm, but I do not go so far as some hon. Members who have addressed the House, because I think that the fears of some of them are exaggerated as to the effect it may have on the women. I have always thought, however, that the hopes of those who supported the Amendment were optimistic. I do not think that it will make any great difference one way or the other, and for that reason I have
1214
not at any time attached great importance to this particular portion of the Bill. I realise from the discussion upstairs, and still more to-night, that a very large number of people who are very earnest supporters of this Bill and its real object, the suppression of the white slave traffic, which I have very much at heart, fear that this may lead to the harrying of these unfortunate women. I have myself on more than one occasion in the last week—and I have stated it in print—have said that if there was any provision in the Bill which would have the effect of harrying these unfortunate women I personally should not support it. I have taken that view throughout, and my one object has been to punish crime rather than to attempt to deal with the vast problem of the reformation of the morals of the nation. For that reason I would like to make this representation to the Government with regard to this Amendment: I recognise they have met me in a very generous spirit in taking up the Bill which I introduced, and therefore I am very loath to find myself in opposition to the Home Secretary on this point. At the same time it must be plain that the feeling of the House is not only very strong, but is very deep and earnest. I cannot help feeling that as the main object of the measure itself is the suppression of the white slave traffic which we all have at heart, it would be much better to drop altogether Sub-section (1) of Clause 3 rather than to accept Amendments which would weaken the existing law.
Mr. McKENNA: After the speech of the hon. Member, who is responsible for this Bill, I have to say that it is no part of my desire, having taken up this Bill, to press this Amendment further than the hon. Gentleman desires. As he does not wish to have this Amendment, I certainly ask my hon. Friend not to press it.
Mr. LAMB: After the speech of the hon. Member and the speeches of those who are the best friends of the Bill, and who have urged me to withdraw this Amendment, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it, fully recognising the need of bowing to the wish of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words:—"(2) A house shall not be deemed to be a disorderly house or used for the purpose

1215
of habitual prostitution within the meaning of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, or this Act, solely because the occupant thereof is a woman who is there carrying on, upon her own account and independently of the control, direction, or influence of any other person, the calling of a prostitute."
12.0 M.
The object of this Amendment is to do what I understand the House, by the decision arrived at a few moments ago, desires, and that is not to prevent a person who happens to be a prostitute being able to find a shelter in which she can lay her head. As the Bill stands at present, any woman who is a prostitute and has a room or flat or house in which she lives can be turned out of that house, because she uses it for the purpose of prostitution, but if she goes into a park or into a public place and there uses a bench or something that is in that public place for the purpose of prostitution, she cannot be turned out. Therefore the effect of this Bill, unless my Amendment is carried, will be to drive people who are endeavouring to decently carry on the trade of prostitution into public places and into the public streets. It must be remembered that the effect of my Amendement is not solely with regard to Clause 3, because there are other Clauses in the Bill which, unless my Amendment is carried, will prevent the prostitute having a room in which she can live. Clause 4 says, that if a landlord lets a house or room or Hat to a woman who may be living with a man or two men, as the case may be, that the landlord on a conviction a second time shall have that house taken away from him. He may have bought the house and given two or three thousand pounds for the lease, and may have five or six respectable tenants, and one or two rooms may be let to a woman who does not happen to be married and who is living with one or two men. That woman will not be allowed to remain in that house.
The object of the Bill as I understand, and an object with which I deeply sympathise, is to deprive the bully and the ponce from living on these particular people. Of all that I am in favour. I voted in favour of flogging for the second offence but I voted against it for the first offence. I am in favour of exercising the full powers of the law to prevent innocent women being decoyed into becoming a prostitute; but when the woman is a prostitute, to
1216
say that she shall not have a place in which she can lay her head, and shall be liable to blackmail by people who will go to her and will say: "I happened to see that a certain man has gone into your room. I know that he has gone into the room for a particular object, and unless you give me a sovereign I shall go to the landlord and say that you are using that room for the purpose of habitual prostitution." And then the landlord, if he desires to retain the house in which he has invested perhaps the savings of his life, unless he turns her out will lose those savings. I do not believe the majority of the House, or the majority of the country, desire such a Clause. They desire to do what was ostensibly the object of this Bill, namely, to stop the decoying of innocent people into other countries. As I understand the House is with me, I will say no more.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: This was a Bill for one purpose only, and to deal with a particular evil. It is now proposed to use the Bill, not to check the evil at all, but to repeal an existing law. Whether the hon. Baronet is right or wrong in desiring to repeal the Act of 1885, I do not think that this is the proper occasion to do it. The right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton), said that he would not shrink from any necessary cutting down of the Act of 1885. I am not aware whether he would regard this as one of the necessary cuttings-down from which he would not shrink. For my part I should have thought he would not have been a supporter of the hon. Baronet on this point. I would ask the hon. Baronet not to press the Amendment to this Bill, and I would urge him, even if it were desirable, not to press it in this form. It would be most undesirable to put into an Act of Parliament words which seem—although they do not actually do so—to give legislative sanction to prostitution. If the right hon. Gentleman does not shrink from repealing—
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I did not say anything about this Amendment.
Mr. McKENNA: Repealing any part of the Act of 1885—
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I did not say that, I said that if it was necessary, and it was

1217
shown that mischief was being done by an existing Act of Parliament, I would not mind amending it. I am not frightened by what may be said on the Bench opposite. If the existing law is proved to be bad, amend it.
Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my meaning. I do not suggest that he would be frightened by anything. His argument on the preceding Amendment would undoubtedly in my judgment lead to the acceptation of this Amendment. I think the hon. Baronet was right when he said that the argument used against the preceding Amendment was an argument in favour of the present Amendment. If it is considered desirable that certain parts of the Act of 1885 should be repealed, they should be repealed directly, and not by the use of language which seems to legalise prostitution. I hope, therefore, the hon. Baronet will not press the Amendment.
Sir F. BANBURY: As the Amendment is not accepted I will continue my speech. I stopped before because I thought that Members in all parts of the House agreed with what I was saying. I distinctly said that if my Amendment was agreed to I had nothing further to say. The right hon. Gentleman allowed me to think that he agreed, and hon. Members below the Gangway implied that they were going to support my Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that is any kind of way we are endeavouring by this Amendment to repeal the Act of 1885. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Act of 1885, with regard to habitual prostitution, has not been in force for twenty-seven years, and therefore it was necessary to do something to bring it into effect. What I want to do is to leave the law as it is—a dead letter. People now may say that the Act cannot be allowed any longer to remain a dead letter. To avoid any risk of that, my Amendment, while in no way weakening the Act of 1885, so far as regards the brothels or procuration, or anyone who decoys an innocent person and procures her shame, says that if a wretched woman lives in a house decently and quietly she is not to be subjected to blackmail or turned out. Unless my Amendment is carried, the negativity of the last Amendment will be ineffective. The result will be ineffective because Clause 4 and other Clauses that follow necessitate, if the
1218
House is to continue the opinion which it expressed when it negatived the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester, my Amendment must be carried. The arrangement was that this Debate should not continue beyond an hour. I feel obliged to insist on my Amendment, unless the hon. Gentleman can give me any other words that will carry out my intention.
Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Baronet should understand that I am against his Amendment, and I shall be against any alternative words which have the same object.
Sir F. BANBURY: Very well, then, there is a clear cut issue. We were in favour of allowing these unfortunate women a place where to lay their heads. Nothing more than that.
Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: May I shortly make an appeal? The other Amendment was withdrawn on the lines that it was outside the scope of the agitation that really brought this Bill forward. If that Amendment was outside the scope, so is this. I would beg the House to carry out the policy that this measure was intended to carry out—a certain general set of ideas, and not to repeal the other provisions of the other Act. I would suggest to the House that we should divide on that principle, not committing ourselves for or against the hon. Baronet, though if he withdrew his Amendment it would be much better.
Mr. CROOKS: I appeal to the hon. Baronet very sincerely not to press this Amendment. He does not perhaps know the case of unfortunate men in poor districts who find themselves with a lodger of this character. They can now talk to these people and ask them to remove. A man can say to such a person, "I do not want to make any fuss; you leave or otherwise I will have to get the police to remove you." If this Amendment is carried you cannot get these people out under six weeks. I am sure the hon. Baronet does not want that. There are many people in London who cannot keep a house by themselves; they have to sub-let a room, and they may get a character of this kind, and may have to keep them for six weeks before being able to get rid of them, with their own little children running about in such circumstances and conditions. I implore the hon. Baronet not to press his Amendment.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is really necessary to pass this Amendment. The law has remained a dead letter for twenty-seven years, but now the opportunity will be seized of putting it into force, and if we are to have the administration of the law to remain as it has been we must pass this Amendment. Otherwise we may have these women living peaceably in their lodgings moved and harried by the police. The police will be on their metal, and will desire to put their powers into force to show they are making good use of the Act. There is another point. The ordinary single woman, who is not a prostitute at all, is liable to suffer if that law is put into force, because the ordinary single woman who wants to get a lodging—a bed-sitting room—is liable to be penalized because the landlord or the landlady will be doubtful of her character. She will find she has either to pay a big rent or go elsewhere. You are not only penalising the prostitute, but every woman who can not prove she is a respectable woman. How many of us can prove we are respectable people in a strange country or town in which we find ourselves for the first time. I do not think there is much in the eloquent plea of the hon. Member for Woolwich. We all know the landlords of this country are strong enough anyway; and, after all, the woman lodger can be put out in the ordinary way. Most of those rooms are let on weekly tenancies and only require a week's notice—
Mr. CROOKS: It takes six weeks to get them out.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: Both from the point of view of making it easy for the single woman to live, and from the point of view of people who are prostitutes, I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I should be very glad to know what view those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) take of this Amendment. This matter was discussed at great length in Committee upstairs, and the promoters protested very strongly against this system of harrying prostitutes by in any way turning them out of their lodgings. It was pointed out that the object of this Bill was not to hurt the prostitute. I think the Government will not find the promoters in favour of this Amendment. Not once, but time after time they said
1220
they were in favour of it, and I hope the Government will listen to what they say here, and carry out the effect of it. If we do not mean that what is the effect? Any woman who occupies a single flat by herself, not under the control of any man or other woman, not sharing her earnings, who receives men at that flat, is liable to be prosecuted. By Section 4 we propose to put a further burden upon the single woman who occupies a flat, because, if the woman is convicted, the landlord is to have the immediate right to evict her.
Mr. CROOKS: If she was in my house she would have to go.
Mr. RAWLINSON: That is what brings landlords into disrepute, and it is actions of that kind which makes the poor of the East End of London look upon landlords as tyrants. Under this proposal the landlord will have the power to evict the tenant. Further than that, if he does not evict her he is liable to certain penalties. What would be the position under Clause 4? It would be far worse for the woman who is the occupant of a flat than the position she occupied before this Bill was introduced. I ask the Government to reconsider the position before it is too late. I am not asking for the acceptance of these exact words, but after the strong remarks made about the position of the single woman in flats, and the discussion upstairs. I think an Amendment of this character is necessary.
Mr. CROOKS: Will the Committee allow me a moment for a personal explanation. I have been misunderstood. I never owned a house in my life, and I am only a tenant. I know there are many poor men who have been obliged to sub-let part of their houses, and to get a person in like those dealt with in this Bill, where there are little children about, is a positive danger to the children.
Mr. LEE: I should not have prolonged this discussion but for the appeal which was made to me. I am not in favour of this Amendment for the reason which has been stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. This Amendment is quite outside the real scope and intention of the Bill, and just as the previous Amendment was rejected, I think this Amendment should also be rejected.
Mr. FRANCE: There are many who strongly support this Bill who acquiesced

1221
in the withdrawal of the Amendment because we felt that the subject raised by it was outside the original scope of the measure which attracted so much support throughout the country. This proposal would involve an entirely new change in the Bill of 1885, whereas the desire of many hon. Members is to keep the Bill in such a form as will enable that great evil—the white slave traffic to be adequately dealt with.
Mr. BOOTH: I must entirely protest against the suggestion that the last Amendment was withdrawn on that account. It may have been the reason why its supporters did not press it to a division. It was evident that the general feeling of the House was that whether we enlarged the scope of the Bill or not the Amendment had no chance of passing, and my hon. Friend agreed to withdraw it rather than be beaten in the division Lobby. With regard to this Amendment I am not particularly in love with it. I took no part in the discussion upstairs on this point but it is only fair to recognise that after attention was drawn to it by the agitation outside we began a different era of administration. It is now admitted that the law in this matter has not been enforced for the last twenty-seven years. In my opinion administration is far more important than legislation. Only recently I had a controversy with the London County Council on this point. Certain members of the County Council came to me and said if I would name any particular property of which complaint could be made they would see that the tenants were fired out into the streets. I pointed out that that was entirely against the Bill but it shows that some who are taking part in this agitation are prepared to go on with this process of harrying these people.
While we hope to get rid of this white slave traffic we are not prepared to see crime and immorality spread into streets and houses now innocent of it by putting difficulties in the way of prostitutes getting shelter. If they are not allowed to get shelter we are in for a good deal of trouble. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the experience of Colchester where prostitutes got into the homes of working men and proceeded to invite the working men's daughters to go with them in order to get a new bonnet cheaply. Or let them remember the experience of Liverpool, described by Josephine Butler, where as a
1222
result of this harrying of prostitutes prosecutions and convictions for immorality increased by leaps and bounds. Hon. Members will not be promoting morality by driving these women into homes hitherto uncontaminated. Let us give this simple measure of protection to these women. We pity them and are sorry for them: we do not want to add to their degradation, neither do we desire to drive them into respectable homes.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I am reluctant to take part in this discussion, because I have had no share in the very heavy work upstairs in connection with this very grave question, but I do ask the House whether we ought to decide to proceed to decide this question now, in view of the facts which have been disclosed in this Debate? It has been said, with perfect truth, that the general support which this Bill finds in the House and in the country owes its origin to the steadfast determination in the minds of every honest person in the country to put down this trade—the most abominable trade, probably, that exists in the country. But, it has also been truly said, you have no right to use that influence in order to deal with a totally different question, and to deal with that question in such a way as to persecute a class which in my humble opinion is more sinned against than sinning. I am not going to enter into the question of the origin of prostitution, but I will say that the majority of people who have studied that problem know perfectly well that the great majority of these women have been led into that course of action by those who ought to be punished rather than the women themselves. If we decide this Amendment now we are undoubtedly going to run the risk of failing to make an alteration in the law which seems to be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman (the Home Secretary) has told us that this is not the time to do it; that this Bill ought not to be used to amend the Act of 1885. That is a sort of argument which has never had any weight with me. It is a kind of argument which I detest. If it be quite true that, owing to the agitation which has arisen against this white slave traffic, owing to the prominence given in the public mind to this question by the Debates in the House and the discussions upstairs, the result will be that the administration of the law will be altered in the future and persecutions will be going on against these unfortunate

1223
women, then I say it is the duty of this House to face the fact and try to remedy it by this Amendment.
I am myself strongly inclined to vote for the Amendment of my friend, the hon. Baronet who represents the City (Sir F. Banbury). I admit there is some force in what the Home Secretary says, that the language of the Amendment is not as happy as it might be, and that it might be construed as an endorsement and an approval by this House of a form of immorality which undoubtedly we would all cure, if we could. That is undesirable, but it is much more undesirable that we should proceed here and now, at this hour, and in the absence of the Law Officers of the Crown—who should be here to advise us, to answer questions, upon this difficult question, in which they are taking no part—to decide in what possibly would be an unfortunate way upon an issue which is so grave. I respectfully suggest that the proper course to adopt is to adjourn in order to allow the Government time to solve the difficulty and to be in a position to advise us upon this question. They could consider how to avoid the difficulty, and they might be able, when the Debate is resumed, to prevent the House from doing this grave injustice. The Government can, if they choose, persist in the attitude of the Home Secretary and resist this Amendment; they can use their forces to prevent an adjournment. If my hon. Friend will go to a Division, I shall certainly support him, and I say that on the shoulders of the Government will then rest the responsibility for driving this House into taking a decision at a time when neither the information which is necessary is before us, nor is the House at this hour in a condition to decide a question of this grave kind. I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Mr. McKENNA: For a considerable time we have been debating this Amendment, which was regarded as an Amendment that would not necessarily take up a very long time. I certainly hope we shall not be asked on another occasion to renew this Debate. I must really urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that, having had so full a debate upon it, in which it has been considered and discussed from every point of view, we should not be asked to take it up again.
Mr. PIRIE: The question, I understand, is still whether the House shall now adjourn. I should have thought that the Home Secretary might have enlightened us, instead of taking refuge in silence and not answering the questions which have been put to him, before asking the House to decide upon the Amendment. He has been asked whether he intends to administer the law—
Mr. McKENNA: I should not have been in order.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has himself pointed out that the question now before us is the adjournment.
Mr. PIRIE: I hope the Government will not put the Whips on, and will allow us to vote without them on the adjournment of the Debate. It is a most important legal point, and the Law Officers of the Crown are not here to answer questions and to guide the House. We have discussed it for an hour and a half and we should adjourn now.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: In view of the promise made by the Government at the commencement of the proceedings, that this Debate would only take an hour, and the fact that it has now gone on for an hour and a half I think they should fall in with the Motion for the Adjournment. I think everybody will admit that the Government ought to be given a little time to think this question over. If they would only give us a promise that something might be done in another place, or that some words might be drafted, if the House now adjourns, and be ready to be put before us when the House meets again, it might ease matters. These words might take the place of the words proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, because, as has been pointed out by the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), these words do not altogether meet the views of the Government or of some sections of the House. If they can do that, I am quite sure we shall be prepared to accept anything that meets with the views of the Government. I am sure the Government must see that the feeling in all parts of the House now appears to be very strong in favour of something like the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think from the cheers there is not the slightest doubt that there is a strong feeling for the Amendment,

1225
and I hope the Government, in view of this, will agree to adjourn this Debate.
Mr. MORRELL: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot see his way to accept the Motion? It seems to me his position is very unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself again and again during the night entirely out of touch with the feelings of a great many of his supporters and with those of us who wish to see this Bill pass. I do not wish to do anything which would embarrass the passage of this Bill. I ask him whether he cannot accept this Motion now, and then see whether some words could not be found which would be satisfactory to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman. If that were done we should be doing our best to expedite the passage of this Bill.
Mr. KING: As so many voices have been raised urging the Adjournment, may I raise my voice in favour of going on? I must confess that I am not tired, neither are my natural faculties clouded. I will only add one reason why we should go on, the reason put forward by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanley Wilson), who declares that the feeling of the House is entirely in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I said a strong feeling in all parts.
Mr. KING: Then, if that be so, let it be put to the House at once.
Mr. BARNES: I should not have risen but for the fact that the House may be misled by what has been said by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks), into thinking that all of us are going to follow the lead he gave. I simply want to say that I will vote with the hon. Baronet if he goes to a Division. I hope that will not be necessary, and that the Government will see that there is a general feeling in favour of something of this sort being inserted in the Bill, even if this particular form of words does not meet with general approval. Therefore, it would be very unfortunate if we had to proceed to a Division now and many Members were obliged to vote for the words proposed by the hon. Baronet which do seem to give some legal sanction to prostitution. I would, therefore, add my voice to the appeal already made to the Home Secretary to let us consider the matter over.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I have words here which, I think, would meet the case.
Mr. SPEAKER: That would not arise on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 155.

Division No. 301.]

AYES.

[12.40 a.m.

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Clynes, John R.

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Agnew, Sir George William

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Courthope, George Loyd

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Baird, John Lawrence

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Balcarres, Lord

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Baldwin, Stanley

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Larmor, Sir J.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Essex, Richard Walter

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

Barnes, George N.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Barnston, Harry

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Forster, Henry William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Lynch, A. A.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, George Abraham

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo. Han. S.)

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Gilmour, Captain John

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Bird, Alfred

Glanville, Harold James

Mackinder, Halford J.

Booth, Frederick Handel

Goldman, C. S.

Macmaster, Donald

Boscawen, Sir Arthur C. T. Griffith-

Goldsmith, Frank

M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Manfield, Harry

Brocklehurst, William R.

Greene, Walter Raymond

Martin, Joseph

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Campion, W. R.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Haddock, George Bahr

Morrell, Philip

Carr-Gomm, H W.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hardie, J. Keir

Needham, Christopher Thomas

Cator, John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Outhwaite, R. L.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Wilkie, Alexander

Perkins, Walter Frank

Spear, Sir John Ward

Williams, Col R. (Dorset, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stanier, Beville

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stewart, Gershom

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

Pringle, William M. R.

Sutherland, J. E.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

Radford, George Heynes

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Yate, Col C. E.

Rees, Sir J. D.

Touche, George Alexander

Younger, Sir George

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Valentia, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Waring, Walter

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Watt, Henry A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

W. Guinness and Mr. S. Wilson.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Adamson, William

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

O'Doherty, Philip

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Donnell, Thomas

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Armitage, Robert

Hazleton, Richard

Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shee, James John

Barton, W.

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Parker, James Halifax

Benn, W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Bentham, George J.

Hudson, Waiter

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Boland, John Pius

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pointer, Joseph

Bowerman, Charles W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Brace, William

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

Bryce, John Annan

Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Burns, Rt. Hen. John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Reddy, Michael

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Keating, Matthew

Rendall, Athelstan

Clough, William

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

King, Joseph

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Crooks, William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Robinson, Sidney

Crumley, Patrick

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

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Cullinan, John

Leach, Charles

Rowntree, Arnold

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Dawes, James Arthur

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Doris, William

Lundon, T.

Scanlan, Thomas

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

McGhee, Richard

Sheehy, David

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Falconer, James

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Tennant, Harold John

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Ffrench, Peter

Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

Toulmin, Sir George

Fitzgibbon, John

Meagher, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Furness, Stephen

Millar, James Duncan

Verney, Sir Harry

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Molloy, Michael

Webb, H.

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Muldoon, John

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Munro, Robert

White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Nannetti, Joseph

Wiles, Thomas

Gulland, John William

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nolan, Joseph

Hackett, John

Norman, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Hancock, J. G.

Nuttall, Harry

Lamb and Sir Charles Henry.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 174.

Division No. 302.]

AYES.

[12.50 a.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Baird, John Lawrence

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Barnes, G. N.

Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

Balcarres, Lord

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Booth, Frederick Handel

Helmsley, Viscount

Pirie, Duncan Vernon

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Rawlinson, Sir John Frederick Peel

Campion, W. R.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lloyd, G. A.

Scott, Sir S. Marylebone, W.)

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Courthope, George Loyd

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Sutherland, John E.

Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Talbot, Lord E.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Valentia, Viscount

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Waring, Walter

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Watt, Henry A.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Forster, Henry William

Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

Wilkie, Alexander

Gibbs, George Abraham

Martin, Joseph

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Goldman, C. S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Morrell, Philip

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

Greene, Walter Raymond

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

Yate, Col. C. E.

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Younger, Sir George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Outhwaite, R. L.

Haddock, George Bahr

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Perkins, Walter Frank

F. Banbury and Mr. W. Guinness.

Hardie, J. Keir

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Adamson, William

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Millar, James Duncan

Addison, Dr. C.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Molloy, Michael

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

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

Muldoon, John

Armitage, Robert

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

Munro, R.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Gulland, John William

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Baldwin, Stanley

Hackett, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Hancock, J. G.

Needham, Christopher T.

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Barton, William

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Norman, Sir Henry

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Nuttall, Harry

Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bentham, G. J.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Boland, John Pius

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Doherty, Philip

Bowerman, C. W.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Donnell, Thomas

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Dowd, John

Brace, William

Henry, Sir Charles

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Higham, John Sharp

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Shee, James John

Burn, Colonel C, R.

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cator, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hudson, Walter

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Hughes, S. L.

Pointer, Joseph

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

John, Edward Thomas

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Clough, William

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Clynes, John R.

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Reddy, Michael

Crooks, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Crumley, Patrick

Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

Rendall, Athelstan

Cullinan, John

Joyce, Michael

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

Keating, Matthew

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dawes, J. A.

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Doris, William

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Duffy, William J.

King, J.

Robinson, Sidney

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Rowntree, Arnold

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Leach, Charles

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Levy, Sir Maurice

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Falconer, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Scanlan, Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

Lundon, Thomas

Sheehy, David

Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

McGhee, Richard

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

Maclean, Donald

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fitzgibbon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spear, Sir John Ward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanier, Beville

Trance, Gerald Ashburner

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Furness, Stephen

Meagher, Michael

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

1230

1231

Tennant, Harold John

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Webb, H.

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

Toulmin, Sir George

White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wiles, Thomas

Lamb and Mr. Macpherson.

Verney, Sir Harry

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered that further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. McKenna.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow (Wednesday).
The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at one minute before One a.m., Wednesday, 6th November.

  Officials and Political Speeches.
  Officials and Political Speeches.
  Petrol Tax.
  Petrol Tax.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  AUDITORS.
  AUDITORS.
  LACE OUTWORKERS.
  LACE OUTWORKERS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS.
  EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Working Men's Dwellings (Granard).
  Working Men's Dwellings (Granard).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Fishery Pier (Gerhies, County Cork).
  Fishery Pier (Gerhies, County Cork).
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  GAME LICENCES.
  GAME LICENCES.
  Post Office (Second-Class Engineers).
  Post Office (Second-Class Engineers).
ROYAL NAVY.
  CRUISER SQUADRON (QUEENSTOWN HARBOUR).
  CRUISER SQUADRON (QUEENSTOWN HARBOUR).
  MEDITERRANEAN.
  MEDITERRANEAN.
  H.M.S. "TORCH."
  H.M.S. "TORCH."
  AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  NEW CONSTRUCTION.
  ARMOURED SHIPS.
  ARMOURED SHIPS.
  WIRE-WOUND GUNS.
  WIRE-WOUND GUNS.
  RETIRED OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (UNIFORM).
  SIR PHILIP WATTS.
  SIR PHILIP WATTS.
  OSBORNE NAVAL CADETS COLLEGE.
  OSBORNE NAVAL CADETS COLLEGE.
  Army Warrant Officer Clerks.
  Army Warrant Officer Clerks.
  Royal Artillery Clerks.
  Royal Artillery Clerks.
  Field Artillery Brigade.
  Field Artillery Brigade.
  Military Knights of Windsor.
  Military Knights of Windsor.
  Slow-Moving Vehicles (Metropolis).
  Slow-Moving Vehicles (Metropolis).
  Policeman's Pension (Durham).
  Policeman's Pension (Durham).
  Gold Coinage (India).
  Gold Coinage (India).
  British Six-Power Group.
  British Six-Power Group.
  Consular Service.
  Consular Service.
  British Subjects (Congo State).
  British Subjects (Congo State).
  Scutari, Uskub and Adrianople.
  Scutari, Uskub and Adrianople.
  Northern Lighthouses.
  Northern Lighthouses.
  Carriage of Motor Side-Car.
  Carriage of Motor Side-Car.
  Steamship "Bodo."
  Steamship "Bodo."
  Post Office Assistant Surveyors.
  Post Office Assistant Surveyors.
  Thefts by Auxiliary Postmen (Douglas).
  Thefts by Auxiliary Postmen (Douglas).
  Telephone Service.
  Telephone Service.
  Livestock (Removal).
  Livestock (Removal).
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Bromham (Wilts) Church School.
  Bromham (Wilts) Church School.