Sitting of 2 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
MacColl's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Bill [Lords],
To be read the third time To-morrow.
Barry Railway Bill [Lords],
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Private Bills (Group F),
Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; That Mr. Noel Buxton, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Electric Traction Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1911.
Copy presented of Census of England and Wales, 1911. Vol. VIII. Tenements in Administrative Counties and Urban and Rural Districts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Census of England and Wales, 1911. Vol. XII. Language spoken in Wales and Monmouthshire [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5121 to 5130 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for the Training of Teachers for Secondary Schools (in force from 1st August, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL REVENUE.
Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ended the 31st day or March, 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 189, of Session 1912–13)."—[Mr. J. A. Pease.]

DIVORCE BILLS.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Carolin's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Dooner's Divorce Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses for Carolin's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Dooner's Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine Witnesses against the Bill if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce Witnesses.—[The Lord Advocate.]

MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED, AGREEMENT.
Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read, with the Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL.
Ordered, That Mr. Neilson be discharged from the Select Committee on the Post Office (London) Railway Bill.
Ordered, That Mr. Outhwaite be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Illingworth.]

UNDERGROUND WORKROOMS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Mid Kent and East Kent District Water Bill,
Chesterfield Corporation Railless Traction Bill with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Southend-on-Sea and to constitute the extended borough a county borough; to consolidate the parishes of the extended borough into one parish; to enable the Corporation to establish a separate police force and to provide and work motor omnibuses; to make further provision in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes."[Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain conveyances, leases, and other dispositions and dealings of or in relation to the estates in the counties of Dorset and Glamorgan of the Right Honourable Ivor Bertie, Baron Wimborne, and the Right Honourable Ivor Churchill, Baron Ashby St. Ledgers." [Lord Wimborne's Estate Bill [Lords.]
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill [Lords],
Lord Wimborne's Estate Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 186.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 186.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 232.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    COASTGUARD (PENSIONS).
    Mr. MILDMAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether representations have been made to him with regard to the inadequacy of pensions awarded to chief officers of His Majesty's coastguard who have attained to that grade late in life; and whether he can see his way to revising the scale of these pensions?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Representations have been made in the sense indicated by the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid I can hold out no hope of revision.

    Anglo-Egyptian Soudan (Cotton Crops).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how many bales of cotton were produced in the Anglo-Egyptian Soudan in the years 1908 and 1912, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. No recent Returns are available with regard to the cotton crop in the Anglo-Egyptian Soudan, but the exports of cotton from the Soudan amounted to 70,034 cwts. in 1908 and 105,603 cwts. in 1912.

    Trinidad (Pipe-Line Agreement).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any representations from the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce with regard to the pipe-line agreement?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have seen a copy of letters which have passed between the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce and the Colonial Government on the subject, but have not received any representations from the Chamber in regard to the agreement.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary for the Colonies, whether he is aware that, at a meeting of the Legislative Council of Trinidad, held on 29th May, the Governor refused to allow discussion on an amendment protesting against the pipe-line agreement, and supported by all the unofficial members, on the ground that the matter had already been decided by the Secretary of State; and, if so, what steps, if any, he took to make himself acquainted with local opinion in Trinidad before concluding the agreement?
    Mr. HARCOURT: At a meeting of the Legislative Council, on 21st of May, an unofficial member gave notice to move a resolution for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the agreement in question. I understand that it was the intention of the Governor to oppose the Motion on the ground that the Government could not agree to inquiry by a Select Committee into an agreement Which has been entered into by the Government, with my approval, under powers delegated to it by Statute, and that the constitutional method for the member to take was to move specifically and on due notice that a particular part of the agreement was objectionable. As regards the second part of the question, the Governor and the Director of Public Works were consulted in the course of the negotiations in which the technical adviser of the Colonial Government took part, and the whole agreement was made subject to the approval of the Governor, which has been signified.
    Mr. POINTER: Will the non-official opinion be ascertained before the agreement is finally decided?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I will consider that.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that there is any body of public opinion strongly in favour of this agreement?
    Mr. HARCOURT'Sreply was inaudible.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DREGHORN ESTATE.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War when he will be in a position to state the extent of the Dreghorn Estate to be purchased by the War Office; and the price to be paid?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am afraid that at the present moment I am not in a position to give my hon. Friend the information he desires.
    Mr. HOGGE: When will it be given?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot fix the date.

  AIRCRAFT.

    EXPENDITURE ABROAD AND AT HOME.
    Mr. AMERYasked if the Secretary of State for War can give the approximate expenditure in France and in Germany, respectively, for each of the five years 1908–9, 1909–10, 1910–11, 1911–12, and 1912–13 on aircraft and other expenses incidental thereto, and distinguishing where possible between expenditure in connection with aeroplanes and dirigibles, and capital and recurrent expenditure?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I find it impossible to give the figures for which the hon. Member asks, as in the case of Germany the money devoted to this service is not separately voted in the Budgets; and as regards France the information available does not distinguish between capital and recurrent expenditure, nor, except in 1913, between dirigibles and aeroplanes.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the total expenditure, if he cannot distinguish between the items?
    Mr. BAKER: I cannot state the figures at this moment, but they may be available.
    Mr. AMERYasked what has been the total expenditure out of public moneys for each of the five years 1908–9, 1909–10, 1910–11, 1911–2, 1912–13, on aircraft and all other expenses incidental thereto, distinguishing, so far as possible, capital and recurrent expenditure and giving separately each main class of expenditure, and, in particular, Royal Aircraft Factory, land other than for the factory, aeroplanes, dirigibles, sheds, repairing outfit, material for repairs, pay for staff, headquarters staff, other supervisory staff, flying staff, mechanical staff at factory, and mechanical staff engaged on repairs and similar work other than at the factory?
    Mr. BAKER: The accounts do not give the information asked for, and the labour

    1853
    required to produce it would be so great that I cannot undertake to grant the hon. Member's request.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether any, and, if so, how many permanent officials have been appointed in the Royal Flying Corps, in accordance with Clause 51 of the Monoplane Report, for the purpose of inspecting and reporting on the aeroplanes at regular intervals?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is considered that the appointment of officers with the sole duty of inspecting aeroplanes might lead to a divided responsibility and, therefore, to less efficient inspection. The officers commanding Squadrons and Flights are held responsible for the fitness of the machines under their charge, and careful and minute inspections are constantly carried out by them.
    Mr. LEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a minute and complete cross-examination was made by the officer in charge of the aeroplane which was wrecked at Montrose with the loss of two lives?
    Mr. TENNANT: I believe that is so.
    Mr. LEE: Why was not the defect discovered?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for War whether he has yet appointed an inspector of engines in the Royal Flying Corps in accordance with Clause 52 of the Monoplane Report; and, if so, what is his name, rank, and salary?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what were the official numbers of the aeroplanes which flew from Farnborough to Montrose; and how many days did they, respectively, take in such flight?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will furnish the hon. Gentleman with the numbers of the aeroplanes, but I cannot undertake to furnish him with the rest of the detailed information he requires.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask how many of those aeroplanes arrived at their destination?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not considered desirable to give that information.

    Land Duties.
    Mr. FITZROYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his statement that the 353,473 cases awaiting occasional valuations would be disposed of by April, 1915, he is aware that until an assessment has been made in respect of each of these cases the liability for duty remains, affects the disposal of the purchase money, and leaves both parties to the transaction in a state of uncertainty as to their position; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to remedy this grievance?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The majority of the cases referred to consist either of sales, in which the purchase money would normally remain in the hands of the vendor and its disposal would be little affected by the exact amount of the duty, or of leases, where no purchase money would be paid. The transferee or lessee is not affected, as the duty, if any, is in no circumstances payable by him. In all cases it is sought to intimate the amount of duty payable as early as possible, due regard being had to cases of special urgency.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will not a purchaser be affected when he desires to resell?
    Mr. ROYDS: Is the right hon Gentleman not aware that there is very general complaint from professional men and others as regards the present state of affairs?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It cannot be expected that a great valuation of this kind can be made without there being some complaints.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that his estimated receipts from Land Value Duties for the current year, after deducting arrears of Undeveloped Land Duty, are only £205,000, of which sum £100,000, or nearly one-half, represents Reversion Duty, which is collected and assessed without reference to the site or other values now being ascertained under the national land valuation, he will consider the advisability of not incurring further an annual expenditure of £680,000 on the national land valuation to collect £105,000?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The capital sum expended on a national valuation cannot be regarded as an annual expenditure.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dictum of Lord Atkinson in the recent case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herbert and others that fanciful estimates have to be made to fix in conformity with the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, original site value, he will consider the propriety of repealing at an early date a system of valuation and taxation set up on such a basis?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the dictum alluded to be read in its context, it will be seen that Lord Atkinson pointed out that whether the two values by reference to which increment value is calculated be fictitious or actual is wholly immaterial, provided that a comparison between them can be made and that this comparison will supply a true measure of the amount of any increment. The existing law is designed to obtain that true measure of the increment, and the dictum therefore affords no argument for repealing the system.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will, in view of the confusion now prevailing on the subject, issue an official statement as to whether machinery fixed or attached to the land is included in the gross value, as ascertained under Section 25 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, if so, if he will direct that such statement shall set out the nature of the machinery to be included, so as to enable owners and valuers to check valuations served on them?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The practice of the Commissioners is to include in gross value all such plant and machinery as would pass, in the absence of any reservation to the contrary, on the sale of the fee simple. Owing to the variety of conditions under which machinery is used, it is not feasible to prepare a statement specifying the nature of all machinery to be included. So far as I am aware, no serious difficulty has hitherto arisen in cases of this kind.
    Mr. WHELERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce and pass through the House of Commons during the present Session a Bill amending the Increment Duties imposed by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the intention of the Government, as already announced, to deal with certain amendments of the Increment Duty in their Revenue Bill.
    Mr. WHELER: Is it the fact that the Government propose to pass an Amending Bill through the House of Commons in the present Session; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an announcement that the Government would do that was made at the recent by-election at Leicester by the Liberal candidate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Any announcements I made were made to the House of Commons.
    Mr. WHELER: May I ask whether the Liberal candidate had any authority to make that statement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really do not know what statement was made by the Liberal candidate at Leicester. I am only responsible for statements made in the House.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Resolution on which the Revenue Bill is founded was under discussion he gave no indication there would be any amendment of this kind?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has been refreshing his memory I am prepared to accept his statement, but my recollection is that I did indicate it would be amended but I did not go into details.
    Mr. CASSEL: Not in this particular.
    Mr. KING: In view of the great anxiety for legislation of this kind by the other side, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to pass it as unopposed?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: When may we hope to see the Revenue Bill in print and introduced?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should hope to be able to introduce it perhaps next week.

    Income Tax.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether it is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue to refuse repayment of Income Tax to the holders of debentures which stipulate for the payment of interest free of Income Tax, although the holder is entitled to exemption from Income Tax?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the question is in the affirmative. The Income Tax Acts only authorise repayment to an exempt person of tax which he has paid or has actually suffered by deduction from rent or interest.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AMENDING BILL.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the annual amount released by the postponement of the redemption of the reserve values from 18¼ to 20 years; (2) what amount it is estimated it will cost in the first and subsequent years to adopt the Amendment proposed in Clause 6 of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill relating to discontinuous periods of sickness; how much thereof it is expected will fall on the funds of the approved societies, and how much on moneys provided by Parliament; (3) what it is estimated it will cost in the first and subsequent years to extend the grant of 2s. 6d. per member per annum for medical benefit to insured persons over 65 and to uninsured members of friendly societies over 65, respectively; (4) what amount it is estimated it will cost in the first and subsequent years to extend the benefits under Clause 2 of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill relating to persons over 50 years of age; how much thereof will fall upon the funds of the approved societies; how much on moneys provided by Parliament; and (5) what amount it is estimated it will cost in the first and subsequent years to excuse part of the arrears of contributions as provided by Clause 3 of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill; and how much thereof it is expected will fall on the funds of the approved societies, on the reserve values, redemption fund, and on moneys provided by Parliament, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The subject matters of these questions will be found to be fully dealt with in the Actuarial Report on the proposals of the Bill, which I hope will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the Actuarial Report it will be made clear how much of the additional cost is to be
    1858
    borne by the funds of the approved societies, and how much out of moneys provided by Parliament? In the ordinary case the Actuaries' Report would only state the total cost without apportioning it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think none of the cost will be borne by the approved societies, but it is to be borne either by moneys provided by Parliament or through the extension of the sinking fund. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Report will contain the fullest actuarial information.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see Clause 6, and that there are three funds out of which the expenses can be borne?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member will find a full explanation in the Report.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the sum which it is estimated will have to be provided in the year 1913–14, and subsequent years, out of moneys provided by Parliament, by reason of Section 4 of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill; and what is it proposed to do with contributions paid in respect of exempted persons who have died since the commencement of the National Insurance Act, 1911, without having any scheme of benefits provided for them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is shown by the Actuarial Report on the financial proposals of the Bill that the estimated annual charge on moneys provided by Parliament in order to support the benefits to be granted to exempted persons is £19,000. The proportion which will come in course of payment in the financial year 1913–14 will depend upon the date at which the amending provision comes into operation. As regards the second part of the question, the contributions referred to will be dealt with in the manner provided by the principal Act.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether money Grants provided by Parliament will also be made to those persons who are exempted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait and see the Memorandum.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons are exempt who have independent means?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the principal Act does deal with the contributions exacted from exempt persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That will be provided by a scheme to be propounded by the Commissioners for the benefit of the exempt persons.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any such scheme has been propounded?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the available experience is under consideration.

    ADMINISTRATION OF ACT.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet had time to consider the suggestion that the Department responsible for the administration of the National Insurance Act should not be the Treasury?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matter is receiving careful consideration.

    LECTURERS.
    Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint lecturers to go about the country explaining the provisions of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill; if so, how many; and what salary will they be paid?
    The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I am aware, there is no such intention.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS (LOST).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Insurance Commissioners, on being satisfied that a card which has been lost has been fully stamped, will credit that number of stamps to the insured person; whether a sworn statement by the employer that he has stamped the card and by the employed person that the 4d. has been deducted from his wage will be accepted as satisfactory evidence that the card has been stamped; and, if not, what further evidence will be required?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The action which the Commissioners are in a position to take in any case of a lost card must depend on the circumstances in which and by whom, it was lost. The evidence suggested by the hon. Member is not in itself sufficient, since, as I explained in
    1860
    answer to the hon. Member for Gorton on the 3rd April, it is necessary to guard against the risk that the card may be used improperly by another contributor into whose hands it has come, to support a claim on the National Health Insurance Fund.
    Mr. HOGGE: What further evidence would be regarded as satisfactory?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by "further evidence." Such evidence must be given as will satisfy the Commissioners.
    Mr. HOGGE: What further evidence will be required in addition to that already received and mentioned in my question as, having been produced in this case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the employed person will have to give some evidence of the lost card.

    CHARWOMEN.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state where a charwoman works for Mrs. A. every Monday and for Mrs. B. every Tuesday, and Mrs. B. refuses to pay any portion of the insurance for the charwoman, whether Mrs. A. is in that case compelled to pay the full insurance every Monday, thus allowing Mrs. B. to escape all payment?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the absence of any agreement between the various employers to pay contributions in rotation, the first employer is liable. In a large number of cases where single workers are employed, I am informed that though employers do not find it necessary to enter into formal agreements informal arrangements are made among two or more employers to stamp the worker's card in such rotation as may be fair and convenient. The first employer still remains legally liable, but provided the card is properly stamped, his liability is nominal only and no difficulties arise.

    LITERATURE (COST).
    Mr. WHELERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what was the amount paid for literature printed and circulated by the Commissioners of the National Insurance Act during the year 1912–13; and what is the amount of the Estimate for printing in connection with the Act for the year 1913–14?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The aproximate amount of the expenditure referred to in connection with Part I. of the Act was £127,000 for 1912–13; the amount of the Estimate for 1913–14 is £90,000.

    PANEL DOCTORS (DEVON).
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the names of the panel doctors and the date of their joining the panel who have agreed to medically treat insured persons in Princetown, Post Bridge, Huccuby and district, Devon; and will he take steps to provide that medicine can be obtained by such patients at Princetown?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Ten doctors, whose names I will send to the hon. Member, are available for the treatment of insured persons in the district referred to. All joined the panel on the 12th January last. It always has been, and is still, the custom for the doctors themselves to supply the medicine required by their patients in the places named.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Have those doctors agreed to attend to insured patients in the districts mentioned?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: So I understand.

    Road Board.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the portion of the carriage and motor-car licences, collected by county councils, which is handed over to the Road Board is used by that body in road improvements which, however desirable in themselves, have not been hitherto required at the hands of county councils, and that before the funds of the Road Board are expended in this work county councils are required to find half the cost out of the county rates; and, seeing that the establishment of the Road Board has thereby much increased the demands on the ratepayers in addition to the increased direct expense entailed on county councils for the repair of damage done to the roads by motor traffic, will he embrace an early opportunity of securing to county councils the whole revenue arising from carriage and motor-car licences?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not agree that the establishment of the Road Board has much increased the demands on ratepayers. On the contrary it has enabled them to meet demands for the improvement of roads necessitated by the altered
    1862
    conditions of traffic, which would otherwise have had to be met from rates.
    Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any powers for the inspection of roads; whether at his office he has any staff allocated to road administration; and whether any Grants other than those made by the Road Board are made from the Exchequer to the local road authorities?
    Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board sanction loans for the making, widening, and improvement of roads, the total sum so sanctioned last year exceeding 1½ million pounds, and, in connection with applications for such sanction and with town planning schemes, the Board's inspectors are frequently making inspections of roads and the sites of new roads in all parts of England and Wales. The Board have not thought it desirable to allocate any staff exclusively to road administration, and I could easily show to the hon. Member that it would neither be desirable nor economical to do so. The Main Road Grant which existed prior to the Local Government Act, 1888, was discontinued, and at the present time the Grants made by the Road Board are the only specific Grants made to local road authorities from Imperial sources.

    Regent's Park.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased rentals obtained by the Crown through the recently completed extensions of the leases of five premises in Regent's Park, the Treasury will take steps to cancel the agreement by which the Toxophilite Society hold six and a half acres of the park on an annual tenancy of £200 a year and open this area to the public for much-needed playing fields; and whether it will decline to sanction, before 1st January, 1916, and extension of the leases of St. John's and St. Katherine's Lodges, which do not expire till July, 1916, and October, 1929, respectively, in order that means may be devised, if possible, for securing these large areas (eleven and six acres) for the use of the public?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this question and to say that he regrets that he does not feel justified in giving up without compensation the revenue that would be lost by determining the tenancy of the Toxophilite Society. There is

    1863
    under consideration at the present time a scheme involving no loss of revenue for adding to the open park a small area, part of the society's holding. In reply to the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on the 24th ultimo.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether Mr. Hanbury promised in 1900 that no lease of the South Villa enclosure in Regent's Park would be granted without the knowledge and sanction of Parliament; and, if so, whether effect has been given to this promise?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such promise was given; but with regard to the houses and grounds in Regent's Park generally, Mr. Hanbury said that it was for the interest of the public that revenue should be derived from the lands, and, when they had the opportunity, it would be for the Commissioners to see how far, without detriment to the revenue of the Crown, the public could have more access to certain portions of the park. Mr. Hanbury's view has since been acted on, and, as the hon. Member is aware, several additional areas previously in private occupation have been thrown into the open park in recent years.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a promise that no fresh leases will be entered into without the consent of Parliament?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only leases which are under negotiation have already been notified to Parliament. As I stated, I suspended them for a few days in order that the local authorities might have time to reconsider their decision.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will ascertain the total number of members of the Royal Toxophilite Society to which 6½ acres of valuable public land in Regent's Park have been let for £200 a year; and whether he will publish a list of the names of all the members of the society?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not in possession of information enabling me to supply the particulars desired, and have no better facilities for obtaining it than my hon. Friend or any other member of the public.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take advantage of those facilities and publish this list. Is it not desirable that we should have a list of the seventy individuals who are enjoying the use of this land at so much less than its real value?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: All I could publish would be the names of the persons to whom the lease is made. I am afraid I cannot ask the names of the members of the society any more than my hon. Friend can.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, with reference to the deputation from the protest meeting in Regent's Park which waited upon Mr. Leveson-Gower, what were the special reasons referred to by Mr. Leveson-Gower for the granting to Bedford College of a lease at a rental of £950 a year of the South Villa enclosure, which had been valued by him at £4,000 a year and by Lord Eversley at £8,000 a year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such statement was made by Mr. Leveson-Gower, who merely referred to the fact that Bedford College occupied a somewhat special position as a very prominent educational institution. This consideration, however, had reference only to the question of allowing more building on the land than would have been permitted in the case of a private occupier and in no way affected the question of the rent charged. The South Villa enclosure was never valued by Mr. Leveson-Gower at £4,000 a year, and I have no knowledge of the valuation attributed to Lord Eversley, but I am convinced that the values referred to, if obtained at all, could only have been obtained by appropriating the whole site for building purposes, a course which was never contemplated by any one connected with the Office of Woods.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Lord Eversley's letter in to-day's "Times"? Is it part of the functions of the President of the Board of Agriculture to continue the functions of educational aid which he performed at the Board of Education?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have read Lord Eversley's letter with a great deal of interest, but I do not propose to reply to it So far as the hon. Gentleman's second question is concerned, I am acting

    1865
    as one of the Commissioners of Woods, and I am replying to this question on behalf of my colleague the other Commissioner.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Does this consideration of educational qualifications in any way concern the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It certainly would not have concerned me, as the lease was made before I went to the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what is the extent of the meadow enclosed to the Baptist College in Regent's Park, adjoining the boundary wall; for what purpose it was let to the college; what rent is received from the college for it; what rental does the college receive for the horses and cattle which graze upon it; and whether, in view of the present conditions in which this meadow is kept, he can see his way to throw it open to the public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The original lease of the premises, now known as the Baptist College, comprised about five acres of land. About six and a half acres of meadow land had previously been held on a yearly tenancy by the lessee of the premises since 1841 (when the adjacent part of the park was thrown open to the public), and it was part of the arrangement of 1883 that on the giving up by the lessee of about two and a quarter acres., the remainder, about four acres, one rood, eight poles, should be added to the lease from 10th October, 1883, and the rent was raised by £30 3s. 9d. I have no knowledge of the revenue, if any, derived by the college from the meadow land, and I have no present power to deal with it. The question whether and, and, if any, what part of the land can be given up without loss of revenue will be considered when the renewal of the lease (which does not expire until April, 1932) is suggested.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: With what object in view was this land let to the college?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that at this interval of time I could not say. When the lease comes up for consideration again the large amount of meadow land now in the lease will, of course, be reconsidered with a view to the public requirements.

    British Beekeepers' Association.
    Mr. ALBERT STANLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the British Beekeepers' Association had made to him any report of the work done by that body and the manner in which the Grant made from the National Development Fund has been distributed among the local associations?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have received no detailed report of the work done by the British Beekeepers' Association, and I am not aware to what extent local associations have benefited from the Grant out of the Development Fund.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many small holdings existed in England and Wales at 31st December, 1907, and 31st December, 1912, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board's Returns are collected in June, and I cannot therefore give exactly the information for which the hon. Member asks. The number of holdings above one acre and not exceeding fifty acres as returned on the 4th June, 1907, was 289,093, and on the 4th June, 1912, 292,720.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the total acreage of the 10,192 small holdings established up to the 31st December, 1912, in England and Wales?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: One hundred and thirty-two thousand six hundred and one acres.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Norfolk County Council and the Isle of Ely County Council were permitted by the Board of Agriculture to bid against each other for five lots of property at a sale at Wisbech on Saturday, 21st June; why the Norfolk County Council were allowed to give a higher price than that sanctioned by the Board for the Isle of Ely for land situated in the latter county, the result being that Norfolk purchased all and the Isle of Ely none; whether the result of permitting two counties to come into competition was that the land fetched over £80 per acre, thus making the rent for prospective small holders almost prohibitive; and whether steps will be taken to see that such proceedings are not sanctioned in the future?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Norfolk County Council purchased the land in question on their own responsibility without consulting the Board. I am informed that the competition of the two county councils in the case under notice did not materially, if at all, enhance the price, but such competition is to be deprecated, and the Board will do everything in their power to prevent it in future?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it not either the Law or a Regulation having the effect of Law that no county council should buy any land without prior sanction of the Board as to the amount?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not give offhand an interpretation of the law, but I can state approximately what I think the hon. Gentleman wishes to know. No county council can get the benefit of the Small Holdings Act for the purchase or financing of land without the consent of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Was this consent obtained by the Norfolk County Council in this case?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In this case they acted entirely on their own responsibility without consulting the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local Commissioner was verbally informed by the Norfolk County Council——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to deal with details of that sort without notice.

    Tuberculosis (Animals) Order.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now able to state if, under the Tuberculosis (Animals) Order, any further Grant will be made to those districts where the population is poor and scattered and where, in consequence, the expenses of administration are very heavy and throw a heavy burden on poor and already heavily rated districts?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board will keep themselves informed of the cost incurred in the administration of the Tuberculosis Order in districts such as those described by my hon. Friend, but it is too soon yet to judge whether the additional cost to the
    1868
    ratepayers will justify the making of special Grants in such cases.

    Fiars Courts Bill.
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to introduce the Bill dealing with Fiars Courts during the present Parliamentary Session?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am sorry that I cannot give any undertaking on this subject, in view of the advanced state of the Session.

    Trawlers (Scotland).
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on the night of 4th June, near Wick, a trawler ran across the nets of the motor boat BY. 430, doing damage to the extent of £40, and that the skipper has been unable to obtain any redress; and what steps does he propose to take to protect the drift-net fishermen from the depredations of trawlers in inshore waters?
    Mr. MUNROasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of the boat "Mafeking," whose nets were destroyed by a trawler on the night of the 4th June off Wick; whether the skipper and agents called both upon the local fishery officer and the Customs authorities with the view of their transmitting information regarding the incident to the Fishery Board; whether these officials refused to entertain or transmit the complaint so made; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The skipper of the boat "Mafeking," B.F. 430, reported the loss of his nets to the fishery officer at Wick and attributed the damage to a foreign trawler. Unfortunately he was unable to identify the trawler, and consequently no redress can be obtained. His Majesty's Ship "Ringdove" and the fishery cruisers "Norna" and "Brenda" are now paying frequent visits to the Moray Firth, and the only trawlers now working there are the four or five Grimsby-Norwegian vessels.

    Scottish Estimates.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he has observed that the first of the two days promised for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates

    1869
    was interfered with by a Private Bill being put down at 8.15, and the discussion of the second Vote, dealing with the Land Court, rendered abortive by the fact that the Report of the same was not generally available at the Vote Office; and whether, in those circumstances, he proposes to give more than one other day to Scottish Estimates?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the Private Bill only occupied half an hour, and that the Report of the Land Court was available on the day before the Vote was discussed. We have promised to give another day for Scottish Estimates.
    Mr. MUNRO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the other day will be given?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present.
    Mr. KING: Will it include the salary for the Secretary for Scotland, so that we can cover the whole ground?

    Questions to Ministers.
    Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in the public interest and in order that the general want of knowledge of hon. Members may not become too apparent, he will consider the desirability of a curtailment of the considerable amount of time at present devoted to questions in this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very unwilling to curtail the time devoted to questioning Ministers unless it is the universal desire of the House.

    Education Bill.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the proposed Education Bill will be introduced; and whether time will be given for the discussion of the proposals on the First or Second Reading of the Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say more to-day than that at an early date the President of the Board of Education will make a full statement of the intentions and policy of the Government in regard to education.

    Loans to Fishermen.
    Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Report of the Committee which is considering the
    1870
    question of loans to fishermen is now complete; what is the cause of the delay in issuing the Report; and can he hold out any hope that it will be in the hands of Members before the end of the present Session?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave on this subject to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wick Burghs on 10th June, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland on 17th June.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Scottish fishermen are put in the same position as Irish fishermen?

    Fishery Cruisers (Pensions of Officers).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of securing pensions on retirement for the officers and men serving on board the fishery cruisers, in consideration of the nature of their service?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matter has been under consideration, but I am advised that legislation and an additional Grant would both be necessary.

    Burning of Leuchars Railway Station.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any information as to the burning of Leuchars Junction Railway Station; and whether it was the result of an accident?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have made inquiry, but have not received any information on the subject beyond what has appeared in the Press.

    St. Kilda.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received satisfactory reports of the health of the inhabitants of St. Kilda; what is the date of the latest report; and what steps have been taken to secure communication with this island?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh.
    Major ANSTRUTHER - GRAY: What steps have been taken to secure communication with the island?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I answered that question yesterday and stated that if any further information was wanted the questions should be addressed to the Postmaster-General.

    Postal Service (Promotion).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice in his Department to recognise seniority combined with merit in the promotion of officers to superior positions in the London postal service?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): It is the practice in cases of promotion in all departments of the Post Office to consider the claims of the eligible officers in order of seniority, with a view to the selection of the officer who is best qualified to discharge the duties of the vacant post. Where the merits of two candidates approximate to equality seniority would be the deciding factor.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Postmaster-General whether any protest has been received by him or by the Controller of the London postal service from senior officers in the returned letter section against having been passed over through the recent appointment of a junior officer to a higher appointment in that section; and, if so, whether this was through any incapacity on their part or any dissatisfaction with their past service, or whether there is any other reason for ignoring seniority in making this appointment?
    Captain NORTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The senior officers referred to were passed over because they were not considered to be so well qualified for promotion as the officer selected.

    London Institution.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the London Institution building in Finsbury Circus is in need of repairs to walls and staircase in order to ensure the safety of the fabric, stay settling, and remedy the effects of foundation digging in neighbouring buildings and of the railway running under the immediately adjacent Circus Gardens; if so, what steps are to be taken; when they are to be taken; and whether the Government is practically abandoning the project of using this
    1872
    building for the School of Oriental Languages?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner is advised that the building is not structurally unsafe; but some repairs will be carried out in connection with the alterations required to fit the building for occupation by the proposed School of Oriental Languages. The First Commissioner is not aware that it is contemplated to abandon the projected school.

    Housing of Working Classes.
    Mr. ROYDSasked the President of the Local Government Board in view of the fact that 95 to 97 per cent. of the population of this country are housed by individual enterprise and that recent legislation to encourage the erection of cottages and working-class dwellings by municipal and local authorities has resulted in the erection of a few thousand of such cottages and dwellings only, he will, in view of the urgency of the housing problem, introduce legislation to extend to individual owners and societies the same facilities for borrowing public moneys as are enjoyed by municipal and local authorities?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): As the hon. Member is aware. there are facilities under the existing law for lending money for housing purposes to individual owners and societies. In an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the 25th March last, it was explained that loans amounting to nearly 1¼ millions had been granted by the Public Works Loan Commissioners during the preceding two years for housing purposes, of which more than half was granted to societies, companies, and individuals. It must be remembered that while local authorities are able to offer the rates of their districts as security for a loan, private borrowers are not in that position. This fact in itself prevents the latter from being put on the same footing as local authorities in the matter of financial facilities.
    Mr. ROYDS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present system of giving preferential treatment to local authorities discourages private enterprise?
    Mr. BURNS: That view is held by some, and it is not held by others. If the hon. Gentleman shares that view I shall be

    1873
    pleased to transmit a communication on any suggestion he may make to the Treasury or the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

    Parish Councils (Elections).
    Sir WILFRID LAWSONasked the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to issue a new election Order, under which an election of parish councillors may take place, when necessary and desired, by ballot automatically?
    Mr. BURNS: The practicability of dealing with this matter by an Order is under consideration. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make I shall be happy to receive them.

    "Lucky Goods" Trading (Scotland).
    Mr. NUTTALLasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sale in Scotland of packets of sweetmeats containing cards, a series of which entitles the purchaser to a prize; whether he is aware that this kind of trading in what is known as lucky goods has been effectually stamped out in England as a result of several prosecutions; and whether he is prepared to take steps so that the law may be the same in Scotland as in England?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): My attention has not been called to the matters referred to by my hon. Friend. If he will submit particulars of actual cases to me, I will consider whether proceedings should be taken.

    Trade Boards Act, 1909 (Bakers).
    Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has come to his knowledge that the agreement arrived at on the 14th March between the Master Bakers' Protection Society and the Amalgamated Union of Operative Bakers has broken down by reason of the fact that the great majority of master bakers have refused to conform to the terms thereof; and whether he will consent to receive a deputation of the representativs of the union that they may submit to him statements with a view to satisfying the Board of Trade that the rate of wages prevailing in the trade is exceptionally low as compared with that in other employments, and that the other circumstances of the trade are such as to render the application of the Trade Boards Act, 1909, to the trade expedient?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have been in communication with the Amalgamated Union of Operative Bakers and Confectioners respecting the agreement referred to in the hon. Member's question. As the Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill has received its Second Reading in the House of Commons, and has been referred to a Select Committee, it is not possible during the present Session to make any addition to the trades enumerated in it. I would suggest to the hon. Member that it would be desirable to await the Report of the Industrial Council, which is expected shortly, on the question of the enforcement of industrial agreements, before considering the application of the Trade Boards Act to the baking trade.

    Load Line.
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is intended to restore the Plimsoll load line on British ships; and will he say why it has been raised, thus increasing the risks to the lives of seamen?
    Mr. BUXTON: The alteration of the Load-line Regulations made in 1906 was due in the main to the improvements in ship construction which had taken place since the time when the original load line was fixed. Section 438 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, empowers the Board of Trade to modify the tables of freeboard, but in approving any modifications the Board of Trade must have regard to any representations made to them by any corporation or association for the survey and registry of shipping appointed by them to approve and certify the position of the load line The authorities so appointed are Lloyd's Register of British and Foreign Shipping, Bureau Veritas, and the British Corporation for the Survey and Registry of Shipping. An inquiry was instituted in 1905, and several conferences were held between the experts of the Board of Trade and the experts of these classification societies, and, finally, on the 9th February, 1906, these experts submitted the revised tables of freeboard to the Board of Trade. The tables were then placed before the societies named by the Board of Trade, and on the advice of these societies, and of their own officers, the Board of Trade adopted them in a Minute dated 1st March, 1906. I have lately appointed a Committee which is investigating the whole question of the load line. The Committee would

    1875
    be very glad to receive evidence, which, if necessary, could be treated as confidential, from any persons who have any information as to the effect of the alteration of the load line on the seaworthiness of ships, etc. I have noticed allegations made by various persons in regard to this matter which I presume are founded on information in their possession, and I trust that they will bring the information to the knowledge of the Committee, so that these matters can be fully investigated.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely the Committee will report on that matter, which is urgent?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot say.

    Midland Railway (Level Crossing Accident).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a fatal accident that occurred on Friday last at the level crossing on the Midland Railway line at Bulwell, Notts, where two boys, aged fourteen, were instantly killed by an express train; if he can state the number of fatal and other accidents that have occurred at the same level crossing; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have received a notice of this accident, and am awaiting further particulars. The records of the Board of Trade for the last thirty years do not show that there has been any other accident at this crossing within that period.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Have the Board considered the desirability of doing away altogether with level crossings in certain parts of the country?
    Mr. BUXTON: That raises a rather big question. But I am glad to say that in this particular case this is the first accident that has occurred for thirty years.

    Royal Free Hospital (Street Collection).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the police refused to allow a collection to be taken up in connection with the procession through St. Pancras on Sunday, 22nd June, for the benefit of the Royal Free Hospital?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My hon. Friend has been misinformed. It
    1876
    is not the case that the police refused to allow this collection, but it became necessary to intervene in respect of certain collectors who, notwithstanding the instructions given them by the organisers of the procession, were not complying with the regulations under which street collections are permitted. These regulations are invariably explained to the organisers of all such collections, and are generally well observed.

    Dobinson Charity, Durham.
    Mr. JOHN WILSONasked the hon. Member for the Stroud Division as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Dobinson Charity, Willington, Durham, was originally left to the poor, without respect to creed or denomination; whether he is aware that the income is now being used solely for the benefit of the scholars who attend the Church of England schools to the absolute exclusion from such benefit of children attending any other elementary school in the ancient parish of Brancepeth; and, having regard to the intentions of the donor to provide education for children of all denominations, whether he will consider the advisability of placing the charity under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners?
    Mr. C. P. ALLEN: As already stated by me, in answer to a question by the hon. Member on 17th April last, the Dobinson Charity was given for the benefit of the poor, and was, by a scheme of the Durham County Court of 23rd March, 1857, made wholly applicable to educational purposes. It is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education, and not of the Charity Commissioners. Any questions about it should therefore be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.

    Commercial Statistics.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether proposals for standardising commercial statistics have been placed before him; whether he has considered the possibility of publishing the statistics of the new census of production in such a way as to form the basis for an international standard of commercial statistics; and, if so, whether he will co-operate with the statistical branch of the Irish Department of Agriculture in order to secure that the Irish portion of the census of production may be published in this form?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid that, in an answer in this House, it is not possible to deal adequately with the question as put by my hon. Friend. If, however, he will call at the Board of Trade, the officials will be glad to discuss the matter with him.

    School Teachers (Supply).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will at once put Circular 821 on sale, so as to make this document dealing with the supply of teachers available for that section of the public from whom the increased supply of teachers may be drawn?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): The Circular is a somewhat technical document hardly suitable for distribution to parents of intending teachers, and I do not think it necessary to put it specially on sale. If, however, local education authorities desire further copies of the Circular for distribution they will be supplied in the usual way. The new Regulations referred to in the Circular will shortly be issued and will be on sale to the public.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in the new Regulations for the preliminary education of elementary school teachers, he will secure an adequate supply of candidates for the teaching profession by making it a condition of Grant that all local education authorities should engage yearly a certain proportion of their population in the initial stage of teachership.
    Mr. PEASE: I have considered the hon. Member's suggestion, but as I doubt whether it would be effective I do not propose to insert such a provision in the new Regulations.

    India (Cotton Crops).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state how many bales of cotton were produced in India in the years 1908 and 1912, respectively?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The estimated yield of the Indian cotton crop in 1908–9 was 3,692,000 bales; and in 1912–13 4,397,000 bales.

    Higher Grade and Secondary Schools (Scotland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what is
    1878
    the number of higher grade and secondary schools in Scotland maintained by the public authorities; and the number of pupils in each who received free education last year?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There are 176 higher grade schools and thirty - five secondary schools under the management of school boards in Scotland. Of the former, fifteen schools exact fees, and nearly 4,000 pupils contribute, while the number of pupils in the 176 schools who do not pay fees, is about 20,500. I am not in possession of similar information regarding the secondary schools.

    Shorthand Typists (Post Office).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the custom to pay overtime worked by unestablished male shorthand typists employed in the Post Office telephone service at the rate of ordinary time while established employés are paid at the rate of time and a-quarter; and, if so, why this distinction is made?
    Captain NORTON: There are no unestablished male shorthand typists employed in the Post Office telephone service, but a small number of such officers is employed in the Engineering Department. They are paid at hourly rates, and were engaged on the understanding that they would be paid at the same rates when performing extra duty. Thus the conditions of their employment are different from those of established classes. The case of these officers has been represented to the Select Committee on Post Office Servants.

    Industrial Disease (Miss Emily Edwards).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in further reference to the case of Miss Emily Edwards, if he will say whether power is given to the Medical Referee, in case of industrial disease, to consult any doctor who has previously had the case under consideration on his own initiative, without any application to that effect necessarily having been made by the parties themselves?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Regulations require that the Referee shall, before deciding on the matter referred to him, make a personal examination of the workman, and shall consider any statements made or submitted by either party. There

    1879
    is nothing in the Regulations to prevent the Referee, if he should think it necessary, consulting any doctor who has previously had the case before him, but it would be a matter entirely for his own discretion.

    Factory and Workshops Acts (Hotel and Restaurant Kitchens).
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the kitchens of hotels, restaurants, and other places where the preparation of food, from the disposal of which profit is derived is carried on, come within the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts as being premises in which manual labour is exercised by way of trade or for purposes of gain in the adapting for sale of the articles in question; and whether, if they are not so included, he will state the reason for their exclusion?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Home Office has been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the kitchens of restaurants, etc., are not "workshops" within the definition in the Factory and Workshop Acts.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, from a Return made to the Longford County Council by the Local Government Board for Ireland, it appears that in the nineteen years from 1894 to 1913 the sum of £5,980 18s 8d. has been deducted from the local Grants due to the county from the Local Taxation Account in respect of alleged default by tenant purchasers to pay the instalments due to the Irish Land Commission; whether he is aware that in this Return no credit for the payment of these instalments subsequently by the tenants appears from the year 1894 to the year 1905; whether, during these eleven years, no portion of these debts was collected by the Land Commission or credited to the local funds of the county; whether, in that case, the lands charged with these debts were allowed to become derelict or are now derelict, and, if not, why the sums charged in respect of them have not been collected from the succeeding tenants, and, if so collected, why have they not been credited to the county funds; and whether, having regard to the importance of this matter to the ratepayers of county Longford, he is prepared to allow an inspection of the books of the
    1880
    Land Commission during these years by a chartered accountant acting on behalf of Longford County Council, who state that no such final loss has ever occurred in the county nor are they satisfied that these debts really exist?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the net deduction of £5,980 18s. 8d. referred to in the question consists solely of arrears of land purchase annuities. It also includes deductions on account of other insufficiency of income of the Land Purchase Account and the Irish Land Purchase Fund, established under the Acts of 1891 and 1903, respectively. The manner in which such other insufficiency of income arises was described in detail in the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Waterford, on 22nd April, 1907. Of the sum of £5,980 18s. 8d. in question, £2,766 8s. 1d. represents arrears of annuities, and the balance of £3,214 10s. 7d. represents other insufficiency of income. The latter sum includes a considerable amount in respect of the "advance dividend," namely, the interest on the advance which accrues between the annuitant's first gale day and the dividend day, and moneys so deducted will be recouped to the county upon the payment of the final instalments of the purchaser's annuities. The arrears of £2,766 8s. 1d. do not represent a final loss, as the hon. Member infers. This sum comprised the total arrears in the county at the date when the Guarantee Fund Account was last made up. By the subsequent gale day the great bulk of such arrears had been recovered and credited to the County Guarantee Fund, but a fresh temporary arrear has since arisen in respect of the new gale, and this state of things recurs from gale day to gale day. There are no derelict purchasers' holdings in county Longford.

  EAST RAND MINES (STRIKE).
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether there is any precedent, outside the Transvaal, for the employment of Imperial troops in connection with a labour dispute in any part of the Empire under responsible Government?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have only received the notice since I came into the House, and therefore I have not had time to look

  1881
  up the precedents, but I think the House will agree that in cases of urgent danger it would be impossible to refuse aid to the civil power for the preservation of life and property. I have complete confidence in the judgment and experience of Lord Gladstone.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in very close communication with the Government in view of the circumstances which are likely to arise out of a strike against conditions under which quarter of the machine men perish from preventable disease, and which are likely to lead to civil war?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. I hope to be kept daily informed by Lord Gladstone.

  CADEBY MAIN COLLIERY DISASTER.

    (MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.)
    Mr. WADSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy from the Miners' Federation of Great Britain of Messrs. Smillie and Hartshorn's Report of the inquiry held into the Cadeby Main Colliery disaster of the 9th July last year, and in which they allege there were breaches of the Coal Mines Act; whether he is satisfied that such breaches of the Coal Mines Act did take place; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action against the management at this colliery?
    Mr. FRED HALL (Normanton)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy from the Miners' Federation of Great Britain of Messrs. Smillie and Hartshorn's Report of the inquiry held into the Cadeby Main Colliery disaster of 9th July last year, and in which they allege there were breaches of the Coal Mines Act; whether he is satisfied that such breaches of the Coal Mines Act did take place; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action against the management at this colliery?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received a copy of this Report from the Miners' Federation. As regards the two points on which the Report alleges breaches of the Act, the chief inspector, as a result of his inquiry, came to the conclusion that the requirements of the Act had not been complied with on these points, but he formed the opinion that the responsibility lay
    1882
    primarily with the manager who lost his life; and that, in the circumstances set out in his Report, and in view of the fact that the fire would in all probability have been got under without accident had the directions of the managing director been carried out, proceedings could not be taken with any prospect of success against the managing director. I have addressed a letter to this effect to the Miners' Federation. The report of Mr. Smillie and Mr. Hartshorn was not forwarded by the Miners' Federation to the Home Office until 30th May, whereas the time allowed by the Act for the institution of proceedings had expired on 8th January.
    Mr. BRACE: Arising out of the Home Secretary's reply, may I ask him, Is he aware that at the inquiry, presided over by Mr. Redmayne, the Chief Mines Inspector, into the causes of the Cadeby Colleries explosion, in which eighty-eight lives were lost, Mr. Chambers, the managing director of these collieries, declared that he would not, under similar circumstances in the future, withdraw the workmen from the mine, despite the fact that it is a grave violation of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts not to do so; in face of such a declaration, in which he wholly fails to realise his responsibility to human life, does the Home Secretary consider that Mr. Chambers is a fit and proper person to have miners' lives continued under his control?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it would be possible for me to argue the case with my hon. Friend by way of answer to a question. But I have consulted with Mr. Redmayne on this point, and I am informed by him that there is no power under the Act—even if there were a case—to proceed against the managing director. There is power, under Section 11 of the Act of 1911, to institute an inquiry into the competency of the holder of a certificate, if the holder of that certificate is performing the duties of manager. But Mr. Chambers was not performing, at any rate at the time, the duties of manager, but of managing director of the company, and, as managing director, he would not be liable to any proceedings. The manager, who would have been liable, and who, on the report of Mr. Redmayne, it is shown did not conduct the proceedings as they should have been conducted, was unfortunately killed: consequently, both on the ground of time and on the ground of personal responsibility, there is no possibility of taking any action.
    Mr. BRACE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall at the end of questions, ask leave of the House to move the Adjournment, so as to inquire into this matter, which is of vital importance to the miners of this country.
    At the end of Questions——
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the continued failure of the Home Secretary to take action under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, so as to protect the lives of miners against the declared policy of the management of the Cadeby Main Colliery, which has been shown in the report of the Chief Inspector of Mines to have resulted in the loss of lives on the 9th July, 1912.
    Mr. McKENNA: May I say a word on the question of urgency?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I shall have to leave that matter to the House to decide. I do not think the hon. Member would be entitled to ask for leave to move the Adjournment on the ground that the matter is urgent, unless, in his opinion, the lives of the miners engaged in this colliery are in danger owing to some action or non-action on the part of the Home Office. If the hon. Member alleges that, I ought not stand in his way of making that good.
    Mr. BRACE: I do. I am much obliged, Sir.
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight o'clock this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Plural Voting
  Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 161.

  Division No. 146.]

  AYES.

  [3.43 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Adamson, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Leach, Charles

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Falconer, James

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Alden, Percy

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, Thomas

  Arnold, Sydney

  Field, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Maclean, Donald

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Barton, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Kean, John

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

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

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hackett, John

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Manfield, Harry

  Boland, John Pius

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Martin, Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harvey, A G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Brace, William

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick J.(Queen's Co., Leix)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hayward, Evan

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Middlebrook, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Millar, James Duncan

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molloy, Michael

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mooney, John J.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hinds, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hogg, David C.

  Morison, Hector

  Clough, William

  Hogge, James Myles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Muldoon, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Munro, Robert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Crooks, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Neilson, Francis

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Cullinan, John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Dillon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Malley, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Doris, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Shee, James John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, Joseph

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wadsworth, J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Rowlands, James

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Waring, Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Sheehy, David

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Webb, H.

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

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  While, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Snowden, Philip

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Reddy, Michael

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sutton, John E.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Roberts, Charles (Lincoln)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Robinson, Sidney

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

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

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Astor, Waldorf

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Barnston, Harry

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gilmour, Captain John

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

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bird, Alfred

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

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Blair, Reginald

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Boyton, James

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Royds, Edmund

  Campion, W. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hills, John Waller

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cator, John

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Swift, Rigby

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  1894

  1895

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Yate, Colonel C E.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gilbert Parker and Mr. J. Mason.

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

BILL PRESENTED.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  "To provide for the enfranchisement of Leaseholds." Presented by Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Montague Barlow, and Colonel Pryce Jones; to be read a second time upon Monday, 14th July, and to be printed. [Bill 231.]

  CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1895."
  The object of this Bill is to make it a corrupt practice for anybody, during an election, to deliberately make a misstatement of fact with the intent to affect the result of the election. I need not remind the House that this is already a corrupt practice according to the Act of 1895 if the statement affects the personal character of the candidate. The object of my Bill is to bring any misstatement of fact that is calculated to turn the election into the ambit of the Act of 1895. I maintain that from the point of view of the electorate it is really irrelevant whether the misstatement affects the personal character of the candidate or not. It is desirable, from the point of view of getting an election which represents the opinions of the electors, that the electors should vote with a full knowledge of the facts before them, and, if they vote under a misapprehension of the fact, then it has not been a fair election. Of course, recent events in Leicester have drawn public attention to this matter, but I am not going to pretend for a single instant that members of every party in the State have not at various periods been responsible for such mispractices. I have no desire, for my part, to make a party attack on this occasion, but I just wish to refer to the Leicester election and show the House the sort of case that I mean, and, in doing so, I am not going to use my own
  1896
  words, but I am going to quote the words of the hon. Member for Leicester, the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). This is what he said:—
  "I want to say a word about that queer manifesto that was announced from a Liberal platform on Wednesday night. May I say that there was not a single word in that announcement that was true?"
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Leicester made that speech after the election and not before it.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I sent two telegrams before the election to the same effect.
  Viscount WOLMER: I apologise to the hon. Member if I have made any unjust accusation against him, but I think the fact remains that thousands of electors at Leicester went to the poll or abstained from going to the poll under a misapprehension, and that therefore the election was not held under fair conditions. It is for that reason that I desire to introduce this Bill to render that sort of practice a corrupt practice. Really, democratic government is impossible if the eleventh-hour lie is to be an habitual practice at all by-elections. Whether it takes place at Leicester or at Bolton or anywhere else, it is a practice which should be brought to an end.
  Sir MAURICE LEVY: I rise to oppose this Bill. Like the Noble Lord, I desire to see elections purified. I desire to see a very comprehensive Corrupt Practices Amendment Act, but I do not think it would be possible to pass it through this House by any private Member. If I thought it were possible to pass a Corrupt Practices Amendment Act by a private Member, I should not oppose this Bill, but I do not believe there is any Member in this House who really believes that there is any sincerity in the Noble Lord's proposal this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that the hon. Member has only ten minutes, and it is not fair to occupy the time with interruptions.
  Sir MAURICE LEVY: If any proof that I am justified in snaking that statement

  1897
  were desired, I would only refer to the action of the Noble Lord when I was assisting in presenting the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Hewart), and when he threw across the House a most vulgar, insulting remark.
  Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to make an accusation of that sort?
  Mr. SPEAKER: What the Noble Lord said to the hon. Member as he passed through the House was "forged telegram."
  Viscount WOLMER: And was it not a forged telegram?
  Mr. SPEAKER: As the Noble Lord made use of such an expression, I do not think it lies in his mouth to complain of what the hon. Member has said.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir M. LEVY: Let me at once say that there was no forged telegram at all. It was a telephonic message, and, through some unfortunate circumstance in the Press, some additions were made to it. I think I am justified in saying the Noble Lord should be the last man to accuse me of sending a forged telegram, seeing that he is closely associated with, and related to one——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Motion. I do not know to what he is referring, but evidently it cannot relate to this Bill.
  Sir M. LEVY: I will not labour the point further. I think I am justified, in the circumstances, in asking the House to
  reject the Bill. Anyone who has gone to by-elections throughout the length and breadth of the country must know that the Corrupt Practices Act has become a dead letter, in consequence of the organisations brought by other bodies into our midst. At the last election in Leicester there were dozens of organisations brought into the town for the purpose of preventing people really understanding the point at issue. If I thought that a private Member could by any means carry a Bill through this House which would prevent the introduction of these alien organisations, I would not ask the House to reject this Bill. But, believing firmly that no private Member can do that, I earnestly appeal to my hon. Friends in the House not to enact this farce which the Noble Lord suggests this afternoon.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Wolmer, Mr. Amery, Earl Winterton, Mr. Mills, Lord Robert Cecil, and Mr. Rupert Gwynne. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES.

  [4.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Barton, William

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Adamson, William

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Agnew, Sir George William

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clough, William

  Alden, Percy

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Boland, John Plus

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Brace, William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crean, Eugene

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crooks, William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barnes, George N.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cullinan, John

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  King, Joseph

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Lardner, James C. R.

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

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Dickinson, W H.

  Leach, Charles

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Doris, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Falconer, James

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Field, William

  M'Kean, John

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Rowlands, James

  France, Gerald Ashburner

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Manfield, Harry

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Martin, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Petergorough)

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Middlebrook, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Hackett, John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Snowden, Philip

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Molloy, Michael

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sutherland, John E.

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hayward, Evan

  Morison, Hector

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, J. H.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Muldoon, John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Munro, Robert

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Neilson, Francis

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Wardle, George J.

  Hogg, David C.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Waring, Walter

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nuttall, Harry

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O' Doherty, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Malley, William

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, John (Giamorgan)

  Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Shee, James John

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Joyce, Michael

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

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Kelly, Edward

  Pointer, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  1900

  1901

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baring, Major Hon.Guy V. (Winchester)

  Grant, J. A.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Barrie, H. T.

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

  Randles, Sir John S

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Gloucester, E.)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Royds, Edmund

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bird, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Blair, Reginald

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Boles, Liet.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

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

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Mohier, Gerald Fitzroy

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Butcher, John George

  Houston, Robert Patercon

  Swift, Rigby

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cator, John

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Tullibardine, Marquees of

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Unixersity)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Locker-Lampson, G (Salisbury)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Dixon, C. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, Sir George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Fell, Arthur

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

  H. Craik and Mr. H. Hope.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow (Thursday).

  CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.

    TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    The Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd June, proceeded to put forthwith the Question, "That the Chairman do report the Bill without Amendment to the House."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 176.

    PLURAL VOTING BILL.
    Further consider in Committee.—[Progress 1st July.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    CLAUSE 1.—(Penalty for Voting in more than One Constituency at in General Election.)

    (1) During the continuance of a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament, a person shall not vote as a
    1902
    Parliamentary elector, or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in more than one constituency.

    (2) If a person acts in contravention of this Section, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and the expression "corrupt practice" shall be construed accordingly.

    (3) The expression "constituency" in this Act means any county, borough, or combination of places, or university or combination of universities, returning a Member to serve in Parliament, and where

    1903
    a county or borough is divided for the purpose of Parliamentary elections means a division of the county or borough so divided.

    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment upon the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for the Enfield Division (Mr. Newman)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "Parliament," insert the words, "or in any subordinate Parliament that may be hereafter set up in any part of the United Kingdom"]—is covered by what took place yesterday. The next one, in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "Parliament," insert the words "at which women shall not be debarred from voting solely on account of sex"]—is outside the scope of this Bill. The following one, in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "Parliament," insert the words "summoned after the appointed day"]—is consequent upon what was disposed of yesterday. The same thing applies to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Charles Bathurst)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "Parliament," insert the words "in any part of the United Kingdom."]
    Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "person" ["a person shall not vote as a Parliamentary elector"], to insert the words "registered as a Parliamentary elector in respect of ownership."
    The effect of this Amendment would be simple. It would confine the operation of this Bill to those electors who are upon the register as ownership voters, while those electors who have occupation qualifications would still be able to record their votes in the constituencies in which they have an occupation vote. That is a very reasonable proposal, and, after what we heard last night from the Under-Secretary for India as to the Government's readiness to accept reasonable Amendments from this side of the Committee, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. It is reasonable, first of all, because it would only affect a comparatively small number of electors. We are in some difficulty as to the exact number of electors affected, because, so far as I know, up to now we have had no accurate statement from the Ministers in charge of this Bill as to the exact number of voters affected. So far as I can discover,
    1904
    there are some 800,000 plural voters in the United Kingdom, of which 650,000 are in England and Wales. I believe I am right in saying that the vast proportion, something like 80 per cent. to 90 per cent, of those plural voters would be ownership voters, and therefore would not be affected by my Amendment. The Amendment deals with the other 200,000 voters, who are plural voters because of their occupation qualification. Secondly, the Amendment is reasonable and deserves the approbation of the Committee, because, if it is passed, the main grievance of hon. Members opposite would still be remedied. So far as I can understand it, the main grievance which hon. Members opposite feel against plural voting is the fact that a large number of ownership voters, who do not reside in the constituencies in which they have several votes, come into another constituency upon the day of the poll and swamp those resident electors who really have some stake in the constituency. I find that is the case by referring to a book recently written by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), who is, I believe, an authority upon these election questions. It is worth while quoting the exact words he uses. The quotation is founded—this ought to elicit the sympathies of hon. Members opposite—upon an article which appeared in the "Liberal Magazine" for January, 1911. The hon. Member is giving an instance of the grievance under which the party opposite are supposed to suffer. He says:—
    "One instance will illustrate this. The Darwen Division of Lancashire had, in 1910, 17,732 electors, of which over one-sixth, 2,976, were ownership voters. Of these 746 did not reside in the constituency, and 2,230 owned property in the Parliamentary borough of Blackburn which, for ownership purposes only, is part of the constituency. 2,722 of those ownership voters went to the poll, and the Conservative majority was 215. In these circumstances the resident voters in the constituency cannot be said to have the decision."
    My object in reading that quotation is to show that the grievance which has played a prominent part upon the platforms of hon. Members opposite is a grievance against ownership plural voters rather than against occupation plural voters. That seems to be a very reasonable attitude to take up from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, but, when it comes to occupation voters, it seems to me that the case is quite different. I cannot see why an elector, who has a business in one constituency and his residence in another, should not vote in each of those two constituencies. The case might not have been so common a few years ago as

    1905
    it is now, but now that case is becoming more and more common every year. Speaking as a London Member—and every Member will agree with the truth of what I say—I can say that the number of men who reside outside our great towns is becoming larger and larger every year. It is of vital importance that these men, who have every interest in the constituency in which they have their business and in the constituency in which they reside, should still be left with these two votes, as they would be if my Amendment were carried. I know it is said that this Chamber is an Imperial Chamber, therefore a man should have only one vote in a House which deals primarily with Imperial questions. That is only a part of our functions. A number of local questions in which an occupation voter has a most direct interest come up more and more frequently every Session. At this period of the Session scarcely a day of the week goes past without some local question coming up at a quarter past eight, and it is quite possible that a voter might take one view with reference to a question affecting a locality in which he has business premises and another view as to the locality in which he happens to reside. In view of that fact it will be making this House not more but less representative if the voter were not allowed to give his vote for two or three Members. That seems a very reasonable suggestion. Members are much more likely to pay attention to the representations made by voters, when these questions of local government come before the House, than we should be if we were to receive correspondence from people who are not voters. In view of these facts, I desire to commend my Amendment to the goodwill of the House First, it concerns only 200,000 voters; secondly, it would leave the main grievance of hon. Members opposite remedied; and, thirdly, it would leave this House much more representative of public opinion outside than it would be if these occupation voters were deprived of their present qualification.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I think I had better be perfectly candid with the Committee and with the Opposition.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Especially the Opposition.
    Mr. PEASE: Having regard to the Amendments upon the Paper—especially
    1906
    with the Opposition. This is the first of a series of Amendments which, in the opinion of the Government, go against the fundamental principle of this Bill. We intend in this Bill to abolish the plural vote. This Amendment seeks to make an exception with regard to a certain class of elector. After this Amendment there is a series of other Amendments, some even contradictory to this Amendment, for two Amendments lower down there is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson) which seeks to give the owners that very preferential advantage which the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) is seeking to take away from them under this Amendment. I want to explain to the Committee that it is not only our intention that there shall be no plurality of votes exercised, but that that principle, in the judgment of the Government, was approved upon the Second Reading of the Bill; therefore I cannot go in detail into the subject of the principle upon which this Bill is based. Our objection is fundamental. We cannot accept any alteration in the provisions of the Bill which are going to give any particular class of elector a preference on grounds of business interest, on grounds of occupation, on grounds of ownership, or because he happens to be a copyholder or a freeholder, or because he happens to give particular services to the State, or because he happens to be better educated than his fellow. We believe, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), that
    "every elector has an equal stake in the good government of the country, and his life, his happiness, and his property all depend upon legislation, which he is equally entitled with everyone else to frame."
    Sir WILLAM BULL: That is an equal vote.
    Mr. PEASE: That means that every voter should have one vote. That was the right hon. Gentleman's view some years ago, and I have no reason to believe that he has altered his views in regard to that principle. That is the principle of the Bill. It is because this Amendment violates the fundamental principle of the Bill that the Government are bound to resist it, and I trust the Opposition will not think it necessary to go to a Division against a principle which has already been established by the Second Reading.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I put it to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman's answer is hardly worthy of the Amendment or of the speech in which that Amendment was moved. My hon. Friend, in a most able and temperate address, explained that if his Amendment were accepted, the grievance which is always brought forward when plural voting is discussed would be effectively removed and that nothing could be more unreasonable than to detract from the representative character of this House by saying that if a man occupies an important and influential part in the life of two communities, in one of which he resides and in the other of which he carries on his business, he shall not be entitled to a vote in respect of each of those premises. You make the representation less complete; you withdraw an element which everyone would say is essential to the full representation of the locality on any occasion on which it is necessary to consider whether the locality is adequately represented. What is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman makes? He does not condescend even to discuss the question. He merely says the Government have determined that there is to be no such Amendment. The Government have determined that no man is to have more than one vote, and he explains that by saying it is an obvious fact that the interest of every voter is the same, and he therefore comes to the conclusion that you are not to allow a man to vote in each of two localities where he possesses, it may be, interests of a very far-reaching kind. I put it to the Committee that this Amendment has not been met in the manner in which Amendments should be met. I have ceased to have any confidence in any Amendment being considered by the Government on its merits at all. It seems to me that there is to be no Report stage and no Amendment is to be accepted. Hon. Members who move Amendments are at least entitled to have their arguments weighed and dealt with.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree that the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite were not very convincing. The Amendment may touch a fundamental part of the Bill, but if that fundamental part is bad that would not convince us on this side that something ought not to be done merely because it seeks to render better the fundamental part of a bad Bill. But, on the other hand, I am not quite certain that I agree with
    1908
    my hon. Friend that the ownership voters should be singled out and put in an exceptional position as compared with anyone else. The Amendment says that if you are not an ownership voter you may vote in more than one place, but if you are an ownership voter you may only vote in one place. I am against the prohibition of plural voting, and I do not see why I should say everyone may be a plural voter except the ownership voter. Why should I establish for the ownership voter a class in which he is to be put, which is a different class from anybody else? I do not remember that my hon. Friend brought forward any argument to show why that should be done. I believe if there is to be a class for the ownership voter, he should be put at the top, and should have more votes than anyone else instead of fewer. How is it that a man becomes an ownership voter? In the majority of cases it is because he has been a hard worker. He probably has not spent his money on drink, and he has not put his money into foreign investments. On the contrary, he has taken an English investment and put his money into it, foolishly, I think, as long as that bench is occupied as it is. But surely it ought to be encouraged. It would not be advisable that the Amendment should be carried. I am not quite sure whether the view of the case which I have put forward has ever been considered by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will see the force of my argument, and will not think it necessary to go on with his Amendment. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) will some day be Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it will be to his interest that home investments should be en-encouraged. In the days to come he may regret that he has not taken an opportunity to put a premium upon home investments. I hope I have shown that the Amendment is not a very good one, and on the face of it, I am inclined to think it would be better that it should not be pressed to a Division.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A double fire has been directed against me, by my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) and by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A. Pease). The right hon. Gentleman quoted some observations made some time ago by my right hon. Friend and relative (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain). I am always reluctant to differ from my right hon. Friend, and very seldom do on any question of public interest and importance. I should

    1909
    perhaps be more impressed by the quotation if the right hon. Gentleman had said where and under what circumstances it was made. As I listened to it, it did not appear to be conclusive on the issue which the Committee has to try. Neither did the observations of my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), whom I so often have the honour and pleasure of following into the Lobby.
    olonel GREIG: It was made in Birmingham on 29th January, 1885.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If I have time to read the speech I dare say I shall know more exactly the circumstances to which it applies. I think the hon. Baronet really did not appreciate the basis on which this Amendment is laid before the House. He objects to the Bill as a whole. He therefore wants not to exclude from its provision this or that Clause, but to strike out all its provisions—a very possible, perhaps a very proper course, but not one which you can submit to the Committee in the Committee stage. You can do that on the Second Reading or on the Third. In the meantime we are obliged to consider that the House, by passing the Second Reading of the Bill, has affirmed, not that whatever the Government choose to consider its principle is henceforth to guide our discussions, but at any rate that there is a grievance in the existing state of the law which needs a remedy and for which the Committee stage must provide a remedy. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hoare) and my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Finlay) said truly that the grievance on which the party opposite have habitually laid stress is one which will be absolutely remedied if we carry the Amendment. That grievance, which plays so large a part in their platform speeches, is that men who have no real connection with a constituency, who do not share in its life in any shape or form, but are only related by the accident of ownership to a place which they may never have seen in their lives, unless they visit it at election time, should be allowed to come in at election time and outvote, or destroy the balance of the resident electors. That is the grievance of which we have heard so much here and even more in the country. The whole of that grievance would be swept away and the whole of this argument would be met by making the Bill what my hon. Friend proposes by this Amendment to make it. But my hon. Friend would say, not those who have no right to vote, not those who have a merely incidental interest, not those who never
    1910
    come near it except at election time, but people who have as living and as permanent an interest in it as any other voter in the particular constituency. Surely that is not an unreasonable thing.
    Even more important than the views held by the right hon. Gentleman of what is the fundamental basis of the Government's proposal, is the view which the House and the Government may take upon what is the fundamental basis of our electoral system. That is the real question at issue. I do not know whether it has ever occurred to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think it has, because I really do not think if he had thought of it for a moment he would have contented himself with the very perfunctory and jejune performance with which he declared that as the Second Reading of the Bill was passed, he proposed not to consider the major portion of the Amendments on the Paper. I invite the Committee to consider what is the fundamental basis of our electoral system. Is it, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose, merely and simply that you should represent individuals whom you put on the roll as electors, that every individual should have one vote, and that under no conceivable circumstances should any individual have more? Clearly that is not the basis of our present system. Clearly, it never has been the basis of any electoral proposal which Parliament has yet carried into law. If you want merely to represent voters and nothing else, you do not need constituencies. If every individual's voting power is to be equal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, not only must no man have more than one vote, but no man's vote must have more influence than another. That leads to another field of controversy closely connected with this Bill which the Government have very carefully refrained from dealing with. But if that were the only object you do not need constituencies. You have only got to take each elector, make him of equal value, give him an equal right and let him vote for the House of Commons as a whole. The House of Commons never has been elected on that basis. It does not exist on that basis now. We exist on the basis of the representation of constituencies.
    The proposal of the Government Bill would destroy the representation of those constituencies. Take a constituency like the City of London. Are you going to say because the main portion of the electors in the City of London live and sleep out-

    1911
    side, that, therefore, all that makes the City of London what it is is to be without a voice in the constituency which is still called the City of London? You may say so if you like, and that is your proposal, but then you destroy the principle of our representation, which is that of representing the constituency. In the same way, though in a minor degree, you destroy the representation of all the other constituencies of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Hoare) spoke. In the neighbourhood of big towns you get a large number of people who live outside and work inside these towns, who have an equal interest in both constituencies, and who form an equal factor of great importance in the life of both. You cannot get real representation of either constituency without taking account of that section in both of them. That is what our Amendment proposes. My hon. Friend says that the remedy for the grievance which you have made your chief complaint both inside and outside Parliament is to strike off those voters who have no real connection with a constituency in which they have a vote, but to leave to that section who have a real connection with the constituency the right to vote where they are so largely interested. It requires more than the perfunctory speech of the President of the Board of Education to dispose of the argument of the Mover of the Amendment. Having called the attention of the Committee to this matter, I hope my hon. Friend will go into the Lobby with the rest of his Friends in support of the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must say that the Debate has taken a very much larger range than I anticipated when I called the Amendment. It seems to me that the discussion is too wide. What has been said by the right hon. Gentleman involves a discussion of the whole electoral basis. The Bill was approved on Second Reading. It imposes a penalty on an elector who votes during a Parliamentary General Election in more than one constituency. I do not think we can go beyond that question.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of Order. When a general principle of wide extension has been approved on Second Reading, has it not always been the practice to allow limiting Amendments to be moved in Committee with respect to the application of that general principle?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so. Of course, it is within the discretion of the Chair to rule whether an Amendment is competent. For instance, I have already said that the question of the universities stands apart from the general application of the principle. That is a question on which difference of opinion may arise in the Debates.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): In view of what you have just said I will confine myself, as indeed in any case I intended to do, to dealing with the Amendment on somewhat narrower lines than might otherwise have been necessary if we were discussing the general application of the proposal to restrict the right of the plural voter so as to entitle him only to vote in one constituency. In spite of the interesting speech to which we have just listened, I do not feel quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman has precisely appreciated what would be done by the Amendment he speaks in favour of. He describes it as though it was an Amendment which would prevent owners from exercising the ownership vote, and otherwise leave the exercise of the franchise where it is now. That may or may not be the view which the right hon. Gentleman would wish to impress upon the Bill, but as I follow the argument of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), he proposes to combine with what he is now proposing an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which creates some exception in constituencies. His later Amendment is to insert, at the end of Sub-section (1), the words
    "except in constituencies in which he has a direct interest by occupation of business premises or by residence for a period of three months in the previous year."
    I understand that the two Amendments are parts of one proposal.
    Mr. HOARE: I did not intend that they should be read together. The second Amendment is to amplify this one.
    Sir J. SIMON: I looked through the Amendments on the Paper with the desire to understand what the proposal was. Let the Committee see, therefore, what the proposal really is. It is not a proposal that nobody shall exercise the ownership vote. That is not the proposal at all. The proposal is that in the case of those electors who happen to have the ownership vote, they are to be subjected to a

    1913
    certain restriction, and I gather from the consequential Amendment that they are only to be allowed to vote in those constituencies where they have a direct interest, either because they have resided there for a period or because they occupy business premises there. That is the proposal for electors who happen to have among their qualifications the ownership vote. The electors who have not the ownership vote are to be left to do exactly as they please. Hon. Members know very well that many persons who have the occupation vote neither reside in the place nor occupy business premises there. The hon. Member proposes that everyone of them should be at liberty to exercise his vote as he likes, where he has a bare occupation vote and where he has no business connection or residence. On the other hand, if they have the ownership vote, they are to be prevented from voting in more than one constituency. That is not a proposal which proceeds on any broad basis of principle such as the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing for, and in which the ownership voter is at a slight disadvantage as compared with other voters. The Amendment does not proceed in itself on any clearly defined principle, and from the point of view of those who do not believe in plural voting it leaves the anomaly very much where it is. It is a proposal that would not possibly work. The hon. Member proposes in his consequential Amendment that a man who has the ownership vote——
    Mr. HOARE: I did not intend that the other Amendment should be regarded as a consequential Amendment. I do not think that it necessarily is so. I think it would be very much better that this Amendment should be discussed standing by itself.
    Sir J. SIMON: Let us see what the effect would be, reading it by itself. The hon. Member proposes that a person "registered as a Parliamentary elector in respect of ownership" should not vote in more than one constituency. That is to say, if I happen to have two or three qualifications, and if they happen to be for occupation or residence where I am neither a resident nor the owner of business premises, I may vote, but if I happen to have among my qualifications one ownership vote, that is to prevent me voting anywhere except once. That is the principle which is in this Amendment if it is read with the consequential Amendment. I think the hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to his own proposal when he
    1914
    thinks that the two things can be severed. I was surprised to hear that he does not read them in connection with each other. Read in connection, they cannot possibly work, because you could not find whether a man demanded a voting paper in respect of a place where he had resided for three months or in respect of business premises. Apart from the difficulty that it would not work, it does not provide any logical definition in cases where the Bill is to apply and where it is not. Therefore, on the general question, I submit that the Amendment should be rejected.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman means that he is in favour of the reverse? If a man had business and some interest in a constituency, would the hon. and learned Gentleman be in favour of that man having the ownership vote?
    Sir J. SIMONwas understood to indicate dissent.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: There is nothing that is more resented on the benches opposite than what is called misquotation of Mr. Gladstone—that is to say quotations from earlier speeches which were contradicted by arguments used later in his life. The President of the Board of Education has done just the same with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and I think that is hardly a fair method of argument, especially when employed by a Minister in charge of a Bill. We have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham about a proposal exactly similar to that contained in this Bill, and his last opinion was to denounce the Plural Voting Bill, as at present drafted, as a constitutional outrage. Under those circumstances, I ask the Committee whether it is fair for the Minister in charge of the Bill to quote an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman as being in favour of the principle he is advocating when he has plainly and specifically denounced it in his last recorded utterance in "Hansard"? The Solicitor-General, we all know, is a very ingenious speaker, and the last time he spoke on the Home Rule Bill he endeavoured to prove that there was no such thing as religious animosity in Ireland before the last century. But I do not think his argument against this Amendment is even founded on the facts of the case. He says that it is impossible to treat the ownership vote as distinct

    1915
    and separate from the occupation vote, and that to impose a special penalty on ownership voters would not deal with a great part of the grievance which the Radical party think they have against the present system. But the Solicitor-General knows perfectly well that the occupation vote in boroughs cannot be exercised by any of those who live outside the seven-mile radius. It is on an entirely different basis to the ownership vote, but he knows, no one better, that the old argument which has served its turn on all their platforms is the denunciation of the ownership vote, which has been called the faggot vote, exercised by those who have no interest in the constituency. That is the whole point made in speech after speech by those who talk of it as being an insult to a constituency for a horde of men to come from outside and exercise the franchise where they have no real interest. That has been applied to the ownership vote, and the ownership vote only. It has never been applied to the occupation vote, because an occupation vote in a borough is only exercised, if exercised at all, more than once by those who live within seven miles of the borough, and who have presumably an intimate interest in the borough—men who live outside and exercise their business or profession, and very likely employ large numbers of men, within the circuit of the constituency. But I wish to urge that, in refusing to accept the Amendment and limiting the disqualification to ownership voters only, you are really severing the last link that binds this House to communities as such. The basis of representation in Parliament is the representation of communities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) spoke of "constituencies," but I prefer the earlier word "communities." That is the word which always occurs, and it is the representation of communities by virtue of which we are here. Our very name signifies the representation of communities. For the first time, under this Bill, we are going to sever the link that binds this House to the communities. Merely to disqualify the owners as such would not have that effect. The owners cannot be said to have that intimate connection with the communities which occupation voters might fairly be said to have If that is so, you might accept the Amendment and yet preserve that continuity of representation in principle which, after
    1916
    all, is desirable in a place where we are always boasting of our historical connection with the past and of our Parliamentary traditions. In this matter we cannot argue on the basis of right. It is a mere matter of convention, and I say that it would be perfectly possible to do away with the dual exercise of the ownership vote and yet not do the harm which must come from severing this House from the communities are preventing voters from exercising their power in the constituencies, and from having the political representation that belongs to them. For that reason I believe that as the lesser of two evils, possibly not a very grave evil in itself, it is possible to accept the Amendment, and yet keep what is most valuable in that connection between social and industrial power, and political responsibility, which we have at present as part of our system of representation.
    Major MORRISON - BELL: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Lawson) has dealt sufficiently with the speech of the Solicitor-General, and I need not refer to it further except to remark that when he started he was going to deal with the Amendment before the House, and he proceeded to deal with an Amendment not yet reached on the Paper. I rose really to comment upon the extraordinary theory put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that hon. Members on this side should not move an Amendment because it is in conflict somewhat with an Amendment lower down on the Paper. After all, we are entitled to ask the judgment of the House of Commons on this ownership qualification. If the House does not see fit to accept that Amendment, we are entitled to submit a further Amendment on the occupation qualification. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that it was based on the principle that each elector should have equality. If it was not for the fact that every elector in Ireland has double the power of every elector in England, the right hon. Gentleman would not be in the position to submit this Bill at all. He is asking for one-sided equality, equality which he thinks will inure to the advantage of his own party, absolutely ignoring the fact that his whole Government exists——
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter for argument on Second Reading. The hon. Member cannot pursue that point now.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I bow to your ruling, but I thought it competent for

    1917
    me to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was preaching equality for this Bill while his own Government simply exists owing to the fact that there is no equality for English Members in this House at all. Having reminded the right hon. Gentleman of that fact, that is all that I wish to bring to the attention of the House.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: The Solicitor-General did not deal with the merits of the Amendment, but dealt with it in the way of special pleading. I think that there is a great deal to be said for the view that the particular words would want some supplemental words later on, in order to carry out their full intention. For instance, you could put in words later on that he shall not vote in respect of his ownership qualification. Words of the kind are quite sufficient to meet any technical difficulty such as the Solicitor-General suggests. Therefore, an Amendment of this kind ought not to be dealt with from the point of view of special pleading and apart from the real question which is involved. It is quite clear that the question of ownership vote depends on an entirely different principle from the occupation vote, and I agree that the extent to which plural voting has been in any sense reasonably attacked is in respect of multiplication of ownership votes. There the owner has no interest whatever in the community in respect of which he has voting power. If this Bill was limited, as this Amendment would limit it, it would deal with that special difficulty which is felt at the present time. Therefore, not only do I sincerely support the Amendment, but I think that the objections raised by the Solicitor-General are purely technical and easily overcome by the addition of a word or two at a later stage.
    Mr. NEWMAN: I think that this Amendment raises a very clear issue. It is always a very good thing to put yourself in the place of hon. Members opposite. I can quite imagine that if I had been brought up as a Liberal or Radical or a supporter of the Labour party, I should regard those 500,000 plural voters as something in the nature of an army of Bashibazouks. If I had been brought up in that way, I should regard with special aversion those particular battalions of that army who form the ownership electorate. I have here a list of those electors in my own Division, the Enfield Division of Middlesex, and if I were to put myself in the
    1918
    position of a Liberal, I say at once that it would make me fairly mad. For instance, I find Richard Kimber, who lives at Dulwich, but who votes in my Division in respect of plots 107 to 110, Gordon Hill, Enfield. They are in the occupation of William Piggott. He may be a very good Liberal, and perhaps votes Liberal, and his vote may be neutralised by that of Richard Kimber. Then, again, we have James Rourke, of 16, Ormond Place, Canonbury, N. He has got building land in Birkbeck Road, Enfield, in respect of which he has a vote. Here we have these grievances, which I quite admit; but, of course, the ownership grievance is to the Liberal and Radical party what the question of the voters in Kilkenny is to us. The hon. Member for Kilkenny represents 1,600 voters, while we represent 23,000 voters or perhaps more, and the Liberal party do not think it unfair that these Gentlemen should come down and neutralise the votes of this side in the Division Lobby. If that is so, here is a test for the Liberal party. If that is their chief objection, if they really sincerely put forward the argument that they have not got time to pass into law a really good Franchise Reform Bill, then let them tack on a Clause postponing this Bill coming into law until we have Redistribution. If they do that, then, as far as I am concerned, I do not think I shall vote against it. I do not think that it would be unfair to hang up this Bill for a year or two. I do not suggest that the Government will do that, but——
    The CHAIRMAN: This is more a speech which should be kept until the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I see some little difficulty in voting for this Amendment as it is worded, and I quite see that it is open to the Solicitor-General to argue that if the Government accept this Amendment as at present worded, it would be possible for the person who was an owner and also an occupier to be deprived of his occupation vote because he happens to be an owner. I have myself put down an Amendment to a similar effect a little lower down, which I think exactly meets the case, and if the main objection is the one that I have stated, I would suggest that the Government might, with advantage, accept the Amendment in the form in which I have drafted it, namely, "after the word 'elector,' insert the words 'by virtue of an ownership qualification.'" I

    1919
    think that that is what my hon. Friend desires, and that a more correct way of expressing it is that a person should not vote as a Parliamentary elector in more than one constituency by virtue of an ownership qualification. That would meet the main objection, which has been stated by the Solicitor-General, and have the effect which I think the majority of the House desire. The Government approach this question from an entirely wrong standpoint. They seem to assume that every elector votes a certain way because he professes certain so-called Liberal principles on the one hand or Conservative principles on the other. My experience is that these are not the only considerations that actuate them in recording their votes. I wish specially to apply my remarks to that class of elector which is to be found living on the outskirts of a borough and at the same time having trade interests within the borough. There are cases within my own knowledge in the city of Salisbury, which is so ably represented by my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), where the individual who has a vote both in the county and the borough is good enough to give me his vote in the county, but for some reason or other does not see his way to vote for my hon. Friend, who professes the same political principles as I do, so far as his borough vote is concerned.
    Conversely, I know of cases where electors in the county who have interests in the borough of Salisbury vote Conservative in the borough and vote Radical in the county. This shows how unfair it is to assume that because an individual has two different votes, which he can at present register in two different constituencies, therefore, necessarily, he votes for persons of the same political colour in each constituency. To my mind, one of the great drawbacks to the existing party system is that because there happens to be a conglomeration of measures which represent one party policy and a similar conglomeration of measures which represent another party policy, therefore it is assumed that each elector has made up his mind definitely to support the one conglomeration or, alternatively, the other conglomeration. That is not the fact, and the sooner we get the Referendum the better, because it will enable individuals to vote more according to their principles and their consciences. But you have to recognise the fact that all electors do not
    1920
    vote for either Liberal policy on the one hand or Conservative policy on the other, but very often vote for individuals—on the question of their suitability to represent them in the Imperial Parliament. That applies particularly to those who have occupation votes and who live on the outskirts of boroughs, and are prepared sometimes to vote in a different way in the borough from what they would vote as residents in the county. For that reason I suggest that if the Government can show no other serious reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, my hon. Friend should be willing to submit it in the form which I have suggested, and that those who are possessed of trade interests in one constituency and residential interests in the adjoining constituency should not suffer gross injustice in consequence of this one-sided provision in the Plural Voting Bill.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I wish to add one or two arguments to those of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. H. Lawson). Let me put a case to illustrate how this Amendment would work, if it were allowed to become law, in the port of Liverpool. In the Exchange Division of Liverpool there is a community of business men whose interests are exceedingly strong and powerful. For myself, I occupy premises in that Division from nine o'clock in the morning to six o'clock at night, and my residence is in Cheshire. According to the Bill, I should have a vote for where I reside. In the Exchange Division of Liverpool about £2,000,000 a year is collected in Customs, a fact which shows that there is an enormous business community, which surely ought to have the right to be represented in this House. As I understand the Amendment, those who either own their place of business or have offices in such a constituency, would be qualified to vote there as well as in the constituency where they reside. This Amendment, as I understand it, is directed absolutely to those who have special business interests. I admit that the Solicitor-General pointed out a weak spot in regard to this Amendment, but surely, at a later stage, a definition might be inserted to show that the Amendment is mainly in respect of an occupation qualification in a business centre! There are a great many constituencies in the country in which there is a community of business interests, and which should have the right to representation in this House. With the Bill as it is, the Exchange Division of Liverpool would

    1921
    be a laughing-stock as to the representative they should send to represent them in this House. I put it that this Amendment is a reasonable one, and if a definition can be arrived at showing clearly what is occupation and what is ownership, I would urge the Government to accept it, adding the proviso that on no consideration should anyone have more than two votes. A man might certainly occupy premises in more than one or two places, and he might claim three occupation votes. If we have that point safeguarded, so that a man should only be allowed to have a vote for his residence and one for his place of business, a great deal of the opposition to this Bill would be withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I only rise to point out how fall of ignorance and carelessness are the arguments addressed to the House by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland), who has just spoken, does not understand either the Bill or the Amendment, and that is thoroughly characteristic of what we have already been listening to. He says that if this Bill passes in its present form, he will have to vote in respect of his place of residence, and not in respect of his offices in Liverpool. He is quite wrong. He will have the choice of voting in which place he likes, and that is what is not understood by hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes, it is."] A lot of them do not understand it, or really will not understand it. However much I tell them about it, they will not be convinced. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer, but I hope that this perfectly futile Amendment will not be accepted. I merely rose to point out the ignorance, prejudice and carelessness which are at the bottom of so many of the arguments addressed to us by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: The argument put before us just now by the Solicitor-General in respect of this particular Amendment seems to me to be completely overcome by the words suggested by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst). The real position is this: There are three sorts of electors—the ownership electors, the residential electors and the occupation electors. The words proposed by the hon. Member for Wiltshire would equally well, perhaps better, provide for a distinction between the ownership elector and the other two classes of electors. Whatever may be
    1922
    said about the elector having a multiplication of votes in respect of ownership, I think it cannot be denied that in addition to the vote which everybody has the right to exercise on residential qualification, some electoral power should remain in the hands of those men who carry on business in this country, and do not carry on business in foreign countries. Surely there is some argument in favour of those who carry on business in those great business communities, which are to be be found in our cities, exercising their voice in the public affairs of the country. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), suggests that because he could not get the whole loaf he would not take a half loaf. What would happen to the constituency which the hon. Baronet represents if this Bill becomes law? It is quite obvious that a very large number of people who carry on business in the big cities of this country and have their residences in the country, would only choose to exercise the vote in the constituency in which they reside. Consequently, the electoral power of those great cities would fall to a very large extent into the hands of caretakers and perhaps of policemen and other people of that kind, and the representatives of those cities would no longer be representatives of business communities, which, above all other communities, are entitled to have a large share and voice in the conduct of our public affairs, but would represent an entirely different class of people, who have a very small stake in the country. For this reason it seems to me extremely desirable, whatever may be thought of the ownership qualification, that some power should be retained in the hands of those who carry on business in the cities of this country.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I submit that it will be necessary to have some such words as those proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bathurst) if this Amendment is to be adopted. I am not altogether convinced by the arguments which have been brought forward. My hon. Friend told us that there were electors with plural votes who voted Radical, but that when they came to vote for him they voted Conservative.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The hon. Baronet apparently did not listen to the whole of my argument. I said that at any rate a certain number of electors voted Conservative in the boroughs and Radical in the adjoining counties.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the personal charm of my hon. Friend, I cannot understand how any electors could fail to vote for him, whatever his politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), expressed the hope that he had converted me by his speech. I am not sure that I have not been to some extent. On the other hand, I still believe that I was right. My right hon. Friend says quite truly that the great outcry which has been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite has been about the fact that the ownership voter comes down into a constituency and swamps the genuine Radical. My right hon. Friend seems to think—I think he is in error—that, if something is proposed to meet this grievance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they will accept it in the same spirit as that in which he proposed it. I do not think so at all. This, after all, is only a superficial grievance which they put forward, and I submit that they would not meet us on any other point. I quite agree that half a loaf is better than no bread, and if I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would say at once that all
    their grievances had been met, then I should feel obliged to vote for the Amendment. But I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would want to do a great deal more than merely abolish the ownership voter, merely put forward as a stalking horse to justify other demands. I want it to be clearly understood that I do not consider this a right Amendment, but I only hope, with my right hon. Friend, that if it is carried, the Bill will be rendered more or less innocuous.
    Mr. HOARE: May I just say, in order to reassure the hon. Baronet, that if this Amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, I should certainly propose words which would make it quite clear that the contingency imagined by the Solicitor-General will not arise, and, in view of that, I am very glad to think that I should have the support of the hon. Baronet.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 291.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES.

    [5.29 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hewins, Williams Albert Samuel

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Barnston, Harry

    Dixon, C. H.

    Horne, E. (Surrey. Guildford)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hunt, Rowland

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fell, Arthur

    Kerry, Earl of

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Keswick, Henry

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Bird, Alfred

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Blair, Reginald

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Boyton, James

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Locker-Lampson, C. (Salisbury)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Butcher, John George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Campion, W. R.

    Grant, J. A.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Cassel, Felix

    Gretton, John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Cator, John

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

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

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

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Touche, George Alexander

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Starkey, John Ralph

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

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Swift, Rigby

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Remnant, James F.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherhert

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Younger, Sir George

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hoare and Mr. C. Bathurst.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Dillon, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Doris, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Adamson, William

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Alden, Percy

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Kelly, Edward

    Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

    Falconer, James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Barnes, George N.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Barton, William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    King, Joseph

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Field, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Bentham, G. J.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Leach, Charles

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Boland, John Pius

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lundon, Thomas

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Brace, William

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    McGhee, Richard

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

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

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hackett, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

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

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

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Manfield, Harry

    Clough, William

    Hazleton, Richard

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Martin, Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Meagher, Michael

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Crooks, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Lelx)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hinds, John

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Cullinan, John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Middlebrook, William

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hodge, John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hogg, David C.

    Molloy, Michael

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Money, L. G Chiozza

    Dawes, J. A.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Delany, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Mooney, John J.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Devlin, Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morrell, Philip

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hudson, Walter

    Morison, Hector

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    1926

    1927

    Muldoon, John

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Munro, Robert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Reddy, Michael

    Thomas, James Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Neilson, Francis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Nolan, Joseph

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wadsworth, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Waring, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands, James

    Webb, H.

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    O'Shee, James John

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Sheehy, David

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

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wilson, John (Durham. Mid)

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Snowden, Philip

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Pointer, Joseph

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sutherland, John E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Radford, G. H.

    Sutton, John E.

    Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Mr. PEASE Mr. PEASE claimed to move, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chairman be empowered Amendments to be proposed."
    Question put, "That in respect of the
    words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chairman be empowered to select the; to select the Amendments to be proposed."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 291; Noes, 179.

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES.

    [5.39 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Adamson, William

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

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Alden, Percy

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Falconer, James

    Arnold, Sydney

    Clough, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Field, William

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barton, William

    Crooks, William

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cullinan, John

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Boland, John Pius

    Delany, William

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

    Brace, William

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Gulland, John William

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hackett, John

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Doris, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Duffy, William J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Manfield, Harry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Martin, Joseph

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Meagher, Michael

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Henry. Sir Charles

    Middlebrook, William

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Rowlands, James

    Higham, John Sharp

    Molloy, Michael

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hinds, John

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

    Hodge, John

    Montagu, Hon. E S.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees).

    Hogg, David C.

    Mooney, John J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Morrell, Philip

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Morison, Hector

    Sheehy, David

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Muldoon, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, Robert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sutherland, John E.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sutton, John E.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Dewd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Wadsworth, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Malley, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    King, Joseph

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wardle, George J.

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Waring, Walter

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Leach, Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Webb, H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

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

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    McGhee, Richard

    Radford, G. H.

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

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Winfrey, Richard

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

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    M'Kean, John

    Reddy, Michael

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    NOES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Campion, W. R.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cassel, Felix

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bentinck, Lord H, Cavendish-

    Cater, John

    Astor, Waldorf

    Bigiand, Alfred

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bird, AlFred

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Boyton, James

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Barnston, Harry

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Butcher, John George

    Craik, Sir Henry

    1930

    1931

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sandys, G. J.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Keswick, Henry

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Dungannon, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lane-Fox, G. H.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Snowden, Philip

    Fell, Arthur

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Staveley-Hill, Henry,

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Forster, Henry William

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Gardner, Ernest

    Locker-Lawson, G. (Salisbury)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Macmaster, Donald J.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Grant, J. A.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C A.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gretton, John

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Haddock, George Bahr

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newdegate, F. A.

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Newman. John R. P.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

    Harris, Henry Percy

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Hills, John Waller

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Younger, Sir George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Sanders and Major Stanley.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, after the word "person" ["a person shall not vote"], to insert the words "registered as a Parliamentary elector in more than one constituency."
    The Committee will remember that I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill when I asked for a ruling from Mr. Speaker as to whether the Bill itself did not go outside the scope of the title. Mr. Speaker then said:—
    "The hon. Member suggests that, the words 'a person' are not the same as 'an elector.' On that ground he has asked me to rule that the Bill cannot, proceed any further. But it appears to me, even if he is right in supposing that the intention of the promoters of this Bill in introducing the word 'person' was to extend it, it would still be open in Committee to insert the words 'qualified to vote as an elector,' or to omit the word 'person' and insert 'elector,' and therefore it would be perfectly easy, by making a small correction, to bring it into accord with the measure for the introduction of which leave was given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1913, col. 1221, Vol. LII.]
    Mr. Speaker went on to say that he did not know what was the view of the pro-
    1932
    moters on that question. Having regard to that ruling, I think I am entitled to ask the Government to accept this Amendment. The Committee will remember that leave was originally given to introduce a Bill to impose a penalty upon an elector who voted in more than one constituency at a General Election. The title repeats the sentence, but the contents of the Bill impose a penalty upon any person who Fetes or asks for a ballot paper in more than one constituency at a General Election. I submit that the word "person" has a much wider application than the word "elector." In the Plural Voting Bill of 1906, as amended, the qualifying words were "registered as a Parliamentary elector." A person, not being a Parliamentary elector, may vote as one, or may ask for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting in one constituency or more. He is liable to punishment for personation, but at the same time he can do it. I submit that this Bill creates a new corrupt practice and punishes not for personation but for another corrupt practice. If a person not being an elector voted or

    1933
    asked for a ballot paper in some other person's name, he would be guilty of two corrupt practices, first, the offence of personation, and, secondly, voting in more than one constituency. As was said yesterday on several Amendments, what we desire is to make the Bill perfectly clear, so that persons will not suffer pains and penalties through any ambiguity of language. For these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member has put his case very clearly, and I think that the criticism he has made on the phrase in the Bill is well founded. He points out that the word "person" might be understood to have a wider application than the word "elector," and that consequently, although this is a Bill which by its title desires to prevent electors from voting in more than one constituency, the language of the Clause might conceivably be understood to apply to persons who are not electors. That appears to us to be a criticism which, though perhaps a little far-fetched, is none the less well founded in itself, and the Government propose to accept the Amendment. I should not have been so ready to do so if the only case was that put forward by the hon. Member. He has asked us to pity the case of a man who votes in a false name, because he would have committed two offences. I do not feel much sympathy for that man, even if he has committed two offences. But the criticism might be carried a stage further, and it is the second case which makes me think that we must make this change in the Bill. Supposing a man honestly believes that he is entitled to vote in Constituency A: in that belief he applies for a ballot paper, and is then told that he is not on the register in that constituency. It would be a very strange result if, when thereupon he had recourse to his right of voting in Constituency B, he should render himself liable to a penalty because he was a person who had asked for a ballot paper in more than one constituency. With such a case in view, I suggest that the Amendment is necessary, and I think the language is apt. I hope the hon. Member will see, however, that it is desirable to cure both the defects that I have mentioned. It can be very easily done if, after the Committee has accepted the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, it will make a consequential change which will secure the real object of all of us. I suggest that instead of the paragraph ending with the words "in more than one constituency," it ought to run
    1934
    "in more than one of the constituencies in which he is so registered." The effect will then be that if a man applies for a ballot paper in a particular constituency under the false impression that he is entitled to vote there, he will not be prejudiced in his right to vote once, and once only, in a constituency where he is registered. With that consequential change, I think the Amendment will secure both the object of the hon. Gentleman and the further correction which I conceive is necessary. I therefore suggest that the Committee should accept the Amendment, and I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the defect.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salisbury.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "or" ["or ask for a ballot or voting paper"], to insert the word "knowingly."
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir W. BULL: Do you, Mr. Whitley, refuse to accept the Amendment that is on the Paper to the words in the Clause, the effect of which are that an elector commits an offence by asking for another voting paper? The question is as to whether or not it is an offence by a properly registered person to ask for another voting paper. May we not discuss whether or not that may he made a crime?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of refusing. I was under the impression that it raised the same point that has just been dealt with. If that is not so—if it is a separate point—the hon. Member certainly can move.
    Sir W. BULL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting."
    This raises the point not of a person who is not an elector, but of a man who is properly registered, and whether the Government intend to insist upon the words in this Clause, so that it shall be an offence to "ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting." In the heat of an election, and in the way elections are run at the present time, to make it an offence merely to inquire whether or not one is entitled to

    1935
    vote is contrary to the whole principle of election law. The onus could be on the revising barrister to say whether or not a man is qualified—but that is quite a different point. Anyone, however, may very easily and quite innocently go into a polling place and ask for a ballot paper and not be guilty of any offence whatever.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I feel quite sure that on further consideration the Committee and the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not really wish to pursue the proposal that has been made. Surely it must be our object, when we are establishing a law not to encourage individuals to attempt to break that law. We may have different opinions, of course, as to whether it is wise to make that law. I quite admit that the hon. Member and I should differ in that; but if and when the law is made, it surely must be the object of everyone to prevent there being any inducement to individuals to attempt to break it. There should not only be left a penalty for the full commission of the offence. You might just as well say that there should be no penalty for attempting to commit murder; that there should only be a penalty after the corpse has been completely killed. I think the effect of this Amendment would be most undesirably to weaken the effect of the Bill. It would be an encouragement to a large number, perhaps, of rash men to have a try, and to run the risk. No hon. Member really wants to make elections more unpleasant than they already are, by encouraging that sort of action at large on the polling day. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that a great many things might be done in the heat of an election. This, after all, is a matter of cold deliberation. To ask for and presumably obtain your voting paper in one place to give your vote is not an offence. Where the offence comes in is after you have voted in one constituency, with deliberation, knowing you have no right to do it, to travel to another one, and again to ask for a ballot paper. The hon. Member seemed to think that you went into a polling booth to ask whether you could vote. You do not go there out of curiosity. By applying at the local committee room or by looking on the register you can see whether you are qualified to vote. To go into a polling booth, obtain a ballot paper, and give a vote, is a deliberate offence after you have
    1936
    given a vote elsewhere. It really, to my mind, is impossible that any man outside-a lunatic asylum—it is only those outside who vote—should knowingly go to another constituency and innocently ask for a second ballot paper.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree that the Amendment just accepted by the Government, and the House, has made more sense of Clause 1 than there was before. The Solicitor-General, of course, saw, as probably many of us saw, the hopeless position the Clause was in before the acceptance of the Amendment. Even now I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the Clause as it runs. It says a ballot or voting paper. The distinction is drawn between the two. I think he must have forgotten for the moment that there is a distinction between a ballot and a voting paper. He mixed the two up all the way through. Take the constituency that I have the honour to represent. The ballot papers are sent out before the election comes on, a fortnight it may be, or possibly some considerable time. The voter is perfectly entitled to write or to ask for his voting paper; and the voting papers are sent out before, it may be, he has made up his mind, as to which side he intends to vote for. Both sides, in fact, send him a voting paper: sometimes, that is to say, they are sent without being asked for, and he then makes up his mind whether he will vote at Cambridge, or St. George's, Hanover Square. As the Bill stands at present, the words have been purposely put in to include the universities. The expression "voting paper" are words put in for that purpose. I rather hope that at some later period of this Bill the universities will be exempted from this Bill altogether. As it stands, an injustice might be done. On election petitions points are taken, and these words might lead to them being taken. It must be remembered that a person who asks for a voting paper for Cambridge, and who votes afterwards in some contested election, is guilty of a corrupt practice, and he is liable to be dealt with, and, further than that, his vote can be struck off. We do not want to encourage technical points on election petitions. I submit it should not be open for a man to commit an offence never intended by the Government.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter a little more carefully. He gave us a very un-

    1937
    fortunate illustration. He suggested that a man would be liable to be indicted for attempted murder as well as for murder. That is all very true. But that is a crime of violence to which the law attaches a penalty and attaches a motive, and it is a breach of the law in itself. As the matter stands, there is no offence in a man asking for a ballot or for a voting paper. The man may be a perfectly innocent man. We are asked to attach a penalty to what is presumably a perfectly innocent operation. I should like to ask the Government whether or not they are going to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salisbury? If they do, it will have a very great effect upon this Clause, for it will make the person asking for the ballot or voting paper to ask "knowingly." The words as they stand are going, a great deal further than is either necessary under the Bill or than, I believe, is contemplated by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench themselves. May I point out where the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman to the Committee failed? He has suggested that this offence can only arise if and when a man has already voted in a constituency, and therefore he must be wilfully endeavouring to commit a breach of the law by voting in one constituency and then going on to another and asking for another voting or ballot paper. That is not so. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Section, it might be that the fact would be that a man might go to a constituency and find he was on the register, but owing to some lapse of election law or some other reason, find it necessary to ask for a ballot paper.
    Mr. HARCOURT: That is covered by the Amendment which has been accepted.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. That probably is right. I have got the Section before me without the new words inserted. I do not want to delay the Committee, and I will only point out this, that it is a very important question to know whether we can have "wilfully" or "knowingly" inserted. Otherwise a perfectly innocent operation is going to be turned into an offence. I think the Committee ought to be very careful before they make an offence of what at present is no offence.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies seemed to think that the plural voter was gifted with the same amount of brains as
    1938
    he himself. I would respectfully remind him that there are a good many plural voters in the country who never take much interest in politics until the election comes round. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that because one of these men, who happens to have a vote by virtue of cottage property in an adjoining Division and has removed, while his name has not been removed from the list, goes into the polling booth and innocently asks for a voting paper, that he is to be subjected to the same penalties for plural voting as a plural voter like the right hon. Gentleman himself, who may knowingly, and wilfully, go into more than one polling booth and actually cast a vote for more than one candidate? I submit to the Committee that it is an entirely different case to the man who actually votes twice. I cannot follow the analogy of the right hon. Gentleman in the case of murder. After all, the penalty for attempted murder is very different from that where murder has actually taken place. I respectfully ask them to consider this point. My point is people who may suffer under this are not plural voters in the ordinary sense, but plural voters consisting of workmen and small holders of property throughout the country.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: A half-baked measure of this sort works hardship in cases that have not I think been considered by the Government. I want to take the case of a man who may tender a vote in one constituency and is going to be debarred from any effective vote in another constituency under the Clause as it now stands. The tendered vote is only counted on a scrutiny and if he voted afterwards, that tendered vote would be struck off and he would not exercise the franchise twice. I have known a great many cases and I think the tendered vote ought to be provided for. There is no provision at all events for the tendered vote in this Clause. Supposing a man tenders a vote which was not accepted, then he is prevented from giving an effective vote in another constituency where he may have a good qualification. I venture to suggest that that is a case that ought to be dealt with and that this exhaustive Bill certainly ought to cover it.
    Mr. SANDYSI do not think I could support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cambridge, because I do agree if we are going to make it a penal offence for a man to vote in two places the attempt to commit the offence should

    1939
    also be punishable. If there is an intention to vote in two places it should be created a penal offence equally as voting in two places. It seems to me the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge has not been met. I do not think, so far as I understand his point, in regard to the voting papers, that it is met by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, which at the time seemed in the view of the Government to meet all these difficulties. I had an Amendment which dealt with these points. To my mind it covered the whole of the ground. The effect of it was after the word "elector," to leave out the whole of the rest of the Sub-section, and to insert these words, "in more than one constituency, or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting in more than one constituency." That covers, I think, the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Shropshire, and it also covers the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge. I do not know whether it would be possible to go back on what is already decided, but I make the suggestion to right hon. Gentlemen opposite and ask them to see if there is not something in it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies just now defined the offence to which he said these words were directed. He said that the offence was the cold-blooded offence of having voted for one man before, and attempting to vote a second time. I was going to invite the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a definition in the Act against which lie thinks a penalty should run. The words he has chosen are wider. If he says a man brought under the Act must be subject to some penalty for attempting to vote, I agree with him. These words do not limit the offence to somebody who has already voted, as the right hon. Gentleman did in I is speech. I think he has shown a man might have committed no offence under these words. It is not the intention of the Government, more than anyone else, to make that an offence. I happen to be a voter for the University of Cambridge. Supposing I applied for a voting paper with a view of recording my vote for my hon. Friend and colleague, and supposing subsequently I found that the election prospects were not as good in East Worcester as I anticipated and that I thought my vote would be more serviceable in East Worcester, and supposing I entered the
    1940
    booth in East Worcester and asked for a paper, does the Government want to punish me? Clearly not. Certainly it is not the intention of the Colonial Secretary, but I have committed an offence, and, as I understand it, anybody who represented my opponent might raise an objection and give me into custody. I am not quite clear whether I should have voted first, but whether that be so or not, the consequences are serious to myself, and whatever view may be taken upon the merits of the Bill, the House does not want to inflict a penalty upon a person who has no intention of committing any such offence. I seriously invite Ministers in charge of the Bill to make the words of the Clause square with their expressed intention. I think it can be done even at the point we have reached. The difficulty comes in because of the words "or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting." Will the Government consider the point, and at least see whether they could not make the Bill carry out their own intentions
    Mr. PEASE: I think we may assume that, as a rule graduates of universities know their minds very well, and if they send for a voting paper for the purpose of voting they will not be entitled to vote anywhere else. If an individual like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who possesses a qualification for Cambridge University and also for East Worcester, does not know his own mind at the commencement of the General Election, he can always, at any rate, wait before he sends for a voting paper for the university until he desires to fill it in. However, I agree there is some substance in the case the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. I do not pledge the Government to introduce any words to deal with this particular case.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Speak up! We cannot hear a word.
    Mr. PEASE: I do not think I could pledge the Government to introduce words upon the Report stage to meet this case, but I am quite prepared to say we will consider the point and see whether there is a way of meeting such a grievance as the right hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee. I do not myself think that it is conceivable that an individual, after sending for a voting paper for the purpose of voting, ought to be allowed to vote in another constituency. I am quite prepared to consider the matter before

    1941
    the Report stage. The other point I also would wish to reserve is the point in connection with the tendered vote. In the event of anyone going into a polling booth where he is a registered elector, and finds that he has been previously personated by some other elector, his vote may be tendered, but can only be effective in the event of a scrutiny. It seems hard upon such an individual that his vote is not allowed to be effective if no scrutiny takes place in that constituency. He has a vote in another constituency but did not intend to record it, but his first vote is ineffective because he is only allowed to vote on a pink form, so that he is deprived of any effective vote at all. I am quite prepared to see whether on Report stage we cannot meet that grievance.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is that a promise?
    Mr. PEASE: Not a promise that we will introduce words, but I will consider it with a view of trying to meet the case.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I listened with astonishment to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, anti I think it means this, that when a graduate of a university applies for a voting paper it means that he has irrevocably made up his mind that he is going to vote in the university. I have never heard a more extraordinary thing. Which constituency he intends to vote in may remain an open question till the last moment and may be determined by the exigencies of the case. I certainly cannot for a moment accept, the idea that the act of applying for the voting paper finally determines that he is to vote in the university. In all seriousness I put it to the Government that they must do something to bring the Bill into conformity with the speech made by the Colonial Secretary. He said that what was desired was that if a man votes in one constituency he should not apply for the voting paper for the purpose of voting in another constituency. Very well, but why on earth not say so May I try to assist in the consideration put forward by the right hon. Gentleman? Why should it not run: "A person shall not vote as a Parliamentary elector in more than one constituency in which he is so registered, nor, if he has voted in one, apply for a ballot or a voting paper for the purpose of voting in another."
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: While the Government are considering the very sensible suggestion of my right hon. and
    1942
    learned Friend there is yet another point which by creating this offence they have failed to provide for, and which is a perfectly innocent offence. The Solicitor-General suggested to my hon. and learned Friend that this difficulty had been solved by the words which the Solicitor-General has accepted. As I understand it, the Clause will now run:—
    "A person registered as a Parliamentary elector in more than one constituency shall not vote as a Parliamentary elector or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting in more than one constituency in which he is registered."
    I think it is still possible for a perfectly innocent man to vote and to commit an offence by means of the words "asking for a ballot paper." Let me give an illustration. My hon. Friend suggested that a man might ask for a ballot paper and discover he is not on the register. As the Clause stood he would have committed an offence if he thereafter asked for a ballot paper somewhere else. I think the Government omitted this. A man might ask for a ballot paper and discover he is on the register but disqualified from voting in that particular case. There are frequent instances in the law of this country of such persons being debarred. Let me give the Government one or two illustrations. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will look at page 202 of "Rogers on Elections," he will find it is provided by the 6th and 7th of William IV. that:
    "No justice or receiver appointed under this Act, during the continuance of such appointment, or within six months afterwards, may vote for the counties of Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare, or Meath, or for the city of Dublin, or for any city or borough within the Dublin police district, under a penalty of £100"
    By chapter 13, Section 18, it is provided that:
    "No inspector-general, or his deputy, receiver, county inspector, magistrate, sub-inspector, paymaster, clerk, chief or other constable, or sub-constable, or person belonging to the constabulary force in Ireland, while he shall continue in office, or within six months afterwards, may vote for any county or place in Ireland, under a like penalty."
    Those are two instances in which a man may go to the polling booth, ask for a ballot paper, find he is registered, and

    1943
    then, having discovered all that, he may find that he cannot vote in that particular place. You do not mean that if he goes and votes somewhere else he falls within the penalties provided by this Act. I hope the Government will consider that point when drawing up the form of words they propose to bring up on Report. I think this discussion shows the advantages even of a little discussion. When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the form of words for the Report stage, I suggest that this matter is one which is not provided for in the Bill.
    Mr. MACMASTERThe object of this measure is that a man shall only vote once, and I think we should have a plain declaration to that effect. I suggest that some of the words about the middle of the first Clause should be put at the end, and that the Clause should be a direct statement. I suggest that it should read, "A person registered as a Parliamentary elector in more than one constituency shall not vote as a Parliamentary elector," and then I would stop and continue with the words, "in more than one constituency." Then I would suggest that the words, "or ask for any ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting" should be put in at the end of the sentence. When a man has found out that he has not the right to vote and asks for a ballot paper in another constituency he does not do it for the purpose of voting a second time.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I only intervene to ask the Government whether they have not now got to the end of their promises for further consideration of this Bill on Report. I thought, at least, we had had the final word from the Government as to what the Plural Voting Bill ought to be. I regard this Bill as a most unsatisfactory one, not unsatisfactory from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but from the point of view of a great many hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. To say that we are still going to have further consideration upon points of importance and further concessions on a small Bill of this kind is calculated to give some cause for alarm on this side of the House. The question raised by this Amendment is not a new one. When the Secretary for the Colonies introduced his Plural Voting Bill I thought we had a measure which represented the combined judgment of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] I am directly dealing with the question,
    1944
    and I think there is cause for complaint that when more than one hon. Member on this side of the House in the course of a two days' Debate Intervenes he is shouted down by hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had many proposals with regard to plural voting, and I view with alarm any further promises in regard to consideration or concessions. We have had three or four different Bills on this subject. We had a measure introduced by the Financial Secretary, we also had one brought forward by the Colonial Secretary, and I think I may describe this as the Solicitor-General's Bill.
    Sir J. SIMON: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: hope the right hon. Gentleman is not ashamed of the Bill.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the right hon. Gentleman is straying some distance from the Amendment.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I want to ask the Government whether it is really worth while, after the years of consideration they have given to this matter, to come forward and promise consideration to such questions as those which are raised in the present Amendment? It proposes that any elector who has voted once in a constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Read the Bill"]. I have read the Bill, and I say that this Amendment will allow an elector to vote and to ask for a voting paper in another constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But that is the Amendment. It would allow him to vote in one constituency, and if he had twelve other qualifications this Amendment would allow him to go to twelve different constituencies to ask for a voting paper, and he would not be punished for that; he would only be punished when he was found out. That is the proposal of the Amendment. [HON. MEMBER: "No."] Hon. Members who have so rudely interrupted me have not studied either the Amendment or the proposal in the Bill. If the Government are going to give consideration to proposals of this kind, I think it will be much better to withdraw the Bill. Talk about "killing corpses," they will be taking part in killing a corpse if they consider a proposal of this kind. This Bill is weak enough already, and I strongly advise the Government not to give any further concessions such as they have hinted at to-day.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is quite mistaken in thinking that we resent the interesting contribution he has made to this discussion. With regard to the point before the Committee, we hold that it should not be an offence to ask for a ballot paper even under your Bill, but only an offence to vote twice. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tells us that to make a concession which only punishes a man after he has committed a crime is a concession so wide that the Government ought to be ashamed of it and ought to withdraw their Bill. I can quite understand that that is the feeling by which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs and many of his Friends are animated. I may say that I agree very largely with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which I do not think was entirely in order. The right hon. Gentleman has found out that the Government have introduced a great many Plural Voting Bills, the discussion of which has shown their defects, and naturally he resents discussion. His idea simply is—and it is one which will be very attractive to hon. Gentlemen opposite—that we Should deal with this matter in Committee, as we have dealt with some other Bills before the House, and that we should have no discussion, but simply pass a Resolution to the effect that the Bill should become law as it is. I do not think that would make any great difference in our proceedings as we see them now in this House, and I can quite understand with what animosity the right hon. Gentleman opposite views anything approaching free discussion in the House of Commons.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs has exhibited quite unnecessary anxiety on this question. The situation raised by this Amendment is a very simple one, and there has been no doubt whatever as to the attitude of the Government with regard to it. The Bill proposes to make it an offence for a plural voter to vote in more than one constituency or to ask for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting in more than one constituency. When a man asks for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting, he offends against the same rule as he does when he uses a ballot paper and actually votes. The principle behind the whole matter is exactly the same, and any difference between the two is disposed of by variation in the penalty. I agree with the
    1946
    right hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one on this side, that the Bill as it stands does not mete out any more than reasonable justice to the plural voter. We do not take the view that those citizens who have the exceptional advantage of a choice of the place to vote, are entitled to exceptional privileges over the people who have no such choice. We do not take that view and never have done. The difficulty which occurred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir R. Finlay) is a special case which naturally appeals to university Members, and the Committee must deal with it because we wish to be fair.
    What is the case which has been put? The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who represents a university, thinks that the electors in his constituency ought to be entitled to ask for a voting paper for the purpose of so voting. He puts the case that the electors in a university constituency should be at liberty to ask for a voting paper for the purpose of so voting, and that they should then be allowed to bide their time—I understand that university elections go on for more than one day, and the way the voting is going is known—and if on the last day they find their vote will not be needed in order to get their candidate in, then they are to enjoy the particular and unusual privilege of voting somewhere else. There may be people who think that is right as between a university graduate and other people who are not university graduates, and who have to make up their minds where they will vote, but that is not the view of the Government. Our view is that if it be true that a university graduate has to ask for a voting paper for the purpose of voting there is no reason why he should not be treated like any other elector who applies for a similar piece of paper, and he must exercise his choice like other electors.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I said that I desired that which the Colonial Secretary explicitly stated should be carried out—that the offence of asking for a ballot paper should exist only where the person asking for it had already voted in one constituency. That is what I asked, and I gave the case of the university voter as an illustration. But to apply this penalty to the case of a man asking for the first time for a ballot paper, merely because it may be said that he has the intention of going afterwards to another constituency and asking for

    1947
    another ballot paper, is travelling a great deal too far. I simply asked that what the Colonial Secretary said should be enacted.
    Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has not grasped the point of this Clause. It is no offence for any person, either a university graduate or anyone else, to go and ask for a ballot paper for the first time to vote in a constituency where he has the right to vote. It is no offence now and it will be no offence then. The offence is that, having exercised your choice, being one of those favoured persons who has got a choice, saying, "This is the place where I propose to exercise my vote," and asking for the machinery for the purpose of so voting, you should then repeat the process in another constituency. The actual difficulty which is now put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is not a difficulty of substance at all, because in every other case, except that of the university voter, the asking for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting is, as everybody knows, exercising your choice to vote in the place where you ask for it.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Not in the case of the tendered vote.
    Sir J. SIMON: The case of the tendered vote was the case my right hon. Friend indicated that he was prepared to consider, but that is not what I am talking about at all. Subject to the case of the university seats, that is plainly the facts of the matter. I was at a loss to understand why it should be supposed that there is a special privilege to be given to the university voter, and why he is to be allowed to change his mind and other people are not. Unless I am entirely misinformed you are, in a university election, sent your ballot paper. You may be sent fifty ballot papers, but you are not touched by this Bill. The offence is not receiving a ballot paper, but asking for one. There is no justification whatever for the suggestion that this Bill as framed does anything more than this: It makes it an offence to vote, if you are a plural voter, more than once. I quite admit that it also proposes to make it an offence if you ask for the machinery by means of which you vote with the intention of so voting more than once, and I think that it is right it should be so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Knowingly."] If there is any difference between the two cases, it is a difference which every
    1948
    practical man in this Assembly perfectly well knows, and which is dealt with without the slightest difficulty and as a matter of course.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by speaking of the intention to vote twice as being what was aimed at in the Clause. Our whole contention is that is not what is aimed at. Well, I will not say it is not what is aimed at, because the Government may aim at anything, but it is not the object which is achieved. Our desire is to secure that that is the only object achieved. We thought a very few moments ago that we had had a conciliatory speech from the President of the Board of Education in which, without absolutely pledging himself to the acceptance of our Amendment, he promised consideration of this on Report. Being pressed a little further by my hon. Friend for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), he said "favourable consideration with a view to embodying it on Report." What has happened in the meantime, between the two speeches, in order to cause the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give an entirely different account of the intention of the Government, of the purport of the Bill, and of their course of conduct, than that given by his right hon. colleague a quarter of an hour before? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) who sits below the Gangway. A few rather bitter words from him addressed to the Government in, I think I must say a rasping tone, have brought the Government sharply to heel. The promise of favourable consideration is broken almost as soon as it is uttered, and the Solicitor-General hastily gets up to assure the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that he was unduly anxious, if he supposed that the words of the President of the Board of Education meant anything, or that the Government would stand by it if its fulfilment would inconvenience them.
    Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice. I understood, and I understand now, that what my right hon. Friend—he is responsible here and not I—said had reference to a very ingenious suggestion made with regard to the tendered vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] I am only stating my understanding. It is very likely faulty. If any undertaking was given on anything else, I am sure my right hon. Friend would

    1949
    be the first to correct me. I am aware of none.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Let us take the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) himself. The right hon. Gentleman gave the undertaking. I am quite sure he will say so. His undertaking was, I think, without doubt, as wide as I have stated it.
    Mr. PEASE: In the case which was put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I said that I did not see myself that any injustice would be created—and I gave my reasons Why I thought no injustice would be created—if the words stood, but I said that I was prepared to consider the question between now and Report. I did not pledge myself for one moment to accept these words in connection with the grievance which he put before the Committee. With regard to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), I said that there was substance in his point in connection with the tendered vote, because an individual vote might never become effective if it were recorded on a pink paper. I said that I thought that might create a hardship, and, although I did not commit myself, I said that I would consider it with a view of trying to meet a hard case.
    Sir R. FINLAY: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was said not only by himself, but also by the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary, in the most explicit terms, said that what was desired was that if a man had voted once he should be punishable if he asked for a ballot paper for the purpose of voting again. Do you mean that, or do you not? I have suggested a form of words which would carry out what the Colonial Secretary said. Do the Government accept that or not? If they do not, it is perfectly clear that they intend something more than, and something different from, what the Colonial Secretary assured me was intended.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I should really like to congratulate the Committee upon the fact that at last somebody sitting behind the Government has been induced to get up and break the silence preserved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Day after day during the progress of the Debate hon. Members have sat there, beautiful but dumb, listening with pleased smiles, while those having the conduct of this Bill have done their utmost to make their seats safe by destroying the votes of those opposed to them. It is to be observed that when at last an intervention does come and a
    1950
    contribution is made from behind the Treasury Bench at this first sign, those who have the custody of the Bill at once show that they will not accept some of the alterations suggested from this side. If ever there was a case where comment from behind the Government Benches were uncalled for, it is this one. Just think of the monstrous injustice this Clause may work if it stands as it is! The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it would be an iniquitous thing if a university graduate receives a ballot paper— [HON. MEMBERS: "Asks for one."] Well, asks if you like; it is just the same thing. And, having asked for it, he changes his mind and ultimately registers his vote in some other place. Why on earth should he not? Being registered in two places, I go into a booth and ask for a voting paper. Before I have registered my vote, I change my mind and destroy the paper. I should like to know why on earth I should not do that? If I utilise the paper that has been given to me and register my vote, I bring myself under the Clause as it stands for voting twice, if I go elsewhere and vote again; but if I do not vote, what harm have I done to anybody? Surely the Government have not got to such a pitch that they will say the electors of this country are not entitled to change their minds. Surely what the Government mean is that if a man has voted once, and then goes into a polling booth and gets a voting paper for the purpose of voting elsewhere, he has committed an offence. That is logical and reasonable. If the Government mean that, let them say it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is indeed difficult for hon. Members on this side of the House to meet the tastes and wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. When we sit silent, we are accused of being subservient and obedient slaves, "beautiful but dumb," in the felicitous phraseology of the hon. Gentleman opposite. His phraseology is somewhat better than his argument. When my right hon. Friend rises he is immediately accused of being the dictator of the Government and of bringing them to heel. If we are the obedient slaves of the Government, how can we at the same time be their slave-drivers? I leave the right hon. Gentleman opposite to get out of his dilemma. I wish to join my right hon. Friend in his protest against the concessions which have been made. I do so for two reasons. First of all, I think that the tone and temper of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition should teach the Govern-

    1951
    ment that any concessions which they do make are received without any gratitude from the other side. In the second place, we believe that no case has been made out for any concession at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is rather a review of the progress of the Bill. I am not able to see how these remarks are pertinent to this particular Amendment.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: If I may be allowed to say so, before you resumed your place in the chair, the President of the Board of Education indicated other concessions upon this Amendment, and I submit that my reply is relevant to that consideration. I oppose any further concession on the part of the Government. I intended to point out that, in my opinion, and in that of hon. Gentlemen around me, there is no case for further consideration or concession on the Amendment now under consideration. The attempt of the Opposition is to secure immunity for a man who asks for a second voting paper. But he can commit no offence unless he has voted prior to the second asking. According to the phraseology of the Bill, as it stands, there will be no offence unless a man has voted before. That is obviously the view of the framers of the Bill, and, considering the number of distinguished names on the back of the measure, the names of men who, I presume, have carefully considered its phraseology, I take it I am quite justified in the view I am putting forward. Two special cases have been advanced. The first is that raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews University (Sir R. Finlay). He showed that he was totally ignorant of the method of voting in his own constituency. He said that, in a university constituency, the elector asks for the voting paper, whereas the practice is for the voting paper to be sent to him.
    Sir R. FINLAY: Does the hon. Member not know that on many occasions a man has to write and ask for his voting paper?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the register is kept up to date every year, and the voting paper is sent to the elector's address. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is so. [An HON. MEMBER: "But suppose it is not sent?"] I know something about this matter; I am speaking from my own
    1952
    knowledge, and I must complain of these interruptions by the hon. Members who profess to be so anxious for free discussion.
    Mr. RAWLINSON Mr. RAWLINSON rose——
    The CHAIRMAN: I think hon. Members should listen to the argument.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Of course hon. Members are all concerned for the dignity and high reputation of the present House of Commons, and it is interesting to find a distinguished representative of a university maintaining those high traditions. I think I have dealt sufficiently, however, with the question of University representation, and I pass on to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), which the right hon. Gentleman says he will consider. It seems to me that that point does not require consideration at all. If a man has merely tendered a vote, he commits no offence. It is only in the event of his having voted and then asking for a second voting paper that the offence is committed. [Interruptions.]
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we are hear to listen to arguments, and. whenever a statement is made or an argument used with which hon. Members do not agree, it is not necessary to call out. We have different opinions, and we should be prepared to listen to one another.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I do not as a rule object to interruptions, being sometimes guilty myself of indulging in them. It is only in respect of the multitude of the interruptions that difficulty arises. I think it will be admitted I have made out a good case on the three points which have been raised—first, on the general ground that no offence is created in the mere asking for the paper; secondly, in relation to university representation; and, thirdly, in reference to a tendered vote. On these grounds we believe the Bill, as it stands, amply meets the case, and we ask the Government to make no further concessions and to give no promise of further consideration, because we believe that, inadequate as the Bill may be for the main purpose we have in view, any further weakening of it will make it absolutely valueless for the purpose of putting an end to plural voting at General Elections.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: Mention has been made of one or two occasions when the question of plural voting has been before the House. I think we have a

    1953
    grievance against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When the President of the Board of Education was speaking he showed that he realised there was some substance in the Amendment before the Committee and indicated that he was prepared to make some concession. Indeed, he went as near to saying that he would accept the Amendment as one possibly could, but the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary intervened with loud cries of, "Speak up!" in such a way as to warn the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for the Bill and who is apparently willing to improve it. I think we have a grievance in this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman is not allowed to conduct his own Bill in his own way, and I trust that, if the measure is to be further proceeded with, he will be given more freedom to deal with it on its merits.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The Committee appear to be in a very singular position. The Solicitor-General gives one account of the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill; the Colonial Secretary gives another and quite different description; while the Bill itself, as drafted, proposes to carry out an intention different to that indicated by both speakers. Which is really the intention of the Government? Is it that embodied in the Bill or is it to be found in the declaration of the Solicitor-General or in that of the Colonial Secretary? There is only one thing that is quite clear, and that is that the drafting of this Bill cannot be understood or defended by anyone, and certainly not by any right hon. Gentleman on that bench, nor by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who has given the only sensible advice I have heard in this Debate, and that is to withdraw the Bill altogether.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: No, I did not advise that.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I was giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for having tendered sensible advice, and I should be sorry if he now desires to withdraw or modify it. Let us see what has been done already. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley-Hill) found one very grave defect and the Government accepted an Amendment accordingly. The discussion of this Amendment has disclosed other grave defects, which have been admitted by the President of the Board of Education, who, if he did not absolutely
    1954
    promise to accept an Amendment, did undertake to give it most serious consideration, and we know what that means. It is worthy of note that it has been almost by chance that we are discussing this Amendment at all. Had it not been for the special appeal made by one of my hon. Friends that we should be allowed to discuss this particular Amendment, none of these defects would have been brought to light. Here is the undoubted fact that several defects have been discovered, and I must ask the President of the Board of Education which of his colleagues is right in the interpretation given of the intentions of the Government in regard to the attempt to vote twice. The Solicitor-General says quite plainly that, though a man has not voted twice, yet if he attempts to do so the attempt is to be made a penal offence—a corrupt practice, punishable with a year or two years' imprisonment. The Colonial Secretary says exactly the opposite. He says the attempt is not to be a criminal attempt unless a man has already voted once, but if he has voted, and then attempts to vote a second time, that will be an offence.
    What do the Government really intend to do? This is a very serious matter. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, if a man has a vote for a university he should not ask for a voting paper to be sent, and then if he does not exercise his vote in the university why he should not be allowed to exercise it somewhere else. Why, in other words, may he not change his mind? If the Solicitor-General is right, this is to be made a criminal offence, and it will be the first time in our jurisprudence that a mere innocent change of mind has been branded as a criminal offence. The Government have done strange things in their time, and for them they will have to suffer hereafter. If, however, they are going to introduce into the criminal law a principle which I do not suppose exists in the criminal jurisprudence of any civilised country in the world, if they are going to say that a perfectly innocent change of mind on the part of a man who desires to exercise his vote shall be made an offence punishable with two years' imprisonment, then they will have sunk to a lower depth, both of folly and of ignominy, than they have ever yet reached. Let me make one more appeal to the Government. Their supporters tell them that they must not exercise any independence whatever, but that they must obey those who sit behind them.

    1955
    Let me ask the President of the Board of Education one question. There is a difference of opinion between two of his colleagues in the Government as to what are the intentions of the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the two is right? One must be wrong. If he cannot tell us that, then perhaps he will agree it will be right and proper for us to move to report Progress until the Government know what they are really doing.
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I think it is a great mistake to talk about concessions. We are not asking for concessions. We are only asking that the phraseology of the Bill should be made to correspond with the declared intentions of the Government as expressed by the President of the Board of Education. When that right hon. Gentleman is undertaking to endeavour to carry out those intentions before the Report stage, it seems to me it is unfair to talk of it as a concession on the part of the Government to a troublesome Opposition. Let me point out that the Bill, as it stands, will impose a hardship on the university voter as compared with any other voter. The ordinary voter may wait until the last moment—until it is time to go to the poll—before he need make up his mind where he will register his vote, but, as the hon. Member opposite well knows, the university voter must get his voting paper a day or two beforehand, because there are certain formalities to be gone through, and the voting paper has to travel by post. Although it is strictly true that as a rule the voting papers are sent out to every member of the constituency, it is possible that, owing to changes of addresses or accidents in the post, it may be necessary for some voters to ask for the vote to be sent on, and he may have to do so before he has made up his mind as to the constituency in which he will vote. If he has written and asked for a voting paper, that should not preclude him from changing his mind and disentitle him to vote in a place which is more desirable or convenient, but that that should be made a criminal offence is what I am sure was never contemplated by the Government.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON:I desire to ask the President of the Board of Education whether I am not right in assuming that he holds the same opinion as we do as to the effect of this Clause, and a different
    1956
    opinion from that held by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). In. his judgment will an offence be committed under this Clause unless a man first votes in constituency A, and then asks for a ballot paper in constituency B? Our view is that the offence is committed if a man asks for a voting paper in constituency A and votes, and subsequently asks for one in constituency B.
    Mr. PEASE: That is the way I understood it, and it is because I understood it in that way that I made what was called a concession. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is no concession."]—I will withdraw the word "concession"—that is why I promised the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson) that I would consider whether, if an individual did not make the tendered vote effective, he ought, perhaps, to be allowed to give an effective vote in some other constituency.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am glad that has been made clear, for it shows the view that we take of the Clause is correct, and that the view taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite is wrong. I am not complaining in the slightest degree of the action of the right hon. Gentleman, although I should have thought this was a point which might have occurred to the Government before. The right hon. Gentleman is within his rights in reserving the matter for further consideration upon the Report stage. We have already protected the man who asks for the paper in constituency A and discovers he is not registered there. I put earlier in the Debate the case of a man who asks for a paper in constituency A and who discovers he is registered there, but is disqualified owing to personal disqualification, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether that case does not require an Amendment in a subsequent stage. It would not be right to press him now, but I should like to ask him to give us an assurance that the matter will be considered before the Report stage.
    Mr. NEWTON: So far as I can make out the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pringle) absolutely agrees with us, save upon one point. If the interpretation of the Clause now given by the right hon. Gentleman is right, as, of course, it is, I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman agrees with us that the test should be that the offence should not be committed until a person having voted once tries to vote a second time. I think the whole Committee is

    1957
    agreed upon that. It is therefore wrong to criticise and carp at the Government's desire, so kindly expressed, to make their Bill conform in its phraseology with their intention and that of the whole Committee. All that we ask is that the Bill should in fact do what the right hon. Gentleman said it was the Government's intention to do, that is, punish for a second vote or an attempt to vote a second time.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I would suggest to the President of the Board of Education that the case could be easily dealt with by inserting after the word "or"—["or ask for a ballot or voting paper]—the words, "if he has already voted." That is a very slight alteration in the phraseology of the Bill, but it makes quite clear the actual meaning of the Sub-section. That would mean there would be no offence in asking for a voting paper a second time unless the person who did so had actually voted once in that General Election. It would meet the case of the university voter and the perfectly innocent case of a man who goes into a polling booth and there for the first time learns that he is not allowed to vote more than once at a General Election. It is obvious that at the next General Election there will be a very large number of plural voters who have never heard of this Bill, and will not hear of it until they get into the polling booth. The first intimation a man will have of it is when he sees upon the voting paper a notice that he must not vote more than once at a General Election. Surely it is very hard upon a man in that position not to allow him to change his mind and ask for a voting paper in another constituency. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider this suggestion, for if he puts it into his Bill, it will carry out the intentions of hon. Members upon both sides of the Committee.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Enforcing the argument of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson), I want to put this case to the President: In the large towns which are divided into several Divisions there is a very large number of electors upon the register in respect of more than one Division, but who are not entitled to vote in more than one Division. The principle of this Bill already applies within those limits. In my own Division there are 500 or 600 electors who are also on the register for other Divisions of the city, but a process in gone through whereby they have an option to decide
    1958
    in which Division they shall vote, and, failing the exercise of such option, they are assigned by the authorities to vote in the place of their residence, although they remain on the register. Nothing would be easier than for one of these voters to go into the polling booth in the Division where he was on the register, but not entitled to vote, and I submit that under the words as they stand, if, however innocently, such an elector came into the polling booth and asked for a voting paper and was told, "You are on the register, but you are not entitled to vote. You will have to vote in another Division," he would be prevented from giving his vote in another Division. That is a point not covered by the suggested concession with regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson). There are three points to be considered: First, the case of the university elector, to which, I understand, some amount of nebulous consideration is to be given. Secondly, there is the case of the elector who is not on the register, but who asks for the voting paper. That, I understand, is to have full consideration. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the third case, and say whether, as the Clause now stands, such an elector, who is perfectly innocent, might not be prevented from voting at all.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: There has been a great deal of talk about people asking for papers, as if you could walk into a polling booth without any difficulty whatever. I understand that you go into the ballot room, and if you are not on the register you are told so, and that you have nothing to do with the election in that particular ward. If, being an elector in that place, you go in and ask for a ballot paper, the moment that paper is tendered to you by the presiding officer you are, by the Ballot Act, bound to use it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Are you allowed to bring it out? Not by the law. Everybody who knows the Ballot Act knows that one of its most stringent provisions is against the taking of a ballot paper outside the polling booth. Those acquainted with elections know that one of the things a personation agent is always instructed to watch most keenly is to see that no one surreptitiously takes a paper out of the polling booth. When you go to the box where the papers are filled in you can spoil your paper or put it in blank, but you cannot take it out. You have then voted. If you go to a second place where you are on the register then

    1959
    this Bill comes in. I am not learned in the law, but I have had practical experience of these matters, and I think a body of experienced agents upon either side could, if the case were put before them, soon settle this question. People do not in guileless innocence walk into a polling booth without having had a polling card. I hope the Government will stand by the Bill, which is quite weak enough now.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not wish to carry the subject very much further. It is remarkable that after the Debate we have had the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken does not seem even now to understand that this Sub-section creates an offence merely by twice asking for a paper, even if you do not vote at all. I think some hon. Gentlemen must have confused this with votes for women, and think that the same kind of penalty attaches to asking for a voting paper twice as to asking two ladies a very intimate question. The whole point we have been debating is that it ought not to be an offence. I think both sides are agreed that it ought not to be an offence to ask for a paper twice. Apparently both sides will never agree as to the exact effect of the words in the Sub-section. We understand that the Government have undertaken to consider the point sympathetically, and we hope that they will introduce words to meet it, although they have not definitely promised to do so. It is purely a matter of drafting to fulfil the wishes of both sides, or, at any rate, the wishes of the Government. All that we ask is that the matter should be favourably considered. If the Government find better words when the Report stage is reached, the progress of the Bill will be facilitated considerably. I really got up to say that in the opinion of most of us upon this side of the Committee by far the best solution would be to accept the Amendment, to have a perfectly clear statement in the Clause that it is an offence to vote twice, and to leave out altogether the question of asking for a paper. Therefore it will be desirable that we should divide upon the Amendment as it stands, because we believe it to be the best solution; but if we are not successful in the Division, then we shall understand that if these words are not taken out the Government will consider the Amendment of the words before the Report stage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Rowlands) has shown the
    1960
    danger of not accepting the Amendment, and he has shown how true the words which were spoken earlier in the Debate by the hon. Member (Mr. King) were when he said a very large number of people would not, and did not, understand the Bill. I think he was alluding chiefly to hon. Members on this side of the House, but he might have included the hon. Member (Mr. Rowlands), who seems to think that if he was in Peckham, and had a vote in Camberwell, and happened to be starred at Camberwell, and asked for a ballot paper at Peckham, and was told he could not vote there because he was starred at Camberwell—he does not seem to realise that if he went to Camberwell and asked for a ballot paper he would not be allowed to vote, and would have committed an offence under the Bill. It is perfectly evident that a very large number of Members do not understand the Bill as it is. How much more so then will the ordinary elector fail to understand it? It is clear that unless some Amendment of this sort is put into the Bill a very large number of electors will find that they have innocently subjected themselves to penalties. They happen to be plural voters, but it does not follow that all plural voters vote Conservative, and even if they did there is no reason why they should be penalised for doing something innocently which is not a serious crime in the circumstances. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) deserves some slight answer. He has shown that in Ireland there are cases where inspectors and other officials are not allowed to vote if they are doing certain duties in the county and still remain upon the register.
    Mr. PEASE: I am prepared to keep an open mind, but I am not convinced that there is any case made out.
    Mr. KING: The challenge which has been thrown across the floor of the House by the hon. Baronet must be taken up. The hon. Baronet is an example of the astounding ignorance——
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not say that phrase is out of order, but the hon. Member has used it before to-day, and it does not show the usual courtesy that Members use towards each other. If he thinks there is inaccuracy in what his opponents have said he may say so.
    Mr. KING: Ignorance is not a sin always and therefore I do not use the word in any offensive sense. I will say, however, that

    1961
    the hon. Baronet shows an astounding amount of inaccuracy. He took as an example the case of a Man who was on the list both for Peckham and Camberwell. That is an absolute impossibility. They are two divisions of the same borough and a man cannot, even under the present law, be an elector in both. I only point this out to show that all the knowledge is on this side of the House. I will only add one other thing. It is in reference to the sort of promise of consideration of what might be a concession given by the right hon. Gentleman. In my opinion that was a very unwise thing of him to do. He offered consideration for the case of a man who went into a voting place and found that he had been personated. That has to do with the Corrupt Practices Act and not the electoral law in the sense of registration, and we are now not dealing with the Corrupt Practices Act at all. At present a man who is only on the list for one division may find himself personated and may only be able to tender a vote on a pink paper. This Bill has nothing to do in fact with this man's case one way or the other. Why then should you consider the case at all? You are giving an advantage to the plural voter by the suggested concession at the very time that you are
    passing a Bill if possible, to sweep him away altogether. I say this because I hope the President of the Board of Education will realise that he must not be too lavish in his promises, because he will find that he will get into the wrong place if he does.
    Mr. NEWTON: The hon. Member fell into an error that I should like to point out to him. He took the line that no concession should be made because it would grant a privilege to a plural voter who had been personated. I think he was to some extent wrong, because in the case of a non-plural voter having been personated he has the option, at all events tentatively, of recording his vote in that he tenders his vote. That privilege is denied to the plural voter, because of he tenders his vote he then has no opportunity of recording an effective vote. Therefore the hon. Member fell into an error when he described this proposal as one to grant a privilege.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 177.

    Division No. 150.]

    AYES.

    [7.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Clancy, John Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Adamson, William

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Glanville, Harold James

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Alden, Percy

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greig, Colonel James Wilson

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Crooks, William

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gulland, John William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cullinan, John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hackett, John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Barnes, George N.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Barton, William

    Delany, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Devlin, Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Bentham, G. J.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hayward, Evan

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dillon, John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Black, Arthur W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Boland, John Plus

    Doris, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Brace, William

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brady, P. J.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hinds, John

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hodge, John

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hogg, David C.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Falconer, James

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hudson, Walter

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Field, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    John Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sheehy, David

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Snowden, Philip

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Dowd, John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    King, Joseph

    O'Malley, William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutton, John E.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Leach, Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thomas, J. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lundon, Thomas

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pointer, Joseph

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Walton, Sir Joseph

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Waring, Walter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Watt, Henry A.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Webb, H.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

    Menzles, Sir Walter

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Molloy, Michael

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Mooney, John J.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Morison, Hector

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Muldoon, John

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Munro, R.

    Rowntree, Arnold

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boyton, James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Butcher, J. G.

    Fell, Arthur

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Astor, Waldorf

    Campion, W. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cassel, Felix

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

    Cater, John

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cautley, H. S.

    Forster, Henry William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Barnston, Harry

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Greene, W. R.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Gretton, John

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Blair, Reginald

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    1964

    1965

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Hills, John Waller

    Mount, William Arthur

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Newman, John R. P.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Swift, Rigby

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

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

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Randles, Sir John S.

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

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Lee, Arthur H

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Winterton, Earl

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wright, Henry Fitzherhert

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

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Magnus, Sir Phillip

    Sandys, G. J.

    Younger, Sir George

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    W. Bull and Major Morrison-Bell.

    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, after the word "or" ["or ask for"], to insert the word "knowingly."
    The punishment for asking a second ballot paper is so excessive that it does seem only reasonable, that when a person is charged with that particular offence under the Bill, the fact should be taken into consideration whether the attempt to obtain a second ballot paper was made with knowledge, both of the seriousness of the offence and of the penalty for committing it, or whether it was merely committed in ignorance and without properly understanding that the Act was unlawful. Take the case of a small tradesman who Vitas bought a little property at the seaside for the sake of the health of himself and family. He thereby acquires two votes—one for his business premises, and one for the little property he has bought. Naturally, his shop keeps him very hard at work from early morning until late at night, and, although he may take great interest in big political questions, as, for example, whether the Home Rule Bill has obtained a Second Reading, and in various other political questions, he does not see in the daily Press, or if he does, it does not strike him very forcibly, what are the small details of Bills that are going through the House of Commons. I believe that unless this Bill is amended in the way I propose, hundreds of innocent people will, while acting ignorantly, come under the penalty. If, however, the
    1966
    Amendment is accepted, and the word "knowingly" is inserted, the Public Prosecutor, before initiating a prosecution would satisfy himself whether the Act had been done knowingly or not.
    I think this is a valid and reasonable Amendment. It has precedents behind it. I would like to catalogue a few of the precedents which are to be found in other Acts of Parliament. In Clause 7 of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, the word "knowingly" is used in connection with the making of illegal payments or contracts; in Clause 8 the word is used in regard to excess of the maximum election expenditure allowed by the Act; in Clause 9 it is used twice—first, in Subsection (1) with regard to inducing a person to vote knowing that such person is prohibited, and then in Sub-section (2) in regard to a person who knowingly publishes a false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate; in Clause 13 it is used in regard to the penalty attaching to illegal payments, and is extended to a person who knowingly provides money for any payment contrary to the Act; in Clause 14 it is used in regard to the illegal hiring of a vehicle for the conveyance of voters to the poll, knowing that the vehicle is intended to be used for that purpose; and in Clause 33 a candidate or an election agent is penalised who knowingly makes a false declaration in regard to expenses. There is only one more Act of Parliament which I should like to cite, namely, the

    1967
    Ballot Act of 1872. Clause 24 refers to a personator as a person who knowingly personates. That being so, I do feel that it would be reasonable on the part of the Government to accept this Amendment, seeing that it does not in the least affect the intention of their Bill, because the intention is that nobody should be penalised who does not knowingly commit an offence to which a penalty applies under the Bill. I hope that the Government will favourably consider the Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman has explained that what he desires is to introduce this adverb in order that no prosecution will he successfully undertaken unless the prosecutor is in a. position to prove that the person accused had knowledge of the gravity of the offence, and of the Act of Parliament under which it is made an offence. To make such a change as that in the Bill would, I think, be to do a thing quite contrary to the reasonable administration of the law, and quite inconsistent with the ordinary principles on which the law is administered. It is, of course, an elementary principle that it is not in point of fact a good defence for anybody to plead that he did not know that a particular act was contrary to law. If that was not so, all persons who were prepared to make extravagant statements as to their knowledge would get off, and only those persons who did not plead ignorance of the law would be convicted. I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite realises how very strangely this Clause would read if we were to accept the Amendment. The Clause deals with two branches of possible offences. There is the offence of voting more than once in one constituency, and there is the offence of asking a ballot paper with the intention of voting more than once. The hon. Gentleman proposes to leave it an offence for a man to vote more than once, whether he was aware of the gravity of the offence or not, but when he comes to the next line he wishes to qualify the second part of the offence by introducing the word "knowingly" there. I find it difficult to believe that there is any human being this Bill is designed to prevent from voting twice or from asking a second ballot paper who would not perfectly well know that he was breaking the law.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON:I forgot to say that there is a consequential Amendment to be moved later on to insert the word "knowingly" after the word "acts."
    8.0. P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point that out. He proposes to introduce "knowingly" in the second part of the first Sub-section, while he proposes to leave it out in the first part of that Sub-section. Let me point out to the Committee what the position would be under the Bill as now drafted, because I think that as drafted it is right. It is quite a mistake to suppose that under the Bill as now drafted if there is any human being who was to offend against this law by some sort of perfectly innocent inattention, as might be supposed to exist in the case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, that there would be a conviction for so doing. It a perfectly well-known principle of the administration of the criminal law that unless a person has guilty knowledge, what is ordinarily called mens rea he does not come within the law, because he does not know what he is about. That is a very different thing from asking the prosecution to prove that a person knowingly committed an offence. This Bill provides that the proper way to deal with the plural voter is to impose a penalty if he votes more than once. The fact that an elector has more than one qualification presupposes that he enjoys exceptional opportunities, and that he feels his responsibility is one of peculiar gravity. In those circumstances it would be quite right to say that it is wrong for a man either to vote more than once or to ask for a ballot paper for the purpose of so doing, and he is liable to be prosecuted, but you could not throw on the prosecution the onus of proving that he knew the gravity of the offence or of this Act of Parliament. The thing is never done. The right thing would be to say that he was suffering from some aberration of mind. Convince the magistrate of it, and then he would not have the mens rea. Otherwise the mens rea. would be rightly inferred. The whole of this difficulty is disposed of by the discretionary power of magistrates. It is a pure delusion, which exists sometimes in the House of Commons, but is found nowhere else, to say that because you have an Act of Parliament which says that a certain thing is penalised every person who does the thing is always pursued as a matter of course and always made to pay the full penalty. It is not true. If the law were administered in such a way it would very soon come into disrepute.

    1969
    If protection is needed for those hard cases which the hon. Gentleman thinks may arise, the penalty here is not always to be exacted. It is capable of any modification or reduction, and every magistrate has got the right to say, "This trumpery case in my judgment should not have been brought, and I will not convict at all." In cases where people are so foolish as to proceed in that vindictive way magistrates do act in this manner. For those reasons I am unable to recommend the insertion of the word "knowingly." The hon. Member refers to certain Statutes in which it is quite true that the word "knowingly" may be found. An instance which occurs to me is the case of a publican who allows a drunken man on his premises, and who could not be punished if he did not know that the man was drunk. That is quite right. But what astonished me was that the hon. Gentleman referred to the 24th Section of the Ballot Act. What I find there is a case exactly parallel to this case. It is made an offence for a man who has already voted in a constituency to vote again in that constituency. There is nothing about "knowingly." This is the language:—
    "A person shall for all purposes relating to Parliamentary or municipal election be deemed to be guilty of the offence of personation who, at an election for a county or borough; or at a municipal election, applies"—
    not knowingly applies
    "for a ballot paper in the name of some other person, or having voted once at any such election, applies—
    not knowingly applies
    "at the same election for a ballot paper in his own name."
    I am much obliged to the hon. Member for referring me to the 24th Section of the Ballot Act. That is what it says.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: May I put a case to the Solicitor-General to show that what he thinks could not happen could in fact happen. Suppose there is a contest impending in my own Constituency, and three months before that contest the right hon. Gentleman says to me, "You have got a contest in Oxford, and I shall be very glad to vote for you. Put down my name and get a paper for me." I make a note, and in due course the ballot paper is sent to the Solicitor-General. Mean-
    1970
    time he forgets all about it. From that moment he is precluded from voting in any other constituency. The die is cast; the door is shut. He may have a vote, to which he attaches more value, in another part of the country, but if somebody comes up to him on the day of the polling and says to him, "You are incurring a penalty, for you have already asked for a voting paper," that is an incident that might very easily happen; and in the case of, university votes it does constantly happen that people ask for voting papers to be sent months before the election. The Solicitor-General happens to know this. Bill, and therefore is aware of the danger incurred by a great number of people who would think that you were out of your mind if you told them that they were precluded front giving a vote in one place because they had asked for a ballot paper in another. Not knowing the Government, they would say, "The law could not, be such an ass as that." The Solicitor-General falls back upon the magistrates. I always understood it to be one of the first duties of the Legislature to make it perfectly clear that no one can be punished by the carelessness, indiscretion, or folly of a magistrate. Otherwise why should you not have a general law that if people misbehave themselves they should go to prison, and leave all to the magistrate?
    The whole conception of the criminal law is that the liberty of the subject is safeguarded, and the magistrate is directed in the closest way by the words of the Act of Parliament so that no injustice can be done. Of course, the Solicitor-General is right in saying that people are supposed to be aware of Statutes which are passed. Perhaps it would not be outrageously hard on a lawyer, or on an Oxford University graduate, but it is often very hard on uneducated people, and it is one of the parts of the law which are least open to defence. The Solicitor-General should not rely on that. If it is true that you are bound to know the law, then at least the law should be made as narrow as it can be made for the purpose of carrying out the view of the Legislature. For those-reasons, I think, that the word "knowingly" is an addition to the Bill. I cannot conceive in any case the slightest possibility of its doing harm, and the simplest course is to accept the Amendment unless the Government can satisfy the Committee, not merely that it is not necessary, but that it would do harm.
    Earl WINTERTON: The Solicitor-General has been good enough to refer to Section 24 of the Ballot Act of 1872. He only read the first part of the Section, which, as given to me by my hon. Friend, goes on to refer to "any person who knowingly personates."
    Sir J. SIMON: What I read is the only enacting Clause of the whole Section, and what occurs at the end of the Section does not touch the point at all. In the bulk of the Section there is nothing about personation. There is a provision at the bottom as to the application of the provisions of the Registration Acts to personation under this Act in the same manner as they apply to certain persons who are in those Acts, and those persons are described as persons who "knowingly personate." But that has nothing to do with the point that Section 24 makes it an offence for persons to apply for the second paper without requiring them to know.
    Earl WINTERTON: I accept what the Solicitor-General says, but there are other instances where the word "knowingly" is used, and where the offence is quite as grave as that in the Bill. There is a penalty attached to illegal payment, extended to a person who knowingly makes it and to a person who is guilty of illegal hiring, knowing that the payment is intended to be used for the purpose. A case which is strongest of all is Section 33 of the Corrupt Practices Act, by which a candidate or election agent is punished for knowingly making a false declaration. An election agent is much more likely to know the law on the subject than an ordinary voter. If he is prosecuted only when he knowingly breaks the law, the same advantage ought to be given to the ordinary voter. There is no part of our ordinary law of which the elector is so ignorant as electoral law. I do not believe that the average voter in the country has the least idea of the provisions of the electoral law. If that is so, he is not likely to have any great knowledge of the provisions of this particular Bill. I could not help thinking, when listening to the Debate that has taken place, that not only has this Bill been prepared by the Government with a very small amount of previous knowledge of the effect which it will have when it comes into operation, and a very small amount of thought as to the possible injustice which may be done by it, but, in addition, that there is a distinct attempt non the part of the Government, if they
    1972
    possibly can, to trap the plural voter—whom, for reasons which are perfectly obvious, to use a slang phrase, they have "downed"—to come into conflict with the law. Reference has been made by the Solicitor-General to the discretion which is vested in the magistrates with regard to prosecutions. I think that unless the Government are able to show that if the word "knowingly" were put into the Bill a number of persons would evade it, and thereby its object would be defeated, they ought to accept the Amendment. There are undoubtedly many precedents for putting in "knowingly," and I cannot see why the Government think it necessary so to penalise a man who may commit an offence without the slightest idea of the state of the law and may be subject to a very heavy penalty under Sub-section 2. In those circumstances, the Amendment of my hon. Friend should be adopted. The Government have given no reason why it should not he incorporated in the Bill, and they have given no solid undertaking that hard cases will not arise.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  CADEBY MAIN COLLIERY DISASTER.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. BRACE: I apologise to the House for venturing to interpose in the general order of business to raise a matter which we conceive to be of great public importance, and I thank the House for the permission they have given, and I will not trespass upon that indulgence by doing other than plainly stating the case in the hope that the Home Office will be able to meet some of the difficulties that arise. Mining, as the House is well aware, will ever be a dangerous industry. Every year, broadly, the number of lives that are destroyed are equal to the number of lives which went down with the "Titanic" when she was wrecked in the Atlantic. We therefore say that anything which adds to the danger of so dangerous an industry demands that the Home Office, the administrative authority of the mining laws, should use all their resources to make

    1973
    mining life less dangerous than it is at the present time. In moving the Motion, I do so on behalf of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, who feel themselves very aggrieved at the circumstances involved in connection with the Cadeby Main Colliery explosion, which took place on 9th July, 1912. This colliery gives employment to nearly a thousand men on the day shift—938 are employed on the shift which works from 8 am. to 2 p.m.; and 505 are employed on the shift which works from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. We are faced with this peculiar situation, that in the person of Mr. W. H. Chambers we have a general manager who takes a very active part in the management of these particular collieries. I may be allowed to quote Mr. Redmayne's report, in which he uses this language:—
    "The two mines, the Denaby and Cadeby Main collieries, are under the general control of a managing director, Mr. W. Chambers, who is well known throughout Yorkshire and the Midlands as a mining engineer of high standing and much experience. Mr. Chambers, who lives near the collieries, took a more active part in the management than is perhaps usual in the case of a managing director. There was one agent over the two collieries, a Mr. H. S. Witty, who, in the course of September, 1911, had been manager of the Cadeby Main colliery. Under Mr. Witty, as the manager of the Cadeby Alain colliery alone, there was a Mr. C. Bury, who was seriously injured in the second explosion, and died a few days afterwards)."
    The Chief Mines Inspector makes a peculiar comment upon this situation, for I find that on page 12 of his report Mr. Redmayne says:—
    "It is a curious fact that, although Mr. Witty was agent over the two collieries, and Mr. Bury was therefore under him, he had not received his instructions from Mr. Witty respecting the manner in which the fire should be dealt with. The instructions came from Mr. Chambers direct."
    If Mr. Chambers accepts the responsibility of giving the order, he must accept the responsibility of the result; and it is because we feel that we are faced again with a situation under which a dead colliery manager is being made to carry the burden of the responsibility of the disaster that we have asked leave to use the floor of the House of Commons to call attention to this fact, for the purpose of endeavouring to put an end to a situation that is dangerous to the lives and limbs of our people. After a disaster the Miners' Federation of Great Britain invariably sends two representatives from the executive to take part in the investigations. I therefore propose, with the consent of the House, to quote shortly, not only from the Chief Mines Inspector's report, but from the report made to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain by Mr. Smillie and Mr. Hartshorn, the two representatives sent
    1974
    down to inquire into this particular disaster. On page 2 of their report I find the following:—
    "The first gob fire at the Cadeby Colliery occurred about 1906 or 1907. This was dug out and no life was lost, and there was no explosion. A second gob fire broke out at a subsequent, date. In November, 1911, a third gob fire was encountered, and the management were wrestling with this fire from November, 1911, until April, 1912."
    The following is very significant as bearing directly upon this particular accident:—
    "On 20th January, 1912, an explosion of gas occurred in this locality"——
    that was very near the site of where the explosion was located on 9th July—
    "when four men were slightly burnt, and the effect of the explosion was felt through the face of the working for a distance of 150 yards. The whole of the men employed in the district came out and were very much frightened. On the 2nd February the deputy for that district reported that tire had been seen on that day and on 10th April. A man who was drawing off and packing up said he saw a flame on the top of the pack. The area round the fault was considered as a danger zone, and for some time before the explosion the deputy had reported on the condition there every four hours, and samples of the air had been analysed by a chemist every day for a year."
    Therefore the House will see that we are dealing with a mine that was nothing more nor less than a live gasometer, and that was well within the knowledge of the managers. The report goes on to say:—
    "The temperature at the fault was 91 degrees Fahrenheit, 90 degrees in the air current, and 80 degrees in the intake. On the 9th July, 1912, two explosions occurred resulting in the loss of eighty-eight lives. Thirty-five men were killed in the first explosion and fifty-three in the second."
    I have never read a record that impressed me more with the danger of a mine than the record I have just quoted. We find a condition of affairs there very difficult to understand indeed. The workmen, for some reason best known to themselves—and if they were here I have no doubt they could tell us the reason—seem to have kept quite silent upon the condition of the mines, despite the fact that it was exactly as I have stated. The Chief Mines Inspector, in his report, which is of importance:—
    "I took the evidence of four men who were engaged in working in the old roads in the neighbourhood of the fire which was being stoped off, namely, Thomas Slater, Edward Dove, William Barnbrook and George Ackrovd. The evidence of these witnesses points to the condition of the atmosphere at this point for the few days preceding the explosion being exceedingly bad, and it was on account of the foulness of the atmosphere that they were provided by the management with electric lamps. The heat also was very considerable. Barnbrook said that on Sunday night, whilst engaged at work at the sloping in old 121. 'I came to the month of the slit. I was giving a lamp to a fellow workman to come in. I gave him a lamp. I remember nothing else: I was unconscious.' On Monday afternoon, whilst working in 121's and getting the place ready for the second brick sloping, another man was rendered unconscious. Barnbrook said, in answer to Mr. Herbert Smith, that he was 'sent by the deputy

    1975
    round to old 7's, where they were drawing off…. I was sent round to see how they were going on, where they were drawing. I met them between 64's and 7's. They were sitting down and having a rest. They said it was very hot. Of course I took my message the deputy sent, and I went back. When I got back the deputy said whose turn was it in? I said I did not know; very likely it was mine. He said there was a man in it already. As the man came out he fell unconscious. The deputy and another fellow and me carried him out and brought hint round, and the deputy said we will have a look and bring the tools out. We have had enough, and I said I thought so.' This was about nine o'clock on Monday night."
    Here you have a mine where the men are working where the after-damp and conditions are so terrific that although they go in and work there only from two to four minutes each time they become unconscious and do not know what is going on. In this mine hundreds of men are at work. On the day shift you have nearly a thousand men, the number of a good-sized village, and on the night shift over 500 men. Is that not sufficient evidence to teach any management that they are face to face with a situation that on their honour and under their solemn obligations to the men they ought not to allow the men to have gone there? It was a wilful disregard of responsibility. I note that at the inquiry Mr. Chambers, who after all is the responsible man in this business, and our dispute at the Home Office is that we are unable to bring home responsibility to the right quarter, said he gave certain orders to the manager who is dead, and had those orders been carried out there would have been no danger. The time has come when other than verbal orders should be given to officials. I understand in connection with the War Department of this nation if a superior officer is giving an order to an inferior officer which deals with danger that he must make that order in writing, so that if anything goes wrong the inferior officer is protected by the certificate or letter he has had. I think something ought to be done to make Mr. Chambers prove other than by a general statement at the inquiry that this order was given. I submit to the House that no management and no official of the mine, had he been given an order to carry out a particular piece of work in a particular way by the head of a firm, would have dared not to have carried out such an instruction. We make the very serious charge that we cannot accept such evidence, and that due precaution was not taken to protect the lives and limbs of the men in consequence of this very bad condition that we find the mine in. What is more, despite this con-
    1976
    dition of the mine, not a word was sent to the Mines Inspector. I turn to Mr. Redmayne's Report, and I find on Page 14 that he said:—
    "So far as can be determined no notice of the indications of heating was sent by the manager to Mr. Pickering."
    That is the Mines Inspector who gave his life in an effort to solve the problem or the fire there and in an effort to rescue the men who were in the danger zone.
    "Miss Martin, Mr. Pickering's clerk, said she had seen none, though the order of the Secretary of State under the Notices of Accidents Act requires that all underground fires shall be reported to the inspector."
    What is the Home Office going to do with a situation such as that? Are they to stand idly by and allow this manager and the management there to shelter themselves behind some kind of technicality, although violating the Coal Mines Regulation Act which this House passed for the better protection of the lives and limbs of the people? I want an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to why no notice was taken of this direct violation of the Act of Parliament. Mr. Redmayne proceeds:—
    "The evidence of the several witnesses satisfied me that the place was in a more or less dangerous condition from the presence of 'stythe,' and possibly of fire damp also, and heat. In asking Mr. Smith whether he was going to call any more evidence to prove the state of the place, I said, 'I think it was in a very bad state-That is clear. There is no doubt about that.' Mr. Gichard, who represented the owner, said, 'I think I have indicated my position by asking this witness (Barnbrook) no questions."
    So bad was the condition that the solicitor who was briefed to defend the interests of the employer has no question to ask of a witness who is making so damaging a statement. I find, when I turn to another part of the evidence on page 10, the deputies' report, which was not in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State. Here is a mine employing nearly a thousand men on the day shift and more than half that number on the night shift not conforming to the provision of a report book which will conform to the regulations of the Home Secretary:—
    "I find, from an examination of the deputies' report book (which was not in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State), that 'gob-stink' was reported in '121's old gate' by one or other of the above-mentioned deputies on the following dates the hours being the time of entering the separate efforts:— Friday, 5th July, 6 p.m., 10 p.m., 12 midnight: Saturday, 6th July, 6 a.m. 1 p.m., 3 p.m., 10 p.m.; Sunday, 7th July, 6 a.m., 2 p.m., 16 p.m.; Monday, 8th July, 6 a.m., 2 p.m., 2 p.m., 10 p.m."
    That was the eve of the explosion, which took place at one o'clock.
    There you have a record that ought to have been sufficient to any management

    1977
    to have taught them that they were sending their men to their death unless they were protected by the providence of God. By every rule of science and of mining an explosion was the natural result from the condition of affairs such as I see there. We asked you, Sir, to allow us to treat this as a matter of urgency on the ground that that is exactly the condition of affairs that is going on at this moment when this House is here in Session. In the mine there and in many mines this kind of thing is going on, and humanity demands that for the moment we shall stop in our ordinary legislative work and lay down the conditions, if it is possible, that miners' lives shall be more sacred. I find that Mr. Chambers was asked by Mr. Redmayne:—
    "Do you think it advisable that when these men are engaged in combating this incipient gob fire, all these men should have been at work in that district, or would you not have thought it preferable to have limited the number of men to the number of persons who were engaged in combating the fire?"
    Mr. Chambers said:—
    "The difficulty is this, that if we are to stop working when we are getting fires out, if we are to do that, we should only have a pit for putting gob fires out. We should get nothing else out of it."
    That is an extraordinary statement from a man who is a great mining expert. Evidently, Mr. Chambers—I hope I am doing him no injustice—must have thought that the protection of his colliery was of more value than the lives of the men. Whatever Mr. Chambers may have thought, the widows who are left thought the lives of their husbands as valuable and as sacred as the lives of other women's husbands. We ask that something should be done, and done immediately, to prevent a repetition of this accident. There is a callousness about this accident which absolutely appals one. Thirty-five men were killed. Thirty-five bodies were lying in the pit. The time comes for the day shift to come in. Are they stopped? No. Do they know anything about this terrible disaster that has carried a shadow into thirty-five homes? Not a word. In Wales if there was a disaster of half these dimensions it would be impossible that our people should not know of it. I do not understand the spirit which makes it possible that the death of these thirty-five men could have been unknown. The accident took place between one and two. The day shift presented themselves for work between five and six o'clock; the whole of the men were lowered into the mine, but in the downcast they were kept on the pit bottom for some time, no one being in-
    1978
    formed of what had happened. After all the workmen employed in the upcast shift had been lowered into the mine, the men on the bottom of the downcast were sent to the surface—these were the men ordinarily employed in the area where these thirty-five bodies were lying—but in the other pit, the same section of the mine, the same colliery, the men continued working in ignorance of the disaster. Some hundreds of tons of coal were raised, winding being continued until between nine and ten o'clock, the time of the arrival of the inspectors. Only when the inspectors arrived at the colliery was winding coal put an end to. It is a disgrace to our civilisation. A more cold-blooded, callous thing, I never heard of.
    We say that if Mr. Chambers has the right to give orders, he must be responsible for seeing that the orders are carried out. If he has the right to give orders, what has he to say for the system of management of that colliery which allowed full work to go on in a danger zone such as I have described from the reports? What has he to say about winding coal for hours after these thirty-five bodies were lying in the mine? What has he to say about allowing all these men to remain in the danger zone? We know that gob fires have to be dealt with, and that it is a difficult work. Our demand is that when the pit is in such an unsafe condition there ought not to be sent into the zone of danger more men than are absolutely necessary to do that work. If the present mining law is not sufficient, we ask the Home Secretary to make such provision immediately as is necessary to put an end to a state of affairs which is a disgrace to the Empire. We say, further, that managers will have to be and must be taught that they have responsibilities. A managing director who has been grossly negligent—I will not put it higher than that—ought to have his certificate taken from him. In a case of this kind, that is a very mild request. Is the time never coming when men who, because of their negligence, are direclty responsible for a terrible disaster, will be arraigned for the manslaughter of the men who were in their charge? We ask that there shall be a little more thought for the men and a little less thought of the manager. It is because we feel that we would not be justified in allowing one moment to pass before bringing this condition of affairs to the notice of the House, that I have asked leave to move this Motion. I hope the Home Secretary will see that his Depart-

    1979
    ment is under a solemn obligation to the great mining community of Britain to ensure that when they leave their homes in the morning, or at night, to commence their shift, they shall at least have a fighting chance of coming back safe and sound.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Yorks, Normanton): I desire to second the Motion. I agree entirely with all the remarks of my hon. Friend in regard to the management of this colliery. Knowing somewhat of the management for many years past I want to say a word in reference to the remark of my hon. Friend, that the men to whom he was referring, if they were present, would be able to give a reason why they were making no reports at this particular period. For many years there is not a man employed in the colliery who dared lodge a solitary complaint against anything that was done by the management. If he did, he was sent about his business at once. In order to try and clear themselves the management have been persistent in bringing the workmen before the magistrates in that particular locality, even if they found them picking up a shovel to use in their employment, although it belonged to the same firm, if it was not marked with their own number, even though the man to whom it belonged was working by their side. It is such a state of things that these men go about that colliery in fear, and dare not complain, because they thought they would be dispensed with, and would probably be unable to get work elsewhere. Under Mr. Chambers were a set of officials. It is true that the manager of this colliery lost his life. It is true that the whole responsibility has been attempted to be put upon the man who unfortunately is dead; but the agent of that colliery is still living, the man who acted as agent at the time of this disaster. He is not agent to-day. I do not know whether the Home Office have taken any steps to cancel his certificate, but he is a deputy to-day at the same colliery. This is the man who was described in the reports which have been made of this disaster as being drunk when the inspectors arrived on the premises on that particular morning after the explosion. Athough he is a deputy, my hon. Friend behind me informs me that he is paid exacty the same salary as he was when agent. If that be true, it is only a farce to reduce him to a deputyship; and it is
    1980
    done for the purpose of keeping him outside any prosecution.
    There is the under-manager. He is still living. He has been driven from pillar to post. He is a person who has risen from the ranks of the workmen. I admit there was some responsibility upon him. His certificate, I understand, is gone. He was dismissed from this colliery. I am told that he got other employment at another colliery. His certificate has been withdrawn, and consequently he has been reduced to the status of an ordinary workman, as he was previous to rising to the under-managership. I am sorry to say it, because I thought a better state of things existed at that colliery between the company and its workmen, but I had unfortunately to go down to Yorkshire at midnight on Monday to another accident at one of the collieries. While at home I was informed that there was nearly a riot at this very village on Monday night last. Why? A fatal accident had occurred. There had been a large fall of roof in the roadway. The man who had been killed was lying there, and the company were endeavouring to force the whole of the men who were following on in another shift to walk over the dead body to the face, in order to send out coal. The report on the explosion seems to have had no effect upon Mr. Chambers. The same thing seems to be going on when an accident occurs at this particular colliery. I as one of the representatives of the Yorkshire Miners' Association, as well as my hon. Friend, representing the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, desire to know what attitude the Home Office propose to adopt to put an end to the tyranny that is being practised at these particular collieries.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I rise at the earliest possible moment, because I should like to state at once that the Home Office is more desirous, and has always shown itself more desirous, to secure the safety of the miners than I can well express in words. The Motion for the Adjournment this evening has not, I will submit to the House, disclosed any blamable action or neglect on the part of the Home Office. The circumstances related by my hon. Friends in speeches of very remarkable ability—and I should certainly like to say about my hon. Friend the Member for South Glamorgan that I would rather have him on my side than against me—while they have been directed

    1981
    with great force against the management of the Cadeby Mines, have not, in themselves, disclosed any blamable action or neglect on the part of the Home Office. I should not wish to defend my office merely upon that ground. I agree with so much that has been said by my hon. Friends I and go so far with them that I certainly would not desire merely upon any technical grounds to escape from the conclusions which they wish to draw from the Motion they have made. This accident at the Cadeby Mine occurred in July of last year. The circumstances preceding the accident, so lucidly explained by my hon. Friend, were exactly as he described them. There was a gob stink discovered in the mine four days before the accident itself. That is a condition which every person in the mine knows is indicative of serious danger. It appears upon the evidence that the managing director of the mines, when the gob stink was discovered, gave orders that all passages to the locus on fire, the existence of which the gob stink indicated, should be built up. That was the evidence at the inquiry. We have no evidence at the inquiry to rebut the statement made by Mr. Chambers. I am only stating the facts which cannot be controverted on either side. I am not proposing to enter into the merits of the question. It is undoubted that the examination of the mine showed that one of the passages to the locus of the fire had not been built up. The result of that was that the air could penetrate into the region which my hon. Friend has properly described as a live gasometer. Two explosions took place, and eighty-eight lives were lost. All these facts, I think my hon. Friend will agree, are indisputable. The first question that arises on the case put forward by my hon. Friend is: Who was to blame? There had been undoubted breaches of the Act of 1911. Who was to blame?
    Mr. HEWINS: The Home Office.
    Mr. McKENNA: Is it alleged that the Home Office are to blame for breaches of the Act?
    Mr. HEWINS Mr. HEWINS assented.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Home Office would only be to blame for breaches of the Act if they had knowledge of those breaches.
    Mr. HEWINS Mr. HEWINS assented.
    Mr. McKENNA: What then is my hon. Friend's case?—That no notice was sent
    1982
    by the manager to Mr. Pickering, who was the inspector. That is part of his case. Mr. Pickering, as the inspector employed by the Home Office, if he had notice, would undoubtedly have acted. Part of my hon. Friend's case is that neither the Home Office nor their agents got notice. My. hon. Friend raises a different point. He says that notice ought to have been given, and given by Mr. Chambers. The Act says that notice is to be given by the manager. It is in evidence that no notice of the fact was given, and the manager who ought to have given the notice is dead. Now I sympathise with my hon. Friend. He opened his case by saying, this is one of those instances in which all the blame is to be put upon somebody who is dead, and the others get off scot-free. The charge is not, as the hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think, that the Home Office is directly to blame for the accident. That is not the charge. The charge brought forward by my hon. Friend now is that these breaches of the Act took place, that they came to the knowledge of the Home Office, that the Home Office did not prosecute Mr. Chambers—not that the Home Office caused the accident but that the accident having occurred the Home Office did not prosecute Mr. Chambers.
    What was the evidence upon which the Home Office could have proceeded with the prosecution of Mr. Chambers? So far as notice is concerned the Act is specific. Notice must be given by the manager. The manager was not Mr. Chambers; there was another manager who was killed in the accident. The fault shown is in the Act, and I can only proceed under the Act, What is the next charge? There is evidence that Mr. Chambers gave the order that the gob fire or the passage to the gob fire should be built up. That is true. There is no evidence of that except Mr. Chamber's own evidence, but it is equally true that there was no rebutting evidence. All the persons who could give rebutting evidence were dead, and the Home Office could not proceed upon the assumption that Mr. Chamber's evidence was false when there was not a title of evidence in existence to rebut his evidence. That is the second position in which the Home Office stood. The House must remember that no proceedings can be taken either against Mr. Chambers or anybody else except within six months of the accident. The accident took place in July, and the charge against the Home Office is that we

    1983
    did not take proceedings against Mr. Chambers between then and January, 1913—six months ago. I have given the reason on all the essential points raised—the absence of notice, the absence of any evidence to show that the Home Office have any ground for proceeding against Mr. Chambers before January, 1913. The ease does not stop at that.
    9.0 P.M.
    I readily take this opportunity of stating to the House that this accident, the cause of which is happily somewhat rare, has disclosed real serious defects in the condition of the existing law. An amending Act, as the House remembers, was passed no later than 1911, but such is the variety in the conditions under which mining is carried on, such are the dangers, that however great the experience of the Department may be and whatever precautions may be taken, subsequent experience always shows that new amendments of the law are required. The circumstances of this explosion have exposed three serious defects. In the first place, as I have said to the House, no action can be taken except within a period of six months after the happening of the accident. There are certain exceptions to that, but as the exceptions do not arise in this case I need not refer to them. What does that mean in a case like this? As I say, the accident took place in the beginning of July, 1912. It was one of the essential conditions of the continuance of the mine that the locus of the accident should be taken off. Again and again attempts were made to inspect the place where the accident occurred. An inspector went down and made several attempts with special breathing apparatus, but to this day it has been impossible to inspect the real place. An inquiry was held immediately after the accident, but six months went by—necessarily went by—before the facts could be known. With all possible expedition the evidence in this case was not complete until the beginning of December, five months after the accident, and the report was not in draft until the end of January, more than six months after the accident had taken place.
    I admit to my hon. Friends that if there had been a primâ facie case disclosed upon any part of the evidence upon which a prosecution could have succeeded against Mr. Chambers, or anybody else, an interim report would have been issued in order that proceedings might have been taken
    1984
    within the period required by the Act. There was no such evidence, and before the Report was complete the period had expired, and the question became one of platonic interest. The Act requires Amendment in that respect. There are accidents in which the facts cannot be known within a period of six months, and I shall propose, therefore, at the earliest opportunity, to introduce an Amendment of the Coal Mines Act, extending the period during which a prosecution may be taken to three months after the inquiry into the accident has been completed. In that case my hon. Friend would be able to bring forward a Motion of this kind at a time really within the law. That is the first defect this accident has exposed.
    The second defect arises on consideration of Section 11, familiar to my hon. Friends, but not familiar to the whole House. Clause 11 of the Act provides that the Secretary of State may order an inquiry to be held with a view to suspending the certificate of the manager who is in default. It does not provide for an inquiry with a view to suspending the certificate of any person superior to the manager. My hon. Friend conceived, as I gather from his speech, that we might have proposed to suspend the inquiry with a view to suspending Mr. Chambers' certificate under Section 11. The hon. Member has made some very important statements upon that point this evening. He alleges—and I will certainly go through the evidence again in view of what he has stated—that Mr. Chambers acted in the capacity of manager. He was not the manager of the mine, but he was the managing director. The hon. Member has put forward to-night, on his authority, statements which of themselves would justify an allegation that Mr. Chambers was acting in the capacity of manager. I will lay the evidence and the statements of my hon. Friend before the Law Officers of the Crown. I do not say that those statements will bear the test of examination, but if the construction of his statements is one that will bear the legal interpretation which he thinks they bear, then fortified with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, I shall be most happy to order an inquiry under Section 11. I have not done so hitherto because I conceive that the evidence was not such as would justify holding Mr. Chambers liable as manager. But in view of my hon. Friend's statements—and they have been very strong—I will certainly resubmit the

    1985
    whole case to the Law Officers of the Crown, and if I can get support from them of the view put forward by my hon. Friend, and if there is any legal ground whatever upon which I can proceed, I shall be only too glad to proceed under Section 11. But there is a defect in the Act as it stands. On the assumption that my hon. Friend's statements can be supported, that is to say, that no legal interpretation can be given to his statements of the kind he suggests, that it cannot be proved that a gentleman who acts as a superior is, in truth, acting as manager and is not so acting in law, then the law must be made to accord with the facts, and an amendment must be made to the Section providing that a person superior to the manager must be rendered liable to having his certificate suspended, just as if he were the manager. The Government are at one with the hon. Member as to the desirability of making the law clear and definite upon all these points.
    The third defect referred to is that which relates to the withdrawal of men from the mine when there is a dangerous condition exposed. While Section 67 lays down the requirements for the withdrawal of the men in cases of danger in general terms, it leaves it open as a matter of opinion whether such circumstances as existed some days prior to the accident at Cadeby, did in fact constitute a dangerous condition within the meaning of the Clause. I am advised that such a condition of things ought not to be left under the Act as a matter of opinion. Immediately after the accident a Committee was appointed by the Home Office, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who is an expert on these matters, was a member of that Committee, and they inquired into the whole subject. One of the questions which has already been discussed by them is the withdrawal of the men in circumstances such as these. I am asking that Committee to report to me at once upon this limited branch of their inquiry with a view to the immediate issue of regulations. I do not need art Act of Parliament to do this because there is power vested in the Home Office to issue regulations dealing with this subject, but I wish to be fortified in the first instance by an interim report from the Committee, of which the hon. Baronet is a member. I may add that my technical advisers at the Home Office strongly recommend such regulations, and in their opinion the men
    1986
    ought to be withdrawn in all cases to those existing at the Cadeby mine prior to the accident. I have stated fully and frankly the accident and the opinion of the Home Office. Whether the Home Office were right or wrong in not instituting proceedings against Mr. Chambers six months ago is not a matter, I would submit to the House with all humility, which can be readily settled in Debate across the floor of the House. It is a difficult and complicated question, but on the merits that the men ought to be withdrawn, and that the law ought to provide for their withdrawal, I am entirely at one with my hon. Friends, and I hope after this explanation they will not think it necessary to press their Motion further.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I very much regret that this question has been brought before the House to-night, because there is no body more unfitted to discuss a question of such a highly technical character as this than the House of Commons. We have had two Royal Commissions upon this subject, the German, the Australian, and the American Governments have appointed Commissions to report upon this question, and so far all these Commissions have failed to arrive at the cause of these fires. A Committee consisting of mining engineers, including the chief inspector of mines, was appointed to consider this question and report to the House as to the best method of dealing with these fires, and to prevent them occurring. The question is a highly technical and complicated one, and I do not propose to deal with the causes or give the House any indication of them, but I must reply to the speech made by the hon. Member. I have no interest in the Cadeby Colliery, but I am the managing director of adjoining collieries, and I am well acquainted with the district. I do say that the hon. Member has used his position in this House to make statements reflecting on men who are not here to defend themselves, which I very much regret. The hon. Member first stated that if Mr. Chambers gives orders he must accept responsibility for the orders he gives. Mr. Chambers is the last man who would not accept full responsibility for the orders he gives. He is, as is well known in all mining circles, the greatest authority in England to-day on gob fires and the method of dealing with them. He has read papers before the Mining Institute which are standard works on the preven-

    1987
    tion of gob fires and the method of extinguishing them, and, although I am not here to defend Mr. Chambers, I say that it is not right to attack a man in this House when he has no means whatever of replying. If there is any violation of the Act going on at Cadeby Colliery, the hon. Member, through his association, is perfectly able to institute a prosecution against Mr. Chambers.
    Mr. BRACE: No one knows better than the hon. Member that workmen have no right to take action against employers, although employers have a right to take action against workmen.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What is the use of the Labour party coming here to represent the miners if they cannot go to the Home Office and ask them to put the law in motion? [HON. MEMBERS: "That is what we are doing."] Have the Miners' Federation pointed out to the Home Office or to the mines inspector of the district, Mr. Mottram, that there is a violation of the Act going on at Cadeby Colliery? Has that been done or not? If there is any violation of the Act, it was the duty of the men who are presumed to represent the workmen to have taken that action long since, but in point of fact no such complaint has been made to the inspector of the district. I have no knowledge whether there is any violation of the Act, and I have no means of knowing. The hon. Member drew a very lurid picture of the conditions under which the men work. In the first place, he said that the temperature in which the men were working in the place of the accident was 94 degrees. In an adjoining colliery there are men working where the temperature is 106 degrees. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] Hon. Members say "Shame!" but the only method of dealing with these fires is to dig them out. A canary is taken down with the men, and, if carbon dioxide is in the air, the canary at once discloses the fact. The only alternative to digging out the fire is to leave it alone and stop the passage up, but at this colliery they did stop up a fire by closing the passage, and they had a fire extending acre upon acre till it nearly destroyed the pit itself. Wherever there is a fire burning which has been closed up there is always grave danger to the lives of the men working in the mine. I am a member of the Departmental Committee which has been appointed, and there is hardly a colliery in
    1988
    this country which is not liable to spontaneous combustion. They have had this trouble in Staffordshire for the last 300 years, according to what we have been able to find out from the early writings of the historians.
    When a fire takes place you have the hot material to deal with, and the only problem is whether you fill it up or leave it. If you fill it up, naturally the temperature must be hot. I have never known a case of a fire in this district unless timber has been left in the mine. The worst offender in this district is the Brodsworth Colliery, of which I am a managing director. There have been thirty-two fires at this colliery during the last four years. At Cadeby during the last six years there have been fourteen fires, and at the Bentley Colliery, at Doncaster, there have been twenty-five fires during the last six years. That is up to 16th October, 1912. It may be said, "Why is it that these numerous fires, which are so dangerous to the lives of the men, take place?" It is a very serious problem which no one can explain, and to which the Departmental Committee have given their earnest consideration. When we opened the Brodsworth Colliery I had no idea that there was going to be all these fires, but we were faced with numerous fires in all directions, and we either had to fill them up or leave them. This question has given to all of us who are associated with the management of collieries daily and nightly anxiety, but I think we know now how to deal with them. The hon. Member says that more thought is given to money than to the men in the mines, but I can say—I am not speaking differently from other colliery proprietors; I am only speaking what every human being does and can say—that the first consideration always present to my mind and to the mind of all those associated with this industry is the safety of the mine itself. I constantly go down into the mines when these fires take place. It is not necessary for me to go. I have sufficient means to live without taking what after all is a risk; but whenever a dangerous fire occurs I go myself to see what the conditions are and to ascertain the best means of extinguishing the fire. Not very long ago I had a telephone message one night to say that explosions were taking place in a certain mine with which I am connected, and, when I got to the colliery I found that explosions were going on regularly every half hour. The men, of course, were withdrawn. I went to the place where the explosions were taking place,

    1989
    and every twenty-five minutes I saw the flash come out from the back. I was perfectly safe because the place was well stone dusted. I believe that we are now within measurable distance of making it impossible to have great mining explosions in this country in the future. I believe that if stone dust is properly applied in a mine there is no risk. I believe that the experiments at the Government station have proved that where there is a proportion of one to one of stone dust to coal we can say that there is safety to the men working in that mine. At Cadeby, unhappily, according to the report of Mr. Redmayne, there was only from 28 per cent. to 31 per cent. of stone dust in the road, and the consequence was that, when the explosion started, there was not sufficient dust in the road to stop its force, and unfortunately it extended with such disastrous results. I believe we are within a reasonable distance, if care is exercised, of providing a solution of this problem. Only a few weeks before this Cadeby explosion took place, I was in consultation with the Chief Inspector of Mines, and either he or I suggested, I do not know which, that it would be a good thing to stone dust all the roads leading to where fires took place. We arranged to do that. Unfortunately, it had not been done at Cadeby, or this deplorable accident would not have happened, and that is the cause why this explosion spread in the manner it did. The hon. Member went on to refer to the question of men being allowed to go down the mine. He said they went down, while others were actually being drawn up, and he contended that this showed a callous disregard on the part of mine owners for human life. Does the hon. Member seriously think that either the mine managers, or the mine owners, or the mine officials allowed the men to go down, knowing that an explosion had taken place? Really what happened was this. The officials in this particular district in which the men met with their death did not know at the time the men were let down that an explosion had actually taken place. An explosion might take place in a mine with men working within a distance of 500 yards, and those men would not even know that an explosion had occurred. I cannot think that the Cadeby officials or management were guilty——
    Mr. FRED HALL: I do not want to in-interrupt the hon. Baronet unnecessarily, but, as a point of Order, I should like to
    1990
    explain with regard to the men having knowledge of this explosion——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. FRED HALL: As a point of explanation, may I say it is a fact, and I think it was admitted by the owners' representative, that the night men were all brought to the bottom of the downcast shaft, and were not allowed an opportunity of ascending to the surface until the whole of the day men had been let down the other shaft, and therefore there was no communication between the night men and the day men, and it was not until the night men had been brought to the surface that the news spread that there had been an explosion during the night.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not my point at all. My point is that I cannot conceive anyone would have allowed the men to go down had they known there had been an explosion. I believe the colliery company repudiate strongly the idea that anyone knew that an explosion had taken place at the time the men went down. I am reluctant to believe that any human being could be so brutal as to deliberately allow men to go into the mine when they actually knew that an explosion had taken place. It is a cruel statement for the hon. Member to have made. The hon. Member repeats that it is a fact. I can only say, from my own knowledge of the Doncaster district, that no one knew at the time the men were let down that the explosion had taken place. As a matter of fact, what happened was that everyone lost their heads. It is as well the House should know that. There was a panic in the mine. Many of the officials were killed. His Majesty the King had that day gone down to South Yorkshire. He was to have met Mr. Pickering, the inspector of mines for the district. I believe at the same time many of the people had gone holiday-making on this particular day. What I say is this: that a panic took place, and there was gross mismanagement, after the first explosion, in allowing men to go down the mines indiscriminately. But, after all—and I have had something to do with being in these positions of danger after explosions, I have myself gone through these troubles—I can assure hon. Members it is not easy, when you see men lying about, to have the same calm judgment in the steps you have to take as in the normal circumstances of ordinary life.

    1991
    The next point raised by the hon. Member was in his statement that the men were in fear; that there was a state of fear prevailing at the time. I say, for my own part, that the whole management of Cadeby Colliery has been a mistake. They have boycotted the union for reasons best known to themselves. I always say to the men, "If you want members of your association to go down the mine at any time, do so whenever you like; we have nothing to hide. I would much rather you came." But the Cadeby people, unwisely as I think, have taken another line; they have prevented men going down into the mine or sending officials who are best qualified to report on the mine—to report not only to the men but to the inspectors as well. The Home Secretary stated that the hon. Member for South Glamorgan had dealt with this case with remarkable ability, and that he would rather have him on his side than against him. But the statements put forward by the hon. Member are of a highly coloured character, referring, as they do, to the conditions under which the men worked. Undoubtedly there is danger, and we have not yet discovered the cause. In common with several members of the Committee, I spent last summer travelling about the Continent and visiting mines liable to spontaneous combustion. We have sought and shall continue to seek a solution of this difficulty, and we hope that our labours will result in providing a solution of the greatest problem now before the mining industry.
    There are questions about breaches of the law. I say most deliberately, and with a sense of responsibility, that there is not a single mine to-day in Great Britain that is working in conformity with the Mines Act. I believe there are something like a thousand regulations at the present time in connection with mines, and while this House goes on passing intricate regulations day by day, while these orders are being turned out by the Home Office, it is impossible that every single detail can be attended to. After all, man is only a human being. He can only work a certain number of hours. The Committee which dealt with the question were opposed to having divided responsibility. I pointed out, time after time, that it was humanly impossible for one man to be responsible, but the Committee, in their judgment, thought otherwise. I pointed out some mines in which there were some
    1992
    thirty miles of roads, and as the manager might have to sign one hundred reports a day it was possible that there might be a small breach of the Act. I do not quite know what the hon. Member intends by this Motion, whether he wants to condemn the Home Office for what took place in 1912 or for not taking action to-day. As I have already pointed out these gob fires obtain in a good many mines in England at the present time. If the hon. Member can point out any method by which we can help to save life, I am sure he will have the support of the mine owners, and if he or anyone with knowledge of the subject will come before the Committee, my colleagues and I will be only too glad to have their experience as to how we can put an end to these explosions which bring about a deplorable loss of life we are all very anxious to avoid.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) and the hon. Member for the Normanton Division (Mr. F. Hall) in the point they have raised this evening. On both sides of the House we are all equally anxious to guard, so far as possible, against such deplorable accidents as that which took place at Cadeby the other day, and agree that we should try to make it impossible for such accidents to happen in the future. Having a large number of mining constituents in the Handsworth Division, in whom I have taken the greatest interest for many years past and with whom I work with the greatest cordiality, I am much more concerned in trying to prevent these accidents in future than in trying to put the blame on any one person for accidents which have taken place in the past. A Debate such as we are having to-night does a great deal of good. We have had an expression of opinion from the Home Secretary and from different mining experts, each of whom has thrown some light on the cause of the disasters and made some suggestions for their prevention in the future. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) told us that by stone-dusting the roads it is possible to diminish the risk of such explosions in the future. That is a valuable suggestion, and I hope it will be adopted. I do not often agree with the Home Secretary, and I do not necessarily agree with him now on every point, but I do agree with him that there are very great difficulties in dealing with these questions, because the circumstances in which such accidents

    1993
    arise are not by any means uniform and are very liable to vary to such an extent that it is impossible to foresee them accurately and legislate effectively to make them impossible in the future. I hope the House will forgive me if for a moment I recall to their memories the circumstances of the terrible accident which occurred in the Hampstead Colliery five or six years ago. I think the hon. Member for South Glamorgan was present shortly after the accident.
    Mr. BRACE: I was present at the inquiry.
    Mr. MEYSEY - THOMPSON: He and other mining Members will remember very well the circumstances which accompanied that most deplorable disaster. It would not be without its use if I recall to the memory of the House, or possibly for the first time explain to some hon. Members who were not then in the House, what happened in that particular case.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member would be justified in doing that, unless he has some complaint against the Home Office of a similar nature to that raised to-night. Merely to recall the particulars of a certain accident that may be similar to this one does not seem to be relevant.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: The reason I mentioned it was to make a suggestion with regard to avoiding these accidents in future, and to show how the loss of life could have been prevented in that case, either entirely or to a great extent, but which was not done in consequence of the want of an apparatus which could have saved those lives, and I should like to ask the Home Secretary to insist upon them being provided in all mines in the future. I think I shall be in order——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The point of this Motion is that the Home Office is in default—that is the object of raising the discussion now—default either by reason of some action which they took or some action they did not take. That is the point to which the hon. Member must confine himself.
    Mr. MEYSEY - THOMPSON: With respect, Sir, I am trying to show that they were in default in not having insisted upon the adoption of this apparatus before, and that they should do so in future. In the case of the Hampstead disaster, if the apparatus had been available at once the lives of those men could have been saved, or probably could have been saved. I say
    1994
    so for this reason, that the fire occurred between the upcast and the downcast shaft, and owing to that fact, the draught from the downcast being so strong into the mine, the explosion was carried by the intake along the road. The men endeavoured to escape by charging along this road, and they had no knowledge that by going towards the downcast shaft they were diminishing their chance of escaping. If the apparatus had been available at that time and two men armed with it had been sent down, they could have warned the men not to go through this downcast shaft, but to escape through doors of communication. I explained the apparatus after the accident, and said that the Home Office ought to make it compulsory for collieries to have this apparatus. The Home Office have not done it, and I call their attention now, at the very earliest opportunity, to the very important fact that such an apparatus should be provided in every district, in order that when a sudden explosion takes place it may immediately be available. I understand the hon. Member (Mr. Hugh Edwards) blames the Home Office for not taking sufficient precautions for saving men's lives, and that they themselves did not know, when they were within the working, that an explosion had occurred. If the apparatus had been available——
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The colliery company had a large station of rescuing appliances at the colliery which were used at the time.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Was it used immediately?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Can the hon. Member explain why the men could not be informed? I do not say that in every case of accident this apparatus would save the men's lives, but it would be a conributing factor. With regard to the withdrawal of men from these hot works, I feel very strongly on the subject myself. I think the men ought not to be called upon to work under dangerous conditions. The hon. Baronet says it is a question of opinion, but the opinion ought to be confined, as far as the Home Office can possibly do so, to cases where, obviously, there may be an open question. In this case, I think it was distinctly dangerous, and I can only blame the Home Office for this. The Home Secretary says he can find no words to express his sympathy with the men in this accident. On the

    1995
    contrary, I should say he finds plenty of words. What I want him to find is deeds. We are told over and over again that machinery exists for dealing with these accidents as they occur, and we find, over and over again, they are not dealt with by the Home Office in a satisfactory manner. I wish to express my sympathy with hon. Members who have brought this useful Debate before the House, and I hope it may result in a great deal of good. I hope, especially, it will result in this: that it will stir up the Home Office to take proper precautions in future.
    Mr. BRACE: In view of the declarations of the Home Secretary, which I accept at their full face value, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: It is a pity this discussion should close without one word of warning. With regard to the Home Office not having taken proceedings against Mr. Chambers, I have nothing to say. The right hon. Gentleman has adequately explained that a defect in the Act rendered such action impossible. Again, I have nothing to say as to the Act extending merely to managers where you are dealing with the suspension of certificates. That is a difficulty which might well be remedied. I do not agree that it is a remedy the need for which is derived from the Cadeby accident. Manifestly it is not. It is a remedy the need for which is occasioned by reason of the method in which the Bill was passed. What I wish to call attention to is a matter of very great importance. I do not speak as a practical colliery expert, but in another capacity I have had to make a very special study on the question of gob fires. On this question, as it affects the withdrawal of the men, there can be no doubt that the very greatest difficulties confront them, and the Home Secretary has the sympathy of everyone. But the way in which he is dealing with it does not, to my mind, command complete satisfaction. We know that America, Australia, and Germany have had Commissions equivalent to ours. We have had two Royal Commissions here, and none of them have come to any definite or satisfactory conclusion as to the proper treatment of gob fires. What does the right hon. Gentleman do? He degenerates from these Royal Commissions to a Departmental Committee, and I do not think that is really a very large or a very useful method of treating a
    1996
    very difficult problem, one which has defeated a series of Royal Commissions not merely in this country, but in other countries. The question of gob fires, at any rate, has direct relation to the question of the withdrawal of the men. So far as scientific knowledge has discovered, they are mainly due to three causes. Where you get falls of roof you get fissures, you get leakage of air, you get heat generated, and you eventually get spontaneous combustion.
    Mr. EDGAR JONES: Is it in order on this Motion of urgent public importance to enter into a detailed discussion generally on technical matters dealing with gob fires, which are a permanent thing, 300 years old?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is what we have been doing for the last hour and a half.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: One of the principal recognised causes of gob fires is where you get falls of roof, consequent leakage, consequent heating, and consequent spontaneous combustion. If you are going to withdraw men from the working face all over a large mine because any part of the mine contains elements of danger, you are going to create elements of danger all over the rest of your mine, and that is what Mr. Chambers meant when he said, "If you are going to withdraw all your men because you have a local gob fire, you will create more gob fires." That is the real practical difficulty. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, before he is too obliging and too complacent in accepting the suggestions which have proceeded from below the Gangway, will carefully consider the question, because if the effect of withdrawing all the men all over the mine because there is a gob fire in a particular place is going to create gob fires all over the mine, as most men of science say, you are merely closing the mine for the proprietor, you are closing the mine for the worker, you are increasing the price of coal to the public, and you are creating difficulty in a great number of directions. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he adds to the innumerable rules and regulations anything of this kind, first, to consult practical men in regard to it; and, secondly, not to be led, as he threatens to be, into defining the danger other than in general terms and in embodying, either in Statute or in rules or regulations, something which shall cover the whole area of danger irrespective of the facts of a particular case.

    1997
    You have far too many rules and regulations. But if, besides determining what shall be done in case of danger, you are going to include in your Statute or in the rules and regulations what is to constitute danger in any given state of circumstances, you are traveling altogether outside the usefulness of public Statutes.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES.

    [9.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Field, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Adamson, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    M'Kean, John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Alden, Percy

    Glanville, Harold James

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

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Arnold, Sydney

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Martin, Joseph

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

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

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Harmswoth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mond, Rt. Hon., Sir Alfred

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mooney, John J.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Morison, Hector

    Boland, John Pius

    Hazleton, Richard

    Muldoon, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Munro, Robert

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Brace, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hinds, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hodge, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Hogg, David C.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

    Chancellor, Henry George

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shee, James John

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Crooks, William

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cullinan, John

    Kelly, Edward

    Pointer, Joseph

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    King, Joseph

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Radford, G. H.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Dillon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Doris, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Duffy, William J.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Reddy, Michael

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McGhee, Richard

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Maclean, Donald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Falconer, James

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided: 262; Noes, 143.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Webb, H.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Sutton, John E.

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rowlands, James

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Winfrey, Richard

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wadsworth, John

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Snowden, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Waring, Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Forster, Henry William

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baird, J. L.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, Harry

    Grant, J. A.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Gretton, John

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hamilton, G. C. (Altrincham)

    Royds, Edmund

    Blair, Reginald

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Salter, Arthur Claveil

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Boyton, James

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hills, John Walter

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Starkey, John R.

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Campbell, Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cautley, H. S.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Sailsbury)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherhert

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

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

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Mason and Mr. Wheler.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put accordingly, and negatived.

    PLURAL VOTING BILL.
    Further considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
    Postponed Proceeding on Amendment proposed in, Clause 1, Sub-section (1),
    2000
    after the word "or" ["or ask for a ballot"], to insert the word "knowingly."—[Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.]
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted." Debate resumed.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not quite understand why the Government

    2001
    have refused to insert this word "knowingly." Surely they do not intend to penalise a man who is guilty of a technical offence without the least intention of committing one! I know that the theory of the Government is that all these people who are plural voters are educated men, and that the great majority are Conservative. A very large majority are what I may call, without offence, small men, and I am perfectly certain that many of them would be absolutely ignorant of the provisions of this Bill. How can the severe penalty be justified if they act without knowledge that what they are doing is an offence? Not merely that, but if a person breaks this law he is to be guilty of a corrupt practice, and he may invalidate election, and all because he has acted in ignorance of the law. I know that the Government will contend that everybody will know that this Act has passed and what it provides, but a very similar thing happens at the present time. In some constituencies you get people who are registered in more than one polling district. These people, to my certain knowledge, occasionally vote more than once in the same constituency without knowing that it is an offence. I remember the case of a man who came to me and said, "I have voted for you once already in such a place. I am voting for you again in this polling district, and after that I am going to vote in a third district." I said, "I strongly advise you not to. Do not tell anybody else what you have already told me, because if you do you will be guilty of a very serious offence, and there will be a heavy fine for voting more than once in the same constituency." That was an exactly similar instance to this. That man acted in absolute ignorance, though the existing law had been in operation for many years. Therefore, it is perfectly certain if you bring in this Bill, at all events for the first election after it comes into operation, that many of these plural voters would be totally ignorant of the law which had been passed. If that be so, are they to be penalised, and are you to run the risk of invalidating the election? This afternoon the Government stated that it will be printed on the ballot paper that no one can vote in more than one constituency. I do not know what authority there was for that statement. If they refuse to insert this word, are they willing to take any steps to inform electors of the passing of the law? Are they going
    2002
    to print this notice on the ballot paper, or put it over every polling booth, or take any steps whatever to warn electors of the risk they run? We are entitled to have some fuller explanation than we have got at the present, or what the intention of the Government is, of why they will not, insert this word, and what steps they propose to take to inform elecotrs of the risk they run.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: I listened with greatest care to the statement made by the Solicitor-General, and though I am unable to agree with him that no importance attaches to the word "knowingly," I was not quite able to understand his explanation. He admitted that it might be possible for a man to vote a second time without really having any intention to contravene the provisions of the Act.
    Sir J. SIMON: I said I could hardly conceive it.
    Mr. GOLDSMITH: Yes, but he admitted that it might be possible for a person to act without having any intention to defraud, and he went further, and said that if that happened the magistrate is under no obligation to inflict the whole penalty under the Act. In Section 6 of the Corrupt Practices Act, the penalty imposed is that the person may be imprisoned with hard labour for a term not exceeding one year, or have to pay a fine not exceeding £200. I quite agree that the maximum penalty need not be inflicted, but I ask the Solicitor-General to look at Section 3, which states that a man if convicted will, during a period of seven years, be unable to be registered as an elector, or vote at any election in the United Kingdom. He is also prevented from holding any public or judicial office within the meaning of this Act. That is if a man, without any intention, to contravene the meaning of the Act, does give a second vote, or ask for a second ballot paper, he is, even if the magistrate does not wish to inflict the maximum penalty, debarred from exercising his right as an elector for seven years, and from holding any public or judicial office for seven years. In Section 23 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act power is given to the High Court and to the Election Court to except innocent acts from being an illegal practice; that is to say, the High Court is given power to relieve any person or whitewash any person who has innocently committed an offence under that Act. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this

    2003
    word "knowingly" will he later on add a proviso in the same way as in the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. The Plural Voting Bill of 1906, as amended Committee, used the word "knowingly" in the same place as my hon. Friend wishes to insert it in this Bill. I cannot see any reason why the Government should refuse to insert the word.
    Sir J. SIMON: When I spoke before I pointed out that assuming that the offence was proved to have been committed, the magistrate in that, as in every other case, can exercise his discretion and decide not to convict on the ground that the offence was trifling, and if the magistrate did not convict then the consequences would not ensue at all. As regards the other point raised by the hon. Member, I am afraid I did not make myself plain. It is not the fact, especialy if the accused person acted without any sort of guilty intention at all, that he would be convicted under the Statute as it stands. It would not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person knew what he was about; it would be for him to get out of the difficulty. That is the difference between having the word "knowingly" and leaving it out.
    Mr. MALCOLM: What kind of magistrate would he be who would have to decide this point? There are magistrates and magistrates, and I ask the Solicitor-General for an explanation of the point. It might be that the magistrate, perfectly bonâ fide, would not take advantage of the Act and lean towards mercy, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that we really need the word "knowing." As long as a man is acting bonâ fide, and does not want to go behind the law, we do not want to penalise him for voting in two constituencies in the course of a General Election. The word "knowingly" might well be inserted if only to make the law clear to laymen, and it would certainly be to the advantage of those who really act bonâ fide. I suppose the Government has in contemplation some idea of Redistribution, and with alteration in the constituencies voters might find themselves in a difficulty as to the dividing line of the constituency. You would not, surely, penalise them in a case like that. The whole point really is to make this Bill as convenient and as clear as it possibly can be, and if the elector is acting bonaâ fide, why not put in the word "knowingly."
    Mr. NEWMAN: In 1906 the Colonial Secretary, who was in charge of a Bill of this kind, made great play of the word "knowingly." There was a long Debate on this very point. An Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman, representing Dublin University, and the Colonial Secretary accepted after the word "knowingly," the words "with the intention of evading the provisions of the Act." He did so after listening to a very powerful speech from the late Sir Charles Dilke, who was an acknowledged authority on electoral law, and who said that his experience did not bear out that the plural voter was a person who knew he was a plural voter and was known as such. We have progressed since 1906. The Government then were all powerful and in the heyday of their youth, but if they were powerful they were merciful. In 1913 in their old age they have lost their power and they are tyrannical. The Colonial Secretary put "knowingly" in the Bill in 1906 and accepted a qualification, and surely we might now have the simple word "knowingly" agreed to by the Government.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The additional explanation of the Solicitor-General makes it all the more essential that this Amendment should be accepted. He tells us that if a man is brought before a magistrate or a judicial tribunal, under this Bill, he will be presumed to have been animated by a guilty intention unless the contrary is proved. That is a grossly improper thing to enact. A man ought to be presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved. This Bill creates two entirely new offences hitherto unknown to the law, and in those circumstances it ought to be made perfectly clear, that a man is not liable to be brought before a magistrate unless he has a guilty intention. In his first speech the Solicitor-General pointed out that the word "knowingly" was not in Section 24 of the Ballot Act. The reason is perfectly clear. The offence under that Section could not possibly be committed except knowingly. The offence of personation must be committed knowingly; therefore it would be mere surplusage to have the word there. Contrast with that the actions which are made an offence under this Bill. One of the actions is to ask under certain conditions for a ballot or voting paper. Cases have been given in which it would be perfectly possible for a man with absolutely innocent intention to ask for a second voting paper. I submit that when

    2005
    an act is capable of two constructions, one innocent, and the other guilty, a man who acts with the innocent intention ought not to be liable to be brought before a magistrate for a criminal offence. The Solicitor-General says that a magistrate would have a discretion, and that if he thought there was no mens rea and that the offence had not been committed with a criminal intention, the magistrate would let the man off. But I say that the man ought not to be liable to be brought before the magistrate at all unless he had a guilty intention. Are we sure that the tribunal before which this presumably innocent man will be brought will always be perfectly competent or that the magistrate will always exercise his discretion properly? If the Solicitor-General is wrong in saying that that discretion will be always exercised properly, a man who, on the admission of the Solicitor-General, ought not to, be convicted, may be convicted through a want of discretion on the part of the magistrate. Under these circumstances the Amendment clearly ought to be accepted. I wish to ask the Solicitor-General a question, the answer to which may govern some votes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We on this side, at any rate, are honest. Is he prepared to accept an Amendment inserting the word "knowingly" a line or two lower down, so that the Clause will read "if a person knowingly acts in contravention of this Section he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice"?
    Sir J. SIMON: Honestly, I am not.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am much obliged for that honest interjection. It makes it all the more additionally clear that the word "knowingly" ought to be inserted here. If the Solicitor-General had told us honestly—I am using his own word—that he intended eventually to put words into the second Sub-section, our objections might have been removed, because in that case it would not have been possible to convict a man of the offence under Subsection (2), unless he had "knowingly" committed the offence. But now we have the honest declaration of the Solicitor-General that he intends under Sub-section (2) to allow a man to be convicted of an offence under the Act, although he does not do it knowingly. Therefore, I say it is absolutely necessary that we who have any regard for native justice and the liberty of the subject, should have here inserted the word "knowingly."
    Mr. SANDERSON: The reply of the Solicitor-General is by no means an answer to our point. As I understood the Solicitor-General he said that the subject was to be left to the magistrate. If the magistrate formed the opinion that a voter had voted in two constituencies without knowing he had committed an offence, the magistrate in all probability would let him off. I do not think that is a sufficient answer. If you leave this Bill in the form in which it stands at present, namely, that if a person votes in more than one constituency, etc., you may very well have the magistrate say, "I have only got to look at the Statute; the Statute says that if a man votes in more than one constituency, he is guilty of a corrupt practice, and I must fine him." It may be that the voter, in order to get the matter put right, would have to go to the High Court to put it right. There are a great many voters who would not be in such a position to be able to do that. They might not have the money, or they might not think it worth while. Is it not desirable therefore, and most essential, to make it perfectly clear what the intention of this House is: that only when a man does it "knowingly" shall he suffer. In regard to another point as to a corrupt practice, the Act of 1883 has been referred to, but obviously it refers to things which a man must have done knowingly. Take treating. A man who treats anybody with a view of getting his vote is not doing that innocently. He must do it knowing that he is doing something wrong. That is a very different matter. It is intended, as I understand, by this House not to make a man guilty of an offence unless he does it with intention. For these reasons I think there has been no sufficient answer by the Solicitor-General.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I agologise to the Solicitor-General if I show my ignorance, astounding or otherwise, in asking him a question. I understand that the chief reason he has given for not accepting this Amendment is that if a man is given into custody and brought up before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for having voted twice, or for asking for a voting paper twice, if he proves to the satisfaction of the magistrate that he did not knowingly commit this offence—that is to say, that he was not aware that it was an offence under the Act—the magistrate will immediately say, "Very well under those circumstances, we will dismiss the case." I have always understood that to

    2007
    plead ignorance of the law is no defence. Everyone is supposed to know the law. In these circumstances, what position should I be in as a magistrate if a case of that sort, were brought before me? Supposing some solicitor who appeared for the defendant happened to have read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and put that view before me and my fellow magistrates, are we to ignore it at once and say that according to the common law of England everyone is supposed to know the law, and that it was no defence to say the accused did not, know it? In these circumstances, much as I should regret it, I should feel bound to inflict a small penalty. I do not deny it may be a small penalty, but the man would go forth with the stigma of having been convicted for having done something wrong. He possibly might appeal against the decision of the magistrates. I am not sure that he could appeal if the penalty was not sufficiently large. The man would have been fined and he might not think it worth his while to appeal. When you come to the case of a poor man who left the Court with this stigma upon his character, his so-called friends or rivals would say he was convicted at the Police Courts on such or such a day and they would not inquire into the particulars. All this is likely to occur unless I am wrong, and I watched the face of the Solicitor-General and I could detect no expression to show that he dissented from what I say. Why not accept the word "knowingly." Everyone agrees — hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as those on this side—that we do not want to convict a person wrongly. All we want is to convict a person who has wilfully and knowingly committed an offence. The word "knowingly" is well understood, and I cannot conceive why it is not put into the Bill. Personally I may be glad the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it because it will show the constituencies how very careful hon. Members opposite are not to allow the poor man to have justice. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite must not laugh because I used the words "poor man." There are plenty of poor men who are plural voters. Besides, am I to understand that hon. Gentlemen below the
    Gangway opposite only desire justice for poor men and nobody else. We have endeavoured to put before the right hon. Gentleman unanswerable reasons for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I hope that even now at the eleventh hour he will accept it.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: It is difficult to understand why asking twice for a ballot paper under this Bill should be treated as more serious than the offence of personation. As I understand the offence of personation, it is that primâ facie a corrupt practice is committed if one person personates another in a polling booth. That is only a primâ facie assumption, and the onus is upon him to prove that his intention was an innocent one. Mr. Justice Denman, in one of his judgments, says:—
    "It is thoroughly understood election law that unless there is corruption and a bad mind and intention, impersonation is not an offence. If it is done under an honest belief that the man is properly there for the purpose of voting, it is held in this and all analogous cases that no offence has been committed. On the general principle that impersonation itself is not a corrupt practice, it seems to me that we ought to decide that the first vote is a good vote."
    That was a case under the Redistribution Act where a person attempted to vote in a borough which was divided into two divisions. Mr. Justice Denman goes on to say:—
    "To suppose that the legislature ever intended to enact that a man who, with perfect honesty but from a mere blunder. gives a vote, and, believing that he has a right to do so, gives a second vote, he being on the register, is to be deemed guilty of a felony, is to impute an intention to the legislature which is absurd …. I do not think that is the intention of the Act. I think there is still to be added to the offence of impersonation a corrupt intention."
    If that be the law as regards personation, which is a far more serious offence morally than the offence which is dealt with by this Clause, surely we may ask that in all fairness, and in the interests of those who innocently make a mistake, it shall only be deemed, primâ facie, to be a corrupt practice, and it shall rest with the defendant to show that his intention was a perfectly innocent one.
    Question put, "That the word 'knowingly' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 271.

    Barrie, H. T.

    Grant, J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Greene, W. R.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Blair, Reginald

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Boyton, James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Royds, Edmund

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hills, John Walter

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Snowden, Philip

    Cator, John

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cave, George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Starkey, John R.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chaloner Colonel R. G. W.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Swift, Rigby

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A. R.

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

    Crack, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Touche, George Alexander

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Tuilibardine, Marquess of

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

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

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Fell, Arthur

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

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

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mount, William Arthur

    Winterton, Earl

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Younger, Sir George

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Newman and Mr. Hume Williams.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Adamson, William

    Brace, William

    Delany, William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Alden, Percy

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Dillon, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

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

    Doris, Wiliam

    Arnold, Sydney

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Barnes, George N.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Barton, William

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Falconer, James

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Crooks, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Crumley, Patrick

    Field, William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cullinan, John

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Boland, John Pius

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    2010

    2011

    France, G. A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Reddy, Michael

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Gulland, John William

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Hackett, John

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Robinson, Sidney

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Martin, Joseph

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meagher, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    Molloy, Michael

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Molten, Percy Alport

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehy, David

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Morrell, Philip

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Muldoon, John

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, R.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Hinds, John

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

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hodge, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sutton, John E.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hudson, Walter

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Malley, William

    Wadsworth, J.

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Waring, Walter

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Kelly, Edward

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Webb, H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

    King, Joseph

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

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

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Phillips, John (Langford, S.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Leach, Charles

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Radford, G. H.

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

    Lundon, Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Mr. W. Jones.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Mr. PEASE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "constituency" and to insert instead thereof the words "one of the constituencies in which he is so registered." This is purely consequential on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Staveley-Hill) which was accepted.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Sub-
    2012
    section as it will read when thus amended?
    Mr. PEASE: It will read as follows:—
    "(1) During the continuance of a General Election of members to serve in a new Parliament, a person registered as a Parliamentary elector in more than one Division shall not vote as a Parliamentary elector, or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in more than one of the constituencies in which he is so registered."
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Will this interfere with the Amendment which raises the question of university representation?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. I propose to select the Amendment on that standing in the name of the Noble Lord.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I understand that the question of university representation comes up on the Amendment to insert the words "county or borough" in place of "constituency." If we decide now that "constituency" stand part of the Subsection, I suggest that that Amendment will not then be in Order.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not the form in which the question will be raised. It will be by means of words added at the end of the Sub-section.
    Question, "That the word 'constituency' stand part of the Sub-section," put, and negatived.
    Words "one of the constituencies in which he is so registered" added.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the words last inserted, to add the words, "other than a university constituency." I am not quite certain whether, with the alterations that have been made, these words come in here properly.
    The CHAIRMANindicated assent.
    11.0 P.M.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: If you, Sir, think so, I am satisfied. The Amendment is not, as most of the other Amendments have been, a drafting Amendment, nor is it one intended to make the Bill more intelligible and more readily understood. It is distinctly an Amendment of substance, which the other Amendments were not, and asks for a real concession. The Amendment suggests that the universities shall be exempted from the operation of this Bill. During the last few years there have been many Plural Voting Bills before this House, and all, with one exception, have more or less affected the university constituencies. Some of them have been similar to the Bill now before the Committee. They have left the university constituencies to continue to exist, but have prevented a university graduate from having his university vote in addition to the ordinary vote for his place of residence. On the other hand, one of the Bills which was introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, did not affect
    2014
    universities at all. The Franchise Bill introduced at the beginning of this year abolished university constituencies altogether, whereas the present Bill, like the Bill of 1906, leaves the university constituencies in existence, but practically bleeds them of the Members who constitute those constituencies. It is a little difficult to understand what is the definite attitude of the Government in respect to the university constituencies. I think one may say, looking at all these Bills, that that attitude is certainly not a very friendly one. It has been represented in some quarters that these attacks upon university representation would not have been made if the Members for the universities had sat upon the other side of the House, instead of upon this side. Personally, I am very unwilling to regard that as the reason which has actuated the Government in making these successive attacks upon the university constituencies. I cannot help referring to a passage which occurs in one of the books of Lecky, who was a distinguished Member of this House, in which he says:—
    "Surely it is impossible to exaggerate the fatuity of these attacks upon university representation, and the men who make them have rarely the excuse of honest ignorance. With many the true motive is simply the desire to extinguish constituencies which return Members opposed to their politics, and, at the same time, by depreciating the great centres of intelligence, to flatter the more illiterate voters."
    I am unwilling to accept this as the motive that actuates the Prime Minister in the action which he has taken. At the same time, I cannot help referring to the fact that those who are voting for the extinction of university constituencies or for leaving them in such a position that they will shortly become extinguished, must remember that they may be open to that charge. This Amendment recognises the fact that in this Bill universities will continue to send a Member to Parliament, and therefore my present purpose is not to defend university representation, which would be comparatively an easy task, because university representation is conceded under the Bill, but to show reason why the universities should be exceptionally treated, and that even if it be enacted, as I hope it may not, that no one shall be permitted to vote in any two ordinary constituencies, any registered graduate of a university may still be permitted to have his vote at the university and at the same time his vote in the constituency where he resides. What I have set myself

    2015
    to endeavour to show is, that the Government should be willing to make a distinct exception in the Bill on behalf of university constituencies. In order to make good the claim which I am putting forward for exceptional treatment for these universities it is necessary for me to show that they differ in almost every respect from any ordinary constituency, and it is on the ground of these differences that my claim rests.
    There is no doubt that the university franchise is in many ways different from and, indeed, rests on altogether a different basis from that of other constituencies. Whatever may be said of the men who now or in former times may have represented universities in this House, it cannot be denied for a moment that the university constituencies are the only constituencies which consist exclusively of educated men, that is, of men who have received a protracted training covering several years and have passed examination tests showing that they have profited, at any rate to some extent, by the course of training they have received. This is one essential difference between a university constituency and any other constituency to which the Bill refers. Then, again, the franchise in a university is not conferred by virtue of ownership or of residence. It is distinctly and solely given on educational grounds, and it is open to all persons to obtain it. The wider the opportunities enjoyed for acquiring a university education, the larger the number of those persons who will be qualified to vote. It follows from what I have said—perhaps I shall not carry all Members of the House with me in this matter—that if we regard, as I know many persons do, the franchise as a right belonging to every citizen, then I say that the franchise, which a university education confers, is not a right but a privilege. It is a privilege, too, which serves as an encouragement, and I venture to say a great encouragement, to every boy in an elementary school to work for a university degree—a degree which qualifies him to take some additional share in the government of his country. I venture to think that no more democratic recognition of the value which an enlightened nation should give to education can possibly be conceived.
    There is no constituency in which the abolition of plural voting would have such far-reaching results in destroying entirely
    2016
    the character of the constituency as in the case of the universities. Nearly every constituent of a university is a plural voter, and a plural voter on account of his educational qualifications. Of course, in other constituencies a certain small percentage of the electorate are plural voters, but in my Constituency there are about 7,000 voters, and nearly everyone of these is a plural voter. The disfranchisement, therefore—because it really would amount to disfranchisement—of so many voters holding their franchise on educational lines only would certainly suggest that the universities should receive exceptional treatment. There are other important differences to which I should like to refer. The method of election in a university is absolutely distinct from the method in any other constituency. No attempt is made in a university election by any of the ordinary practices to influence the votes of the electors. No exaggerated statements are put forth, no inaccurate telephone messages are sent, no false telegrams are dispatched. There are no picture posters and no platform speeches—nothing to confuse the issues or to interfere with the free and unfettered choice of the electorate. Can this be said to be the case in any constituencies other than the universities?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I believe it is the case to a very great extent in the City of London, but certainly it will be recognised that the conditions under which Members are returned by the universities are simply ideal. They are just the conditions which every Member of this House would like to see introduced into his own constituency. They are something for which you should strive, something to be encouraged and not discouraged. The electors of a university vote openly. Why is the ballot still used in other elections? It was adopted as a safeguard against bribery and intimidation. Electors in a university are not amenable either to bribery or intimidation. These great differences between a university election and the elections in other constituencies suggest that the university franchise should be strengthened in the country rather than weakened. I am in hopes that under a Redistribution Bill which we have been promised and which ought logically to precede, and not follow, a Plural Voting Bill, additional votes may be given to the graduates of the newer universities who have themselves put in a claim. The university system of election

    2017
    should be encouraged, and I look forward to a time—it may be distant—when the procedure adopted at university elections may become general, when the utter vulgarity of picture leaflets and postcards shall have disappeared, when all appeals to the self-interest and the prejudices of the people shall have vanished, and when the electors will be so trained as to regard as a positive insult to their intelligence much of the claptrap that is now heard in platform speeches.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that we can have a whole review of our electoral system. The purpose of this Amendment is to retain the additional vote in the special case of the university elector.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: I want to show that the university electoral system is exceptional, and that, therefore, exceptional treatment should be given. These differences to which I have referred are so far-reaching and deep-seated that although I personally am opposed to the general or partial extension of the franchise to women, just in the same way as the supporters of this Bill are opposed to plural voting, I certainly would support a proposal for giving the franchise to registered women graduates so as to enable them to vote for a university Member, and this simply because the conditions of a university election are altogether different from those of an ordinary election. This Bill proposes to treat university constituencies in the same way as ordinary constituencies. It would prevent an elector from voting in a university if he votes elsewhere. Can it be doubted for a moment that in a hotly-contested election a local agent will bring great pressure to bear upon the doctor, the lawyer, the teacher, the engineer, and other professional persons holding a university degree in the town in which the election is to take place to urge them to vote for the local candidate. He will be told that the result of the election depends upon a very few votes, and that there is a great deal more party interest in the local candidate than there is in the university candidate. The result of that will be that in nearly all constituencies the practice will be to secure votes for the local candidate instead of for the university candidate, and the university constituency will be depleted to such an extent that the next step will be to abolish altogether university representation. That, I think, would be a serious evil.
    2018
    But the inconvenience of the proposed arrangement is shown in this—that at a by-election the entire university constituency will vote, whilst at a General Election those only would vote who felt that the result of the election of the local candidate, whom they preferred, was secure, and that they might accordingly vote for the university candidate. It will be seen, therefore, that any by-election might reverse the decision at a General Election. This occasionally occurs in other constituencies, but the difference between the number of electors at a General and at a by-election in any ordinary constituency would be nothing as compared with the difference at a university election. We have been told that university representation is an anomaly, and that to give two votes to a graduate and only one vote to other persons would be a further anomaly. Can we say that, if this measure became law, our system of franchise would be altogether free from anomalies? Would a House of Commons elected in accordance with this Bill be a true mirror of the citizens of this country? Are we not removing one anomaly whilst we leave other anomalies untouched, and does it not frequently happen that anomalies tend to counterbalance one another, and that to withdraw one without removing others tends to accentuate the effect of those that remain. But what has the Prime Minister said as regards anomalies? He told us that he had no objection to anomalies, as such, and in a picturesque simile, defining their limits, he said—
    "So long as anomalies are confined within those limits, I should not raise a finger to lop them off."
    But by assenting to this Bill, he has done just what he said he would not do. For surely no anomaly could exist within much narrower limits than those which confine university representation. The proposed Amendment affects only six constituencies in the United Kingdom out of over 500, and granting that the suggested treatment of university representation is exceptional, it would certainly be useful, for it would indicate the value which this country attaches to educated public opinion in the direction of the affairs of the Empire. Labour and capital are each well represented in this House. It is right and proper that they should be, but the intellectual and spiritual forces of the country cannot be so distinctly represented. Yet it is these forces that direct the flow of capital and labour into serviceable channels and create those original

    2019
    ideas that mark new epochs in the history of industry, invention, and indeed of civilisation.
    Surely, therefore, it cannot be opposed to the best interests of society, but, on the contrary, must make for human progress that some slight additional weight shall be given to education in the councils of this Empire. In proposing this Amendment I have refrained from quoting John Stuart Mill in support of my arguments, because I always feel that a Member, on whichever side of the House he sits, is able to find in the works of that great political writer some passage which he can quote to suit his purpose. Still the testimony of Mill as an advanced Liberal is very pertinent to the matter we are now considering. He said:—
    "In any future Reform Bill which lowers greatly the pecuniary conditions Of the suffrage it might be a wise provision to all graduates of universities…to be registered specifically in those characters and to give their votes as such…retaining in addition their votes as simple citizens in the localities in which they reside."
    That is exactly what my Amendment proposes. I have repeatedly referred to the argument that the granting of this exceptional treatment would be an anomaly in our procedure. May I say that the greatest anomaly is that this measure, which seeks to place the university constituency on the same level as every other, and which deprives some 30,000 men in Great Britain alone of a privilege which they have enjoyed for many years, a privilege which is open to all and due entirely to their educational qualifications, should have been introduced into this House and strongly supported by the Minister of Education, whose special duty it is to encourage in every way he can the education of the citizens of the Empire!
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has made an earnest appeal to the House. I hope he will not think I am treating a grave subject in a rather perfunctory fashion if I reply with comparative brevity. The main substance of his speech was a plea for exceptional treatment on behalf of one section of the body of plural voters, and a section which I quite agree is a distinguished section, but still a section. We have discussed amendments in favour of other classes ranging upwards from £10 householders to what I suppose the hon. Member regards as the
    2020
    highest class, the university graduate. All those sections which are asking the Government to make an exception in their favour have, from the point of view of this Bill, and from the point of view of the Government, this one fatal defect, that they are all plural voters. The object and purpose of this Bill is to abolish the plural voter. If once that principle is accepted, and the House has already accepted it, then I think it is very difficult to make out a case for any exception.
    The hon. Member in the main alleged two grounds why an exception should be made in the case of universities. He dwelt very eloquently on the purity of election which prevailed in universities and in universities alone. One would have thought while listening to the hon. Member that the whole of that system of which we have so little acquaintance was to be abolished by the provisions of this Bill. What are the facts? The Bill does not disfranchise the universities. Many of my hon. Friends would be very glad if it did. It does not remove one single university Member from this House. It does not prevent anyone who enjoys a university vote from exercising it in the future if he pleases. All that it does is to put the plural voter with a university vote to the necessity of making a choice. If the advantages are as great as the hon. Member suggested, the educated voter can have no doubt as to where he should cast his vote. The second ground on which the hon. Member based his claim for exceptional treatment was that of educational qualification. Many of us have associations with universities, but when you strip these away, and see in imagination not the universities but the graduates, the actual constituents, you form a very different conception of the case. Is there really any claim to be made for university graduates from the political point of view different from that which has already been made this afternoon on behalf of the men who have interests in two places, who reside in one place and have their business in another?
    What is it that the hon. Member asks us to do? He asks us to make a single exception, and to perpetuate the plural vote in the case of Masters of Arts of Oxford or Cambridge; that is to say, not necessarily those who have passed the highest educational tests, but those who have happened to keep their names on the books of the university, and paid the necessary fees. I am afraid that if

    2021
    the educational qualification were to be taken, it would have to be extended far beyond the universities. We should have to give votes proportional to the degree of education attained. There are very good reasons why we should not do anything of the sort. The hon. Member quoted a passage from Lecky. I cannot quote the exact words, but I have a recollection of another passage of Lecky in which he states plainly and un-equivocably that in his opinion universities have always been obstacles in the way of progress. If that be so, it is a very good reason why we should not give additional votes for educational qualifications. I do not wish to labour the point, because there cannot be any doubt, at any rate on this side, on the question. The main principle already enshrined in the Bill is that the plural vote is an unfair anomaly and must go. To that principle we hold and no exception must be made. We rely on the simple plan that if you have a political personality it shall not be divided, a part in one place and a part in another, so as to have double power, but that the vote shall be exercised once, and once only.
    Sir WILLIAN ANSON: I congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. Baker) on his perspicuity. One cannot help noticing the complete change which may come over the view of an hon. Member of this House when he passes from a Back Bench to the Front Bench. What we are arguing is that we should legislate on the lines of the hon. Member's own Bill of last year, when universities were kept out of the operation of the plural voting measure then introduced. Out of the whole area and field of necessary Parliamentary reform in this House and the other House the Government have chosen one small form of reform which involves the disfranchisement to a large extent of their political opponents. The constituencies which are mostly affected by this are, as the hon. Member has truly said, constituencies that are largely composed of plural voters. I do not dispute that: they were so from the beginning. The franchise conferred by the university degree was superimposed upon any other franchise which the possessor of a degree might hold. What is proposed to be done by this Bill is so to affect university constituencies that in any future scheme of redistribution that comes along the universities will be something too small to be considered, and there is a probability of their being effaced altogether from our Parliamentary system. Why is there this
    2022
    hostility to university representation as such? We are told that it is undemocratic. Whatever it is it is a representation of educated and intelligent persons; and whatever the conditions are as to keeping the names of the graduates on the books, the possessors of the franchise must be persons of education and intelligence. Where you get education and intelligence concentrated in one representative body, I think it is hardly just to democracy to call such representation undemocratic!
    It is said that the university representatives are all one side in politics. I think that is alleged as a distinct reason for bringing about the disfranchisement of the universities. These men must vote one side or the other. I do not think they would be acceptable to either side if they came into the House with such open minds that no one could ever rely upon them to vote one way or the other. In 1906 Wales had a large representation of hon. Members on the other side, but no one on the other side ever said that Wales should be disfranchised because the Welsh Members were all Radicals, although I feel sure that if you were to inquire as to the views of the minority in Wales you would find that they were much less satisfied with their representation than is the minority in the universities, where the representation is all Unionist. What I ask is that this question should be fairly considered and should be dealt with in such a way that when the question of university representation does come up for consideration it should not be prejudiced by a condition to which this Bill will have reduced the university franchise. I frankly say I am an advocate of plural voting on the ground that it is to some extent, though not satisfactorily, a bulwark against handing over all power to mere members. Quite apart from that I say that university representation is a large question, that it is a valuable element in our representative system and ought to be looked at from that point of view, not from any mere question of the politics of the representatives of the universities or the question of plural voting.
    Whether you withdraw the vote or not, I venture to submit that for reasons I will lay before the Committee, university representation should be maintained. I will give one reason. There is no doubt that it the present moment there is a

    2023
    movement of educational advancement all over the country which will be stimulated and guided by legislation. There is a great interest in education all over the country, and there is a great desire that the best should be open to everybody. But there are risks attending that. There is the possibility that in order to admit everybody the standard may be lowered and it is well that there should be men sent here from the universities whose business it is to remind the House when legislation comes on of the proper relationship of the different parts of the educational system and the proper position of the universities in the country or in any country; that the university is not merely a finishing secondary school, but that it is a place devoted to the interests of knowledge and the advancement of learning, and that side by side there should be this teaching given by those advanced in knowledge, and that the only way to get an ideal treatment is that the highest ideal of learning and teaching should always be kept before the legislature that has to deal with the education of the country. I said the ideal of the university should always be present as the educational ideal before Members of the legislature, and with that object and for that purpose university representation should not be merely maintained but cherished by this House.
    I will advance another argument. There is no doubt the universities new and old are gaining a great hold upon our national life. The new universities are situated in great industrial centres. They are objects of pride to the cities in which they are placed. The old universities, less favourably situated for this purpose are by means of extending their lectures and sending forth men yielding the best to the great industrial centres, and are getting hold upon the people over the country, and I know very well that workmen who come up from all parts of the country for the summer classes in the long vacation, certainly at Oxford, of which I speak from experience, go away with reverence and admiration for the place when they have discovered that there are men there who work for the advancement of knowledge and with the desire to implant knowledge as well as having the great blessing of enjoying knowledge. I ask that this matter shall not be prejudged by the refusal to introduce this Amendment. Universities may be dealt with as
    2024
    they now stand. The object of our representation and its character, and the whole procedure of our elections are on a different footing to that of any other constituency, and I ask, with all the earnestness that I can impress upon the House, that this subject may be dealt with seriously and with a liberality of mind which it deserves.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I am sure this discussion has been rendered most interesting by the eloquent speeches we have had from hon. Members representing university constituencies. I was speaking to one of the Members for Cambridge University, and I told him he would have to come forward and defend its representation. He replied "No, you ought to defend it, you are my constituents." Although it is not proposed in this Bill to abolish university seats, I hold that in practice it will do that because the constituents of universities will have to elect which constituency they will vote for, and there is no doubt that an elector will decide to vote in the constituency in which he resides. No doubt pressure will be brought upon them by the local agents to vote where the votes are most required, and that will leave a very small number of graduates to record their votes for the Member for the university, and therefore he will be a Member representing a very small constituency. In my experience those who have represented universities have been an ornament to this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear those cheers, and I am sure hon. Members will agree with me when I name Professor Jebb and Professor Butcher, because you could not name two men who better represented education in this House. I always thought that the Radical party were the best friends of education, or rather, that they represented themselves to be. It looks as though we were mistaken, and that they are now afraid of education being properly represented. Why have you allowed university representation to go on under the Home Rule Bill? You have not disqualified Dublin University, and I do not know that you gave any reason why that constituency should be disfranchised. The Financial Secretary to the War Office gave no logical reason at all why this Amendment should not be accepted, but he simply stated that the Government plan was to abolish plural voting. He gave no valid reason why university

    2025
    Constituencies should cease to exist. We who are honoured by being the electors of the old universities are pleading to-night that these votes may be allowed to exist as they have existed for about 300 years. There are only six universities, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the position. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I think that the Committee has some reason to complain of the very perfunctory manner in which this Amendment was dealt with by the Financial Secretary of the War Office. He took a leaf out of the book of the President of the Board of Education and thought it quite enough to say that the Amendment was inconsistent with the Amendment was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is simply this, that the Government desire to disfranchise those who they think are likely to vote against them. The Bill has no higher motive or principle than that, and on the Second Reading it was candidly avowed by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they supported it for that reason, and that reason only. I do put it to the Committee that the universities ought to be excepted from the operations of this Bill. I think that it is unsound as applied to the ordinary constituencies of the country in respect of the occupation and residential franchise, but it must be obvious to everyone that it is utterly unsound when applied to the universities.
    The vote for university representation rests on a special qualification, and it is well known to everyone when university representation was introduced that those who enjoyed the university vote would also in almost every case enjoy the right to vote in another constituency. It is the very basis of university representation that the special educational qualification will in almost every case be in addition to the ordinary qualification possessed in on of the constituencies of the country. If that is the basis on which university representation rests, surely it is obvious that you ought not to supply to the universities the same standard that you apply to ordinary constituencies which rests on a different basis altogether. Reference has been made to what Mr. Lecky thought on this subject. The Financial Secretary to the War Office quoted one expression from Mr. Lecky. May I be allowed to remind him of another. Mr. Lecky said that in any sane system of Parliamentary representation the representation of the
    2026
    universities certainly deserved to be kept up. Surely it is only a right and a rational thing that some weight should be attached to education, and to educational qualification. The representation of the universities affords some recognition, a very inadequate recognition I admit, of the right of education and intelligence to some special voice in the counsels of the nation, and that the weight attached to that representation is inadequate is no reason for doing away with what representation we have. I think that in the case of the Scottish universities I may make a special appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite on the ground that they are most thoroughly democratic institutions. Scottish university education has always been open to all classes of the community.
    There is not a single hon. Gentleman, on whichever side of the House he sits, who does not know that the pride of the Scottish universities has always been that they have been open to every class of the community. The same thing might be said of other universities south of the Tweed, but it has been the glory of the Scottish universities which have existed for many hundreds of years north of the Tweed that that has always been characteristic of them, and I do ask the House whether it is right, with regard to constituencies of that kind, which have recognised the value of educational qualifications, and which are open to everyone, to whatever class they may belong—I ask whether it is right that that qualification should be attacked in such a Bill as this. The Bill itself purports to exempt universities from its application; it does not attack university representation; it leaves it intact, and I say if you do not do it directly you should not attempt to do it indirectly. Do not do by subterfuge that which you are afraid to do directly by legislation for that purpose. The object of the application of this measure to universities is to bleed university representation to death. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may applaud that statement. But what is it they want? They want to do indirectly what they dare not attempt to do directly. I hope that the House will not lend any countenance to a proposal of that kind.
    I would add one other practical reason to the considerations I have advanced. There will be an extraordinary condition of affairs introduced if this Bill passes in this form, because where university graduates take a considerable part in an election it will be open to them to select

    2027
    the constituency in which they vote, and up to the last moment you will not know how their vote will be cast. Surely a rational principle is not to introduce a state of things whereby you will have one result at a by-election and another result at a General Election. It is beyond all question that at a by-election where this Bill would not apply, the whole university vote might be cast one way while at a General Election to which the Bill would apply the vote might be so divided as to alter that result. Surely that would not be a desirable or right state of things. On the whole I would ask the Committee to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, and to say that it refuses to take any part in doing by indirect means what this Bill by direct means does not affect to do, viz., to prejudicially affect the representation of universities.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: After the very able speeches delivered by my right hon. Friends, it will not be necessary or desirable that I should go deeply into this subject, and I will therefore only devote my observations to one or two points. The Bill, as it stands, without this Amendment, implies, as is recognised by those who defend it, that no distinction ought to be drawn between a person who has passed an educational test and one who has not. Therefore, in this Amendment, we raise an issue really apart from its ulterior effect on university representation. Is it right that the opinion of a person qualified by a certain educational standard should have a greater political weight than those of one not so qualified. I should have thought it would have been confessed on both sides of the House, and certainly not less on the Liberal side, that the importance of maintaining the full value of education should have great weight in determining the vote of hon. Gentlemen on this subject.
    Is it not an absurdity to spend great sums of public money to encourage not only education in elementary schools, but also an elaborate system of secondary education that includes a large number of scholarships which enable persons to receive this university education, if you think that persons so educated are not better qualified to form a judgment upon any political question than they were when the educational process started? If education makes a person no better a political judge,
    2028
    if it adds nothing to his political judgment, is it worth while spending all this money upon him? Why should we educate him? Why not drop our educational expenses and greatly relieve the finances of the country? Surely no one really doubts that the political judgment of a man who has received a careful education is better than the political judgment of one who has not received a careful education. The only answer to that is what was touched upon by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who resisted this Amendment. It is that the British universities have not been what is called "progressive," that is to say, that they have returned Unionist or Conservative Members to Parliament.
    12.0 m.
    There are universities in many parts of Europe which we know are progressive. In Russia, for instance, you would not find the universities were blamed for not being progressive. There is nothing essentially retrogressive in having received an education. It is quite possible to find educated people who are very progressive. It may be an unfortunate coincidence or accident that educated people, as a general rule, disagree with hon. Members opposite. Whatever the explanation may be, it is not inherent in, the nature of progress or of education. Historically, you may find some explanation of the circumstance that the universities, as they are at present, have thrown their weight on the non-Liberal side. The universities in the past have undoubtedly been closely connected with the Church of England, while Liberalism, on the other hand, has undoubtedly in the past been closely connected with Nonconformity. That circumstance has produced a severance between the universities and Liberalism, which in the nineteenth century was a very prominent fact. I do not think it is likely to continue in respect to all university education and all Liberal parties in the future.
    If I may say so without offence, I think Liberal Members are very short-sighted in this matter if they suppose that the sort of political situation which existed in the nineteenth century and which has been prolonged into the early years of the twentieth century is going to last for ever. Nothing could be a greater mistake. The old quarrels between the Church and Nonconformity, of which we see the dying embers in the Established Church (Wales) Bill controversy, are rapidly becoming settled, and the sharp cleavage between the universities and Liberalism will pass away. There are growing up on every side

    2029
    new universities, and beyond all question there will be an immense extension of university education in the future. It will no longer be associated with any exceptional degree of wealth, or with any particular ecclesiastical opinion. University education will become very widespread and there will be no difficulty at all in constructing such a system of university representation as will quite fairly and comprehensively represent all the highly educated opinion. Why abolish university representation just now because you are dissatisfied with what has happened in the past, because from a merely party point of view university representation is a trivial obstacle in the way of the Liberal Party. It is very common to look back upon the political ideals of the past and to see in them much that seems strange. For example, many people now see very vividly how absurd it was to draw a great distinction in respect to rank and station which prevailed in earlier centuries in this country. It is quite absurd to ignore the real value of education. It will seem quite as silly to posterity that this House was inclined to say that the educational qualification had no special value in respect to voting as it seems to us that a person of noble blood ought to have special political privileges. If we look wisely back on the errors of the past it should be to warn us against making the like errors now in the different circumstances of our own affairs. It is just such an error that we shall make if we deny the real political value of education, and by rejecting this Amendment affirm the principle that an educated man is no better than an uneducated and that political judgment is dissevered altogether from the cultivation of the intellect.
    Sir J. SIMON: We have had by common consent an interesting discussion on this Amendment, though to some of us the arguments used in support of the Amendment appear very strained. Here is a Bill which proposes to abolish plural voting, and the Amendment suggests that plural voting should not be abolished in the very constituencies where it is most obviously present. That is the meaning of the Amendment, to exclude from the Plural Voting Bill the exercise of the plural vote by persons in university constituencies which consist of nothing but plural voters. The speeches which have been made, interesting and powerful as they undoubtedly have been, do not seem
    2030
    to my mind really to grapple with what is at the bottom of the whole proposal to abolish plural voting. We take the view that while of course the influence and authority of different citizens varies—it is absurd to say that since men are equal therefore one man has as much political instinct and sagacity as another—the very fact that some citizens, thanks to educational advantages have had better training and more experience than others gives them in itself an influence in our community.
    The hon. Baronet (Sir P. Magnus) says the university voter is always an educated man, therefore he can only exercise a fair influence in the State if he votes twice while everyone else votes once. That is not the way in which educated people exercise their influence in the State. That is not the way in which university education ought to have its effect upon the government of the State. Anyone who knows this House of Commons knows of people serving in it who on one side or the other have had the unestimable advantage of university training who sit for seats which are not university seats and presumably exercise such influence as they have, partly because of the training they have received. I repudiate altogether the idea that, because forsooth a man who has had the advantages of a university training and has got, it may be, in some respects qualities which make him a wiser guide than others, therefore it is necessary to allow him to vote twice before we can be sure that he exercises his influence. Take just the very class who compose the electorate of such a university as Oxford. It is not a fact that those who vote in the university of Oxford are always people who have had distinguished scholastic careers, or who have a very extensive knowledge of political affairs.
    In substance, and for the most part, they are men who have enjoyed the advantages of a university education, have become clergymen of the Church of England, and, for reasons which have nothing to do with the important part which Oxford graduates might play in the government of the country, have kept their names on the college books. They have done so because, in addition to being graduates, their university has got livings to give away. If they are, as many of them are, persons of culture, refinement, and education, they exercise, and rightly exercise, influence in the society where

    2031
    they live week by week, month by month, and it may be Sunday by Sunday. Then why on earth is it alleged that citizens who have got that advantage, and who use it perfectly honourably and uprightly, are also to have the purely mechanical advantage of voting twice, while everybody else votes once? Really the suggestion which is made that this Amendment should be accepted because of the peculiar virtues of a university constituency is one which, I fear, can hardly be supported by those who consider the history of the case.
    We are told that a university constituency likes independence, and that it gives an opportunity for honourable and intelligent men to take an independent line to an extent which other constituencies do not. What is the history of the most distinguished university representative who ever sat in this House? If ever there was a man qualified to sit for a university constituency by education, training, and attachment to learning, it was Mr. Gladstone, but the moment he found himself unable to maintain the opinions which commended themselves to the body of persons who represented the university he was immediately thrown out from the representation of Oxford university, and he had to find a seat elsewhere. It will not do to say that the existence of the university plural voter can be defended on the ground that he shows a particular width of view in judging of his representative, or that he gives him a latitude which is not found elsewhere. There are great popular constituencies which do give such latitude to the men who represent them, but I question very much whether that can be said of university constituencies. When university representatives have taken a view contrary to the general trend of opinion among those who returned them I do not think they have found themselves particularly generously treated by the constituencies. We were told a year or two ago that there were certain topics which in the view of hon. Gentleman opposite should be referred to a referendum. Was their view that a referendum was a system by which anybody else should have one vote and every university graduate should have two votes? From time to time this House has set up constitutions for the Empire beyond the seas. Does anybody suggest that we could with the slightest prospect of not being laughed out of this House propose for any other part of the British
    2032
    Empire that there should be one man one vote for everybody except university graduates in Melbourne or Toronto.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: What about Ireland?
    Sir J. SIMON: Ireland is really an instance the other way. We found there an existing set of constituencies, and we regrouped those constituencies in order to avoid the drawing of new lines of division between one constituency and another. I am afraid that the day has gone by when anybody could justify the idea that the university graduate should have two votes and everybody else should have only one, and while I do not resent, but I sympathise with the arguments, of those who speak of their great attachment to the universities, their very argument is an admission that this thing is an anomaly which it is extremely difficult, even from their point of view to defend by systematic logical argument, and they must know how impossible it is for the masses of the people of this country to accept or understand such a contention.
    It really is not the fact that certain persons who are members of universities, those great centres of learning about which we never think of using any language except the language of affection and admiration, but it really is not true—and Oxford and Cambridge men would be wise to realise it—to say that we do not find a high degree of education and culture among many people who unfortunately have had no university training or degree. Therefore we are only left with the choice of two things. One is to have an elaborate system which sets up throughout the country a series of tests on examination lines, and give a man two votes if he gets a certain total and additional votes if he scores higher, and the other is that all citizens should be treated on a political equality. In this particular case this special class needs the special privilege which is advocated for them less than any other class. I trust that I will never speak in language other than that of admiration and devotion of the great seats of learning to which many of us in this House owe far more than we are ever likely to be able to express or repay, and I do not associate and I never have associated myself with those who speak slightingly of the great work of those institutions. But I cannot bring myself to believe that if these institutions,

    2033
    exercise their true functions in a modern state it is really necessary to confer upon those who have enjoyed the exceptional advantages of that training and that association the purely mechanical advantage of multiplying their voting power in the State by two and telling everybody else that they must be content with one vote and one vote only.
    Mr. BALFOUR: It may perhaps be desirable that on this side of the House some one who has never been a university representative and is never going to be a university representative should take some part in this Debate. I feel very strongly on this subject, and, as I consider the speeches delivered from the Front Bench opposite utterly inconclusive, perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a very few words. We have had a few very distinguished Oxford representatives who are determined, if they can, to deprive their university of the representative privileges which it now enjoys. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir J. Simon), a most brilliant son of Oxford, has told us, I think, in two separate passages of his speech, how deep is his devotion and how great his affection for that seat of learning, For myself, I hope never to hear a Cambridge man praise Cambridge as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has praised Oxford. There are some arguments which I think are weighing with hon. Gentlemen opposite who propose to support the Bill in its present form—some which are unexpressed and some which are expressed. There is the wire-puller's argument, and there is the doctrinaire's argument.
    The wirepuller's argument is, of course, a simple one. At the present moment all the universities return Members hostile to the party now in power, I do not propose to deal with that argument. I do not suppose that anybody on the other side would care to develop it, however much they may be moved by it. I think the more thought that those Members of the House have given to the subject, or are giving thought to the arguments of my Noble Friend, the more they will see that there is not so much advantage to be gained from abolishing the present system as in their most sanguine moments they may suppose. In regard to the doctrinaire's view, the argument takes two forms—the less plausible and the more plausible form. The less plausible form
    2034
    is the form developed by the Under-Secretary—that the Bill has been brought in to abolish plural voting, and that it would be very illogical to have any Amendment in it which modifies the uninterrupted and consistent pursuit of that principle in every department of our political life. Therefore, he would not accept the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman put it somewhat differently. He said, this is obviously an anomaly, which is utterly indefensible from. the point of view of what he called logic—it was not the logic he learnt at Oxford—and one of his most astonishing developments of the doctrinaire's argument was that you never would dare to suggest it in any new country, or any of your own self-governing Dominions where you intended to establish democratic institutions. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Referendum."] That does not touch the argument I am going to lay before you. In the first place I venture to doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman's facts.
    I do not believe that you can lay down now and for all time that our great and rising democracy are going to hold university education in such contempt that it would be regarded as an absurdity to suggest that a great and growing university like Melbourne—the case which was put—is for ever to remain without special representation. I am not sure it is so, but whether it is true or not it is utterly irrelevant. Is not one of the advantages of living in a country where institutions have slowly grown up, not in accordance with logic as understood by the learned Gentlemen opposite, but under the moulding influence of circumstances, acting from generation to generation, is it not one of the enormous advantages of such a constitution that it has what you call anomalies? It does not fit in, in other words, to some chess-board pattern which suits your notions of logic, and fits in with some irreproachable process of ratiocination for certain premises which you first lay down. Is it not the very test of a statesman that he knows how to use those anomalous institutions which have come down from the past for every new purpose, that comes with decision before the community in a way which, unfortunately for themselves, the new country is not able to do, and cannot do, and it would be a great advantage in many cases if it could. Indeed, in some respects, I am not at all sure that they do

    2035
    not. Are you prepared to say that the common law of England, the common heritage of all the English speaking communities, is wholly free from anomalies? Would you like to set out your new idea of democratic government in some remote part of the world with a new code of your own construction, with no roots in the past whatever, simply based upon the ideal construction of some gentleman in a university or with university training, with all the notions of symmetry and logic which all events appear to commend themselves to some of those who speak in the name of Oxford in this House?
    It fits in now with my general argument that I may be permitted to take up this argument of the Referendum. I understand it is this, that if you have a Referendum being recommended by many gentlemen, I think most gentlemen on this side of the House, and, certainly, most earnestly by myself, as an institution which might well be added to our present institutions, the objectors say, "a Referendum only gives one man one vote, and how then can you frame a system of constituencies in which there will not be a system of one man one vote." When I listen to these Debates upon the franchise I never hear anything whatever about the constitution of this House, and I always hear something about this House, as it is said, "reflecting the people." That is a very absurd metaphor. When you come to think of it it is almost a ludicrous metaphor, which entirely diverts attention from one of the aspects that ought to be the main concern of every Member of this House. Look round the world, I do not care in what country you look—the danger of democratic institutions is this, that democracies, however you arrange the voting power, seem constantly to create bodies, and when they have created them to treat them with contumely and contempt. There is no place where you hear particular representative institutions more heartily attacked, more contemptuously treated in private and familiar conversation, more denounced in the newspapers, than in those very countries which are Always talking about how absolutely necessary it is so to frame your electoral law that the House of Representatives shall reflect what they call the "public opinion of the country."
    That is one of the great dangers we have to face. Of course, public opinion must rule. You must have a
    2036
    machinery, and our object ought to be to get a machinery which shall reflect public opinion, partly in its passing phases, and more especially in its general tendency; but you will never get that done to the full advantage of the community unless you try so to arrange matters that when you have got your Assembly it shall be looked up to. I do not pretend that the reputation of this House will be very great if you keep university representation, and very small if you destroy it. I do not say that the presence of nine university representatives—I hope before long there will be more than nine, and that the newer universities will be represented—make the whole difference as to the character of this House or the estimation in which the House is held by the public at large. But I do say that it has an appreciable, if a small, effect which perhaps is not quite understood by the House itself. I think that that is due to quite separate causes. In the first place, I think it adds dignity to the whole idea of university representation that you should be able to continue an honour which the great seats of learning have for centuries enjoyed. You may call it a privilege as far as they are concerned, if you like; but it is an honour paid by the country to the cause of higher education, and I do not think that you can with advantage withdraw that honour. It is not a question of giving representation to universities in a new country. It is a case of taking away in an old country from the great Scottish and English universities—I suppose that Ireland is out of the question—a privilege which our fathers, who we rather foolishly suppose cared less for education than we do, were glad to give them. That is not the only reason. When we talk of making this assembly a mirror or reflection of the people, does the House remember what obstacles are put in the way—not deliberately, not by legislation, but by the inevitable course of democratic institutions—of some of the very best men we want being elected to this House? In former times the sort of difficulty I am talking about was got over by a really dangerous anomaly—an anomaly which was not only dangerous, but in some cases was very like governmental corruption—I mean the system of rotten boroughs. That did notoriously give an entrance to this House to men who would not have got in, would not have desired to get in, and, if they had desired, could not have got in in a modern democratic industrial, county, or rural constituency.

    2037
    Well, we have abolished, and we have rightly abolished, rotten boroughs. Nobody would wish to restore them; but do not let us forget that in destroying rotten boroughs we have kept out of this House a great many men who most of us would be glad to see in it, simply considering the character of the assembly and the quality of the intellect which you get. Mere brains, however they may be backed up by the necessary funds in the person or the party, do not make a good candidate. Everybody knows it. In the first place an iron constitution is required for a very large number of constituencies, brazen lungs, perfect indifference to repeating the same speech innumerable times to an ill-attentive and indifferent audience, and the same readiness to leave out of account arguments which the speaker knows to be of importance, but which he equally knows in the time of stress and excitement of a general election it is hopeless to bring before an excited meeting, however friendly, and still less before a meeting which in addition to being excited happens to be stormy and hostile. Let us be candid with ourselves and let us admit this. I have passed through all these things and I do not think I am exaggerating what happens at such times, and what, at all events, is the lot of a very great many of the gentlemen to whom I am speaking.
    It is impossible to give a quiet, a dull, a difficult account of a dull and difficult political problem to people who are either relatively uneducated or unreceptive, or who, are excited or passionately roused over some special problem. Well, that does not prevent Gentlemen I am addressing having come into this House, and it does not show that they are less excellent Members of this House than the other class who will not go through that process; and all I want them to remember is that the process they have gone through keeps out a good many people who will not do that, and they are not always the worst people. I do not want this House to be composed of a lot of learned gentlemen who cannot stand up to a hostile audience, which is prepared to be argued with, and face out a question; I do not want this House to be composed entirely of pedants and professors; I do not want it to have too large an element of arm-chair politicians or of men who with, perhaps, great political, social, and economic learning, yet have not that power of dealing with men in masses which, after all, is an essential part of the equipment of
    2038
    ordinary politicians. I do not desire that; but neither do I desire that from this House every man should be excluded who has not the health, the strength, the time, and the enormous patience necessary to go through the process which I have described. I have not mentioned, by the way, the interstitial labours of going down in the middle of a heavy Session to tea parties, and smoking concerts, and all the other apparatus by which we succeed in exactly reflecting public opinion.
    If you take the limitations which, as I say, want of health in some cases, want of patience in others, and want of time in yet others, impose and which exclude a certain valuable element, and you find that by a happy anomaly history and the tradition of this country has given you some power of getting into this Assembly men of science, men of scholarship, men of special and peculiar gifts quite alien to the ordinary working politician, then I say that you are mad to throw it away. I do not say that they alter the whole quality of this institution—they leave the House of Commons broadly speaking, what it would be without them—but surely they are an improvement, they are an addition, they do give us on certain questions advice and information which we could get from no other quarter except by a happy accident.
    In these days when the chief title of the Assembly to respect is that the men in it should be men of character and dignity and distinction, it really is folly to say that you deliberately mean to exclude from your numbers many men partly because they happen to disagree with your political opinions and partly because the fact that they are elected by plural voters does not happen to square precisely with the principle of your Bill. A suspicion almost crosses my mind that the two speeches we have heard to-night from the Front Bench opposite are really intended as subtle but convincing proofs that a university training is really not the proper thing for a man who claims to deal with these great problems of politics in a large, generous, and may I add, historic spirit. I hope I have not said anything unpleasant of Gentlemen opposite, and certainly I trust I have not been discourteous—that is the last thing I should wish to be—but I do assure the House that I feel they are on the wrong tack in dealing with this question, and many of the arguments we have heard advanced against the Amend-

    2039
    ment have only served to convince me that we ought to prevent this theoretical application of logic being driven to its extremest limits in the refraining of our institutions.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES.

    [12.40 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Paget, Almeria Hugh

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, W. R.

    Pease, Herbert (Darlington)

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

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hoare. Samuel John Gurney

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyton, James

    Hops, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Starkey, John R.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cator, John

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cautley, H. S.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cave, George

    Larmor, Sir J.

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Clay, Captain H H. Spender

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Williams. Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Winterton, Earl

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Philips Magnus and Sir Henry Craik.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Adamson, William

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Bryce, John Annan

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Agnew, Sir George William

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

    Dillon, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Doris, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Duffy, William J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Barnes, George N.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Barton, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cotton, William Francis

    Falconer, James

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

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Bentham, G. J.

    Crooks, William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Crumley, Patrick

    Ffrench, Peter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Cullinan, John

    Field, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Question put "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 233.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Reddy, Michael

    Glanville, Harold James

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Gulland, John William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Hackett, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rowlands, James

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

    Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Middlebrook, William

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Millar, James Duncan

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molloy, Michael

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehy, David

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morison, Hector

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Hinds, John

    Munro, Robert

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murphy, Martin, J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Sutton, John E.

    Hudson, Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Malley, William

    Wadsworth, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Webb, H.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kelly, Edward

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    King, J.

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

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

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

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Leach, Charles

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Mr. BONAR LAW: I rise to move "That the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    I do not think I have any difficulty finding a good reason for the course I propose. We have established eleven o'clock as the hour of closing our sittings, but it is now two hours past that time, and we have had, as I am sure everyone who has been present will admit, a very interesting discussion, and the kind of discussion which it is quite impossible can take place at the late hour we are now approaching. I think there is a special reason why we should ask the Government to accept this Motion now. It is all very well to have all-night sittings when the business of the House is con ducted under the method of free discus-
    2042
    sion, but it is asking too much of this Committee to have practically the whole of our business carried on by means of the guillotine and then to expect us to sit up all night in addition to that outrage on our procedure. I do hope that the Government do not mean to try to impose all-night sittings in a Session which is not over-burdened with work, and when during that Session they have so far carried on all their business by means of Resolutions which make it practically impossible that this House can take any part in the discussion.
    Mr. PEASE: The House at an earlier hour this evening suspended the eleven o'clock rule with a view to make substantial progress with the Committee stage of this Bill. I am not going to say

    2043
    that we have not already made some progress, but I do think we have reached a point when we can see the end of the Committee stage very shortly in front of us. I have been looking through the Amendments on the Paper, and, so far as I can see, there is only one more Amendment of real substance which is likely to be raised, and that is, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), which deals with the penalty. That being so, I really would invite the House to allow us to pass this Clause and the next Clause—a nominal one—to-night on the understanding that on Friday we should discuss the new Clauses in the expectation that we should be allowed to dispose of them that day. In that way I believe an all-night sitting would be avoided. I do not think it is necessary for us to have a very protracted discussion on the remaining Amendments, and if that view commends itself to the House I trust this Motion may be withdrawn and we may proceed with the Amendments on the Paper.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has met us to a certain extent in a conciliatory way—that is, he did not get up and say he intended at all hazards to go on with this Bill. He has endeavoured to advance reasons why under certain circumstances certain steps should be taken, but I think I can show he has rather misunderstood or under-estimated the Amendments on the Paper and the feeling which animates hon. Members on this side. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is only one Amendment which is important, but it is perfectly impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to lay down the proposition that out of four pages of Amendments—or 3¾ pages to be exact—there is only one Amendment which is of any vital consequence and worth discussion. I would like to point out how easily the right hon. Gentleman may be deceived in taking such a view as he has taken. An Amendment of my hon. Friend was passed over by the Chairman earlier this evening. On it being pointed out to you, Sir, that my hon. Friend had some particularly good reason for the Amendment, you allowed it. It proved one of the most interesting Amendments we have had, and ended in the Government considering three points, none of which would have arisen if that Amendment had not been discussed.
    2044
    Therefore it is perfectly clear that, however sincere one may be, one cannot say that out of 3¾ pages of Amendments there is only one which needs further consideration. It must be remembered that through no fault of the Opposition something like two hours were taken out of the discussion on this Bill this evening. I do not in the least object to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite moving their motion, but when they have taken two hours out of our time it is hardly fair to ask us to sit up in the small hours of the morning to discuss what everyone must admit is an extremely important Bill. It is really absurd after one day's discussion to say that we must sit up late in order to discuss the Bill. I do not think anyone on the other side will say that there has been considerable obstruction either to-day or yesterday. I have had occasion many times to come to an arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House, and I have always found him most anxious to meet all reasonable requirements. I feel quite certain that in his own heart he knows that this is a reasonable request and that he himself will not lose anything by it.
    1.0 A.M.
    These long, protracted Debates at early hours of the morning do not tend to the credit of this House. What does the right hon. Gentleman think he is going to get? Supposing, for the sake of argument, that he does not get the whole of the Bill on Friday, he will get the rest of it early on Monday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it is very probable that the whole of Friday and three or four hours on Monday will give him the rest of his Bill. Is it worth while that the House should be kept up when proper discussion cannot be carried on and when there are no reports in the newspapers? [Laughter.] I really do not understand the laughter. Surely this House is here to deliberate, and to inform the country of its deliberations, and if the country does not know what we are doing, how can it form an opinion as to whose contention is right in this House? We are not here merely to register the decrees of one party; we are here to discuss, properly and deliberately, whether or not certain things can be done. We cannot do that at this late hour in the morning. I have endeavoured, without heat, to put forward the views which I know the right hon. Gentleman knows that I sincerely entertain on these

    2045
    questions. Over and over again I have arranged with the right hon. Gentleman, and with the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, methods by which all-night sittings can be avoided, and I do not think either of them will deny that those arrangements, generally, have been successful. Do not let us go back and arouse all the old controversies which usually distinguish all-night sittings. I sincerely hope that the request which I have made will be accepted, and that the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on going on into the remaining hours of the morning.
    I am not in any way authorised to make a proposal, and the suggestion I would throw out may not be approved of—but might I suggest that if we take the first Sub-section of Clause I, and take the first words of the second Sub-section, so as to avoid any further Amendment on the first Sub-section, that that will meet the point. [HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, if hon. Members want to sit up, of course, we are perfectly willing to do so. They must not think that any suggestion that I may make comes from any weakness on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House; it is merely made to avoid what I think is—I will not say a disgraceful—but an unseemly exhibition of passing legislation at these late hours. Everybody knows perfectly well that all the trouble that has arisen in various Acts of Parliament lately has arisen because those Acts have been shoved through the House without proper and due discussion. This Bill itself is evidence of it. The Solicitor-General, earlier in the evening, accepted one or two important Amendments, which were entirely due to hon. Members on this side of the House, and were not moved in any party spirit. If they had not been put in, the working of the Bill would have been rendered very difficult. I think I have shown very good reason for the request of my right hon. Friend being accepted, and I hope the Government will do that.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I should like to urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision he has announced. The Government have had a most reasonable proposal made to them. Already they have made considerable progress with their Bill—a great deal more progress than they looked like making at one period of the evening. I think the Government might rest satisfied with the work which has been already done. They will have plenty of time on Friday, and if they have
    2046
    not time, completely to finish their Bill, as my hon. Friend has just suggested, they have got Monday as well. A few hours will see the end of the whole thing. The President of the Board of Education cannot accuse anybody on these Benches, of obstructing the measure. We have given him, as I think he will readily admit, considerable assistance. We have helped him to amend a Bill which is probably one of the worst drafted measures which has, ever been submitted to this House. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to postpone the rest of this discussion, we will help him again on Friday to amend this Bill still further. The Bill is one of considerable importance. Its effect, as we all know is to disqualify voters because they are Unionists. Here we are, in the middle of the night, with the Government so ashamed of their Bill that they intended to force it through this House in the small hours of the morning, because they are ashamed to face the daylight. The Government appear to have one object in view at the present time, and that is to force all the business through this House at express speed so that, at all costs, and all hazards, their supporters can get away and can take a holiday in the country. They might postpone their departure by one day, and allow-this measure to have a fair, fit, and proper discussion. The Government are frightened that if they keep their supporters here beyond a few days in August, they will be beaten in this House, because we are ready to stop.
    There is one strong protest that I should like to make, and which I have made on previous occasions during all-night sittings. It is against the absence of the Prime Minister. [Laughter]. Hon. Members can laugh, but this is the usual proceeding that takes place in this House, when there is, an all-night sitting. The Prime Minister seems to forget his duties to the House of Commons. He seems to forget that he is the Leader of this House, and that he ought, on occasions such as these, to be here to direct the proceedings. On one Memorable occasion, a few years ago, after an all-night sitting, when I had called attention to the Prime Minister's absence from the House, he came down the following day, and apologised for his absence—for his continual absence. He said he had much work to do, and he could not sit up all night. The Prime Minister cannot say that we have had many all-night sittings, and I think that on this occasion, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman

    2047
    might have taken the trouble to be present. Is it his wish, and has he given instructions to right hon. Members on the Front Bench that we are to sit up all night whilst he comfortably rests in bed? I protest, as most hon. Members of our party protest, against his absence on this occasion. One last appeal I should like to make. I appeal to the President of the Board of Education, on behalf of the Irish Nationalist party, whose mouths have been closed, who dare not speak their real opinions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Name."] I will not give them away, at the same time, they have told me that they do no want to stop up all night, and that they hoped we were not going to keep them up late. Everything depends on the Government, it is nothing to do with us. The Government can accept this Motion, and I urge them, once more, to reconsider the decision they have made, and to let us depart in peace.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am about to make an observation which I am well aware is in doubtful taste, but my conviction of its truth compels me to say it, all the same. Let alone the Prime Minister, it is unfortunate that we should be asked to continue the discussion at this time, when all the more competent Ministers are absent. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, the new style."] It is true that they have made excuses for one or two of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer presumably is absent, either on medical advice, or because his vocabulary is exhausted, and possibly in that case, he may be endeavouring to attune his mind to a judicial frame, to which the proceedings of this evening are singularly inappropriate. Then with regard to the Foreign Secretary, I imagine he is assisting His Imperial Majesty the Tsar of Russia in his labours with regard to the Balkans. For that there may be some excuse, but I think it is rather singular that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has acted as sponsor to at least one Bill of this kind in the past, and who presumably knows the difficulties and weaknesses of this one, should be absent.
    I am very sorry for the Solicitor-General, and I feel that while he is in charge of the Bill, the reputation of my university must necessarily suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have directed my remarks to sound truth, rather than to the niceties of debate. I must express
    2048
    my commiseration to the President of the Board of Education. I should have thought that that office was in itself sufficiently difficult, and that its problems were sufficiently wearying without his undertaking in addition, the disenfranchising a number of electors. I understand that before many days have passed, the right hon. Gentleman will lay a great scheme of educational reform before this House. I think it unfortunate, for the sake of the solution of conflicting schemes between so many parties, which it will be his duty to endeavour to achieve, that such an invidious task should be laid on him as that which falls to his lot to-night. But seriously I do say that on a Bill of this magnitude it is an outrage, when none of the Ministers who are ordinarily accustomed to lead the House can be present, to ask the House to do business in their absence. Even if the Bill were non-contentious—and it is the very opposite of that—it is doubtful whether under the sort of guidance that is given from the Front Bench opposite we could make much progress in a businesslike way, and considering the nature of the Bill it is absolutely impossible to do so. I think my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) was far too liberal in the terms he offered to the Government, and I do trust that we shall not be over-yielding in this matter.
    Sir J. BANBURY: May I say that what I endeavoured to do was to make a suggestion which I had hoped the Government would have accepted. It may not have been a good suggestion, but I do think it would have been a little more courteous if a representative of the Government would get up and say why they will not accept it.
    Mr. PEASE: I admit that the hon. Baronet did make a practical suggestion, and he did so in a way which appealed to Members on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind hon. Members on my right that it would really conduce to a more speedy termination of the Debate if they refrained from interruptions while Members are addressing the House.
    Mr. PEASE: In response to the hon. Baronet's appeal I am prepared to say again what the Government are willing to do. He alluded to the Committee stage

    2049
    being protracted into next week. I will at once tell the House that I do not think the Government are prepared to accept that proposition; but if the Opposition would undertake to allow the Bill to be reported to the House on Friday evening we should be prepared to accept the Motion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If, however, the Opposition are not prepared to allow that, then I think we ought to proceed with the Committee stage to-night, and make as much progress as we possibly can.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: The Minister for Education mentioned a short time ago that he had come to the conclusion that there was only one more Amendment of substance, but I think that in making that statement he was speaking rather in the hope of getting the Bill through quickly. I have here a Bill which has been marked with those Amendments which are in order, and I expect that the right hon. Gentleman has a copy also. I find that on the Paper there still remain fourteen Amendments which have been marked, I understand, after consultation with the Chairman of Committees, as in order, and it is impossible to say that of those Amendments there is only one that is an Amendment of substance. I can only

    Division No. 154.]

    AYES.

    [1.20 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Adamson, William

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hackett, John

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

    Crooks, William

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Cullinan, John

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth}

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

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Barnes, George N.

    Delany, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hayward, Evan

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Barton, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Doris, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duffy, William J.

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

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Boland, John Pius

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hinds, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hogge, James Myles

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Falconer, J.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hudson, Walter

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Field, William

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    France, G. A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Glanville, Harold James

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Joyce, Michael

    Clough, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Keating, Matthew

    suppose that the right hon. Gentleman must have taken a very hurried glance through the Bill if he thinks that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), is really the only Amendment of substance. As has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, one Amendment has occupied over three hours, and it is not alleged by Members opposite that there was any obstruction, as in fact there was not. In these circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the facts of the situation. It is impossible to conceive that we can get through the Committee stage before breakfast time this morning, and therefore I think the Minister for Education should come to the conclusion that the better plan would be to deal fairly with Members on this side of the House.
    Mr. PEASErose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 139.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Rowlands, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Needham, Christopher

    Rowntree, Arnold

    King, Joseph

    Nolan, Joseph

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Leach, Charles

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

    Sheehy, David

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Malley, William

    Simon, Rt, Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Shee, James John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sutherland, John E.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sutton, John E.

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

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

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pointer, Joseph

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

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

    Wadsworth, John

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Watt, Henry A.

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Webb, H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Reedy, M.

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

    Middlebrook, William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Molloy, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Winfrey, Richard

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Mooney, John J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Morison, Hector

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Morrell, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Muldoon, John

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Munro, Robert

    NOES.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Snrewsbury)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Duncannon, Viscount

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Forster, Henry William

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mount, William Arthur

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Neville, R. J. N.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Grant, J. A.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Newman, John R. P.

    Bird, Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Blair, Reginald

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Denis Fortescue

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Boyton, James

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Paget, Hugh Almeric

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Cassel, Felix

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Cator, John

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cave, George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    2052

    2053

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Winterton, Earl

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Weigell, Captain A. G.

    Younger, Sir George

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. S. Wilson and Capt. Morrison-Bell.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. PRINGLE(seated and covered): Mr. Deputy-Chairman, on a point of Order. You have not collected the voices.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I have collected the voices.

    Division No. 155.]

    AYES.

    [1.29 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

    Grant, James Augustus

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rawson, Colonel R. H.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Renaldshay, Earl of

    Bird, Alfred

    Hill-Wood, S.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Blair, Reginald

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hohler, G. F.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boyton, James

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hunt, Rowland

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Campion, W. R.

    Kerry, Earl of

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Touche, G. A.

    Cator, John

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Cave, George

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Winterton, Earl

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Sanders.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Adamson, William

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Baring Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If you gave the decision "the Ayes have it," I submit that the "Noes" do not count; it was not challenged.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite true I said, "The Ayes have it," but I immediately corrected myself and said, "The Noes have it."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 226.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Dowd, John

    Barton, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

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

    O'Malley, William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

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

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boland, John Pius

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Clough, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, Wiliam (Clare, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    King, J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crooks, William

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cullinan, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Leach, Charles

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

    Delany, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Doris, William

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

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

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Sheehy, David

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrok

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McGhee, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Falconer, J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marshall, Arthur H.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Middlebrook, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molloy, M.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Wadsworth, John

    Goldstone, Frank

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Mooney, John J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gulland, John William

    Morison, Hector

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

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morrell, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Munro, R.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murphy, Martin, J.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Needham, Christopher T

    Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nelan, Joseph

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Guest and Mr. Webb.

    Hayward, Evan

    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. Staveley-Hill).
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, after Sub section (1), to insert—
    2056
    "(2) The following question may be asked of any voter at a poll at a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament, in addition to those authorised already to be asked:—
    Have you already voted in any constituency during this General Election?

    2057
    And if the answer is in the affirmative that person shall not vote.
    In the case of an university elector there shall be inserted in the voting paper, after the words, 'I declare that,' the words, 'I have not already voted in any constituency during this General Election.'"
    Those words were in the Bill introduced in 1906, and it is a question which in the ordinary way at Parliamentary elections is asked to-day if there is any suspicion that an elector has voted in another place in the same constituency. Of course, it does not occur at a university election, but this Amendment provides that a declaration shall be made in the case of a university election. It is clear to my mind that some question of this sort should be asked, in order, amongst other things, to make it obvious to the elector that there is an Act of Parliament in existence which says a man shall not vote in more than one constituency, and, therefore, it is to put him on his guard. Further than that, he is at any rate entitled to be protected against personation. If he has made this declaration it is at least some safeguard. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill whether a vote can be rejected unless the statutory question has been put to him as to whether he has voted or not before. I do not myself believe that any vote can be rejected unless that statutory question is put. Therefore, I am only asking the Government to put into their Bill words which shall make it perfectly clear to the electors, and not to put on the voters any possibility of their incurring penalities because of ignorance, but to protect them from personation. I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to put into the Bill words to make matters clear where there is a doubt.
    Mr. PEASE: Such questions as the hon. Members suggests are, of course, not unknown at the present time. There are, I think, two or three somewhat similar questions. Two, I think, were established by the Act of 1842, and after the Reform Bill of 1885 a further question was asked, that is after the redistribution which then took place. I do not think there is any reason why we should not allow this particular question to be added to those that already are asked. I would suggest here one or two slight alterations in the form of the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved. I take no exception whatever
    2058
    to the first four lines of the Amendment, but I think there is a reason why we should alter the words
    "And if the answer is in the affirmative that person shall not vote."
    It is quite possible that a voter might not reply at all, and I think that such a case ought to be met in some other way. I would suggest that instead of those words we should insert the following:—
    "And unless there is an answer given in the negative, that person shall not vote."
    I believe the object is equally well secured by those words, and they make the Subsection a little more watertight. In the next paragraph I think the word ought to be "election." [In the case of an university elector] instead of "elector." It would be better to put in the word "election," and it would then read
    "In the case of an university election."
    I have looked up the Statute in which the declaration which the hon. Member has inserted occurs, and I find that in order to make it read properly, we ought to add the words, at the end of his Amendment, "and that." Then the declaration would read as follows:—
    "In the case of an university election there shall be inserted in the voting paper, after the words 'I declare that,' the words 'I have not already voted in any constituency during this General Election, and that I have signed no other voting paper.'"
    And so on, in accordance with the Statute. With these alterations, we would accept the Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member (Mr. Staveley-Hill) accept these Amendments, and move his Amendment in the altered form?
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: Yes, I beg to move the Amendment in the form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The strictly correct form would be to withdraw the original Amendment.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: To put it in order, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in order to move it with the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, after Sub-section (1) to insert:—
    "(2) The following question may be asked of any voter at a poll at a general election of members to serve in a new Parliament, in addition to those authorised already to be asked:—
    Have you already voted in any constituency during this general election?
    And unless there is an answer given in the negative that person shall not vote.
    In the case of an university election there shall be inserted in the voting paper, after the words 'I declare that,' the words 'I have not already voted in any constituency during this General Election, and that.'"
    Mr. POLLOCK: I think the original form in which my hon. Friend moved the second part of his Amendment was right. It should be "In the case of an university elector," not "In the case Of an university election." This Amendment follows the Sub-section (1) which begins:
    "During the continuance of a General Election."
    You are dealing here with the questions which may be put in the course of an election. You deal, first, with the questions which may be put to a particular person, viz., to a voter, and, if you look at the first line of the Amendment you will see it runs:
    "The following question may be asked of any voter."
    So that it is the personal voter with whom you are dealing, and not with an election in which that voter is going to vote. So an antithesis necessarily comes in. Where you have the case of an university elector, the antithesis is between the voter in the first case, and the university elector in the other. The questions that are going to be put in the course of a General Election are to be put to (a) a voter, or (b) to an university elector. You do not want, therefore, to put in the words "in the case of an university election," as you are dealing with the case of putting a question to a person who is going to exercise the franchise. I think the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked that, and that is why I rose to point it out. If I am in order I should like to move that the word "election" now proposed in the Amendment should be struck out and the word "elector" should be restored.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I move an Amendment before that of my hon. Friend? It is that the first "may" ["The following question may be asked of any voter"] be altered into "shall." I would point out that in the case of the university elector the word used is "shall," as the Amendment runs, "there shall be inserted in the voting paper," and the word "may" in the first paragraph should therefore be altered to make it correspond.
    Mr. CAVE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. The object of the whole Amendment, I understand, is to ensure that in any case where the presiding officer thinks there is reason to ask the question, "Have you already voted in any constituency during this General Election," he shall ask it, and that is the effect of the entire proposal. As a matter of fact, I think the original Amendment provides for every case.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I think it would be an improvement to alter the word to "shall," and for a reason which I can explain very briefly. You may have one presiding officer who will think it is his duty to ask every elector the question whether he has already voted in another constituency, whereas in another case you may have a presiding officer who will only ask one or two electors the question in the course of the whole day. I submit, therefore, that in the interests of the ordinary elector it would be much better to proceed on the lines that the presiding officer in every case when the elector asks for a ballot paper should put the simple question: "Have you voted before in this General Election." It would be much fairer to make every elector submit to this question rather than to have the matter left merely to the option of the presiding officer.
    Mr. PEASE: It is very well understood by the presiding officer that when there is really any obvious reason why the question should be put it is his duty to put it. It is no doubt within the discretion of the presiding officer to put the question on his own initiative, but, as a matter of fact, in practice it is only done when a person representing one of the political parties in the polling booth asks the presiding officer to put the question. I think it would be unfortunate if that question had to be put to every elector, and I hope the Committee will not agree to the proposal.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Amendment, because I think it is important. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education, does not, I think, realise how important it is. The object really is to inform the electors of the passing of this measure. That, I contend, is absolutely a necessary thing to do, because I think nobody will dispute the statement that undoubtedly a very large number of electors will be in total ignorance that the Act has passed, if it should eventually reach the Statute Book, unless some means are taken to inform them either by printing a statement on the ballot paper that no elector may vote more than once, or by putting up a notice in a prominent place in the polling booth. If this is not done I feel convinced in my own mind that a large number of electors may break the law quite inadvertently, and thus render themselves liable to all sorts of severe penalties. I do not think the Amendment would have been necessary if the Government had agreed at an earlier stage to accept the insertion of the word "knowlingly," but they did not do that. That being the case, we have to guard against the fact that a large number of persons may quite innocently in consequence of the passing of the measure, find that they have been guilty of a corrupt practice by voting in more than one constituency. It happens now sometimes that electors make the mistake of going to vote in a constituency where they are registered in more than one polling place and mistakes of that kind are certain to occur in future, especially at the first General Election after the passing of this Bill. But if it is made compulsory upon the presiding officer to put to each elector the question, "Have you already voted in any other constituency at this General Election?" the danger of any man voting inadvertently a second time would disappear. I hope that my hon. Friend will persist in the Amendment and that a Division will be taken upon it, because unless the Government bring home in some way or other to the minds of the people the fact that there has been this great change in the law I am certain that a large number of innocent people will suffer.
    Sir W. BULL: I am strongly in favour of retaining the word "may," because I
    2062
    believe that, as a matter of practical politics, it would be found quite impossible to put the question to every individual elector. The result, if the presiding officer was required to do so, would be that a large number of people who wished to vote between six o'clock and eight o'clock in the evening would be disfranchised, as they could not all be dealt with if the question had to be put every time a voter asked for a ballot paper. Therefore I say that really it would not be possible to make it work, and for that reason I think the word "may" should not be altered. It has been well known that at elections in the past the matter has always been left to the discretion of the presiding officer and that if either of the personation agents call his attention to an elector as to whom there are doubts he puts the question to the voter. As the result of all my experience as an election agent I am strongly against the word "shall" being put in.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I wish to put before the Committee one consideration. If the word "shall" were inserted a question might arise after the election between an elector and the presiding officer as to whether the question had been asked or not. That might raise a serious point, and it might even affect the election. That being the case, I think it would be dangerous to alter the word "may" into "shall."
    2.0 A.M.
    Earl WINTERTON: I cannot, I am afraid, agree with my hon. Friends who have argued against the word "shall." I would observe in passing that it is rather curious that when on a previous Amendment we were discussing the word "knowingly," and we put forward arguments which we thought overwhelming in favour of using some means by which electors would be made acquainted with the state of the law, we were told that there was no reason to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull) has, of course, a very wide knowledge of election law and I should be the last to attempt to contradict him or even to argue with him, in regard to any point he has made. But at the present time the returning officer invariably asks the voter who comes for his ballot paper what is his name and his number on the roll. I have always understood that the returning officer, when the voter goes into the polling booth, invariably asks his name and

    2063
    number, and I do not think there would be much more trouble or delay in asking the other question, "Have you voted in any other constituency in this general election?" I think the use of the word "may" will leave the procedure open to grave abuse. It might be that one returning officer would be over-keen or overanxious and would ask every elector this question, and another returning officer would not ask the question at all. I think it is really time that Ministers opposite made up their minds upon this question, which is really after all a vital part of the Bill, and may have the gravest consequences in practice. We are legislating in the dark, and it would be much better to make the practice universal and not leave it to the caprice of each individual returning officer. I think it is in the highest degree unfortunate that we should be without the presence of one of the Law Officers when we are debating a question of legal importance.
    Mr. CASSEL: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether it would not be convenient for some of them to state what the effect of the Amendment would be in their opinion. It seems to me that if the elector applied for a ballot paper under the Bill as it stands an offence would have been already committed. If the word "shall" is inserted would it really save the elector from committing an offence? Before the Question is put, perhaps some of the Law Officers would say what would be the effect of it.

    Division No. 156.]

    AYES.

    [2.7 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Adamson, William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Falconer, J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Clough, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Field, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Barnes, George N.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Crooks, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barton, W.

    Crumley, Patrick

    France, G. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Cullinan, J.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Glanville, H. J.

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Bentham, G. J.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Boland, John Pius

    Delany, William

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Gulland, John William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hackett, John

    Brady, P. J.

    Doris, William

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Duffy, William J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this matter will cause a great deal of trouble. The elector gives his name and address and supposing the word "shall" is inserted the returning officer has simply to ask the additional question. I do think, however, it would add to the progress of the Debate if the Law Officers were present to give information. Can they say that the absence of the word "shall" will invalidate an election?
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I am unable to agree with the Noble Lord about the importance of the words "may" or "shall." Our opponents have always used the word "shall" when they thought it necessary, and therefore I say we should not be afraid to challenge their votes in a matter of this kind.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. I think the word "shall" would complicate this Clause. On questions of personation a similar question is asked, and to make this further question compulsory would complicate elections. It is necessary that the procedure should be as simple as possible, and I ask the hon. Gentleman if he cannot see his way not to press the Amendment.
    Sir W. BULLrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 128.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Hayward, Evan

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Middlebrook, William

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Molloy, M.

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Hinds, John

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rowlands, James

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morgan, George Hay

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Morrell, Philip

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Morison, Hector

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hudson, Walter

    Muldoon, John

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Munro, Robert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jewett, Frederick William

    O'Dowd, John

    Sutherland, John E.

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Malley, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shee, James John

    Toulmin, Sir George

    King, Joseph

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Lardner, James C. R.

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

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Watt, Henry A.

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

    Pointer, Joseph

    Webb, H.

    Leach, Charles

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    McGhee, Richard

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Reddy, Michael

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Staveley-Hill and Sir William Bull.

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Redmond, William (Clare, E)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Astor, Waldorf

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Forster, Henry William

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gilmour, Captain John

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

    Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Blair, Reginald

    Grant, J. A.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortscue

    Greene, Walter Raymond

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

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Gretton, John

    Malcolm, Ian

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Campion, William Robert

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

    Cassel, Felix

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

    Cator, John

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cave, George

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hohler, G. F.

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

    Craig, E. (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    2066

    2067

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Starkey, John R.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Winterton, Earl

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Younger, Sir George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Hicks

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Beach.

    Question put accordingly, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

    Division No. 157.]

    AYES.

    [2.15 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Adamson, William

    Field, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Fienness, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Francis Gerald Ashburner

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Glanville, H. J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Banbury, Sir Frederick

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Barnes, George N.

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Gulland, John William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Barton, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hackett, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim. N.)

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

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Boland, John Plus

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molloy, Michael

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morgan, George Hay

    Brady, P. J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morison, Hector

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mount, William Arthur

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Muldoon, John

    Cator, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    Munro, Robert

    Cave, George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hinds, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hogge, James Myles

    Nolan, Joseph

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Clough, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

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

    Crooks, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Keating, Matthew

    Phillips, John (Longford, S,)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pointer, Joseph

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Doris, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Duffy, William J.

    King, J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Law, Hugh, A. (Dontgal, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Falconer, James

    Leach, Charles

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 112.

    Reddy, Michael

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

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

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Sheehy, David

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Watt, Henry A.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Sutherland, John E.

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

    Rowlands, James

    Sutton, John E.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Tennant, Harold John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Guest and Mr. Webb.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Archer-Shoe, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Astor, Waldorf

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Barnston, Harry

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Remnant, James F.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Blair, Reginald

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Campion, W. R.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cassel, Felix

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, S.)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Weigall, Capt. A. G.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    Younger, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. S. Roberts and Earl Winterton.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mr. PEASEclaimed, "That the main Question be now put."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order, Sir. I wish to submit that if the main Question is put now, the Amendment will not be grammatical. The House ought to have an opportunity——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of Order. The mere question of grammar is a question of merits, not a point of Order.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it in order for the Chairman to put Amendments to the Committee which do not read grammatically?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the House, and not for the Chair. I must put the Question which is laid before me. The main Question having been claimed and granted by the Chair, excludes other Amendments being moved.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Who claimed it?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It was claimed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On a point of Order. Should not the Division

    2071
    have been taken on the Question, "That the Question be now put"? That Question has not yet been put from the Chair.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will consult the Standing Order of the House, under which I acted, he will see that I put the Question quite in accordance with that Standing Order.

    Division No. 158.]

    AYES.

    [2.28 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Morgan, George Hay

    Adamson, William

    Gulland, John William

    Morrell, Philip

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morison, Hector

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

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Munro, Robert

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Baird, J. L.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Barnes, George N.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barton, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon, S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Boland, John Pius.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pollard, Sir George H.

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Clough, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, Joseph

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Cullinan, John

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dawes, J. A.

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Delany, William

    Leach, Charles

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rowlands, James

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Doris, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McGhee, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sheehy, David

    Falconer, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Field, William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meagher, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Sutton, John E.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Middlebrook, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tennant, Harold John

    Glanville, H. J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I submit that the Question read out has not been put. The word inserted originally was "elector."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not the slightest doubt that I put the Question absolutely correctly.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 124.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Young William (Perthshire, East)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Young, Sir George

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

    Watt, Henry A.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Guest and Mr. H. Webb.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Astor, Waldorf

    Grant, J. A.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Greene, W. R.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesell)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Blair, Reginald

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Butcher, John George

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Campion, W. R.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cater, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Clay, Captain H H. Spender

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Malcolm, Ian

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

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

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. R. McNeill and Mr. W. Guinness.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Forster, Henry William

    Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That Mr. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I think it must be perfectly evident to anybody who is in the House at this moment that nothing will be gained by continuing our proceedings now. The time is already very late, and, as I said in moving a similar Motion earlier in the night, it is really absurd, in my opinion, that in a Session when so little of the business is done under free conditions the Government should grudge us whatever time is necessary to carry this Bill through under conditions to which the House of Commons is accustomed in the ordinary routine of its business. I put it to the Government themselves that they are certainly adding nothing to the dignity of the House of Commons by continuing the Debate at this time of night, and I am sure that in
    2074
    the long run they will find they are doing nothing to facilitate their own business throughout the rest of this Session. Under all the circumstances I feel certain that I shall have many Members of the Committee with me when I say that it is not unreasonable for us to ask that the further stages of the Bill should be conducted under conditions which admit of proper discussion. If it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education said, that there is very little to be done now in connection with the Committee stage of the Bill, then I think, without any attempt at, a bargain, he has every right to expect that the Bill would be carried through on Friday. If he is wrong, and there is more discussion in it than he thinks, it is, I submit, an outrage that we should be asked to carry the Bill under the conditions appertaining to an all-night sitting.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a short time only since the last Motion of this kind was made by him.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It think it is about two hours.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am bound to say that it is not quite usual to accept a second Motion of the kind after so short an interval, but I will do it on this occasion.
    Question proposed "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. PEASE: Perhaps I need hardly tell the Committee that nobody likes all-night sittings less than I do. I have had a good deal of experience of them during the last twenty years, and I can only say that if an arrangement can be arrived at between the two sides of the House on the lines which I have previously indicated, I am quite prepared to accept, as I was before, the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman. But I should point out that we have made very little progress since the right hon. Gentleman moved a similar Motion some one-and-a-half hours or so ago. It is true that an Amendment has been moved and accepted by the Government, but there has been considerable divergence of opinion on the other side as to its precise effect, and it is really hon. Members opposite who are responsible for the delay which has occurred.
    If we had not desired to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite I do not think we should have accepted the Amendment, but we did accept it in the spirit in which it was proposed. I think that in these circumstances we may proceed with the Bill and try to get through the Committee stage. If the right hon. Gentleman could let us have that stage completed on Friday we could come to some arrangement; otherwise I am afraid we cannot.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has just said has done anything more than confirm the wisdom of the suggestion which I made. I am certainly not prepared to make any bargain in the matter. If the Bill is really so little a matter for discussion as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it may get through on Friday; probably it will, if he is right. I do not agree with him in that view. I do not agree with the suggestion that the suspension of the Five o'clock Rule on Friday is likely to get the Bill through, but I am willing to agree to it.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman is well founded. I do not think it is a matter of legitimate complaint that when one Amendment is accepted other Members should move other Amendments so as to put it into correct shape. It is one of the disadvantages of legislating under the conditions in which we now are that an Amendment is hastily accepted by the Government without taking the trouble to find out whether or not it is in correct form for an Act of Parliament. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman thought it was going to facilitate a way out of a complicated position, and, to a certain extent, the acceptance of the Amendment has had that result, but I do not think he has any right to complain of dilatory tactics on this side when hon. Gentlemen are really trying to make the Amendment a proper one to go into the Bill. I fail to see why private Members should be accused of dilatory tactics simply because they try to do their duty in that way. It just illustrates the effect upon Members on that side of the House when we are working under conditions of this kind. They do not seem to care what happens so long as they can manage to ram their Bill through. It is not a question with them whether the words are suitable or not. What they want is to ram the Bill through in the shortest time possible. I do not think that it adds to the reputation of this House to pass legislation in that way.
    There are important Bills going on upstairs and the Committees are sitting to-morrow. I think some of the Bills upstairs are more important and more valuable than the one we are debating now. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently prefer a party advantage to social reform. I do say that to press the Bill in this way is a gross imposition, not only upon Members, but upon Ministers themselves. Whatever they may say now, they know they are not able to fulfil their duties, as they ought to do, when they sit up all night and are asked to come down next day at eleven o'clock. A great many Members of the House have to serve upon Committees, and it is one of the great difficulties of these Committees to secure attendance of Members when the House has been sitting all night. It is really overworking human nature, and it is debasing the whole tone of the system by which we carry on legislation in this House. I cannot help thinking that the proposal to report Progress is an eminently reasonable one, and Ministers must know that if they accept it

    2077
    it will not in any way endanger the prospects of business throughout the Session. I daresay some of them think that if they keep the House up all night it may enliven and hearten their supporters. I suggest that the effect will be much the same on both sides, and that we may be equally exhiliarated by such proceedings. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision the Government have taken, and that they will be influenced by a reasonable discussion which has taken place on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition and will allow us now to report Progress.
    Mr. PEASE: It has been suggested that we should suspend the Five o'clock Rule on Friday, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) agrees to that. The object would be to secure that we should report the Bill from. Committee this week. May I put forward an alternative suggestion, namely, that we should meet on Friday at eleven o'clock by agreement without any Motion? That would do away with the need for suspending the Five o'clock Rule, and it would be on the understanding that the Bill is got through on Friday.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as I am concerned, I can promise that we shall agree to suspend the Five o'clock Rule on Friday.
    Mr. PEASE: The difficulty about that is that hon. Gentlemen, on both sides, I am sure, have made their arrangements for Friday. They have made engagements for the country. I think my alternative suggestion is a reasonable one.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry we cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not merely a question of meeting at eleven o'clock or suspending the Five o'clock Rule. If we agree to his proposal it means that we make a bargain to get the Bill through at five o'clock on Friday. To that we cannot consent.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If right hon. Gentlemen cannot come to any agreement about suspending the Five o'clock Rule on Friday, I see nothing for it but to go on with the Bill. The work has been very badly done. I think it is highly improbable they will get the Bill through on Friday. I protest against what the right hon. Gentleman has said about what has happened since the last Motion to report Progress was made. He tried to make out that the Government had been con-
    2078
    ciliatory and that therefore we proceeded to obstruct. He forgot to point out that the Government proposed to alter the whole language of the Amendment and when the question was put from the Chair we were unable to understand what the Amendment actually was. It is my view and the view of a great many Members on this side that the word "elector"——
    The CHAIRMAN: That matter cannot be now reopened.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will not reopen the question, but I will merely point out how impossible it is properly to carry on the business at this hour. Inasmuch as the Minister in charge of the Bill himself moved Amendments to the Amendment, is it to be wondered at that confusion has ensued? The Amendment was accepted by the Government subject to certain alterations, and the wording of the Amendment had to be varied from beginning to end. When that took place, naturally certain Amendments were moved from this side. Of course, if the Government choose to proceed at this hour of the night, even if they accept an Amendment, it is almost certain we shall differ on the wording, and it is impossible to get through the Bill at any reasonable hour. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to stop here, and everyone on this side is prepared to do so, but as an old Member of the House I do protest against rushing a very important and technical measure of this sort through at this hour. If the Bill does pass it will be full of flaws like so many of the present Government's Bills.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: I think when the right hon. Gentleman's wits have been refreshed by a little sleep he will regret the course he has taken. He really cannot realise that as a result of accepting this Amendment and changing it from one moment to another the greatest absurdities have been put into the Bill. He is probably not aware that the last Amendment will rule out from voting any man who is deaf and dumb.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question raised by the last Amendment cannot now be reopened.
    Mr. W. GUINNESS: I am not going to reopen the question. I only wish to point out that as a result of this procedure we are putting absurdities into the Bill. I am quite sure it is not the wish of the right hon. Gentleman to bring about

    2079
    such results as the last Amendment, but if Amendments are to be put through at this time of the night these disastrous effects cannot be avoided. It would be very much better for the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Motion to report Progress, and to hope to get the Bill through by suspending the Five o'clock Rule on Friday.
    Earl WINTERTON: I wish to point out to the Minister of Education that he does not seem to be aware of the fact that his reason for accepting our Amendment was not out of any consideration for the feelings of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman was compelled to admit that his refusal to accept the word "knowingly" earlier in the Bill made the measure far more drastic, and there has never been a more complete volte face than when the right hon. Gentleman accepted the last Amendment, with the result that deaf and dumb people will be precluded from voting. I only mention that to show the ridiculous position into which the House will be got if the Debate is continued at this hour of the morning. I desire to say further that I think we have great reason to complain that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Local Government Board, the Attorney-General, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and many other Members of the Cabinet are not present.
    I have been a Member of this House for some ten years, and I have seen a disposition during the time of the present Government to leave more and more the conduct of business in the hands of understrappers and juniors. I do think we have the strongest reason for objecting to the absence of the Prime Minister when a first-class measure mentioned in the King's Speech and brought under the Parliament Act is under discussion. I think it shows very scant courtesy to the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition, and we are very glad on this side that the Leader of the Opposition did not agree to any bargain. We desire no bargain of this or any kind with the present Government, and we are perfectly willing to stop here until Eleven o'clock to-day. If we do we hope the Prime Minister will find it convenient after his breakfast to come down and attend to his duties. One thing has emerged very clearly from the deliberations during the last two months. Whatever else the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Attorney-General——
    The CHAIRMAN: This is going beyond the Motion to report Progress.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish in any way to go outside your ruling, but I say that the absence of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a night when we are discussing a matter of first-class importance is a fit subject for protest on the part of the Opposition. I hope the public will judge of the way in which these right hon Gentlemen carry out their duties. Whatever consideration they have for their own private affairs, they have none for the House of Commons, and if they are not able to come down when Bills of this kind are being discussed, I hope they will cease to take part in the deliberations of an assembly of which they have ceased to be any ornament, and to which they have ceased to be of any use.
    Mr. MORRELL Mr. MORRELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then put that Question.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I wish to add a very few words as a contribution to the history of what has occurred in support of the Motion of my hon. Friend. I suppose it is a consideration which hardly weighs at all with the Government that their Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, should even appear in decent English, but I do think it would be rather remarkable if, when it was remembered that this Bill was in charge of the Minister of Education, it was found that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman himself moved to-night appeared in language——
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go back on previous questions which are closed.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. Is it not in order on a Motion for the Adjournment to review the events which have led up to that Motion?
    The CHAIRMAN: A matter which has already been decided by the Committee cannot be re-opened. The Noble Lord can suggest that this would be an inconvenient hour for business, that has often been done on Motions to report progress at this time in the morning, but he certainly cannot review the previous proceedings.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it not in order for hon. Members to give an account

    2081
    of events which have taken place, as illustrations of events that are likely to take place if the debate continues?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is in order.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I do not, Mr. Chairman, in the least dispute your ruling on that point. All that I wished to point out was the danger in which the Committee stands of slip-shod legislation, if carried on under the conditions that were ruling at the moment. It is for that purpose that I want to call the attention of the Minister for Education, as I am perfectly certain he is unaware of the fact. You, Sir, were not in the Chair when this Amendment was carried. No one has seen it in writing in the form in which it was carried, so far as I know, except the Deputy-Chairman of Committees. Only

    Division No. 159.]

    AYES.

    [3.3 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Keating, Matthew

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Adamson, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kelly, Edward

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Falconer, James

    King, Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Field, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal (West)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Leach, Charles

    Barran, Sir John (Hawick Burghs)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Barton, William

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Bentham, George Jockson

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gulland, John William

    McGhee, Richard

    Boland, John Plus

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hort. Dr. T. J.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hackett, John

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

    Bryce, John Annan

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

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Meagher, Michael

    Carr Gomm, H. W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hayward, Evan

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hazleton, Richard

    Middlebrook, William

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Herbert, General, Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, George Hay

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector

    Crooks, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hogge, James Myles

    Muldoon, John

    Cullinan, John

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Munro, Robert

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Delany, William

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, A. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Doris, William

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

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Jewett, Frederick William

    O'Malley, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

    Joyce, Michael

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

    those of us who happened to be struck by the words introduced in the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman became aware that it was couched in language for which no schoolboy would be accountable. It is in order that we may avoid, in the rest of this Act of Parliament, having the disgrace of its reaching the Statute Books in that slip-shod form that I suggest it would be in the interests of the dignity of legislation that the Motion of my right hon. Friend should be accented, and that we should all go home to bed.
    Mr. PEASE Mr. PEASE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 113.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Sutherland, John E.

    O'Shee, James John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Sutton, John E.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Travelyan, Charles Philips

    Pointer, Joseph

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Rowlands, James

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Sheehy, David

    Winfrey, Richard

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Reddy, Michael

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Guest and Mr. Webb.

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, W. W. Aster, Waldorf

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Aster, Waldorf

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Barnston, Harry

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Blair, Reginald

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanley, G. F. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bull, Sir William James

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Butcher, John George

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Campion, W. R.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cassel, Felix

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Cator, John

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cave, George

    Law. Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Wairond, Hon. Lionel

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Weigell, Capt. A. G.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Neville, Reginald J, N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. F

    Newman, John R. P.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Meysey-Thompson and Mr. Lane-Fox.

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    Division No. 160.]

    AYES.

    3. 11 a.m.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Cassel, Felix

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Blair, Reginald

    Cator, John

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Cave, George

    Astor, Waldorf

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bull, Sir William James

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Barnston, Harry

    Butcher, John George

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Campion, W. R.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    The Committee divided: Ayes 113; Noes, 213.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Forster, Henry William

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Malcolm, Ian

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Greene, W. R.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gretton, John

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

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

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

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Weigall, Captian A. G.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Kohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

    Winterton, Earl

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Younger, Sir George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    E. Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    King, Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Falconer, James

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Arnold, Sydney

    Field, William

    Leach, Charles

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Barnes, George N.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    France, G. A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Barton, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Goldstone, Frank

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

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

    Bentham, George Jackson

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

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gulland, John William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Boland, John Pius

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hackett, John

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Middlebrook, William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hayward, Evan

    Molloy, Michael

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Clough, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morison, Hector

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hinds, John

    Munro, Robert

    Crooks, William

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hogge, James Myles

    Murray, Captain Arthur C.

    Cullinan, John

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.(Kirkcaldy)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Delany, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Dowd, John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Malley, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    Doris, William

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Duffy, William J.

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Kelly, Edward

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    2086

    2087

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Rowlands, James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

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

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Webb, H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Sheehy, David

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Reddy, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Sutherland, John E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Sutton, John E.

    Mr. W. GUINNESS: There is an Amendment dealing with the question of penalising an elector who is not a plural voter. Is that within the scope of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is not now before the Committee. I call upon Mr. Cave.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I wish to move an Amendment before that. I think it has been handed in at the Table.
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Earl WINTERTON: I wish to ask whether or not the Chairman has accepted my Amendment, or, if not, whether I can move it in another form later on upon this Bill.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I believe my Amendment is now before the Chairman. May I ask whether I can move it?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have no other Amendment before me and I cannot deal with the matter now. I call upon Mr. Cave.
    Mr. CAVE: You have not said which Amendment I am entitled to move. Is it the Amendment on line 9 to insert the word "knowingly."
    The CHAIRMAN: No. It is the Amendment on line 10.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act., 1883, and the expression 'corrupt practice' shall be construed accordingly," and to insert instead thereof the words "liable on summary conviction is to be fined any sum not exceeding one hundred pounds."
    This deals with the penalty to be imposed upon the person who commits the
    2088
    offence of voting in more than one constituency, and I wish to point out what the effect of the Bill is. It makes the man who has contravened the Act guilty of a corrupt practice, and he is liable to one year's imprisonment with hard labour and to a fine not exceding £200. He is subject to further disabilities for seven years, and more than that if he were found guilty of a corrupt practice it might affect the result of the election. I think these penalties are very severe. What are they to be imposed for? For voting in more than one constituency in a General Election or for asking for a voting paper in more than one constituency. The word "knowingly" has not been inserted in the Bill and we must take the Bill exactly as it stands. A person may ask for a voting paper, though he may have already voted, and he may do so in ignorance of the law. The Government have accepted an Amendment which leaves it open for the presiding officer to ask whether the voter has applied for a voting paper or not but I do not think that is sufficient. It is quite clear the man may be deaf or dumb. He may not be able to answer the question, or even to hear it. He may ask twice for a paper through sheer ignorance of the law. This is new legislation and it may take some time for a knowledge of a law of this kind to penetrate into every mind, and yet a man who through mere inadvertence or ignorance asks for a voting paper twice is to be liable to these extreme penalties. I really think the House will agree that the penalty proposed is too severe. I am not sure whether a man who asks for a voting paper and votes twice is not guilty of a double offence at one and the same time, but, whether that is so or not, it is clear that the Bill introduces a new

    2089
    statutory offence which it treats with very great severity. I think it is really a savage and monstrous penalty in view of all the circumstances, a penalty far greater than the nature of the offence deserves. I put down the Amendment to raise the point whether the penalties for a corrupt practice are to be incurred in all cases, or whether a period of imprisonment or a fine of some limited amount should be substituted.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Member has put forward his Amendment, as he has just said, because he wants to know whether the Bill means that the maximum penalty is to be inflicted. Well I do not think that if it is proved that an offence is of a trifling character any legal tribunal would impose the maximum penalty. In order to judge whether the maximum penalty is to be imposed or not it is necessary to see the nature of the offence. At the same time I think in view of the gravity of a breach of the provisions of this Bill a fine of more than £100 is not unnecessarily severe. There are various ways in which the offence might be committed. For example a candidate himself might have actively and deliberately induced well educated persons to break the law so as to bring about a false return at an election. In a case of that kind I am not satisfied that £100 fine would be enough. That being so the question is whether we should fix £100 as the maximum. I say it is not enough to cover what ought to be a very outrageous abuse of the law.
    Mr. CAVE: I am not committed to the amount, as a maximum, as I have said.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not sure about that. So far as I am aware the election could not possibly be affected by any corrupt practice unless it takes place by and with the consent and knowledge of the candidate. Now the actual way in which this Amendment stands as it presents itself to me is this: there are three alternatives before the Committee. If you desire to deal with this offence on the terms of the maximum penalty you deal with the case of personation. That has already been done in the case of some other electoral offences. Personation is a felony and it is punishable by a process much more severe than anything we propose in this Bill. We should, indeed, not have gone beyond precedent if we had taken that course. So extreme a punishment as that, extending as it does to hard labour
    2090
    for two years, is attached by the law to anybody who votes in more than one ward in a Municipal Borough or in more than one electoral division of a county. We thought, and I hope the Committee will agree, that although we should be justified by precedent, we should be going a little too far if we endeavoured to put so severe a maximum penalty on any breach of this statute, so we took a more moderate course, and we recommend the Committee to deal with it as a corrupt practice less than personation. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would reduce it to what is known in electoral law as an illegal practice, such as forgetting to put the names of your printers on one of your pamphlets. That is not our view of the nature of the offence under this Bill, and, although it is quite right in trivial cases that the penalty should not be imposed at anything like its maximum, and, indeed, in trivial cases, if people were so foolish as to prosecute, no penalty should be imposed at all, we suggest that it is quite right that the maximum punishment should be preserved as a deterrent to evil doers.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think there is one consideration the right hon. and learned Gentleman has left out of account altogether, and it is that this Bill is confessedly only a stopgap. It deals temporarily with a position which is anomalous, and which will be entirely altered when the promised complete amendment of the electoral law and franchise is introduced by the Government. Therefore, the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend has particular weight, namely, that those persons who are now doing an absolutely illegal act, and which has always been an illegal act, if they repeat that action without any premeditation or without knowledge of wrong, they will be committing a fault which is punishable, as the Bill is now drawn, by a very excessive penalty, and I am perfectly certain that treating this as a temporary measure my hon. and learned Friend's proposal is surely an ample penalty to meet any offence which is likely to be committed under this Bill until the electoral law is remedied. A very great difference is made with regard to this Amendment by the refusal of the Government to insert the word "knowingly." That obviously must make a very considerable difference, and there are other Amendments which have been refused, notably the Amendment which was moved early in the evening to omit that part of the first Sub-section

    2091
    which extends this offence to merely asking for a ballot paper, in which case the offence may be so slight that it hardly seems in accordance with the ordinary practice of the House that a very heavy penalty should be imposed. It is extremely unlikely that any individual is going knowingly and wilfully to break this Statute should this Bill be passed into law. I am quite sure the penalty of £100 is amply sufficient, and I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to accept it.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I look at this question in an entirely different light from that in which the Solicitor-General looks at it. He invited the Committee to approach this matter from the point of view of considering whether the maximum penalty proposed by my hon. and learned Friend was sufficient. I think in doing that the Solicitor-General has misconceived the way in which he ought to approach the subject. The way I look at it is this: Are you or are you not suggesting something by this Bill by which substantial injustice can be worked upon anyone? The right hon. Gentleman has, of course, foreseen cases. He has pointed out one of a man whose name appears on several registers and for some reason or other is disqualified from voting in one district, but who has asked for the ballot paper in that district and afterwards asked for another ballot paper in another district. He only votes once, but under the Bill he commits an offence. The Solicitor-General says that no doubt the Courts would only inflict a trivial penalty, but under your Bill they would have to find that man guilty of a corrupt practice, although he has committed no offence at all. The penalty for that, if convicted on indictment, might be imprisonment with or without hard labour for a year, or he might be fined any sum not exceeding £200. The Solicitor-General says he would not be convicted, but my contention is that the Court would be bound to convict that man. The Act of 1883 provides that a person who is convicted on indictment of any corrupt practice shall be not capable during a period of seven years from the date of his conviction of being registered as an elector or voting at any election in the United Kingdom whether it be a Parliamentary election or an election for any public office, or of holding any public or judicial office, or of being elected to and sitting in the House of Commons.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have dealt with the point more than once. Assuming such a trivial offence, I have said that no magistrate would commit and no tribunal convict.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think it is going a little too far to suggest that for the protection of the subject against being disfranchised for seven years he must rely on a magistrate not committing him on indictment. I agree that if the right hon. Gentleman really could imagine a case so bad as he put it, he might be justified in saying that perhaps the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend does not go quite far enough. I agree, if you are to take everything at its very worst, and if there something in his contention, that whether you mean it or not, you will in fact run a very great risk of causing serious injustice to men who may have perfectly innocent intentions, but who, owing to the way your Bill is drawn, will be guilty of an offence, and whom any Court will have to find guilty.
    Mr. CASSEL: The learned Solicitor-General in addressing the House, said that there might be cases which deserve not a maximum penalty but a slight penalty. The point he did not quite appreciate was that any case in which a penalty, however slight, was inflicted, would be bound to carry with it the more serious consequences to which my hon. Friend referred. It is for that reason this penalty is inappropriate. The Solicitor-General was dealing with a case where you do not wish to inflict a maximum penalty, but only a slight penalty. The provision in the Bill is so large that you will not be able to inflict a slight penalty. If you desire to inflict any penalty at all, you must disenfranchise a person for a certain period. I can only attribute that to the spiteful feeling which the Liberal Party feels towards plural voters. There may be a case where an offence may be a very trivial one, but still where a conviction, with a small penalty is appropriate. In a case like that, the Liberal party—from the very old feeling against the plural voter, which is so strong, and out of vindictiveness, I cannot attribute it to anything else—want the penalties extended altogether beyond the proportion of the offence. That is a very serious matter, for if there is a conviction at all, it must also have an affect on the election, in the case where the man is an agent. The term "agent" is very wide indeed. It has received very different

    2093
    interpretations from different judges. Really the result of this provision is that in any case where the Court thinks it right to convict at all, it cannot convict and impose a slight penalty without, at the same time, possibly avoiding the whole election. On those grounds—if the Government think £100 is too little, they may make it £200—I think they ought not to impose a penalty in such a way that it could not possibly be inflicted without incurring these very serious consequences, both on the man himself and possibly on the whole election.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this is a severe penalty. I am not without some experience in election law, and in its administration. These very heavy penalties, in practice, defeat themselves, because if you go before an Election Court, you will find that so heavy are these penalties, that devices are constantly resorted to to try and avoid convictions, where persons ought to be convicted, and where some penalty ought to be imposed. All the ingenuity of persons before the Court, and the ingenuity of the Court itself, is exercised in order to let persons who ought to suffer some penalty go free, because of the very serious results which for a long period of time must follow if they are convicted. Take this case here. In regard to corrupt practices, who can possibly say that in a case where there has been a conviction on an indictment, that it is right that, a person should then be incapable of sitting or being elected to the House of Commons for seven years? That really is monstrous, and it is very remarkable to see the Solicitor-General adopting arguments which a hundred years ago appealed to Lord Ellenborough and Lord Eldon, and refusing the argument so eloquently applied by Sir John Romilly.
    The Solicitor-General appeals to election law and to the corrupt practices, and says we have had penalties and so on, but he has forgotten the history of it all. In the early Acts, in the Acts of the forties, of 1868 and 1883, all these corrupt practices had been brought forward from statute to statute. We are now creating an entirely new offence, and we have to consider whether it is right, in that entirely new offence, to impose penalties which have existed now for a period of something like 30 or 40 years, for offences to which the electorate have become accustomed, and which they perfectly understand. That is the real ground for
    2094
    differentiating strongly between a new offence, such as is created by this Bill, and the other classes of corrupt practices to which the community has long been accustomed. If the Solicitor-General will look at his Bill he will see that it is drawn in a manner which is particularly savage. There is a curious passage of very incomplete drafting, which says, in Sub-section (2):—
    "He shall be guilty of a corrupt practice, and the expression 'corrupt practice' shall be construed accordingly."
    That phrase has not been used previously in the Bill, and it is a little, difficult to understand, but I suppose it really means that the expression "corrupt practices" in the Act of 1883 shall, in that Act, be construed accordingly. Probably that is what it means, but it is not sense as it stands at present. Let us assume, however, that it will be made to have that meaning. Then the Solicitor-General must take the responsibility for having amended the Corrupt Practices Act, and for having made this present corrupt practice under this Bill to be one of the corrupt parctices, with all its terrible consequences, in the Act of 1883. For my part, I think we are entirely overdoing the matter. What will happen will be that there will be a reluctance to impose any penalty at all, and a reluctance to convict, and, by reason of imposing this severe penalty, the Bill will defeat its own ends. On those grounds I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Sir W. ANSON: Really the point is this: The punishment is not proportional to the offence, and the Solicitor-General is trusting to the magistrates' exercising discretion and overlooking offences altogether. We really are going back to the old state of things in which punishment of death was imposed in respect of stealing small sums; and when juries declined to find a verdict, or else judges directed them in such a way as to ensure an acquittal. Therefore, punishment was not inflicted in trifling cases. Really this is a question of fact. A man is asked for a ballot paper, and he may have been more or less careless; his intentions may have been more or less doubtful. The magistrate, having this fact to deal with, will either say, "I will ignore the Act altogether, and will not commit for trial," or he will commit for trial, and, immediately on conviction, the man will be disenfranchised for a term of years. So

    2095
    that really the punishment may be fearfully disproportionate to the offence, and except by the acceptance of such an Amendment as has been put before the Committee, there is no means of getting out of the difficulty which the Bill, as it stands, imposes on the magistrates and the courts.
    Mr. E. WOOD: Although the hon. and learned Gentlemen on this side have put most if not all the legal arguments, I perhaps may be allowed to put forward one point of view of the outside layman. We are concerned here at present with the old task of trying to make a punishment fit the crime. That is a task which has puzzled a good many legislators in the past, and clearly puzzles the Solicitor-General. It all depends how you do it, what your estimate of the crime is, and some of us take a different view on that matter from the Government. The Solicitor-General's view is that on the whole, if this crime is committed, he thinks it will be committed by design and because it is committed by design, therefore the penalties that are referred to are too light. We, I think, on the whole take the other view, and therefore the penalty under the Bill as it stands will be too heavy. I can conceive of many cases in which an offence against the provisions of the Bill would be committed owing to accident; I can conceive of hardly any case in which it would be committed by desire. Few people would desire wilfully to run the risk of being rendered liable to a penalty of £200 or of being sent to prison for a year. If that is so, if what you are really trying to guard against is accident and inadvertence, then I think the Government would do well to recognise some form of compromise.
    Mr. MALCOLM: I agree with what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend with regard to the savagery of the penalty imposed under the Bill for this new offence. I have noticed with interest, and not for the first time, the shelter which the Solicitor-General has erected for himself behind the magistrate who will have to try the unfortunate gentleman who comes up under this Bill. If the Solicitor-General were acting as a magistrate he would, under his own Bill, have to consider that man's offence corrupt and would have to inflict on him the penalties which are laid down in the measure. The man might, on the other hand, go before a chairman of quarter sessions, like my hon.
    2096
    and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), who would take quite a different view of the case and would wish, if he could do so, to inflict a fine not exceeding £100. He would be quite unable to do that, however, simply because of the hard and fast rule laid down in the measure. I want to ask, if I may, with great respect, why this offence of asking twice in one General Election for a voting paper is considered so heinous, and why are the Government screwing up the penalties so heavily now as compared with the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883? If the Solicitor-General would look at Section 9 of that Act he would see that if a person votes at any election knowing that he is prohibited by this or any other Act he would be guilty, not of a corrupt practice, but of an illegal practice. What has happened in the meanwhile to make that offence so much more blameworthy that it is to be turned from an illegal practice, as it was then, and has been since, into a corrupt practice? I should also like the learned Solicitor-General, if he would be good enough to do so, to look at Section 52 of the same Act, and he will see that it is much more elastice than anything in the Bill which we are considering at the present time. He will see that any person who is charged with corrupt practice may, if the circumstances warrant such a finding, be found guilty of illegal practice and the penalty would, of course, in that case, be reduced accordingly. I do not understand the reason for either the severity of the penalty or the rigid uniformity of the present Bill. As a matter of fact, I think we require some much better reason than has been vouchsafed to explain the severity of the treatment for an offence which is indeed only a light one if it is committed inadvertently. The rigidity of form which makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, before whom an offender under the Bill is brought, to say that this action when performed heedlessly is a corrupt practice is also a matter which requires better explanation.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: In my opinion the difficulty which arises in connection with this matter is due to the fact that it is assumed in this Bill that it is necessary to legislate by reference. The point is that if this Bill, instead of referring to other Acts of Parliament, were distinctly itself to formulate or lay down certain maximum penalties which were capable of reduction to any extent, the whole

    2097
    difficulty would be overcome. The Solicitor-General earlier in the evening objected to the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend on the ground that a fine of £100 was in certain possible contingencies not sufficient to meet an offence. If that is so then let the Solicitor-General make the maximum penalty heavier. It seems to me that you might as a maximum punishment impose as heavy a sentence of fine or imprisonment as you choose, so long as it is possible—and this is the important point—to grade that down to the vanishing point. At the same time you should, in my opinion, eliminate the condition that a necessary part of the penalty of conviction is the loss of certain civil rights and also the possibility of affecting the election. Those I submit are results out of all proportion to the kind of fault we are contemplating, and I venture to appeal to the Solicitor-General to give up altogether this idea of punishment in this Bill by reference to the Corrupt Practices Act and to state definitely certain penalties which would be possible of diminution to any extent. Moreover, he should give up these side results of conviction which it seems to me might in certain contingencies inflict a very unfair burden on a citizen.
    4.0 A.M.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: We have had no explanation from the Solicitor-General as to why he is so keen on the particular phraseology in the Section. It seems to me the more one looks at the Bill in conjunction with the Act of 1883, to which we are referred, the more it becomes evident that there is some sinister design in this particular phraseology which the Solicitor-General is adopting. I have no doubt that a great many hon. Members are much more familiar with the Act than I am, but it appears to me that there are three kinds of undesirable practices which are included in the Act of 1883. There are first of all "corrupt practices." There are also illegal practices and personation, and, in the words of the Statute, there is "aiding or abetting, or concealing or procuring" the commission of an offence under the Act. This Sub-section, which covers what may be the inadvertent asking for a ballot paper for a second time, comes within the middle category of these three. I want to ask hon. Gentlemen do they really desire to inflict these harsh and severe penalties? Section 6 of
    2098
    the Act of 1883 imposes a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years with hard labour upon a person who commits personation. I am really surprised, after all, at the moderation of the Government and the Solicitor-General. We have had no explanation from the Government of what is meant exactly by a corrupt practice. Section 3 of the Act of 1883 defines what a corrupt practice is. It either falls within the category of treating, undue influence, bribery, and so on, or it comes within one of the definitions of undue influence which refers to the use of force or violence, or the infliction of any injury, damage, loss or harm upon any person or voter. I fail to see myself how asking for a ballot paper for a second time can come within any of the definitions of the words "corrupt practice." I agree with my hon. Friend who has said it should not come within that category. Section 7 of the Act of 1883 deals with illegal practices, and refers to payment for conveyance of electors to the poll, and to the use of any house or building or premises, and the erection of bills and notices.
    Many of these offences, though illegal, are not corrupt. They are correctly described as being illegal. I think the Government have gone too far in proposing this savage penalty upon the plural voter who may act in ignorance or even through carelessness. I ask them to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps the Solicitor-General or some other Member of the Government will tell us why they have adopted this extraordinary course. So far we have had no adequate explanation. Earlier in the evening the Member for Oxford University asked that the law, as it was intended to be imposed, should be stated in the Bill and not be made by the magistrate, and at that time the Solicitor-General found it difficult to reply. I fail to see any reply to the appeals addressed to him on this Amendment. Surely the Solicitor-General is not going to leave the Committee without guidance in a matter of this kind. It is not a matter in which a severe penalty can be laid down and then safely left to the discretion of a justice at Petty Sessions. If that is the Solicitor-General's view this House may as well abrogate its functions and refrain from passing many of the elaborate Statutes which it is called to pass. I hope that at least the Solicitor-General will tell us why he cannot accept the Amendment

    2099
    and why he insists upon calling this offence a corrupt practice. It is neither English, nor is it that logic of which he is so fond.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERALrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. NEWTON: I do hope the Government will not take refuge in silence in a question of this kind. The Solicitor-General is in a difficult position and I have no doubt he realises it. He has said it is possible that an offence under the Act might be of a light or trifling character. If that be so, the magistrate should be able to refuse to find the man guilty or to convict him in a minor degree. It is well understood that where the punishment provided by the law is too severe, magistrates are inclined to refuse to convict, although it may be proved that an offence has been committed. If it is a trifling offence under this Bill and there is a conviction it may be met by a day's imprisonment or a nominal fine, but still that sentence under this Bill will carry with it seven years' disfranchisement. I do ask the Solicitor-General whether he desires that an offence, which he admits may be a small offence, should necessarily carry with it seven years' disfranchisement? Would that not be too severe a penalty? Cannot he conceive an offence of a mild character for which this heavy penalty is far too serious and severe?
    Major MORRISON-BELL: There is one other reason why the Amendment should be accepted, and that is that the Act of 1883 mentions the period of disfranchisement as seven years. Now why was that particular maximum put in? I think the only reason can be that we were then under the Septennial Act and Parliament lasted for seven years, but now, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, the duration of Parliament has been cut down to five years. That would, I think, render the penalty under the Act of 1883 unsuitable to the present day. Therefore I suggest that by far the simplest and easiest way to meet this case is for the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Hon. Members opposite seem exhausted with their own tactiturnity, and they take no part in the discussion of these Amendments whatever,
    2100
    though as merciful men they surely ought to do so. In 1906 the supporters of the Government did take part and spoke up for the innocent man who might be fined a severe penalty. Nothing strikes me more than the curious difference between now and 1906 in this respect. In 1906 every effort was made to let innocent men down as light as possible. I do not suppose hon. Members opposite had any less hatred of the plural voter then than they have now, but, at any rate, they did try to do justice and not to press for too severe a penalty. During the Debate in 1906 on this particular Clause an Amendment was put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University. That Amendment was at once accepted willingly by the Colonial Secretary. That was the spirit right through the Debate in which the Government dealt with this unfortunate plural voter, and I suggest that what was done then ought to be done now. Why pursue the plural voter with savage penalties? He was a criminal then and I assume he is a criminal now, but in those days he was, at any rate, shown some sort of mercy and given a chance he is not given now.
    Mr. NEVILLE: The real difficulty that arises under this Clause is due to the fact that no guilty mind is necessary, and the result is that if you are going to allow a party magistrate—because magistrates are very often party people, on your side as well as on ours—to decide on a question in which there is no guilty mind, it seems that you are not extending to these voters the indulgence which we in this House have extended to Ministers in the Marconi business, in that business which we are glad to think has now passed away, the plea was put forward by Ministers——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see the relativeness of these remarks.
    Mr. NEVILLE: In that case the question was inadvertence——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have fully made up my mind.
    Mr. NEVILLE: I will, of course, bow to your ruling, but I should like to point out to the learned Solicitor-General that very seldom in English law is there any offence without mens rea. I strongly urge this House carefully to consider the Amendment put forward by my Friend on this side before passing such a savage Clause as this.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I desire to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He used the argument, and the only argument, in this case that the offence might be trivial, but that the punishment might also be made trivial by the magistrates. The answer to that has been given by quoting chapter and verse from the Act, which shows that, although the offence may be trivial, the punishment cannot be trivial, because conviction must be followed by disfranchment for seven years. The right hon. Gentleman has never answered that point, and I do think we are entitled to a further statement when the very defence he has made is distinctly disproved on this side. It does extend the Debate unduly if no answer is given. This is a Committee Debate, and it is the custom and practice of the House for question and answer to pass from one side to the other. The right hon. Gentleman makes a statement which is disproved by chapter and verse from this side of the House. It is on the statement which he made that the whole defence of this Clause is vested, and naturally when he makes no answer the Debate does not move forward, and here we are, nearly at half-past four, continuing to argue the same point. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Solicitor-General in charge of the Bill who gives perfunctory replies. A man who asks for a ballot paper twice may be treated as a corrupt person. If that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite desire, all I can say is that we are very glad we are here to oppose it and oppose it to the very last moment we can keep this matter going. I consider it a scandalous misuse of power. This is a Bill which is carried through under the Parliament Act, and there is no opportunity of amending it. A great responsibility lies on this House. Here you are dealing with the liberty of the subject. You are imposing enormous penalties for what may be most trivial offences. There is no appeal from this House, yet here, in a spirit of levity, at 4.30 in the morning, without in the least considering what you are doing, you may be imposing the most severe and serious disabilities on many of our fellow subjects. I think I am justified in protesting against it, and I do so most earnestly. I say that the spirit in which this matter is being dealt with is no credit either to the House or to the country.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sure the reason why the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) makes a complaint in the tone
    2102
    he uses, must be because he really thinks he has something to complain about.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do.
    Sir J. SIMON: I have already explained—I am sorry my powers of explanation are not more extensive—no less than three times. I am sorry that I cannot make it any plainer. I am not in the least ignorant of the point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think that he and his Friends have discovered. I myself first dealt with it some hours ago. The answer to the point is that no magistrate would ever think of inflicting, and no jury would ever think of convicting, and nobody would ever incur the slightest liability of being convicted in the circumstances suggested. If, as I suppose, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has sat as a magistrate, he knows perfectly well that nothing is more common than that in a trivial case the magistrate will say, "I will not convict."
    Mr. CAVE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with that point of this Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I did, in answer to you. I agree it was a very long time ago.
    Mr. CAVE: The point is that we say that for a small offence against this Section, if there is a conviction, with the intention of imposing a small fine—it might be a small fine of 20s. for a small offence—the result must be, as there is no option, that the man is disfranchised for seven years. The Solicitor-General's answer is that in such cases the tribunal need not convict at all. He ought to know, and the Government and the Committee ought to know that that is not a proper answer. If an offence has been committed against the Section, the tribunal ought to convict, and the Act ought not to put the Court in the position that either they must acquit the prisoner when they know he is guilty, or else must impose on him a disproportionate penalty for the offence. That is not proper legislation. My hon. Friend, the Member for Windsor made a very fair suggestion. He would give the Court an option of putting on a small fine, or inflicting a small period of imprisonment, without these disqualifications. That would meet the whole of the arguments of the Government against the Amendment. I adopt, with not the least hesitation, my hon. Friend's suggestion, and say that if the Government will meet it in the way he suggested I shall be satisfied. The

    2103
    only point we want to insist on is, do not make the minimum punishment too hard for the minimum offence. If you pass a Bill of this kind, as it stands, you will be doing a very hard and improper thing, against which we ought to protest with all our might.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: The Solicitor-General said he had answered this point three or four times already. He may have done so, but it is our business to try and persuade him that our cause is right, and that our suggestion is a good one. Therefore he must not complain if we bring forward fresh points after he has answered others. Nearly everyone on this side of the House is convinced that the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) are sound, and that in this case the penalties are very excessive indeed. I would like to point out to the Solicitor-General that the penalties in the case of a plural voter need not be as severe as those in the case of other people who are guilty of some illegal practice; and for this reason the existing plural voter often is a person who has a certain amount of property and different residences. He is a person who can easily be traced, whereas in the case of a man who impersonates another man, he is generally an individual of no fixed abode, who is very hard to get hold of. Therefore, in the case of a plural voter, the penalty, instead of being severe, might be a good deal less. The only reason for making the penalty so severe is that the Liberal party are afraid—at any rate, those of them in

    Division No. 161.]

    AYES.

    [4.29 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Falconer, J.

    Adamson, William

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ffrench, Peter

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Clough, William

    Field, William

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Arnold, Sydney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Crooks, William

    France, G. A.

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Barton, William

    Cullinan, John

    Goldstone, Frank

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

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

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Bentham, G. J.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Gulland, John William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Delany, William

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Boland, John Pius

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hackett, John

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Doris, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    London are sending round intimidating notices at the elections. I remember a case in the last county council election in which a voter received a paper with the Royal Arms on the top, which began, "Take notice under certain Acts," and quoted penalties to which the voter was not in the least liable. The voter was so intimidated that he would not vote, and it was not until I went round and led him to the polling booth that he would vote. I can quite imagine if this Bill passed in its present form, that the same sort of paper might be sent to the voters quoting this paragraph (2), and then proceeding to quote from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act. It would set out all the penalties, and would start off with:—
    "A person who is convicted on indictment of a corrupt practice shall,"
    and so forth —
    "for seven years."
    That is the only reason I can possibly think of for putting such severe penalties into the Act. In my own Constituency there are a certain number of plural voters, a great many of whom belong to the party opposite. I shall certainly point out to them the vindictiveness with which the Solicitor-General has followed up those who have the misfortune to have two votes.
    Mr. PEASErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 111.

    Hayward, Evan

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Hazleton, Richard

    Middlebrook, William

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, M.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hinds, John

    Morrell, Philip

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morison, Hector

    Rowlands, James

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Muldoon, John

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hughes, S. L.

    Munro, Robert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Illingworth, Percy M.

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    John, Edward Thomas

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Malley, William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sutton, John E.

    King, J.

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Leach, Charles

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pointer, Joseph

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Webb, H.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    McGhee, Richard

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

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

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Winfrey, Richard

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Reddy, M.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Ashley, W. W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Baird, J. L.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, W. R.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks.)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hoare, Samuel J. G.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Starkey, John R.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Staveley-Hill Henry

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cator, John

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Winterton, Earl

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. E. Wood.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

    Division No. 162.]

    AYES.

    [4.36 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Dowd, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

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

    Adamson, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Malley, William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

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

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shee, James John

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hayward, Evan

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, George N.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Barton, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

    Hinds, John

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, Michael

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Keating, Matthew

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    King, Joseph

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Leach, Charles

    Rowlands, James

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Cullinan, John

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsey (Leicester)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    McGhee, Richard

    Seely, Rt. H on. Colonel J. E. B.

    Delany, William

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

    Sheehy, David

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Doris, William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Duffy, William J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sutherland, John E.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Sutton, John E.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Falconer, J.

    Middlebrook, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Molloy, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Field, William

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Webb, H.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morrell, Philip

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morison, Hector

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

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Muldoon, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Munro, Robert

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Gulland, John William

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

    Hackett, John

    O'Dohorty, Philip

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    NOES

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Baird, J. L.

    Barnston, Harry

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 111.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Prettyman, Ernest George

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Starkey, John R.

    Cassel, Felix

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Cator, John

    Hunt, Rowland

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cave, George

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Goldsmith, Frank

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Morrison-Bell and Captain Morrison

    Grant. J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bell.

    Greene, W. R.

    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, on a point of Order, whether we could not take the Amendment dealing with the combination of places? There is an Amendment on that subject.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I have given my best consideration to all the Amendments. I have gone through them carefully, and that is not one which I could take. I call upon Mr. Staveley-Hill.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether you have given consideration to the Amendment on line 16 on the same subject, handed in a short time ago? It is one of some importance.
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes. That Amendment was handed in, but it is not one which I should select. Hon. Members are not now dealing with points of Order. It is the duty of the Chairman to go through the Amendments and to select the Amendment which he considers ought to be proceeded with, and a point of Order does not arise upon his decision. He is not called upon to give explanations to hon. Members whose Amendments are passed over. He is simply acting under the provision of the Standing Order.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: May I ask whether it is a point of Order that we
    2110
    should continue the official use of artificial light after it has become unnecessary?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask whether, under the Rules, the Chairman has a right to select the Amendments, and whether Members have no right to ask why he has selected certain Amendments or whether he had given consideration to others?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Under the Standing Order, the Chairman has the right to select the Amendment, and is not called upon to give any explanation, although he sometimes does so.
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add:—
    (4) This Act shall not apply to a returning officer—

    (a) by reason of having voted during the, General Election under the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, Section two;

    (b) by reason of having already voted during the General Election and being desirous of voting under the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, Section two.

    Under the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, Section 2, the returning officer has a casting vote in the case of a tie at a Parliamentary Election. It is perfectly

    2111
    clear that a vote given in those circumstances is given merely to decide the election, and is not the exercise of the franchise as an ordinary elector; but under this Bill, if the returning officer complies with the Statute and has already voted once, he will be guilty of a corrupt practice by voting again, even if he only votes to give a casting vote under the provisions of the Ballot Act. I am quite sure the Government did not mean their Bill to have this effect and I think they will agree that it is necessary to make the provision clear. It is with that object alone that I move the Amendment. It is only that a returning officer should be able to exercise the franchise, first, as ordinary mortal, and, secondly, as returning officer in the case of a tie.
    Mr. PEASE: I congratulate the hon. Member on having found another weak spot in the drafting of this Bill.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: We could find many more if we could discuss the Bill without the "kangaroo."
    Mr. PEASE: There are occasions which have occurred when a returning officer has declined to exercise the prerogative which has hitherto been given, and I believe that two Members have been returned to this House, but in that case the constituency has been practically disfranchised, and neither Member has recorded his vote in the Division Lobby. The usual practice in the event of a returning officer possessing a vote in the constituency is to give a casting vote, and in that way he obviates a second election at great cost to the candidate. On public grounds I think it is desirable that the discretionary power given to a returning officer to exercise a vote in the event of a tie should be allowed to continue, and therefore the Government accept the Amendment. I desire, however, to make it clear that we reserve the right, if necessary, of altering the phraseology on Report.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As the right hon. Gentleman has congratulated my hon. Friend, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having at last consented to depart from what he has told us on hundreds of occasions was the principle of the Bill, namely, that nobody on any account should exercise the plural vote? May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the returning officer under the Ballot Act has only the power to exercise his casting
    2112
    vote if he is an elector in the constituency in which he is returning officer? It follows from that that the plural vote you give to him is of infinitely more value than the plural vote you give to anyone else, and, therefore, in accepting this Amendment you are going away from the principle to a much greater extent.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I must say that I think the speech of the President of the Board of Education most instructive. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there might be a great many other equally weak spots in the Bill which the Opposition would have been able to point out to the Government if the Government had not chosen to take what I cannot help considering as very arbitrary proceedings of the "kangaroo guillotine."
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot permit reflections on the fairness of the Chair. First of all, the Resolution is submitted to the Chair for acceptance, and then it is in the hands of the Committee. Certainly it is not in order to criticise that.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Chair, but on the system of the "kangaroo" closure.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it not perfectly in order for any hon. Member to criticise the action of the Government in proposing a "kangaroo" Motion?
    The CHAIRMAN: That point has been raised over and over again both in Committee and in the House, and it has always been ruled that it is not in order.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I had no intention of making animadversions against the Chair at all, but I think I shall be in order in pointing out what a dangerous instrument the "kangaroo" is. It is not conducive to good legislation. It shows that the House does sometimes adopt machinery for carrying a Bill through which is not in the interests of good legislation. I am amazed, I must say, at the Government accepting this Amendment, as the Government have refused to accept an Amendment which is far more important, viz., that for University Representation.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: May I draw your attention, Mr. Whitley, to a Member who is reading a newspaper in this House.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I point out that it is an Order Paper?
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I mean the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Fiennes).
    The CHAIRMAN: It is out of order, according to our rules, to read a newspaper in the House, and if any Member has done so he will please observe the rule in the future.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The Government have refused an Amendment of much greater importance than this on the ground that it would interfere with the symmetry of the Bill, but I think it absurd now to ask the House to regard the symmetry of the Bill. I should like to point out to the House what an important vote the casting vote of a returning officer is. It is not only the plural vote but the whole casting vote as to who shall represent a particular constituency. I suppose the Government are willing to make this exception and no other because they think a great many returning officers are very likely to be Liberals, and therefore the exercise in this case of the plural vote would not inflict a party injury. I do not think the House ought to accept this Amendment. I think it is a bad Amendment, and that if this Bill is to go through under the Parliament Act, an Amendment of this kind, hastily drafted and inserted at the last moment, ought not to become part of the machinery of the Bill which cannot be altered. It is quite simple for the Government to put in a Clause which would have the effect of altering that Section of the Ballot Act of 1872, and for giving some other method of dealing with ties at elections. I am surprised at the Government accepting this Amendment of all others, and I certainly think they would have done better to have accepted some far more important Amendments moved from this side of the House.
    5.0 A.M.
    Earl WINTERTON: I agree with my Noble Friend. I am against accepting this Amendment. The Government have practically disfranchised the university graduate; they have penalised the deaf and the dumb, and made war on an infirmity of nature, yet they put the returning officer—a gentleman who, until this afternoon, I did not know was capable of deciding great issues—in a decidedly privileged position under the Bill. I am not going into the merits of the question, but the bad drafting that has characterised this Bill is a thing that puts all the previous efforts of this Government, during the seven years that they have been in office, entirely in the shade. I do not altogether dissociate the method by which this Bill
    2114
    has been conducted with the extraordinary collection of Ministers I see on the Front Bench opposite. If some of the heads of the Government had been present, it is very unlikely that my hon. Friend's hastily drafted Amendment would have been accepted. I should like to refer to what the President of the Board of Education said as to the possible hardship that might occur if the returning officer was not given this right under the Bill. We all know what great disturbance to ordinary business is occasioned by a General Election, or by a by-election. I venture to think it is perfectly possible to get over the difficulty which would arise in cases where you had a tie, without calling in the returning officer at all, and without putting him in the privileged position in which you place him if you pass the words of the Amendment. There are several other officials who might be given the power of deciding in case of a tie. In the first place, I do not think the returning officer is the sort of man who ought to be entrusted with this great responsibility. Cases in which a tie occur must necessarily be cases where some subject of very great moment has been discussed.
    I do not think that in a crisis, which might well be a crisis of the whole affairs of this nation, that a man, possibly of very meagre intelligence and very small education, should be called in to decide a point of this kind. I have heard an alternative suggestion which, I think, would better meet the case. In some cases the mayor of a borough might give the casting vote. It is quite true that in many boroughs the mayor is is the returning officer, but it is equally true that in London, and in certain other parts, the Town Clerk is the returning officer. I myself think that it is better to have some official altogether unconnected with the civic life of the community. The only place in which a mayor should exercise this right should be in the case of the Lord Mayor of London, but in the case of the ordinary boroughs and the county boroughs this right should be given to some person who is not an officer of the municipality at all, but directly nominated by the State. It would be better almost to give it to one of the new insurance officials than to give it to the returning officer. Circumstances may arise in which a casting vote of this kind may decide peace and war between this country and another country. I would like to see the stipendiary magistrate, or any official entirely unconnected with the life of the

    2115
    place, and who would not be induced possibly to give his vote, not from the point of view of his opinions on Imperial questions, but from any predilection he might have to either candidate or on any issue of local politics. So unnecessary do I conceive this privileged position which has been conferred on a returning officer by the Government this evening, that I beg to move to leave out the words in Sub

    Division No. 163.]

    AYES.

    [5.10 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Acland, Francis

    Hackett, John

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Adamson, William

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

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

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Arnold, Sydney

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

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Barton, William

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Malley, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Bentham, G. J.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Black, Arthur W.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Boland, John Pius

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hinds, John

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Phillips, John (Longford, South)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jewett, F. W.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clough, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crooks, William

    King, J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cullinan, John

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robinson, Sidney

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Sheehy, David

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Falconer, James

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Meagher, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Field, William

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Sutton, John E.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Middlebrook, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tennant, Harold John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morison, Hector

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

    Muldoon, John

    Watt, Henry A.

    section (b) "by reason of having already voted at a general election."
    Mr. PEASE Mr. PEASE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "that the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 108.

    Webb, H.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Young, William (Porthshire, E.)

    White, Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Gulland and Mr. Webb.

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Ashley, Wilfrid

    Goldsmith, Frank

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Harry

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dentin Fortescue

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Campion, W. R.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cator, John

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cave, George

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Touche, George Alexander

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Walker, Col William Hall

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Malcolm, Ian

    Winterton, Earl

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. Mason and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

    Division No. 164.]

    AYES.

    [5.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cassell, Felix

    Falconer, James

    Adamson, William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Field, William

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

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Arnold, Sydney

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Baird, J. L.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Clough, William

    France, G. A.

    Barnes, George N.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Barnston, Harry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Barton, W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Crooks, William

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Cullinan, John

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

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

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hackett, J.

    Bentham, G. J

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Delany, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Boland, John Pius

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Doris, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Duffy, William J.

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 71.

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Molloy, M.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rowlands, James

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hogge, James Myles

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, R.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    John, Edward Thomas

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Needham, Christopher T.

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

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Jewett, F. W.

    O'Dowd, John

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Joyce, Michael

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

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Malley, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shee, James John

    Sutherland, John E.

    King, J.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sutton, John E.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Leach, Charles

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Pointer, Joseph

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Lynch, A. A.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    McGhee, Richard

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Watt, Henry

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

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

    Webb, H.

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

    Reddy, M.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Younger, Sir George

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Middlebrook, William

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    NOES.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

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

    Grant, J. A.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Starkey, John R.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cator, John

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cave, George

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerry, Earl of

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Helmsley and Mr. Butcher.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Mr. PEASEclaimed that the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," be now put.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 165]

    AYES.

    [5.25 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Dowd, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

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

    Adamson, William

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

    O'Malley, William

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

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

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Arnold, Sydney

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Baker, Harold T.(Accrington)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Barnes, George N.

    Henry, Sir Charles

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

    Barton, William

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hinds, John

    Pollard, Sir George H.

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

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hogge, James Myles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    John, Edward Thomas

    Primrose, Hon. Neill James

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Brady, P. J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Brunner, John F. L.

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

    Reddy, Michael

    Bryce, John Annan

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Chancellor, H. J.

    Kelly, Edward

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    King, J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberston, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Leach, Charles

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crooks, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Cullinan, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    McGhee, Richard

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Delany, William

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

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Donelan, Captain A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Doris, William

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sutton, John E.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Falconer, James

    Middlebrook, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Millar, James Duncan

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Molley, Michael

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Ffrench, Peter

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Field, William

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Morgan, George Hay

    Webb, H.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Morrell, Philip

    White J Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Flavin, Michael

    Morison, Hector

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

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Muldoon, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Munro, R.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

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

    Nolan, Joseph

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Hackett, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Franics

    Campion, W. R.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortesuce

    Cassel, Felix

    Ashley, W. W.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cator, John

    Baird, J.L.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cave, George

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

    Bull, Sir William James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Beach, Hon Michael Hugh Hicks

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    2122

    2123

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

    Weston, J. W.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Helmsley, Viscount

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Winterton, Earl

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

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

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Younger, Sir George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Newman and Mr. Barnston.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y, B'ghs)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

    Division No. 166.]

    AYES.

    [5.33 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Joyce, Michael

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Adamson, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kelly, Edward

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

    Falconer, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    King, Joseph

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

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Field, William

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Leach, Charles

    Barton, William

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bentham, G. J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lynch, A. A.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Boland, John Pius

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    McGhee, Richard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

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

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hackett, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Harvey, A. G. C. Rochdale)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

    Meagher, Michael

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hayward, Evan

    Middlebrook, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clough, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Molloy, Michael

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Crooks, William

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Crumley, Patrick

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morrell, Philip

    Cullinan, John

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Muldoon, John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Munro, Robert

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Delany, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Doris, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Dowd, John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jowett, Frederick William

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

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 99.

    O'Malley, William

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Sutherland, John E.

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Sutton, John E.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Tennant, Harold John

    O'Shee, James John

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Roth, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Webb, H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

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

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Winfrey, Richard

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Sheehy, David

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Reddy, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Perkins, Walter F.

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Butcher, John George

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campion, W. R.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cator John

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cave, George

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman, (Kent, Thanet)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Winterton, Earl

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    William Bull and Mr. Meysey-

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thompson.

    CLAUSE: 2.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Plural Voting Act, 1913.
    Captain CRAIG: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

    Division No. 167.]

    AYES.

    [5.41 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Adamson, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Bentham, G. J.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Boland, John Pius

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Barton, William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Mr. PEASEclaimed, "That the Question, 'that the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put." [HON. MEMBERS: "Scandal; a disgrace."]
    Question put, "That the Question 'that the Clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 96.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brady, P. J.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pointer, Joseph

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clough, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Crooks, William

    Kelly, Edward

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, Michael

    Cullinan, John

    King, Joseph

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Rodmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Leach, Charles

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Delany, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Doris, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke).

    Duffy, William J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McGhee, Richard

    Rowlands, James

    Elverston, Sir Harold

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

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Falconer, J.

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Sheehy, David

    Field, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fienness, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Middlebrook, William

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    France, G. A.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molloy, M.

    Sutton, John E.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Toulmin, Sir George

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morison, Hector

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton

    Munro, R.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Webb, H.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Needham, Christopher

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nolan, Joseph

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

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

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Winfrey, Richard

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Shee, James John

    Higham, John Sharp

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Cator, John

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Cave, George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Baird, J. L.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Barnston, Harry

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Craig, Captain J. (Down, E.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Campion, W. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    2128

    2129

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Paget, Hugh Almeric

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Pease, Herbert Plye (Darlington)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Winterton, Earl

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

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

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

    Starkey, John R.

    Younger, Sir George

    Mount, William Arthur

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

    Newman, John R. P.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    W. Bull and Mr. Meysey-Thompson.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"

    Division No. 168.]

    AYES

    [5.50 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Adamson, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Middlebrook, William

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Millar, James Duncan

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

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

    Molloy, Michael

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Hackett, John

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morrell, Philip

    Barnes, George N.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morison, Hector

    Barton, W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Muldoon, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro, Robert

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

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

    Murphy, Martin J.

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Nolan, Joseph

    Boland, John Pius

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

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

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Maley, William

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hinds, John

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

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shee, James John

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Palmer, Godfrey, Mark

    Chancellor, Henry George

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyqr Tydvil)

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crooks, William

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Cullinan, John

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Dawes, James Arthur

    King, Joseph

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Reddy, Michael

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    McGhee, Richard

    Robinson, Sidney

    Falconer, James

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

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowlands, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Field, William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Scanlan, Thomas

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Meagher, Michael

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 95.

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Winfrey, Richard

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Webb, H.

    Sutton, John E.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Starkey, John R.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campion, W. R.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cassel, Felix

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cator, John

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cave, George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dairymple, Viscount

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Lord Ninian Crichton- Stuart.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newman, John R. P.

    Mr. PEASE: I beg to Move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I think the supporters of the Government on this side of the House have heard with some astonishment the Motion which has just been made by the President of the Board of Education. I am surprised that after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman some short time ago, that he would only surrender on the understanding that this Bill would be passed up to the report stage on Friday; he has now put up the white flag without one word of explanation. I say that there is more due to the supporters of the Government than treatment of that kind, and this is more especially the case as we have loyally supported Ministers throughout a very long night. What was the object which the Government set out to achieve during to-night's debate and divisions? It was, if I understood it aright, that they should get these new Clauses on Friday. [Laughter.] I am sure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen oppo-
    2132
    site are fully entitled to their mirth at having got the Government to succumb so ingloriously, and I hope that the Government enjoy their cheers.
    For my part, I rather think it would be better to act on the advice of their own supporters. You cannot get this Bill by agreement on Friday. There are many new Clauses, and it is my opinion, as it will be the opinion of anyone who looks into the question, that we ought to go on and get some of these Clauses to-night. We could make a start at any rate. The right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, misled the House when he suggested that we could not get on with the Clauses to-night, and that we ought to report Progress. This is not in any real sense a Radical Bill, and the Government have had some difficulty in inducing the Radical democracy to believe that they were in earnest about this question of plural voting.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are debating a Motion to report Progress, and hon. Gentlemen must confine themselves strictly to that question.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Am I not entitled to give reasons to show that the Government are not acting fairly to their supporters? I submit that, in view of the attitude of the Opposition, the Government are not justified in moving to report Progress at the present time. In view of the way in which the night has been occupied, I think we ought to go on.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not permissible to review the previous incidents of the evening on a Motion to report Progress.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. Is not your ruling one which we have heard for the first time? Do I understand you to say that it is not permissible to review the events of the evening which have led up to a Motion to report Progress?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is. It is quite plain under the Standing Order. I have not been too strict, either to-night or on other occasions, but, as a matter of fact, it is not in order on a Motion to report Progress that a general review shall be entered into of what has taken place. The Standing Order says that on a Motion to report Progress the Debate shall be confined to the matter of such Motion.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I submit that I should be in order in referring to the time which has been spent in discussing the hon. Member's Amendment. We have not had sufficient time to discuss the real details of the Bill. The main time was occupied by hon. Gentlemen supporting one of their own Amendments. I have been here twenty-one years, and I have frequently heard Motions to report Progress at all hours of the night, and I think we have always been allowed a very wide range upon that particular Motion. I have hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. Gentleman will be fully satisfied with the evening we have gone through. So far as we are concerned we are perfectly satisfied, and we hope the country will take notice of it.
    Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I think, Sir, your ruling just given is one of the highest importance. So far as I remember on the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate or to report Progress, Members have always been allowed to refer to what had taken place during the Debate. I think, if that ruling is to be followed, we shall be in a different position in the future from what in which we have stood up to the present.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Rules and the Standing Orders say that the Debate on a Motion shall be confined to the matter of such Motion. It is my duty to administer that Standing Order, and there can be no doubt that upon a Motion to report Progress you cannot review the proceedings of the evening. I have never attempted to apply that rule in a pedantic or narrow way, but I am bound to say once more that you cannot have that general review of the proceedings of the evening on a Motion to report Progress.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Would you give a definite ruling on that subject without having an opportunity of looking up the precedents?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the matter is quite plain. I do not mean to take objection to references such as have been habitual. But I am quite certain that no Chairman would permit a general review and recrimination by both sides of the House of the previous progress of the Debate on a Motion to report Progress.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that one of the reasons for the Motion to report Progress is that the previous incidents of the evening justified it, and would it not be in order to refer to those incidents?
    Mr. PRINGLE: The question is whether we proceed with the business or whether we report Progress. Are we not entitled to refer to the previous discussion and to draw arguments from the events of the evening as to whether business should be proceeded with or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is entirely a matter in which I should use my discretion. I can only now repeat what I have said, that to allow a general review of the proceedings of the night on such a Motion would be most undesirable.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I regret very much that the Government should have put forward this Motion, and I have made my protest against their action. I may congratulate the Opposition upon having got a new cry for the constituencies. It will be, "We have fought all night, and we still have ten votes to your one."
    Mr. PEASE: Perhaps I ought to have mentioned the reason I moved to report Progress. I was under the impression that we had no alternative but to proceed with this Bill to-night, and probably get it through its Committee stage, including the new Clauses. That was certainly my intention, and it only came to my know-

    2135
    ledge a short time ago that the Opposition understood at an early hour this evening that we were not going to proceed with the new Clauses to-night. Apparently the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others left the House expecting that the new Clauses would come up for discussion another day. I think it advisable under these circumstances to move this Motion, although the Patronage Secretary does not think any words he used justify that impression being entertained by the Opposition. Under these circumstances it seems to me right that I should move to report Progress, but I do think there is also an obligation on the part of the Opposition. [OPPOSITION MEMBERS: "No."] I am only expressing what I believe to be a moral obligation on the other side—not to protract unduly the proceedings on Friday, and with a view, I hope, of securing the completion of the new Clauses before five o'clock on that day we shall propose to-morrow that the House do meet at eleven o'clock on Friday.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It certainly is no business of mine to defend a Member of the present Government from one of his angry followers, but at the same time I think it only fair to the right hon. Gentleman to say that not only did we understand, whether rightly or wrongly, that such an arrangement had been made with the Patronage Secretary, but I clearly understood from the right hon. Gentleman himself that his intention to do so had nothing to do with any bargain at all. It will be found on reference to what was said that the right hon. Gentleman meant to get up to the new Clauses before moving to report Progress, and I am sure the very last thing any Government would do would be to break a bargain, no matter what the effect would be. [MINISTERIAL MEMBERS: "What bargain?"] Hon. Members who take a different view had better, I think, see what the right hon. Gentleman said as reported in "Hansard," as I have not the least doubt that his intentions had nothing to do with what the Opposition would do. As regards Friday, I can only say we are under no obligation of any kind.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am quite willing to go on, and it is very refreshing to a Chief Whip to find his followers so eager to do so, but the arrangement I made with the Noble Lord opposite at seven o'clock last night was that if we did not proceed further than we have done
    2136
    to-night we should get the new Clauses on Friday.
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I am afraid I cannot at all accept that. The hon. Member opposite came to me about seven o'clock and told me very courteously that the Government had decided that they must get the Committee stage to-night and that they would take the new Clauses on Friday. I accepted his statement.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I think we on this side of the House have reason to protest very strongly against the Motion moved by the President of the Board of Education. I was against the Motion when it was proposed, and I feel more strongly against it now after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and because of the apparent breaking of a bargain that was somewhat tentatively fixed up, according to the Patronage Secretary, and is now disowned by the Opposition.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I would not for a moment suggest that the Noble Lord has attempted to break his word with me. It may be my fault. The hon. Member is entitled to blame me for any misunderstanding, but I hope he won't blame the Noble Lord.
    Lord E. TALBOT: I repeat again that what I distinctly understood from the hon. Gentleman was that the Government were determined to take the whole of the Committee stage to-night and the new Clauses on Friday. I assumed that he certainly would get them in the time, but there was no arrangement, no bargain.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The observation I was proceeding to make was based on the statement of the Patronage Secretary, but that is not all I have to say. I think I have heard the Leader of the Opposition three times during this Session disclaim, emphatically, that he was going to be a party to any bargain. Whatever the Chief Whip on the opposite side has done, we do know where the Leader of the Opposition stands.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I only want to say that, so far as my declaration was concerned, it had no bearing on any arrangement between my Noble Friend and the Patronage Secretary. On the contrary, I said to my Noble Friend just now, that if there were any possibility of a misunderstanding I would stick to the bargain, and he only refused to do so because he was certain there was no misunderstanding.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: It seems to me and many, I think, on this side of the House, that the more often the right hon. Gentleman intervenes the more clear is the duty of the Government to go on. There is to be no bargain unless it is to be a one-sided bargain, and I on behalf of my Friends on these Benches, join in the protest that has been made. We have been kept here until this very unfortunate hour, and the next two hours can be very profitably spent here. We can get through two or three of the new Clauses, so that there will be less to do on Friday, and those who are anxious to get the Bill through will be more satisfied that by Friday night the Bill will be safe. I sincerely trust that now that we have been told very distinctly both by the Leader of the Opposition and his Chief Whip that there is no bargain and no understanding, I hope the President of the Board of Education will withdraw his Motion.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I think I may say that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken accused the Leader of the Opposition of breaking a bargain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That, apparently, was what the hon. Gentleman got up to say, at first, and I think most of the Committee, at all events, had that impression. What I want to say is that before any Members of the Government accuse us of breaking a bargain, they must remember that the Secretary of State for War, on behalf of the Government, recently promised an extra whole day for the army, but that when it came to a question of its being endorsed by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister refused to give the extra whole day which had been promised. We are not going to sit down under insinuations that we are not playing the game. It should be made perfectly clear to the people of this country that if there is any question as to honesty in not keeping one's word, it does not rest with the party on this side of the House.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to say a few words with regard to the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel), and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson). I do not wish to cast any reflection on the President of the Board of Education,
    2138
    or on the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, but I think the situation we have reached is a very unfortunate one for all parties in the Committee. We are led to ask this question: When is a bargain not a bargain. During the earlier part of of the evening, when former Motions to report Progress were made, the Leader of the Opposition constantly asserted that no bargain was made, yet we are now told that all the time the Noble Lord the Member for Chichester, had a bargain up his sleeve. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"] Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really do not think that is a statement which ought to be made. At any rate, it is an implication of the kind that we do not permit in this House, and I do not think it ought to be made of one hon. Member by another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw, apologise."]
    Mr. PRINGLE: I express my regret for having used an unparliamentary expression, which I wish at once to withdraw. I did not intend to use an unparliamentary expression. It is a very unfortunate thing that these arrangements are made behind the Speaker's Chair in secret. No one who heard the previous Debates on the Motions to report Progress could have had the slightest idea that there was the semblance of an understanding between the two Front Benches. I make bold to say that none of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who so wildly and enthusiastically cheered the Leader of the Opposition, when he said there was no bargain, believed that the Noble Lord, the Member for Chichester, and the Patronage Secretary, had reached an understanding in regard to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "They had not."] Well, at a misunderstanding. I quite appreciate the attitude which the Patronage Secretary has taken up. It is characteristic of him that he should take up a chivalrous and generous attitude but we do not believe that the interest of the party, and the cause for which we are fighting should suffer because of the chivalrous sentiments of the Patronage Secretary. We are not bound by that attitude; and we decline to be bound by it. [HON MEMBERS: "Go on."] The situation is that all parties now hold that there has been no understanding. As there is no understanding, the President of the Board of Education can now withdraw his Motion to report progress. Then, apparently, the wish of everybody will be realised, and we can go on, and take three or four of the new Clauses, and finish the Bill on Friday.
    Mr. PEASE: I ask leave to withdraw the Motion. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had said there was a bargain, of course, I would not have asked leave to withdraw. I understand him to say, however, that there was no bargain, and the Noble Lord the Member for Chichester and the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury also admit that there has been a misunderstanding. I think in those circumstances, it would be right for us to proceed with one or two of the new Clauses.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If I may be allowed to say so, the course which the right hon. Gentleman has taken is, without exception, the most extraordinary I have ever known. The position has not in the slightest degree changed since he made his speech before. He did not maintain, and the Patronage Secretary did not maintain, that there had been a bargain with the Opposition. What I understood the Patronage Secretary to say was that, though he thought there was no understanding, he found my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) was under the impression that what he had said to him was that all the business to be taken to-day was up to the new Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education himself put it on this ground, that whether it was my Noble Friend or the Patronage Secretary who was mistaken, the fact that there was this misunderstanding made him feel that it was his duty not to proceed further to-night. I quite admit that if the right hon. Gentleman in what was said publicly had made the statement after a bargain had been refused by us he would have been no longer bound. He would in that case have been free to proceed further, but it is my clear recollection that when I first moved to report Progress this morning or last night, I am not sure which, the right hon. Gentleman got up and, before there was any suggestion of asking for any understanding on our part, he told us that it was the intention of the Government to get this Bill through to-night up to the point which has now been reached. What I say is, if that is found to be correct, as it will be when the report of the Debate is examined, then the right hon. Gentleman is not free to make the change he proposes now. There is somehing else I feel bound to say, I cerainly have not joined in the remarks about the absence of the Prime Minister to-night. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has duties
    2140
    which would make it impossible that he should take part in all our sittings; but I am perfectly certain of this, that no leader of the House of Commons, and no Minister who exercises anything like the authority of a leader of the House of Commons, after he had definitely moved a Motion of this kind would withdraw from it because of the threats of some of his supporters.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I cannot help thinking that there is a little confusion of thought on the other side of the House as to what the situation really is. It appears to me that although there has been no bargain which implies a concession on the part of the Opposition to the Government, what there quite evidently has been is a statement of intention by the Patronage Secretary to the Noble Lord (Lord Edmund Talbot) on this side. I think that statement of intention was a very excessive programme for the night, and therefore, no arrangement was come to in order to facilitate the progress of business for the Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You never accepted it.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It was not accepted in the sense of taking any concession from it; but it was understood during the whole evening, certainly by myself, and as I thought by everybody else, that the amount of business which the Government were going to take was the Committee stage of the Bill up to the new Clauses, because that had been their intention, as the Patronage Secretary said he informed the Noble Lord earlier in the evening. It is not fair, therefore to say that there has been any bargain. We were quite entitled on this side to think that the amount of business which the Government said they would take was in excess of what they ought to take, and that is why we have thought it necessary to put forward the opposition which has been in evidence to-night. It is extraordinary, under the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Education should wish to withdraw his motion to report progress, and we are entitled to say it is an abrogation of the intention most distinctly expressed by the Government. We were led to believe that that was what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do quite apart from any action of ours, and now we are told that the Government are going to do something which is precisely the opposite. For my own part I am strongly of the opinion that the

    2141
    right hon Gentleman ought to persevere with his Motion to report Progress.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education omitted in his second speech which he referred to in his first speech, that was that the understanding of the House was that the point to be reached to-night was the point at which we have now arrived. [HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I can assure hon. Members that I am not, at this moment, creating an understanding between the parties. What I am doing is to show that it was anticipated that business would stop short when the new Clauses were reached. The Patronage Secretary said so himself, and it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education, that the point which the Government desired to reach—and he repeated it just now—was the point we are now at. He went on to add in his first speech that hon. Members on this side of the House, owing to that anticipation, had left the House. He was referring then to hon. Gentlemen in whose names the new Clauses stand. They had left the House, he said, in the anticipation that they would be in a position to move these new Clauses on Friday, and that was, to my mind, the most conclusive reason he gave for making the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. That reason, as the Committee will recognise, still exists in its full force. It is, I maintain, an understanding, not between the two parties, but an understanding between the Government and the whole House. I say that when the Government made a responsible statement that they desired to take on a certain day certain business up to a certain point, they have no right to go any further. That is a matter of very long standing precedent. I have been in the House for about eighteen years, and it is the first time in my recollection that there has been such a departure as is now proposed to be made. It is, as I say, entirely without precedent that when the point has been reached at which it is understood our proceedings shall end, the Government should then decide to proceed with further business without giving hon. Members an opportunity of moving Amendments which they have put on the Paper, but which, in this case, they will be unable to move owing to the fact that they have left the House on the understanding that no further progress was to be made to-night. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman, having
    2142
    got up and told the House definitely that that was his reason for moving the Motion, has no right whatever now to change his mind. I say that particularly because his engagement in the matter is not to his own followers or to the Opposition, but to, the whole House, and he has no right, in deference to pressure exercised from his own supporters behind him, to yield in the weak manner in which he has yielded. His undertaking to the House as a whole, in the name of the Government, ought to weigh with him much more strongly than the pressure which has been exercised from the Back Benches. He ought to take responsibility for what he has said and to act up to it.
    Mr. PEASE: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Noble Lord who sits by his side (Lord Edmund Talbot) admitted that he expected and understood that we were going to secure the new Clauses on Friday The Patronage Secretary (Mr. Illingworth) believed that he had made an arrangement with the Noble Lord, and, therefore, there was a misunderstanding on both sides. I think that as there has been this misunderstanding and as I did not understand from the Patronage Secretary the full measure of his understanding with the Noble Lord, we ought really in these circumstances to proceed, unless the Noble Lord can say that we shall secure these new Clauses on Friday.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My point is that quite apart——
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!
    The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. Members in all parts of the House, when we are dealing with one of the most delicate matters, one that frequently occurs, connected with all parts of the House, to listen to one another and not to interject "No, no." Obviously there-are two views and the only way is patiently to listen to the two views and not to interrupt with negatives while an hon. Member is speaking.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My point was that quite apart from the question of an understanding, which has only been raised within the last quarter of an hour, the Government had definitely stated their intention to go up to this point to-night and to get the new Clauses on Friday. That is what they said, and, therefore, I maintain that they are bound to the House not to

    2143
    go further to-night than they said they intended to go. As to Friday, let them carry out their intention if they can. It is no reason whatever, as between the Government and the House, that because, having expressed their definite intention of going to a certain point to-night they have changed their mind, they should be allowed to do so. Because they find a greater risk in carrying out the second portion of their programme for Friday, they have no right to go back on or go beyond what they have stated in the House, and now at seven o'clock in the morning, to be taking new Clauses which it has been understood by the House from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pease) were not to be taken until Friday——
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is my point. The right hon. Gentleman has twice said so. He said so in his first speech.
    Mr. PEASE: But on the condition that we obtained these new Clauses on Friday.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think I am within the recollection of the House when I say that the right hon. Gentleman is suffering under a misunderstanding.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no. There was no bargain.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am not maintaining that there was a bargain. It was a mere statement of intention by the Government of taking a certain quantity of business within a certain time. The right hon. Gentleman has made that statement twice, and he is responsible for it. He admitted it in his first speech on the Motion for Adjournment, and all I rise to say is that he did not deal with it at all, and until he has done so I do not think he has any right to go back on it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It is quite clear, Mr. Whitley, that there was neither a bargain nor a statement of intention by the Government. The Patronage Secretary (Mr. Illingworth) saw the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmund Talbot) with the intention of making a bargain. He offered as part of the bargain that we would stop before the new Clauses on the understanding that we had the new Clauses on Friday. That was his intention. The Noble Lord misunderstood him.
    2144
    He did not understand that there was any attempt to make a bargain. He thought the Patronage Secretary was making a generous offer without any undertaking on his part. He thought that the Patronage Secretary had approached him out of the generosity of his heart with an undertaking that we should stop when we got to the new Clauses to-night. That is quite a genuine misunderstanding on the part of the Noble Lord. He had thought mistakenly that the Government, through the Patronage Secretary, had made a declaration of intention. That never was understood or meant by the Patronage Secretary, because he has told us that he went with the intention of making a bargain. If there had been any misunderstanding, if hon. Members opposite have been misled and have left the House through being misled, the mistake has been made by the Noble Lord opposite, who has misled his followers on the other side, and who has sent them away from the House on a false understanding.
    Captain CRAIG: Mr. Whitley, I have not intervened all through these Debates and I cannot help feeling that if the Government had a real leader, or if the Prime Minister himself were here, this Debate would speedily end in the way one was speedily ended on a famous occasion before, when it was said that in the circumstances the Debate should cease and that Members should be allowed to go home to prepare themselves for the duties of the day. Can anyone doubt that, leaving aside all the questions that have drifted into this discussion, this is not the proper time to continue a Debate of such importance The situation is all the more serious and grave under the Parliament Act, because it is well known that under that Act all these measures have to be finally settled one way or the other in the first year, and when they come before the House for the second or third time, if they are not properly constructed, there is no chance—as we have experienced this year—of altering one line or word of the Bill. This House, therefore, should make certain that on the first introduction of a Bill under the Parliament Act we should deliberate properly on the measure and take every possible care on the Committee and Report stages that it is possible for a legislative assembly to take. Instead of that, the absurd proposition is made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Pease) that after sitting for sixteen hours and

    2145
    after four hours in the Division Lobbies we should still go on adding to the Bill, that Members not in the proper spirit to go on should consider a measure of such importance. When it is early in the session and when there is ample opportunity for the Government to give the time it is unnecessary to carry the Bill through without it being discussed as it should be discussed in the Mother of Parliaments. I have seen a good many all-night sittings and I have watched the demeanour of Gentlemen on all sides of the House, and I can say that at the present moment the House is not in a proper and fit condition to go on.
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
    Captain CRAIG: I pay no attention to the cheers of the Nationalist or Labour parties, Mr. Whitley, both of whom would vote for any absurd thing that was brought forward, as they admit themselves. The hon. and learned Member said they did not care a straw for English measures and that they only voted for them in order to get Home Rule. I say, therefore, that I pay no attention to those cheers. May I also point out that hon. Members have attended on the other side not for the purposes of improving this Bill or assisting its being put on the Statute Book in a proper condition, but simply to do nothing but jeer and interrupt. One would think that this was a trivial matter that did not, affect the country——
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. Is the hon. and gallant Member not reviewing the proceedings of the evening?
    The CHAIRMAN: At the moment, at any rate, I think he was dealing with the proceedings of the present.

    Division No. 169.]

    AYES

    [6.55 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Delany, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Devlin, Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Doris, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Duffy, William J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, George N.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Barton, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Falconer, James

    Bentham, G. J.

    Crooks, William

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Black, Arthur W

    Crumley, Patrick

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Boland, John Pius

    Cullinan, John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Field, William

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Captain CRAIG: The hon. Gentleman can quite trust the Chairman to pull me up, at any rate.
    HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order! Withdraw!
    Captain CRAIG: I have nothing to withdraw. I certainly think that if I transgress the Rules of the House the Chairman, whoever he is, will call me to order very smartly. It is certainly a want of leadership on this Bill which causes this continued forcing of a measure through the House at a high rate of speed when there is no necessity for it. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained to us what would happen if on Friday he did not get all his new Clauses. Why not go on on Monday? Monday is very early in the Session. Instead of rising on the 15th or 16th of August, as the official journals have stated we shall do, it would mean that we should rise on the 17th or 18th. That is not a great hardship. It is far better to make the Bill a better Bill than to dragoon it through this House and make it a disgrace which will show the country one more example of how the work is done in this House.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: on a point of Order, Sir. Did not the right hon Gentleman ask leave to withdraw the Motion?
    The CHAIRMAN: Leave was not granted.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 88.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McGhee, Richard

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Goldstone, Frank

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Reddy, Michael

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Hackett, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

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

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Robertson, John M, (Tyneside)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Middlebrook, William

    Robinson, Sidney

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hayward, Evan

    Molloy, Michael

    Rowlands, James

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Morrell, Philip

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Herbert, General, Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morison, Hector

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Muldoon, John

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

    Hinds, John

    Munro, Robert

    Sheehy, David

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hogge, James Myles

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Sutherland, John E.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sutton, John E.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Dowd, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Malley, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Jewett, Frederick William

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Shee, James John

    Watt, Henry A.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Webb, H.

    Kelly, Edward

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    King, Joseph

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

    White, Patricia (Meath, North)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Leach, Charles

    Ponsonhy, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Primrose, Hon. Neill James

    Lynch, A. A.

    NOES.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Archer-Shoe, Major Martin

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Baird, J. L.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bens, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Starkey, John R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Campion, W. R.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Tryon Captain George Clement

    Cassel, Felix

    Lloyd. George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Cator, John

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

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

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hunt and Mr. F. Hall (Dulwich).

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Question put accordingly; "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    7.0 A.M.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: On a point of Order, Sir. Is it not a fact that after the Motion was put the right hon. Gentleman asked leave to withdraw the Motion and that

    Division No. 170.]

    AYES.

    [7.4 a.m.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barnston, Harry

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hope James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Campion, W. R.

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Cassel, Felix

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

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

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Younger, Sir George

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Hope and Mr. Cator.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Delany, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hazleton, Richard

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Arnold, Sydney

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Doris, William

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Barnes, George N.

    Duffy, William J.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    Barton, William

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hinds, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Bentham, George Jockson

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Black, Arthur W.

    Falconer, James

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boland, John Pius

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    John, Edward Thomas

    Bowerman, C. W.

    French, Peter

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Field, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Fitzgibbon, John

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

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Jewett, Frederick William

    Bryce John Annan

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Joyce, Michael

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Keating, Matthew

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Kelly, Edward

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clancy, John Joseph

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

    King, Joseph

    Clough, William

    Gulland, John William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hackett, John

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

    Croaks, William

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Leach, Charles

    Crumley, Patrick

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Cullinan, John

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    London, Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

    Lycil, Charles Henry

    therefore the Question before the House is whether the House do grant leave to withdraw?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Leave was refused, and the Question I have put is the correct Question.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 194.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    O'Malley, William

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Scanlan, Thomas

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    O'Shee, James John

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

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sheehy, David

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

    Pointer, Joseph

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Sutherland, John E.

    Meagher, Michael

    Ponsonhy, Arthur A. W. H.

    Sutton, John E.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Middlebrook, William

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Millar, James Duncan

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Molloy, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Morgan, George Hay

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Morrell, Philip

    Reddy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Munro, Robert

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Nolan, Joseph

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    O'Dowd, John

    Rowntree, Arnold

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Nomination Papers.)
    No nomination paper shall be invalidated by the fact that the registered elector signing it is not entitled by the reason of the provisions of this Act to vote in the constituency.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    We are all familiar with the importance of the nomination paper. We know that at least one nomination paper has to be carefully scrutinised by the returning officer to see whether it is in order or not, and one of the most common grounds of scrutiny is to see if it is signed by some person who is not a registered elector and is not therefore capable of nominating a candidate. The nomination paper has to be signed by twelve electors, every one of whose qualifications must be carefully and accurately stated. The object of putting down the Clause is to make it clear that the registered electors shall not be disqualified from signing a nomination paper. We have provided that no person shall vote or shall ask for the ballot paper twice, and that if he does he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice. But the House will understand that a corrupt practice carries with it important consequences to the person who transgresses. We have dealt with the case in which a man has been convicted perhaps of a minor offence, but that carries with it a very important disqualification.
    2152
    At least my Amendment will define that any person who is a registered elector in the constituency may nominate the candidate in that constituency. The Solicitor-General may tell me that it is a matter which is not likely to arise, but it will give rise to great difficulty because the candidate or his agents cannot allow a person to sign a nomination paper unless they are satisfied that he is not laying himself open to dangers from this Act. I think it is in the interest of all parties, I think none of us want to have the danger of technical points arising at a critical moment on a critical day. At any rate, this will be a safeguard, and it will be perfectly plain and workable. I have endeavoured to be brief, and perhaps the Solicitor-General will accept the Clause or some Clause of the same nature.
    Sir J. SIMON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment that if there was any ground for it there would be no objection on the part of the Government, but the fact is that it does not come within the scope of the Bill. The new Clause entitles a man to sign a nomination paper; that is not affected by the Bill at all. There is an enormous difference between the fact of being a registered elector and the provision in this Bill with regard to plural voting. Our Bill does not touch or affect the register of electors, and it does not disentitle a man to sign a nomination paper. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a registered elector from doing

    2153
    anything which every registered elector has the right to do to-day. I hope I have made the point clear, and that the hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that it is really not a passionate desire on my part to resist Amendments, but a real desire to prevent a Bill which may become an Act from really containing a distorted, disfiguring Clause.
    Mr. J. MASON: The Solicitor-General has just explained to us that the qualification of a person to sign a nomination paper is that he is a registered elector and consequently he has the franchise. We heard in the earlier part of the discussion that any person committing an offence which would come under this Act would immediately be disfranchised.
    Sir J. SIMON: There really is a misunderstanding. If the hon. Member had ever been present when a nomination takes place he would know what happens. Your agent hands in a piece of paper and the presiding officer searches the register to see whether the ten names are there. If they are on the register, whether they ought to be there or not, that is a good nomination. If they are not on the register, it is a bad nomination, and it has nothing whatever to do with the plural vote.
    Mr. CASSEL: I quite agree that at this time in the morning we are not fit to consider this kind of question. The object of insisting under the Ballot Act of 1872 that the person who signs the nomination paper should be a registered elector was that he should be someone qualified to vote. Why were the words "registered elector" put in.? Why did the Act insist that it should be a registered elector? Because the object of the Act was that there should be at least ten persons who were qualified to vote at the election. The Act of 1872 insisted that there should be ten persons who signed the nomination paper for every person who was qualified to be a candidate for the election, and insisted that those persons should be qualified electors. Under this Bill the situation might arise during the course of a General Election that one, two, three, or even ten of the electors might, before the particular election took place have voted somewhere else. It might be that they had voted at an election in a borough or county previously to the election in which the particular nomination is signed by them. The position of these persons is that, having already cast their vote at the previous
    2154
    election, then, under the provision of Section 1 of this Bill, those particular persons will be disqualified from voting for a particular candidate whose nomination paper they have already signed, because, having already voted elsewhere, they are debarred from voting for him, so that the particular object of the Ballot Act to secure that ten persons shall be qualified to vote is not complied with.
    I say the question will arise and will have to be decided then and there as to whether that candidate is properly nominated. There is no more important question than that. It throws a doubt on the whole procedure of the election There is nothing more important than that you should have absolute certainty that if a man does cast his vote it should be cast for a candidate who is qualified to be an elector. Surely there can be no question about making that clear. What possible harm can these words do. In the absence of any suggestion of harm it is wise, reasonable and prudent to put in a clause which will have the effect of removing the possibility of doubt as to whether a candidate is properly nominated. I ask the Government to look into the question, and if they can see no possible harm I hope they will take the precaution of making this clear, so that no one can make any mistake.
    Sir W. ANSON: I hope the Solicitor-General will not think that I wish unnecessarily to prolong the discussion, but there is one point which I should like to lay before him. He says that the Register will be conclusive, and that if the nominator is on the Register nothing more can be said. There are cases, I believe, in which the Register is final and conclusive, and there are other cases in which you may go behind the Register and it is not conclusive. For example, there is a case of an infant who may get on the Register, but the returning officer being aware that he is an infant would be entitled to refuse his vote. I think the same thing would happen with a woman or with a peer. The other case is that of poor relief, and so on, in which the Register is conclusive. So far as my knowledge goes, I think there is ground for making the thing absolutely certain by the insertion of a new Clause.
    Sir J. SIMON: In reply to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said I must first reply to what the House will recognise as a startling suggestion, that. I

    2155
    am likely to be able to put him right on certain points, in view of the fact that my knowledge comes very largely from a very learned book he has written on the matter. There is no doubt whatever that supposing a nomination paper is signed by ten registered electors, every one of whom is being employed as a clerk during the election, so that none of them can vote, that that is a perfectly good nomination paper. A nomination paper does not depend for its validity on whether the registered elector who has signed his name is entitled to vote or not, but on whether he is a registered elector or not.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply in regard to the case of a woman?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am certainly not prepared to deal with that difficult case. Some people think you are entitled to refuse a woman a vote on the simple ground that under our existing law the qualification of sex is absolute. I am quite satisfied that no sort of objection of a nomination paper could be made on the ground that one of the signatures was a clerk in an election.
    Earl WINTERTON: I understand that that the learned Solicitor-General made the point that a registered elector, and one qualified to vote, are not interchangeable terms, but are two very different things. The object of the Mover of the Amendment was to avoid the possibility, in any circumstances, of a nomination paper being invalidated by the fact that an elector who had signed it had previously voted in another constituency, and therefore was not qualified to vote in the other one. If the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the position is amply safeguarded, under the law as it stands at present, I do not think my hon. Friend will be wise in pressing his Amendment. But I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no part of our law which is more in doubt than that which affects those who are qualified to vote and those who axe allowed to vote We all remember the "latch-key" case (Kent v. Fittal), which caused an immense amount of litigation to centre around it. In passing a Bill of this kind it is most important, if there is any possible loophole for injustice to persons nominated, that those loopholes should be closed up.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not wish to stand here and lay down the law—I am not
    2156
    qualified to do so. If the suggestion which the Noble Lord now makes is accepted, I will undertake not to regard this as a closed matter, but will make it my personal duty to look into this very point, and will take any help I can get from the other side. I cannot consent to putting this in at this stage, as I am convinced it is quite unnecessary.
    Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend is the person to decide what action he should take. The only point I wish to make, while thanking the Solicitor-General for the courteous explanation, is that while there is apparently a doubt with regard—for instance, the position of women—it is very desirable that no possible doubt should be left in this Bill as to the position of any qualified elector if the Bill passes.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If the learned Solicitor-General were able to divide himself into many parts and promise to be with all 670 of us when we are nominated, so that we might have his assistance and advice, I should be perfectly happy to withdraw the Clause, and to take courage. Under Section 13 the Ballot Act, 1872, provides that:—
    "No election shall be declared invalid by reason of a non-compliance with the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act, or any mistake in the use of the forms in the Second Schedule to this Act, if it appears to the tribunal having cognisance of the question that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act, and that such non-compliance or mistake did not affect the result of the election."
    I quite agree that there is power therefore, in the election court, when some thousands of pounds have been spent, to give relief to the person who has made a possible mistake. Peace of mind may be brought to an election candidate, that is to say, after a petition has been presented and heard, and after he has spent a large sum of money and devoted an enormous amount of trouble to getting relief. But, personally, I am never satisfied with letting a man seek that relief at immense cost and trouble. I am anxious to make the matter plain in the Statutes so that there should not be this enormous burden thrown on members of the community. When the Solicitor-General says to me that he will look into the matter carefully and see whether there is any danger at all, I am quite prepared, especially at this hour

    2157
    of the morning to accept what he says. Having received that undertaking, I think, perhaps, I should best consult the interests of the Committee and undoubtedly the wishes of the Committee—because I am speaking on behalf of both sides of the House—if I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Proposed New Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (MR. Maclean): I wish here to say that when the Committee began with the New Clauses I should, in accordance with the rule, have called successively on hon. Members who had New Clauses standing in their names. At the end it is open to any hon. Member to move the Clauses which have not been moved owing to the absence of hon. Member who have put them down. I call upon the hon. Member for Salisbury—As he is not present, the hon. And learned Member for Warwick and Leamington may now move the New Clause standing in his name.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Savings).
    Nothing in this Act shall deprive any person (who at the date of the passing of this Act is registered in respect of any qualification to vote for any county or borough) of his right to vote for such county or borough in respect of such qualifications in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg leave to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." It is a very important Clause, because in effect it safeguards the interests of existing elector; that is to say, that although hereafter persons cannot, by reason of the provisions of this Bill, be registered as plural voters and exercise plural votes, the Clause safeguards the rights of those persons who are at the rights of those persons who are at the present time plural voters to exercise the plural vote during the existence of their qualifications. This is a Clause I have taken from the Act of 1884—Clause 10—which was passed by Mr. Gladstone when Lord James of Hereford—as he afterwards became—was the Attorney-General. Section 10 was introduced into that Act in the very same terms as the Clause I am now moving, and I remember that when we had the Plural Voting Bill of
    2158
    the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Baker) before us, either last year or the year before, I especially called his attention to this provision in the Act of 1884. Lord James of Hereford had made the statement that the Clause proposed to safeguard the very great anomaly of, and what a number of persons thought at that time the very great wrong done by, faggot voters, but Mr. Gladstone said—I am quoting the statement of Lord James of Hereford—that he would never allow it to be said of himself that he deprived any political opponent of any vote, or of the right to exercise a vote. So in that generous spirit, in that desire to be perfectly fair to both sides of the House, he specially introduced this Clause 10 in the Representation of the People Act, 1884. I am entitled to presume, until I hear the contrary, that members on that Front Bench are still actuated by the same high motives that dominated Mr. Gladstone.
    I am entitled to presume, until I hear otherwise from the lips of one of the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, that they are anxious also to have themselves entirely dissociated from any desire to disfranchise political opponents. If that is their desire, if they are minded not to do an injury to those who are against them politically, and if they are not minded to jerrymander the constituencies at the present time, I am quite sure they will be very grateful for having had their attention called to Clause 10, and for the opportunity to insert a provision in the Bill which would safeguard existing interests during the life time or qualification of the holder, and they will allow this Clause to be inserted in the Bill which we, on this side of the House, feel is especially directed to doing an injury to the political opponents of right hon. Gentlemen opposite I do not really desire to say more in respect to this Clause. I have called attention to the place from which it has been taken, and to the purpose for which it was originally introduced in the Act of 1884. If it is said that this Bill is designed to remove an anomaly, so also was the Act of 1884. If this Bill is designed to remove what is felt by hon. Members opposite to be an injustice, so also was the Act of 1884. The charge has been brought against hon. Members opposite that they are endeavouring to make use of their present majority to snatch a party advantage in future elections. If, however, they will safeguard during the lifetime, or during the holding of the actual qualification,

    2159
    those persons who at present have the plural vote, they will have provided for themselves a safeguard against the functions of plural voting in the future. At the same time they will have respected a principle which has long been enshrined in our electoral system, a principle which many of us on this side of the House believe to be very valuable, and they will remove from themselves a stigma which I think it would be very unfortunate if they allowed to attach to them when they pass this Bill. On that ground I beg to move the Clause.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman puts forward this Clause in the belief that we ought to insert it in the Bill in order to deal fairly by existing rights. I will say a word about that in a moment, but it will probably be convenient to the Committee if I take leave to say at once—I am very much obliged for the fair way in which he dealt with us about the last new Clause—that we do not propose to ask the Committee to sit after we have disposed of this Amendment. Turning to the speech itself, I am sorry to differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman, more particularly as he takes the view that the introduction of some such provision as this is needed to give fair play to existing interests. I need not say that if that were the view that we held we should wish—one would wish whatever one's political feelings or bias—to do what would seem to be fair. If you are changing the franchise, if you are depriving a man of a qualification to vote which he has hitherto enjoyed there may be, no doubt, something to be said, a good deal to be said, for protecting those who have already a vested right in that particular form of vote, though I doubt if even there one could lay it down as an absolute proposition. I imagine it was from that point of view that Mr. Gladstone was speaking. But here we are not removing or taking away any qualification to vote at all. This Bill is not a Bill which cuts down or limits the franchise of this country. It is a Bill which, as we think, fairly provides that people who enjoy different franchises should exercise the franchises wherever they are on equal terms. There is no reason whatever if we are right in that belief why we should say that that change is only to be applied to voters yet unborn.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Not unborn, but unregistered.
    Sir J. SIMON: Well, unregistered. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing is that everyone who is a plural voter shall remain a plural voter for the remainder of his life; that everyone who is a plural voter shall not lose his qualifications, but shall continue to exercise his privileges to the full for an indefinite time. I doubt whether he sees that the difference between the two cases is as great as we do, but there is the greatest possible distinction between depriving a man by changing the law, of some franchise or franchises which he already enjoys and doing what we do here in saying that one man may have a number of opportunities for voting while another may only have a few, and that we desire to see the man who has many and the man who has few standing on equal terms so far as the number of times they exercise their right goes. It is a little straining the actual fact to deal with this Bill as though it were imposing a disability on the plural voter. The disability is all the other way. The plural voter will have a choice and a man who has only one vote will hare no choice. Do not let it be supposed that this is meant to deal with a particular class as though they were all Conservatives. They are not all Conservatives, though perhaps the greater part of them are. Do not let it be supposed that we are putting a disability on the plural voter. It is the exact opposite. We leave a man who has a number of qualifications to range over these and to use which one he pleases, whereas the other man uses the only one he has. I regret I cannot accept the Clause.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his clearness of perception at this late hour of the night, but I do not think he gives us credit for a similar clearness. I must say that to suggest to the Committee that the privilege of choice of constituencies in which to vote is a very valuable consideration being left to plural voters requires a good deal of imagination, and it by no means balances, and far from outweighs, the terrible penalties which are proposed under another part of the Bill if by mere inadvertence this highly privileged plural voter should make an error in the franchise he exercises. Far from his vote being a privilege I should say it was just the opposite. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was disfranchising nobody, but he is not only disfranchising the individual, but also constituencies, because

    2161
    in so many words, I really cannot charge my memory with it, but, either he or the right hon. Gentleman sitting next to him (Mr. Pease) definitely stated that practically the whole of the university voters were plural voters.
    Sir J. SIMON: I said it.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I thought it was the right hon. Gentleman; I thought my memory did not betray me. Therefore, this Bill practically disfranchises the university constituency.
    Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no."
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: That is really so. We are in daylight now. Let us see things in the clear light of day, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not want to pursue the argument which seemed to him quite tenable about eleven or twelve o'clock at night, namely, that while practically the whole of the universities were plural voters and although each of these plural voters would be deprived of that plural vote, the right hon. Gentleman was not doing anything to disfranchise these universities. The university franchise is reduced to an absurdity, and, therefore, this saving Clause now being moved, in a weaker form than the Clause in the Bill of 1884, can be defended by much stronger arguments than that you are not only depriving individual interests, but constituencies of the franchise which they have hitherto exercised. Surely if you are going to disfranchise whole constituencies it can only be properly done as part of the whole scheme of Redistribution, and surely it is not unreasonable for us to ask, that when you are proceeding with a Bill of this description to do one particular thing, you should exempt these constituencies and individuals who have hitherto exercised that franchise as a right, and who might have expected, and always have expected, that they would continue to exercise it. That is the procedure which has been previously adopted, and nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said has convinced anyone that that would not be the right and just procedure to be adopted now.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: On a point of Order, Sir. May I submit this point for your decision as to whether this Clause is in order, having regard to what we have passed in Clause 1 of the Bill? The Committee has there laid it down that "during
    2162
    the continuance of a General Election of Members to serve in a new Parliament a person shall not vote as a Parliamentary elector or ask for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting in more than one constituency," and I think you will agree that covers the whole of the existing voters under that Clause. Now the new Clause that we are discussing would take out of that Clause the whole of the existing plural voters, and, if I am correct it seems to me that the Clause cannot possibly be in order if it is going to undo, so far as the whole of the plural voters are concerned, what we do in Clause 1.
    Mr. CASSEL: On the point of Order. I submit that the same argument as the hon. Gentleman has put forward would apply to every single saving Clause. It is of the essence of a saving Clause that where you have a particular Clause you exempt by the saving Clause particular persons because it is undesirable to include them.
    Mr HENDERSON: Can you have a saving Clause that undoes completely the fundamental principle of the main Clause of your Bill as I pointed out this would do in regard to any existing plural voter?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I took the view of the hon. Member that the Clause the Committee is now discussing is an absolute negative of Clause 1, of course I should have ruled it out of order. I have very carefully considered what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has said, but I accept the view of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cassel).
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Simon) framed his argument in a peculiar way. He says the Bill does not cut down the franchise, but makes it equal. The right hon. Gentleman does not, however, seem to bear in mind that there is a very great distinction between those matters. The right he talks of is not a contingent right, but an absolute vested right, and every elector, however many votes he has, has an absolute right to these votes and to exercise them in all the constituencies. To suggest that they are merely contingent because his name appears on the register and that he is not necessarily entitled to exercise any vote in consequence is, to my mind, a hair-splitting defence of a very poor case. I submit that in these circumstances we ought to insert this Clause, for if the principle is sound in respect of the vested

    2163
    rights of citizens which now exist in all other cases of proprietary rights we ought to make no exception in this case. This Clause merely asks that the taking away of these absolute vested rights should not be retrospective. We certainly ought not to take away an absolute vested right and treat it as a contingent right simply because it is good for an unconvincing case.
    Mr. NEWMAN: The Bill of 1906 was described as a mean Bill, costing a penny: this Bill is a mean Bill, costing a halfpenny. To make the Bills identical this Clause was moved. I went through the Debate and I was struck by the farce of the arguments of the Members of the Government against that particular Clause. I take it that Clause was considered in the early hours of the morning. We ought to

    Division No. 171.]

    AYES.

    [8.8 a.m.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newman, John R. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Greene, Walter Raymond

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

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

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Harry

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bridgeman, Wiliam Clive

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burns, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Campbell, Captain D. G. (Ayr, N.)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campion, W. R.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

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

    Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cater, John

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    M'Calmont. Major Robert C. A.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Craik, Sir Henry

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

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Meysey-Thomson, E. C.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Winterton, Earl

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duncannon, Viscount

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

    Younger, Sir George

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Mount, William Arthur

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hoare.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Newdegate, F. A

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    NOES.

    Bean, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Black, Arthur W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Clough, William

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Crooks, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Crumley, Patrick

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Cullinan, John

    Barnes, George N.

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Barton, William

    Bryce, John Annan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Beck, Arthlur Cecil

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    be able to do something better now in the early hours of this beautiful morning, and I do regret that we have not heard better arguments as to why we should not have this Clause inserted. We always imagine the plural voter to be a rich man, but he is a poor man. He values his two votes very much, and yet you are going to take that vote away, and you surely ought to give better reasons why you are taking it and why this man should not during his miserable life exercise these two votes, and his sons and grandsons after him. I do urge the Government to allow this man to exercise his right during his miserable life.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 191.

    Delany, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    Kelly, Edward

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pointer, Joseph

    Doris, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Duffy, William J.

    King, Joseph

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lardner, James C. R.

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

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Falconer, James

    Leach, Charles Henry

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

    Field, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Fiennes, Hon. Enstace Edward

    Lynch, A. A.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McGhee, Richard

    Rendall, Atheistan

    France, Gerald Ashburner

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

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robinson, Sidney

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

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

    Rowlands, James

    Gulland, John William

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Meagher, Michael

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hackett, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Middlebrook, William

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Millar, James Duncan

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

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Molloy, Michael

    Sheehy, David

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

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morgan, George Hay

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hayward, Evan

    Morrell, Phillip

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morison, Hector

    Sutherland, John E.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Muldoon, John

    Sutton, John E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Munro, Robert

    Tennant, Harold John

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hinds, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Verney, Sir H.

    Hogge, James Myles.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Watt, Henry A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Dowd, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    John, Edward Thomas

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

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Winfrey, Richard

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Shee, James John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Mr. PEASE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." If I may be allowed to do so, I would express my feeling of gratitude that at this moment there is no misunderstanding of any kind.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes after Eight o'clock a.m. (Thursday, 3rd July).

  Civil Pensions (Service with Colours).
  Civil Pensions (Service with Colours).
  Gun and Game Licences.
  Gun and Game Licences.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  SICKNESS BENEFIT.
  TREATMENT BY HERBALISTS.
  TREATMENT BY HERBALISTS.
  National Schools (Ireland).
  National Schools (Ireland).
BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
ROYAL NAVY.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.
  RECRUITING STANDARD.
  RECRUITING STANDARD.
  Sirdar Singh (Dismissal).
  Sirdar Singh (Dismissal).
  Shipping and Seamen's Register.
  Shipping and Seamen's Register.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April, last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to: Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
MYNYDDISLWYN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
PRIZE COMPETITIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to prohibit certain Prize Competitions—Was presented by the Earl Loreburn; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 97.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; to be read 2a TO-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with. (No. 98.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the
718
House of Commons shall be road a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
McBRIDE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
THE EARI OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARI OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to the present condition of the Island of Lewis as disclosed in the Report of the Crofters Commission recently issued; to ask whether it is the fact that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland have recently applied to Major Matheson for certain farms with a view to the further subdivision of holdings; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to sanction the further extension of a policy which has already proved disastrous; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is only a few weeks ago that I ventured to call your Lordships' attention to the Report of the Congested Districts Board and to the state of the Lews as contained in that Report. That account was, as some of your Lordships may remember, a very lamentable and melancholy one; but since then the Report of the Crofters Commission, for which I had on several occasions asked in this House, has at length been delivered. Besides that there has been a development of this question, for since that date the new Board of Agriculture have made a further demand upon the owner of the Lews for farms for the purpose of subdivision into small holdings. It would be useless to wait until this proposal of the Board is dealt with because the evil will then have been done, and my reason for bringing the subject

719
forward to-night is that I wish the Government to consider very gravely as to the consequences which must inevitably follow upon the further development of this policy of small holdings in the Lews.
I said when I last raised this question that if confirmation was wanted as to the state of things in the Lews it would be found in this Report of the Crofters Commission. The Report is from December 31, 1910, to March 31, 1912, when the Crofters Commission expired, and I would call your Lordships' attention to that portion of the Report which relates to the Lews. They say in the last paragraph, at page xxvi:
"We had proposed to append to this Report a Memorandum on the social condition of the people of Lewis, the problems connected with the land awl the fishing industry, and the remedies which had been suggested or which might be applied, but other and pressing duties have not permitted us to complete it. The main points have already been dealt with in the Reports of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland as well as in our very full Report of 1901. But we have thought it useful, particularly in view of the fact that these questions now come almost entirely within the province of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, to print a Return of Cottars and Squatters in each township and parish in the Island and the stock possessed by each in 1910, which is one of the documents on which our Memorandum was to be based."
I would say, in the first place, that it is ten thousand pities that this Memorandum was not completed. The Crofters Commission has been in existence ever since the year 1886, and this has been from that time and is now a most difficult and intricate problem; and surely one would have imagined that in their final Report the Crofters Commission would have thought it necessary to make some definite remarks with regard to the state of the Lews. Indeed, in looking through this Report I cannot find anything, with the exception of this subject of the Lews—which it appears has been shirked—to justify the delay that has taken place in the publication of this Report, which has made its appearance a year after the time when it was due.
The Commissioners say that other and pressing duties have not permitted them to complete the Memorandum of which they speak. I regret that that is so. But they go on to say that the main points have already been dealt with in the Reports of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland. I read to your Lordships the
720
other day the substance of one of those Reports, and I am not going to trouble the House with it again this evening. Those Reports for many years past have from beginning to end pointed out the state of destitution and misery that existed in the Lews. Then the Crofters Commission say that the main points were also dealt with in their Report of 1901. The Crofters Commission were directed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh to make a special Report in the year 1901. They presented a long Report, but the only definite recommendations which they made were, first, that a law ought to be passed to make squatting more difficult; and, secondly, that technical education should be taught to the people of the Lews.
Now the Crofters Commission have handed on the matter to their successors. It appears to me that they were extremely glad to get rid of a difficult subject with which they had omitted to deal for many years and winch they have left undealt with at the present moment. But in this Return they have given some valuable information of the cottars and squatters and the stock which they owned in 1910. The Return shows in concrete form the real facts of the case in all their nakedness. I do not know that the Board of Agriculture will feel greatly indebted to their predecessors for giving to Parliament this valuable detailed information, which I think might with advantage have been presented some years ago, and at the same time abstaining from making any recommendation themselves. If your Lordships will turn to the Appendices at page 220 and following pages of this Report you will see that there is a list given nomination of the cottars and splatters in each parish and township in the island, with information as to where their houses were situated, as to whose crofts they were squatting on, their occupation, the rent payable by the crofter, and as to whether or not the cottars and squatters paid any part of the rent of the croft. There are 1,100 of them, and your Lordships will see that in a great many cases, I think in the majority, the houses were built on crofts, and where they were not so built they were erected on common pasture. In hardly any cases did they contribute anything in the way of rent towards the croft. But the most important thing of all is that the average rent of the crofts on which they were squatting does not exceed £2. Just

721
imagine a holding the rent of which is only £2, and on this croft, in addition to the crofter, are planted one or more squatters, members of his family, relatives, or other persons, who are a burden to the island in the way of rates, but who contribute nothing towards the expenditure which they cause.
There is a further piece of information at page 258 in the shape of an abstract which shows concisely what the position of those people is. There are in the Island of Lewis 1,175 cottars and squatters. They own among them 94 horses, which is not quite a tenth of a horse each; 1,277 cattle, which is a little over a beast apiece; 5,444 sheep, or a little over four sheep apiece. That, my Lords, is the total amount of stock which those people possess. But an important question to ask is, When did their occupancy and their squatting begin? Your Lordships will remember that the Crofters Commission, to whom this whole question was entrusted, came into existence in the year 1886. At that time they found 418 cottars and squatters in possession, and during their time there have been added another 757, or nearly double the original number. This Report only takes us up to the year 1910, and while no additional crofts have been created since then the squatters have increased by about forty. So that the squatting evil, instead of being in any way diminished by the number of small holdings which have been created, has liven to that extent increased.
That brings us to the year 1913. The Board of Agriculture, who represent the old Congested Districts Board—to whose melancholy report with regard to the Lows I recently called your Lordships' attention—have now to deal with this matter. How do they propose to deal with it? They propose to take more farms for still further subdivision, while at the same time they admit that this is not a real remedy. They have issued a Report which runs from April 1 to December 31 last, in which they say—
"Of the 3,370 applications for new holdings which we have received, over 1,300 came from the Outer Hebrides."
Remember that the Outer Hebrides have been already split up and subdivided. Your Lordships have heard me mention
722
Vatersay and other places of that sort. At this moment 1,300 more of these persons have made application for small holdings. I do not believe that they have any means at all. That is a matter which it is the duty of the Board of Agriculture to inquire into, and I hope they will be very careful indeed as to the manner in which they carry out that duty. The Board of Agriculture go on to say—
"Of the 1,300 applications from the Outer Hebrides, nearly half came from the Lews. The whole of the farm land in these islands could not satisfy the demand even if it were divided into holdings of the small type usually occupied by crofter fishermen. It will, therefore, he necessary for the Board to consider how far it will be possible to provide for the migration of the population to the mainland."
Therefore, in proposing to take these farms they are merely trifling with the difficulty, for they acknowledge that if all the land was subdivided it would not really meet the complaint which has been made. Their proposal does not in any way pretend to be a satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. I presume that their application for this land will go before the Land Court and be inquired into by them. But assume that the application is granted, what are the inevitable consequences? They have been proved over and over again by experience. I do not say in the least that it was not a right thing to try these small holdings in the island in the first instance; but you have given the experiment a thorough trial and it has proved nothing but an unmitigated mistake; and it appears to me that to persevere in the face of such a state of things, and in the face even of your own official reports is—well, if the person dealing with this matter were a private person I should say that the proper place for him was a lunatic asylum.
Now what must be the consequence of proceeding with this proposal? The real source of all the difficulty and all the danger in the Lews is the large ratio which the population bears to the rateable value. At the present time the population of the Lews is 29,000 odd, and the valuation £33,000 odd—that is to say, the valuation is a little more than £1 per head. How is it possible for such a state of things to endure? Yet if this demand of the Board is persevered in and carried out the result will be that this ratio will be made even worse than it is now. You not only

723
increase the number of the people but you also diminish the rateable subjects. Take such things as shootings, which in the Lews represent a considerable portion of the rateable value of the island. Those, of course, will be very largely decreased. On the other hand, the rates must necessarily increase. These new people will come upon the education rate, at all events, and the call on the rates generally will become heavier while the rateable value will have become less.
I listened with great pleasure to the speech which the noble Lord (Lord Emmott) made the other day, with the greater portion of which I concurred. I agreed with nothing more than with his statement that this was a purely social and not a political question. But in the other House of Parliament it is made nothing but, a political question. Only the other day when the Scottish Estimates were being discussed Highland Members argued as if the Highlands and these islands stood exactly on the same footing as Forfarshire or Midlothian. It quite distresses one to hear people talk in this way of a subject of which they must be utterly ignorant. But these Members had made speeches to their constituents and promised them land, and so long as they can put pressure on the Board of Agriculture and on the Land Court so long will they continue to do so. I wish with all my heart that this was treated, as it properly should be, as a social question, but unfortunately it is regarded from a very different point of view in Parliament.
After all, it comes to this. In this difficult, question have the Government a policy, and what is their policy? The Board have reported over and over again that the state of these islands is wretched. The line they take is this, "We are not to express any opinion with regard to policy. We have been appointed under an Act of Parliament, and that Act we have to carry out. In that consists the whole of our duties, and therefore wherever it is reported to us that there is a piece of land capable of being subdivided and used for farming purposes, and wherever it is reported to us that there is a demand for land, we must take the land." It is the same in the case of the Land Court. The Land Court, as we know, is made omnipotent in this matter. The Court, I suppose, would say,
724
"We are appointed under an Act of Parliament to carry the Act out and to consider the representations made to us by the Board. We have merely to consider those representations, and have nothing whatever to do with the policy of the Act." The Government, of course, are in an entirely different position. What I want to know is, Do the Government regard the real interests of these islands apart from the political question, and have they a policy? Is their policy this, that wherever there is a bit of land which is available for farming purposes that land is to be cut up? And is that policy to go on until all the land is extinguished, because it will not be many years before that takes place?
I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships further. What I say is that the policy which is being pursued at this moment is a policy of drift, of mischievous drift, which if persevered in will be ruinous to every person concerned, from the owner down to the poorest inhabitant of these islands. This experiment has been tried and has failed. If His Majesty's Government persist in continuing it and in pauperising these islands and increasing the destitution and misery prevailing in them, then all I can say is that in my humble judgment they take upon themselves a very grave responsibility.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present condition of the Island of Lewis as disclosed in the Report of the Crofters Commission recently issued.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, the portion of the Final Report of the Crofters Commission to which the noble Earl has referred relates to a question which, as he has said, recently formed the subject of discussion in your Lordships' House and which has occupied the attention not only of this Government but of several of its predecessors. The noble Earl states that he fears that the policy of the Government is a policy of drift. I wish the noble Earl had had some new remedy to propose to us for the very difficult situation which, as we have frequently acknowledged, exists in the Lews and elsewhere in the congested districts.

725
This is an old question. The condition of the Lews has been most unsatisfactory for a great many years. The noble Earl referred to the fact that Lord Balfour of Burleigh when he was Secretary for Scotland asked the Crofters Commission to prepare for him a Report on the social condition of the people of the Lews in 1901 as compared with twenty years previously. I took the opportunity recently of reading that Report. It is a very interesting document, and I am going to ask your Lordships to allow me to read one or two extracts from what the Crofters Commission then said for the purpose of pointing out that the words which they used in 1901 apply equally to the situation to-day. At the conclusion of their Report they stated—
"It has often been said, and with truth, that of all parts of the crofting area that portion which presents the most difficult question is the Island of Lewis; not but that some at least of the problems existing there are to be found elsewhere, but in Lewis they are snore pressing as they affect a wider area and a denser population. The observations already made tend to prove that these questions and problems have existed for a great length of time."
Dealing with the question of the then condition of the people as compared with their condition during the previous twenty years, and mentioning that a good deal had been done to improve the general condition of the people by the Acts of 1872 and 1886 giving fixity of tenure and fair rents, by the fact that some of the crofters had obtained enlargements of their holdings, by the fact that considerable relief had been given to the ratepayers and special grants made for development purposes, and by the fact that a better system of education was in vogue, the Commissioners went on to say—
"It is of consequence to observe that the result of this generous and considerate policy has been that when we compare the general state of matters with that which prevailed in the island twenty years ago a gratifying improvement is to be discerned."
I hate read those two extracts for two reasons. They show, in the first place, that this is an old and a very difficult question; and, in the second place, that considerable improvements had taken place in the general condition of the people of the island at that time. I am informed that those remarks apply equally to-day. It is true that since 1902 there have been several years in which the fishing has been extremely unsatisfactory, and, of course,
726
that makes a considerable difference to the condition of the people of the island. But last year was an excellent fishing year (and there are signs that this year is likely to be a better year also); and this has conduced considerably to the prosperity of these unfortunate people. The grant of old-age pensions has relieved the wants of the old among them, and the better communications that have been made under the system of grants of which I have spoken have also clone something to improve their general condition.
But the one thing that has not been altered for the better is the condition of congestion. I stated when we discussed this subject on April 23 last—the Congested Districts Board have given it as their opinion in their Final Report, and this Report of the Crofters Commission practically repeats the same opinion—that there is not sufficient land in the Lews to provide holdings for the various people who desire to obtain holdings in that island. In the Report of the Crofters Commission to which the noble Earl has alluded particulars are given of the very large number of cottars and squatters, with the number of horses, of cattle, and of sheep that they possess, who are now stationed on various crofts throughout the island. The number of those people has considerably increased during recent years, but even in 1886 there were 418 of them. The difficulty of the question is really this, His Majesty's Government have no control over these cottars and squatters. The only people who have control are the crofters, who are liable to he removed from their holdings if they subdivide or sublet them without the consent of the landlord or suffer any dwelling-house to be erected thereon. They have a remedy if they choose to exercise it, and the landlord also has a remedy if he chooses to exercise it. I admit that it would be extremely difficult to exercise that remedy; but the possibility of removal lies with the crofter and with the landlord, and not with His Majesty's Government. Neither this Government nor any other Government are in any way responsible for these cottars and squatters being there. The noble Earl has stated that in his opinion the provision of small holdings is not a real and satisfactory remedy.
THE EARL or CAMPERDOWN: In the Lews.
LORD EMMOTT: To some extent I agree with the noble Earl, and I stated in the previous debate that it could not be a complete remedy, because there are far more applicants for land in the Lews than there is land which can be provided for them. But in his Notice on the Paper the noble Earl speaks of the policy being disastrous, and he has stated in his remarks this evening that the remedy of further splitting up farms into small holdings is one winch will increase the number of people in the island but will diminish the rateable value. I will deal with that question in a moment. But if any further splitting up of farms leads to that most undesirable result it will be a great misfortune.
First, let me mention the only two remedies which are open to the Board of Agriculture. The first is the creation of small holdings in the Lews itself, and the second is migration of some of the applicants for land in the Lews to other parts of Scotland. The noble Earl knows perfectly well, for he is thoroughly acquainted with this question, that it is the duty of the Small Holdings Commissioners under the Small Landholders Act of 1911 to report what demand for small holdings exists in any district, and, after consultation, where practicable, with the landlord, what land is available to meet this want. In the case of the Lews the applications received by the Board number as many as 1,200–836 of these are for new holdings, and 364 for enlargements. The number of applications shows beyond all question that a genuine demand exists for small holdings; and the Small Holdings Commissioner, carrying out his duty, has after investigation, partly personal and partly through his staff, written to the estate asking whether the latter will negotiate for the subdivision of five more farms. A reply has not yet been received from the estate, and while matters are in this initial stage it would be premature to discuss the scheme in detail. I think I shall have your Lordships' agreement in saying that so far as this matter has gone the Government and the Government officials are only carrying out what they are directed by the Act to carry out. Of course, if there is an adverse reply from the estate a decision will have to be taken as to what further is to be done. I imagine that in this case the Government are likely to proceed with an application to the Land Court to
728
decide upon a scheme. The Land Court is a judicial, or at any rate a quasi-judicial, body. They are bound by the Act to hear all parties, including the landlord if he has any case to make against the scheme that is put forward, and if a case is not made out by the Government officials the Land Court is at liberty to declare its opinion and to reject the scheme. That is the present position of affairs.
Now I come to the most important question whether any further subdivision of farms is likely to improve the situation or to make it worse. That, of course, will depend upon whether some of the most suitable cottars and squatters who are applying for new small holdings are provided with small holdings, and whether when they leave their present habitations those habitations are filled by other cottars and squatters, or whether the crofts are left empty of cottars and squatters. I want to say, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that the Board have in view in framing these schemes the importance of dealing with the cottar question. Accordingly, most of the proposed new settlers would be cottars and squatters. Moreover, the Board intend to use any power and influence they have, in conjunction with the estate, in preventing as far as they can a recurrence of squatting on any holding from which a squatter moves to a new holding, and they are also determined to guard as far as they possibly can against any squatting on the new holdings if new holdings are created. They are most anxious that any creation of new holdings should not in the long run merely lead to an increase of squatters. More than that, the Board have not in tins case confined their attention entirely to the question of providing new small holdings. They have questioned every applicant whom they have seen, and they have seen, I think, almost every one, as to whether or not he is willing to migrate to the mainland if a suitable small holding can be found for him there. Naturally, to provide 100, 200, or 300 men with new small holdings on the mainland is a matter of considerable complexity, and cannot be done in a moment. Therefore this question has not reached the stage at which any general statement is possible; but I may say that of the 800 odd applicants for land in the Lews about one-fourth of them have expressed their willingness to migrate under certain conditions.

729
I have now said, I think, all I can in reply to the noble Earl. I do not wish, however, to be understood as meaning that migration is an alternative which would supersede the policy of creating small holdings in the Island of Lewis. On the contrary, it would be supplementary to it. The Government feel that both may be necessary. I think clearly both remedies are necessary if the existing congestion in the Lews is to be materially relieved; awl in the face of the urgent demand for holdings to which I have alluded the Government intend to proceed with the measures competent to them cinder the Small Landholders Act for establishing in the Lews such small holdings as are practicable. To do otherwise would, I think, be to leave the main provisions of the Act inoperative in a district which specially calls for their being applied. The Government are most anxious, however, to take all the precautions which experience suggests to them in the interests of all the parties concerned to ensure the success of any new experiment in the direction of small holdings.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord said that he would deal with the question of how an increase of population would affect the rate-paying ability of the island, but he omitted to do so.
LORD EMMOTT: I am sorry that I forgot to deal with that point. There will be no increase of population, as I understand it. To increase the population would mean drawing new small holders from the mainland or from other islands to the Lews.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Oh, no.
LORD EMMOTT: If a part of the present population are made into new small holders there can be no increase of population. With regard to the question of rates, if these measures are successful there is no reason at all why they should be any detriment to the rates. If the scheme involves any interference with a shooting and thereby diminishes the rent of the shooting, then, as the noble Earl knows, compensation must be paid to the landlord, and the Court would see that this was done on a fair basis.
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: My Lords, The noble Lord who has just replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government stated that this policy would not lead to an
730
increase in population. I submit that wherever you make new holdings and put up new houses yon will find within two or three years that there will be three or four families living in each house. It is quite impossible to prevent it unless new laws are passed, for as long as they all go in by one door there is no rule against as many families as can possibly be got into it living in one house. The making of a new settlement always leads in a few years to further congestion in that settlement, and eventually to an increase in population. It is quite clear that the Government policy is gradually to split up all the land which is at present occupied by people who are getting their living off the land in order to improve the condition of other people who are not going to live on the land but who will be dependent for their livelihood on some other occupation. Every new holding decreases the chance of getting that occupation, because there is more competition for it. I do not say the policy is a bad policy; all I want is that the Government should realise what they are doing—that they are giving small bits of the poorest land in the world to a mass of people who will not be able to exist without other employment. They are making uneconomic holdings as far as the land is concerned, and are doing so more or less at the expense of the proprietor. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether in making these new holdings His Majesty's Government are going to consider in what way they can prevent several families inhabiting each of these new houses.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, before the noble Lord opposite replies I should like to make one or two observations. The difficulty in facing this question in the outer islands and also in certain parishes in the Western Highlands is that the bylaws on the subject of health cannot he enforced for the reason that you cannot turn people out of houses which are absolutely uninhabitable when there is no other place to which they can go. It is impossible to do anything for them in the way of town-planning, because the limit of the shilling rate which the council is allowed to charge has already been reached. Therefore as regards the rates you have practically arrived at an impasse in the matter; and, as both Lord Camperdown and Lord Dunmore have pointed out, the question of the rates is a much more vital

731
one than a great many Members of the other House and even of your Lordships' House who have no experience of rates running to 15 s. and upwards in the £ can possibly realise. Owing to the fact that the public health rate is already up to the 1s. in the £ there is no money even for the provision of water for a township which may be drawing the whole of its present water supply for fifty or sixty cottages from a place contaminated by dung and manure. I make this point because it is germane to the whole subject. Unless His Majesty's Government face the whole of this problem from the point of view of the ratepayers as well as from that of their Party enthusiasts they will only increase what is already a very serious problem.
I would take the opportunity of saving to the noble Lord who now represents the Scottish Office in your Lordships' House that we are glad that there is some hope of these matters being approached here from a non-Party standpoint. I can assure the noble Lord that there is a great desire to see this question of the outer islands faced in a fair and reasonable spirit. No doubt the landlord class will receive abuse in another place, but it is a great thing to know that there is a possibility that in your Lordships' House our suggestions will at all events be listened to and considered, even if they be not subsequently acted upon. The noble Lord spoke of the gratifying improvement in the outer islands and especially in the Lews. But if you go to the Lews to-day you find men living in the same houses as cattle, and you see excrement, of human beings as well as of cattle, remaining there from the beginning of the winter till the early spring. I greatly doubt whether there has been the advance to which the noble Lord referred. Make these new holdings by all means if it is part of your settled policy, but I hope that at the same time you will really face the housing question and effectively deal with those public health nuisances with which the local rates are unable to cope. They have, as I have said, reached the shilling limit, and it now rests with the Government to take action if anything is to be done to remedy the present grave state of things.
The noble Lord referred to two lines of action which were open to the Government. Is there not a third? Is there not the question of the development of local industries, especially fishing. The latter might easily come under the Board of
732
Agriculture. Although the noble Lord put a very roseate view on the prospect of the Lews in regard to fishing, I would point out that, in the southern end of the island, last year was one of the worst years ever known in regard to fishing. I believe that the condition of the people of Barra last year was worse than it has ever been before; and on the west coast there has never been such a dearth in stock as during the past year. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will go into the question, and find out whether in calculating that things are likely to improve he is speaking by the book or not. There was a strike in the fishing industry and a great many Lewis men have not been taken on again in the East coast fishing, and that will mean a great loss to the island.
The outer islands are suffering from doles indiscriminately given, and in my opinion the pauperism and stupid things done in the western islands constitute a grave evil. Various boards have been set up and have doled out money, and the people have now conic to the condition when they are ready to prey on the Government, whom they regard as soft-witted and easily induced to give grants provided there is sufficient noise made in Parliament. The Government have given these doles without watching the results of their work. Attention should be given to developing the fishing industry in these islands, very much on the lines adopted in Ireland by Mr. Plunket. Attempts have been made in this direction, but they have failed through being badly carried out. There are in Lewis the men who were employed in the East coast fisheries, and surely there is no reason why the herring industry should not be developed there in order to bring more money into the island. Again, no one can go to the outer islands without being met with the crying scandal of the trawlers. I do not pretend to be an expert in the matter and can only judge from what I am told, but trawlers are in there day and night, and the slow fishing boats which are sent out from the island are absolutely useless for the work. There are other things which might be done to help these people. Sir Samuel Scott, a member of the other House, has started a tweed mill there. By this industry' about fifteen families are helped, all of whom have built houses from their earnings. The surplus money has been used for emigration to Canada, and the men who have gone there have sent home

733
money; so that this one mill has been instrumental, directly and indirectly, in leading to the erection of thirty or forty houses in which cattle do not live with human beings. Something might also be done in connection with the willow industry.
I have been associated with western islanders in connection with the Yeomanry and the Militia, and in my opinion your only hope of inducing these men to migrate would be to get them to migrate in certain numbers. They should be put down in plots together, and their priest or minister might be induced to go with them, and, if possible, start a colony. One never can go to the outer islands without feeling that one of the most important things required is firmness apart from political wavering. No one man will take a decided line of action, and in many cases how can the proprietor turn these people out of their houses when they have five or six half-starved and badly-clothed children? Unless, in conjunction with the division of farms, something is done by the Government to see that the present state of things does not continue, you will be simply adding to the misery there. I believe that since the Act of 1886 the number of squatters in the Lews alone has increased by 700 or 800, which shows how the practice of squatting is going on. It is not the harm that these individuals do on the croft itself, but they bring down the grazing to such an extent that in the springtime you can go through any part of the island and see a crop on only 60 or 70 per cent. of the land, with the sheep in practically a starving condition and the ewes looking as though they could never breed again. That comes from letting things drift and believing that you will improve matters by dividing up farms without making the necessary regulations. Unless the division of farms is followed up by an absolutely steady policy it will be impossible to secure any permanent advantage.
Another subject which ought to be faced is the non-payment of rates by squatters. The time has come when, if these squatters are not going to be turned out, inquiry should be made whether it would not be a good thing to legalise their position and make them pay rates. At present there exist squatters who have, perhaps, the best stone houses in the township, and yet who escape rent free and rate free while everybody else is paying rates at the
734
rate of 15 s. in the £. I submit that that is a question which must be faced. The noble Lord said that if the value of a deer forest or anything of the kind is deteriorated compensation is paid to the landlord. But that does not finish the matter in the least, because you permanently reduce the rateable value of that particular parish. If you reduce the value of a shooting by £1,000 you reduce the rateable value by that amount for all time, and therefore your rateable value goes down correspondingly. Where rates stand at the high figure which they have reached at the present moment in these islands any increase in the rates is a matter which ought to he regarded very carefully.
I sincerely hope that in framing their decisions on the subject of the administration of the outer islands His Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to the possibilities there are of increasing local industries, because I fully believe that the whole of the problem is a matter of employment. Even if you divided every single acre in the Lews you would only find crofts for under a quarter of the number who have applied for them, and I do not think that anything like 50 per cent. even of that quarter would be economic crofts on which a man could live unless he had outside employment. I hope that this question of the development of local industries, especially the big industry of fishing, and possibly other matters such as Militia training and further levies of Yeomanry, will be considered amongst the rest of the policy which His Majesty's Government have in view for dividing land.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Report to which my noble friend has called attention is a document of great, I would almost say of tragical, interest. It is, in effect, the last will and testament of the Crofter Commission, and it is impossible to read it without becoming painfully aware that the inheritance which the Board of Agriculture have taken over from the Commission is one full of the gravest and most serious difficulties. The problem which the Board of Agriculture has set to it is to effect the conversion of a population which is miserably poor, which has to cultivate a very unproductive soil under bad climatic conditions, which is, as the noble Lord who speaks for His Majesty's Government has told us, immovable in the sense that it is not in the

735
least inclined to accept a transfer from its present abode to other places, and which follows agriculture in its most precarious form, into a self-sustaining community. The noble Lord told us that in his view some success had been achieved by the Crofter Commission in ameliorating the condition of these poor people, and he referred to some paragraphs on the last page of the Commission's Report. I have looked at those paragraphs, and I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord is justified in appealing to them for the purpose of showing that some improvement has taken place during recent years in the comfort and well-being of these islanders. They are better housed than they were, they cultivate their land rather better, and there appears to be a comparative absence of that lawlessness which was so remarkable a few years ago. But, my Lords, I find nothing in this Report to show that any improvement has taken place in what I would call the economic condition of these crofters. I do not see that they are any nearer to a condition of prospective solvency than they were a few years ago. At any rate, I can find nothing in the Report to warrant the conclusion that we should be justified in trying these experiments on a larger and more ambitious scale than that on which they have as yet been tried.
The noble Lord told us that the Island of Lewis had always been a most difficult problem. But is it not significant that, as my noble friend told us just now, out of 3,370 applications for new holdings no fewer than 1,300 come from the Outer Hebrides, and of these no less than half from the Island of Lewis itself. We have heard a good deal about the condition of the Island of Lewis. I remember that when this subject was last before us my noble friend produced the Report of the Crofters Commission issued in 1912. What had they to tell us? They spoke of acute and widespread congestion in the island, congestion so marked that even if it had been possible to assign the whole of the farms or forest lands in Lewis for the relief of the congestion, even then it would not provide a remedy of a permanent nature. I venture to think that a remedy of a permanent nature is the very thing we ought to aim at. Then they went on to tell us that the congestion had been greatly increased by the amount of squatting which had gone on on the island
736
both on the common pasture and on individual holdings. The Report on the Table gives one some idea of the condition of these cottars and squatters; but I think the most significant fact brought out in this Report is that of these 1,200 cottar and squatter holdings something like, in round figures, 800 have actually come into existence since the year 1886, so that owing to remissness on somebody's part this evil, which ought to have been taken in hand and diminished, has been steadily increasing against us.
I share the feeling which the noble Lord who speaks for His Majesty's Government expressed OD a previous occasion. He told us then that he was moved by a feeling of pity for all concerned—for the crofters themselves, for the landowners, and for the Government which had to endeavour to solve these problems. The case is one of undoubted hardship for all concerned. But in his remarks to-day the noble Lord said "This is, after all, a very old standing trouble"; and he rather. taunted my noble friend with having been unable to produce a new remedy for an old disease. I would venture to suggest that there is one prescription, at any rate, which ought certainly to be followed in a case of this kind—namely, not to do anything to encourage the disease; and that is what my noble friend, not without reason, is, I think, afraid of.
The noble Lord the Under-Secretary clearly realises the difficulty of the case and the need of endeavouring to do something to cope with it; and I must say that I liked the concluding part of his speech a good deal better than the earlier part of it. Unless I misunderstood him, somewhere about the middle of his remarks he made an observation to the effect that this was a condition of things for which it was impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept responsibility, and that the responsibility really lay with the crofters or with the landowners who permitted these mischievous subdivisions to take place. Up to that point I thought the noble Lord was inclined to adopt an attitude of helplessness and to disclaim all responsibility. But towards the conclusion of his speech he made several observations which went some length, at any rate, to comfort me, I understood him to tell us, in the first place, that His Majesty's Government realise the necessity of dealing with this question of migration with a little more

737
vigour. I am sure they will be right in doing so. I am confident that it is a kinder thing to these wretched people to provide them, under the most humane conditions, with suitable homes not too far off from the districts which they now inhabit, rather than to go on bolstering them up on holdings which under no conceivable possibility can ever become profitable enough to keep them in decent comfort.
I also understood the noble Lord to indicate that His Majesty's Government had made up their minds that something must be done to prevent the recurrence of indiscriminate squatting. I hope I did not misunderstand the noble Lord; because it would be a very unfortunate thing if it were to go forth that the Government were helpless to prevent this illegal kind of subdivision, for it is an illegal kind of subdivision, and that the only thing they can do is to hold up their hands and say "The crofters or the landowners are responsible for this, and we can avail nothing." Therefore I welcomed that part of the noble Lord's speech. I have only one other observation to make, and that is to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will bear in mind what has been so well said by my noble friend Lord Lovat as to the desirability of doing something to encourage local industries. I believe that you are likely to effect a great deal more by means of that kind than by merely giving the whole population small slices taken off other people's property.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, perhaps I may reply, so far as I am able to do so, to certain specific questions that have been put to me. The noble Earl, Lord Dunmore, asked whether in regard to the new holdings, if new holdings are created, we would take care that four or five families did not become inhabitants of one house. I am afraid we have no legal powers to safeguard that particular point. At the same time, from my small knowledge of the number of population and number of crofts in the Lews there are not four or five families in each crofter's house to-day. What we shall try to do is this. We shall try to prevent the new small holders from encouraging or allowing cottars and squatters—
THE EARL OF DUNMORE: I can assure the noble Lord from personal experience that he will find three or four families in many of the new crofts which have been
738
created during the last ten years. If the Government have no legal power in the matter at present, will they devise some means by which this could be prevented?
LORD EMMOTT: I will call the attention of the Scottish Office to the matter. I suppose that what the noble Earl means is that where an improved class of house is built too many people are inclined to go into it. Time does not allow of my following point by point Lord Lovat's speech, and on many of the points he raised I should require information before I could give him an answer. But there are one or two specific points as to which I should like to say a word. The question of Imperial and local taxation is engaging the attention of a strong Committee at the present time, and until that Committee has reported I am afraid the question of rates cannot be fundamentally dealt with. But I agree that a satisfactory solution of the question of rating lies at the bottom of any real improvement of a congested district of this kind. With regard to the improvement of houses, the Board of Agriculture are hopeful that they have evolved a better method of granting assistance for the improvement of houses than has hitherto been the case. I do not know whether that may be so or not, but at any rate the matter is receiving their very serious attention. On the question of migration, Lord Lovat said that if these people were migrated they should be migrated in settlements. That is a point of which the Board of Agriculture are fully aware and to which they will give due consideration if any scheme of migration can be, as I hope it will be some day, carried out. Another point on which great stress was laid was that there should be no squatting on the new small holdings. I am afraid it is impossible to prevent it under certain conditions, but every effort will be made to prevent it as far as we have power to do so.
LORD LOVAT: I think the fact of really facing this matter resolutely lies at the bottom of the whole problem. The statement which the noble Lord has made is likely to accentuate the evil rather than to remedy it. At one time squatting was common all over the islands, but as the result of resolute action after the 1886 Act squatting has, so far as I know, practically ceased outside the Lews. In my opinion all that is required is resolute action.
LORD EMMOTT: Yes: but one has to be very careful, when replying officially for a Department which one only for the occasion represents and when one is not aware of all the facts connected with the case, in making a more definite statement. All I can say is that we shall use every effort to secure that these people enter upon a binding obligation. I will not pursue the matter further.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am sure we are all obliged to the noble Lord for answering the questions put to him; but I regret to say that personally I have not been able to derive very much consolation from his speech as a whole. The point that appears to me important is this, that the Government are proposing to continue to cut up the few solvent and good holdings that there are in order to put other persons into them. I regret to say—in fact the Report proves it—that the persons who are going to be put into these holdings are not solvent and are not likely to be able to fulfil any obligations. The noble Lord said, for instance, that the squatters are to be the first persons who are to be put into these holdings. After what is said of these squatters in the Appendix which I mentioned to your Lordships, it is quite clear that they are not possessed of any stock and it is most probable that they have not got much money. If we are to reason from previous experience, just see the state of affairs which prevails in these islands at the present time. Many of the new holders have not discharged their obligations to the Government; they have not paid the instalments due on the loans that were made to them; they have not paid their rent. Then is it likely that the residue in these islands are persons really solvent and able to take up a small holding with advantage to themselves and to their neighbours? If the Government persist in this practice it can only have one end, and that is that you will have done away with the solvent tenants and replaced them by persons who have no means of fulfilling their obligations. The noble Lord said that it rested with the estate to stop squatting. The noble Lord, naturally, has not much experience of these matters—certainly they have nothing to do with the Colonial Office—but be surely must know that it would be practically impossible for an estate in an island like Lewis to evict squatters.
LORD EMMOTT: What I said was that it was not possible for His Majesty's Government to stop squatting, and that the only people who could stop it were the crofter and the landlord. I did not wish to express surprise that the landlord did not attempt to stop it, and I think I used a sentence which showed that I felt it would be extraordinarily difficult for him to do so.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe noble Lord certainly did say that; but he stated that it was impossible for the Government to stop it. Now he says that when these people are placed in the new holdings the Government are going to try to stop squatting.
LORD EMMOTT: They will do what they can.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But how? The noble Lord has himself said that they have no power to stop it. That is a matter at all events which requires immediate and strenuous legislation. Then the noble Lord said that the Board in asking for these farms are obliged, after consultation with the landlord, to go through a certain procedure. One grave cause for complaint is that in many of these cases the landlord has not been consulted or communicated with in the first instance. The reports have been made to the Board by persons who are unknown to the landlord, and the Board themselves have not attempted to communicate with the landlord until they have given notice to him that they wish to take the land. The noble Lord put it to me that I should suggest a policy to him. That is a form of argument which is very often used in Parliament. I certainly have one policy, which is that I would not cut up solvent farms of reasonable size in order to place upon them persons who have neither stock nor money; and so far from doing these persons a service by placing them in these holdings you are doing them the greatest disservice possible. I still venture to hope that the Government will see their way not to insist on carrying out this policy to the bitter end, because I am sure that if it is carried out in the way in which apparently it is going to be, the result will be very great misery and very great evil to these islands. I beg to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CROWN LANDS BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, this is an extremely small Bill. It is not framed with the object of in any way extending or altering the powers that are at present vested in my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture who is also one of the Commissioners of the Office of Woods, but merely to simplify the machinery on his behalf. The Office of Woods is the owner of a great deal of property, and there is an enormous amount of business to be transacted in the matter of deeds with regard to the letting of land, and so on. As things are arranged at present, all these deeds have to be brought to him for signature. In almost every other Office this work of fixing signatures to deeds, which is purely mechanical, is done by the Permanent Secretary; and the object of this Bill is simply to make the procedure of the Office of Woods like that of other Offices and to enable the signing of deeds to be carried out by one of the Permanent Secretaries of the Office.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

HERRING FISHERY (BRANDING) BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to appoint officers for the purpose of branding for export herrings that have been packed in barrels. The conditions under which they would be branded are given in Clause 1 (1) and (3), and the details will be given in the Regulations which we shall make under the powers proposed to be conferred by the Bill. This is a system that is now general in Scotland and has been in force there for many years, and it is because of the good results that have been obtained in Scotland that there is now a growing demand in this country
742
among fish curers for a similar system here. What happens is that after these herrings are packed in a way which satisfies our inspector they are branded, and this brand is a kind of hall-mark which has been found very valuable among foreign purchasers. It is a guarantee of quality, of good packing, of weight, and so on. The demand for this system in this country, however, is not by any means unanimous. A number of the big curers do not want it. Their own trade mark is so well known abroad that it is quite sufficient for them, and they do not think it worth while to pay the small charge which we shall impose for this work in order to make the system pay for itself. Therefore the Bill is entirely optional. It will apply only in those cases where there is a demand for it, and it will be the business of the Board to ascertain as to whether or not the demand exists; and even when it is applied in any particular seaport it will be entirely optional on the curers in that seaport whether they take advantage of it or not. This Bill has been framed in response to repeated applications we have received, and I hope your Lordships will see no difficulty in giving it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.

THE ARMY.
*LORD WYNFORD*LORD WYNFORD rose Majesty's Government—
1. The number of service or practice rounds per gun fixed annually on practice ranges by—

(a) Batteries, R.H.A., quartered at home;

(b) Batteries, R.F.A., 18-pr., quartered at home;

(c) Batteries, R.F.A., 4·5-inch Howitzers, quartered at home;

(d) Batteries, R.H.A. (Territorial);

(e) Batteries, R.F.A. (Territorial), 15-pr.;

(f) Batteries, R.F.A. 5-inch Howitzers;

(g) Batteries, Horse and Field, in the French Army;

(h) Batteries, Horse and Field, in the German Army.

2. The cost of a round of practice ammunition used by the various batteries mentioned above in 1 (a) to 1 (f).
3. The annual cost of—

(a) A Field Battery on the higher establishment of the Regular Army;

(b) A Field Battery on the lower establishment of the Regular Army;

(c) A Reserve Battery of the Regular Army;

(d) A Field Battery of the Territorial Artillery.

4. The number of Territorial Batteries, Horse and Field, that fired live shell over land ranges during 1912.
5. The number of Territorial Batteries, Horse and Field, that have fired, or will fire, live shell over land ranges during 1913.
6. The number of Batteries included in both 4 and 5.
7. Whether the land practice ranges utilised by our Horse and Field Batteries, Regular and Territorial, are fully occupied during the training season.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions which I have on the Paper appear, I am afraid, rather technical in character, but I cannot help thinking that the replies to them will be welcomed by those of your Lordships who take an interest in military matters. The Questions, I hope, are sufficiently concise to elicit the desired information; but with the permission of the House I should like to make one or two remarks in reference to them. The information asked for in Question 1 used to be given in a pamphlet issued every year entitled Instructions for Horse and Field Artillery Practice, but it has ceased to be so given now, and is, I understand, contained in another Memorandum which is only issued to those concerned and a copy of which I have not been able to obtain. I hope the information will not be refused on the ground of its being of a confidential character. As to Question No. 2, I hope the noble Lord who will reply to me will understand that a round of ammunition includes the shell, the cartridge, the fuse, and the tube.
I hope the noble Lord will have no difficulty in giving me replies to Question 3. I felt bound to ask for information in some detail as now we have not only field batteries on the higher and lower establishment but also a new class of battery, a reserve battery which has just been formed out of the remnants of the training brigades which have been reduced from three batteries each to two. I must say I fail to understand how the Secretary of State for War reconciles the statement which he made in the Memorandum relating to the Army Estimates of this year, in which he said that the Artillery would not be reduced by a single unit, with the statement which has appeared in the last Army Order, dated June 20, where the number of batteries has been reduced by six.
My fourth Question is somewhat similar to one asked a short time ago by Lord Portsmouth. The difference consists in this, that the reply to Lord Portsmouth's Question gave the number of batteries that fired in each year and did not distinguish between batteries that fired over land ranges and those which fired over sea ranges, the latter of which are of little or no practical use for instruction. The same remark applies to the fifth Question.
Question 7 is, I hope, sufficiently clear. What I wish to learn is whether land practice ranges are made full use of for practice by both Regular and Territorial batteries during that period of the year when climatic conditions permit of such practice being carried out. If I am not mistaken, one if not two of the ranges on Salisbury Plain are closed about this time of the year to permit of the training of other branches of the Army being completed. I also understand that the range in Northumberland which was purchased two or three years ago by the Government is not being used this year and is not available for practice. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to give some reason for that.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I very much regret that Lord Herschell, who would in ordinary circumstances have answered these Questions, is still away, his state of health being very far from what we should all like to see it. Lord Herschell since he has represented the War Office in your Lordships' House has worked very hard at these particular questions, and, as your

745
Lordships know, there is no subject which requires a greater knowledge of facts and figures and of an enormous amount of detail. Therefore it is to the loss of this House that we should be deprived of the services of Lord Herschell after the amount of work which he has put in on this subject. In his absence I will do my best to answer the noble Lord's Questions.
The answer to Question 1 is as follows: The number of practice or service rounds per battery (six guns) fired annually on practice ranges by the R.H. and R.F.A. (Regulars) quartered at home and by Territorial batteries is—(a) Batteries of R.H.A. Regulars—Divisional, 600; Un-allotted, 580. (b) Batteries of R.F.A. Regulars—Divisional, 600; Un-allotted, 400. (c) Batteries of R.F.A., 4·5-in. Howitzers, 480. (d), (e) and (f). The annual allowance for batteries of R.H.A., Territorial Force, and 15-pr. batteries of R.F.A., Territorial Force, is 200 rounds, and for batteries armed with 5-in. Howitzers 122 rounds. The annual allowance in each case is pooled each year and allotted to the batteries practising that year at a rate which varies in accordance with the class of camp at which they practice. Batteries practising in 1913 are allowed the following number of rounds per battery:—

R.H.A.

R.F.A. (15-pr.)

R.F.A. (Howr.)

Batteries practising at a Regular Practice Camp—viz., Lark Hill, West Down, Oke-hampton, or Trawsfynydd

280

285

250

Batteries practising at Buddon or Pernbrey

180

172

150

Batteries practising at Lydd

100

100

108

(g) 150 rounds per gun are fired annually, but in addition many batteries at practice camps fire a great many more; 50,000 rounds are allowed for the gunnery courses in March and April at the Camp de Mailly alone, and these are fired in addition to 150 rounds per gun. (h) No information is available as to the number of service or practice rounds fired annually on practice ranges by batteries of Horse and Field Artillery in the German Army.
In reply to Question 2, the following is the cost of a round of practice ammunition used by the under-mentioned batteries of R.H.A. and R.F.A.:—

R.H.A.

Home

Shrapnel

£1

9

0

R.F.A. Home

18-pr.

Shrapnel

1

9

3

R.F.A.

4·5-inch

Howitzer. Home

2

11

3

Lyddite

Shrapnel

2

8

9

Shrapnel (practice)

1

15

6

R.H.A.

T.F. 15-pr. Q.F.

Shrapnel

1

12

2

Case shot

15

2

R.F.A.

T.F. 15-pr. B.L.C.

Shrapnel

1

6

11

Case shot.

9

11

R.F.A.

T.F. 5-in. Howitzer

Lyddite shell

2

17

1

Common

1

8

4

Shrapnel"

1

11

10

The total annual cost asked for in Question 3, including a share of brigade headquarters, is—(a) £19,200; (b)£15,200; (c) £12,000; (d) £3,500. The answer to Question 4 is 131, and in addition 11 batteries fired a modified course on the ranges at Shoeburyness. As to Question 5, the number who have fired or will fire (in accordance with 1 (d), (e) and (f) above) in 1913 is 128. Five others have fired a modified course. The replies to the remaining Questions are—To Question 6: The number of batteries who have fired or will fire both in 1912 and 1913 is 62, exclusive of batteries firing a modified course. To Question 7: The land practice ranges are fully occupied during the whole of the training season.
With regard to the point about Salisbury Plain, I do not think any change has been made since the time when I was at the War Office. It was always an understood thing then that one part of the range on Salisbury Plain was only used as an Artillery range during the earlier part of the training season when the Infantry and Cavalry units, and so on, were in the early stages of their annual training, and the moment they began to reach the more advanced stage which required a considerable amount of land it then became necessary to close the range in order to give them sufficient ground to do their training over. But the rest of the range on Salisbury Plain is in use from the earliest possible moment. I have no information as to the Northumberland range.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: Can the noble Lord tell us how many Territorial batteries, if any, did not fire during 1912, and how many will not fire during 1913?
LORD LUCAS: I should like notice of that Question.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Can the noble Lord tell us whether the readjustments of the Artillery referred to by Lord Wynford, which have caused the regrettable loss of six batteries, have been accompanied by any
748
saving? And can he explain why in these readjustments batteries which have old records and distinctions have had them transferred from the personnel of those batteries to other batteries of different numbers which have not been reduced?
LORD LUCAS: Perhaps the noble Viscount will give me notice of those Questions.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.