Sitting of 29 November 1917

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

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES.
Accounts presented, showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1917, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (SCOTLAND)
Copy presented, of Regulations, dated 21st November, 1917, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, acting jointly with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations (Scotland), 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented, of Order, numbered D.I.P. 511, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Copy ordered, " of the provision in Clause 8 relating to conscientious objectors as proposed to be amended on re-committal." —[Secretary Sir George Cave.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 163.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    PORTUGUESE GOVERNMENT:

      CHARGE AGAINST BRITISH SUBJECT.
      Mr. WATT: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the Portuguese Government any definite withdrawal of the charge made against William Trayner, a British subject, representing in Lubango, Portuguese West Africa, a well-known London firm of merchants, to the effect that he had German sympathies; if not, will he say when this matter is expected to be settled; and is he aware that Trayner, who is now resident in London, is of military age and fitness, and only awaits the clearing of his name of this Portuguese imputation in order to join the military forces of the country?
      The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil):: His Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Portuguese Government on the subject, but no definite result has yet been arrived at. The reply to the latter portion of the question of the hon. Member is in the negative.
      Mr. WATT:: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inability of his Department to force out of the Portuguese Government this withdrawal, is depriving the man-power of the country of this individual's service?

      LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: asked whether the policy of opposition to a league of nations recently announced by the Premier of France was decided upon after consultation with the British Government?
      Lord R. CECIL:: The reply is in the negative.
      Mr. KING: asked whether, in view of the Government announcement on the 23rd November that the present moment is inopportune for discussions of a league of nations to prevent war, he intends to take any steps, by way of raid or otherwise, against the League of Nations Society?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave):: The answer is in the negative.

      SECRET AGREEMENTS.
      Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any general statement about the secret agreements and documents recently published by the Russian Government and which affect this country?
      Lord R. CECIL:: No, Sir; I am not prepared to make any such statement at present.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE:asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the publication of secret documents in Petrograd has disclosed that the Allied Governments were committed to vast projects of annexation which could only be carried out by forcing the enemy Powers to unconditional surrender, he will state whether these commitments remain; and, if not, to what extent they have been abandoned?
      Lord R. CECIL:: I cannot accept as accurate the hon. Member's statement of facts on which he bases his question. It cannot, therefore, be answered.
      Mr. KING:: Relative to these documents which have been published, will the Foreign Office say distinctly and clearly, are they authentic or are they not authentic?
      Lord R. CECIL:: I really could not say without seeing the documents. Some of them may be authentic and some not.
      Mr. KING:: Will he try to get hold of the documents so as to see?
      Mr. HOGGE:: Do we understand that these documents have been published without reference to the Foreign Office?
      Mr. SPEAKER:: Hon. Members had better put these questions down. There are to-day a large number of questions on the Paper.

      ISLAM AND KHALIFATE.
      Mr. KING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the outbreak of war, Russia had any communications with this country relative to the proposals that the Sultan of Turkey should no longer be recognised as Khalif; if so, what attitude was then assumed on behalf of this country; and whether he will now declare that the Khalifate is a question for Islam alone to decide?
      Lord R. CECIL:: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, but His Majesty's Government have never departed from the attitude that the question of the Khalifate is one for Moslem opinion alone to decide.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
      Mr. LYNCH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the number of the members of the Foreign Office and of the Diplomatic Service who were of military age when the War commenced, and the number of those who have joined the fighting forces since that event; and what proportion of the members are now actually serving at the front?
      Lord R. CECIL:: The number of members of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service who, when the War commenced, were of military age was 151. Of these, in spite of their urgent and repeated representations, it has only been possible, in view of the requirements of the service, to release twenty-four. I am unable to say how many of these are now actually serving at the front.
      Mr. LYNCH:: Is it not possible to state some superior reasons which make the Foreign Office the home of these embusqués?
      Lord R. CECIL:: That is a very unfair suggestion. Everyone who knows the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office knows perfectly well that no one has been more anxious than members of these services to go to the front; it is only because the Secretary of State, in the exercise of his discretion, has regarded it as absolutely essential, in the public service, that these relatively small number of men who have been retained should be kept over here.
      Mr. WATT:: Is it not possible, after three and a half years of war, to get discharged soldiers to do the work of the Foreign Office?
      Lord R. CECIL:: No, Sir, it is not.
      Mr. HOGGE:: Does not the Noble Lord think that it is very much better that these men should go than that re-examined men, who have been discharged from the Army through disability, should be taken back?
      Lord R. CECIL:: That is not for me to express an opinion upon. All I can say is that I am quite sure that the various Secretaries of State have only been too anxious to allow these men to go, if it has been consistent with the public interest.

      FRANCE AND RUSSIA.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE:asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement entered into between the Governments of France and that of Russia under which territory on the west bank of the Rhine was to be taken from Germany was made after consultation with the British Government and with its support?
      Lord R. CECIL:: No, Sir.
      Mr. LEES-SMITH:: Does the Noble Lord recollect that in the Debate on Peace Negotiations, when I referred to this agreement, the Foreign Secretary stated that my reference was an absolute mare's nest; and can he explain why the Foreign Secretary was unaware of this agreement at that time?
      Lord R. CECIL:: I cannot carry in my mind the whole circumstances of the Debate, but I have no doubt that, if my right hon. Friend did make use of that expression, he was thoroughly well justified.
      HON. MEMBERS:: Oh!
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations between the Government of France and the Government of Russia for the purpose of guaranteeing to Russia possession of German territory in the East were carried on after consultation with the British Government and with its support?
      Lord R. CECIL:: No, Sir.

      MONTENEGRO.
      Mr. R. LAMBERT: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs where the Montenegrin Government is now located; who is the representative of Montenegro in this country; and whether he is in constant communication with the Montenegrin Government or the Montenegrin Minister?
      Lord R. CECIL: The Montenegrin Government are at present located at Neuilly, near Paris. There is no Montenegrin diplomatic representative in this country, and communication is maintained with the Montenegrin Government through the British Chargé des Affaires accredited to them.
      Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Declaration of Corfu of 7th July, 1917, constitutes a menace to the integrity and independence of Montenegro; and whether he has consulted the King or Government of Montenegro as to their attitude to the Declaration of Corfu?
      Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government are aware of the light in which the present Montenegrin Government view that Declaration. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

      GERMAN FORTIFICATIONS (CEMENT).
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the result of his inquiries as to the ultimate destination of British cement imported into Holland; whether it has been used for German military defences; and if its importation will continue to be stopped?
      Lord R. CECIL: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply returned yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch. As regards the last part of the question, there will be no further importation for the present. In order to have all aspects of this very difficult question properly considered I am hoping to appoint a very small Committee to advise the Government as to the whole matter.

      JUDGES (IRELAND).
      Mr. NUG ÉNTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many judges have been appointed in Ireland since 1st January, 1914; the names and the salaries of each; and the total number of judges in Ireland?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Eight Irish judges have been appointed since the 1st January,

      2195
      1914. The particulars will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There are fourteen judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, five recorders, and sixteen County Court judges.
      The following are the particulars referred to:

      Name

      Appointed.

      Salary.

      £

      Sir James H. M. Campbell, Bart.

      Lord Chief Justice

      5,000

      J. F. Moriarty

      LordJustice of Appeal

      4,000

      Stephen Ronan

      Judge, King's Bench Division

      3,500

      John Gordon

      Judge, King's Bench Division

      3,500

      William Moore

      Judge, King's Bench Division

      3,500

      W. H. Brown

      County Court Judge

      1,400

      W. H. Hynes

      County Court Judge

      1,400

      ARMED FORCES (IRELAND).
      Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the total number of armed forces in Ireland and the number of Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police at present on active service?
      Mr. DUKE: The strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 31st October was 9,663 and that of the Dublin Metropolitan Police 1,117. The troops on duty in Ireland are those appointed for duty there by the Army Council, and any question regarding their numbers or sufficiency should be addresed to the War Office.

      POLITICAL PRISONERS (IRELAND).
      Mr. KINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many prisoners, since the death of Thomas Ashe, have been forcibly fed in Mountjoy Prison; for how many individual days were they so fed; whether any or all of these prisoners have now been released; if so, on what date or dates, and under what conditions has release been granted; and whether any released prisoners have been again placed in prison?
      Mr. DUKE: Thirty-seven prisoners were artificially fed on the 26th, 27th, and 28th September, and thirty-five on 29th September, for four days, and all have
      2196
      been released under the provisions of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act, 1913. Two prisoners were released temporarily on the 29th September from Mountjoy Prison, and four were released on expiration of sentence on the 13th and 26th October and 9th November. The remainder were temporarily released on the 15th, 16th, and 17th instant from Dundalk Prison, to which they had been transferred. None of these prisoners, so far as I am aware, has as yet been again imprisoned.
      Mr. KING: Is it the intention to arrest them again and treat them in the same way?
      Mr. DUKE: It depends upon the circumstances.
      Major NEWMAN: Is it the fact that none of these prisoners were forcibly fed after the middle of September?
      Mr. JOYCE: It was nearly time to stop it !
      Mr. DUKE: There was no forcible feeding of prisoners during, I think, six or seven weeks: I am not sure of the date.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any Clare men are still in prison for political offences; and, if so, whether he will advise their release?
      Mr. DUKE: I am not aware that there are any such prisoners at the present time.

      INTERNED PERSONS (IRELAND).
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction recently expressed by persons interned at Dundalk, county Louth; whether a committee of justices was held at Dundalk on the 15th instant, and those interned assured that the visiting committee would exercise to the full the discretionary powers conferred on them and interpret in a broad and liberal manner any rules referring to visits, letters, and similar matters; and whether as a result persons interned at Dundalk are now satisfied with the treatment accorded them?
      Mr. DUKE: I am informed that dissatisfaction with diet was expressed by prisoners committed for offences against the Defence of the Realm Act and Regulations, who were transferred from Mountjoy

      2197
      to Dundalk Prison on 13th November. A meeting of local magistrates was held in the prison on the 15th November, but I understand that these gentlemen made no suggestion or recommendation regarding the manner in which the visiting committee should exercise the powers conferred on them. There are at present no prisoners in Dundalk Prison.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the special arrangements that have been made under rules approved by the Irish Privy Council for persons interned at Mountjoy, Dundalk, and other places of internment in Ireland for disregarding the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations in connection with drilling or similar matters, which, in the opinion of the competent authorities, are prejudicial to the safety of the Realm; and will he give the scale of diet approved under these rules?
      Mr. DUKE: I shall send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of the Rules and dietary.

      PRISONERS' TEMPORARY DISCHARGE.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Prisoners Temporary Discharge for III-health Act applies to Ireland; and, if so, will he give the conditions in the temporary order of discharge which have been imposed on any person who has claimed or on whose behalf the Government have exercised the provisions of the Act?
      Mr. DUKE: The Act referred to applies to Ireland. The conditions in the order for temporary discharge are:

      1. The prisoner shall, if the period of temporary discharge be not extended. return to prison on the day named in the order.

      2. The period of temporary discharge may, if the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit, be extended.

      3. The prisoner shall abstain from any violation of the law.

      If the prisoner is not under sentence a further condition is added, namely:
      The prisoner shall attend any further proceedings on his case at which his
      attendance may be required.
      Major NEWMAN: How long have these men been allowed out of internment? Is there any date assigned for their going back to the place of internment?
      Mr. DUKE: Every order of temporary discharge has the date fixed, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The order is subject to the provisions I have named.
      Major NEWMAN: Are the men given a free railway pass back?
      Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member puts that question down I will ascertain.

      ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will inquire into the case of ex-Constable. Robert Kelly, of Portland Row, Dublin, aged sixty-four years, who on a pension of £46 14s. 8d. a year is endeavournig to maintain himself and two delicate daughters; whether he is aware that two, Royal Irish Constabulary ex-constables died recently, one in the North and one in the South Union, Dublin; and will he say why, in the present period of high food prices, the Irish Government refuse to do anything by way of war bonus or increase of pension to mitigate the hardships of those who have faithfully served them?
      Mr. DUKE: Robert Kelly, a constabulary pensioner aged sixty-five years, resides at Portland Row, Dublin. He has a pension of £46 16s. per annum, but I have no knowledge of the circumstances of the family. Two constabulary pensioners recently died in workhouse hospitals in Dublin. I am informed that they retired at their own request before earning the full pensions they could have attained. As to the rest of the question, I would refer to the answers I gave to questions by the hon. Members for the College Green Division of Dublin and the Leix Division of Queen's County last Friday.

      IRISH CONVENTION.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he will be in a position to report to the House on the proceedings of the Convention; and if he will say what is the position at the present time?
      Mr. DUKE: The Convention is proceeding with its task, and will, I have no doubt, report on its own motion the results of its deliberations when the time arrives for such' a Report.
      Mr. LYNCH: Can any indication be given when that time may be?
      Mr. DUKE: No, Sir. It depends upon the Convention. It is not for me to regulate the proceedings of the Convention.

      NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in regard to the national teachers of Ireland, he will take into consideration the facts that the prices paid for all necessities of life are rising, that before the War their salaries only enabled them to make ends meet, and that these are the only class of State-paid persons who have not received any increase in pay since the beginning of the War; and whether, in consequence, he will now recommend that a bonus be granted to these teachers?
      Mr. DUKE: The statement that Irish national school teachers have received no increase in pay since the commencement of the present War is not correct. Since the 1st July, 1916, all teachers whose income from other State sources does not exceed £2 per week have been in receipt of a war bonus of 4s. per week, and the teachers whose income from other State sources exceeds £2 per week but does not exceed £3 per week have been in receipt of a war bonus of 3s. per week. Revised and improved salary scales for teachers have been settled and will take effect from the 1st April, 1917.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      TILLAGE (IRELAND).
      Mr. SCANLANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) on what grounds the Department have refused to supply to the County Sligo Agricultural Committee a list of defaulters under the tillage scheme; and whether, on reconsideration of the committee's application and in order to encourage the universal carrying out of the Tillage Order, this information will now be sent to the committee?
      Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture is satisfied that the publication of particulars of individual cases of default at the present time would not be in the public interest. Any case of default reported to the Department by the County Sligo Food
      2200
      Production Sub-Committee will be dealt with, and steps taken to ensure compliance with the Compulsory Tillage Regulations.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be desirable for this agricultural committee for the county of Sligo to have a record of the cases in which farmers and graziers are not complying with the Tillage Order so as to help the Government promote the tillage scheme?
      Mr. DUKE: I know that the most harmonious relations exist between the Department of Agriculture and the county committees, and every help that is needed by the Department from the committee will no doubt be called for and given.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Is there any reason why the Department of Agriculture should show this disrespect to one of its own county committees in refusing to give the committee information which is vital for the purposes of the committee, namely, the instances in which farmers, graziers and landlords in the county are not complying with the Tillage Order of the Government?
      Mr. DUKE: Communication of information must, of course, be under the control of the Department. The Department is glad to avail itself of the services of the committee, but it cannot divest itself of responsibility, or transfer it to the county committee.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Is it not evident that the right hon. Gentleman and the Department consider the county committee as a foreign body having no interest in the progress of tillage in the county? Why should this be?

      POTATOES.
      Mr. SCANLANasked (1) the Prime Minister if he will request the Food Controller to modify the Regulation issued by his Department limiting the guarantee to growers of potatoes of £6 per ton to the case of sales of potatoes in quantities of 4 tons, in view of the great hardship to growers on small farms who have not the capacity of sending quantities of 4 tons to market but who have increased their tillage under the orders of the Government, and in view of the guarantee of the Government given to growers for this season of £6 per ton without any suggestion of restriction as to quantites brought to market or offered for sale; (2) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether,

      2201
      in view of the representations made from and on behalf of small farmers in Ireland who have increased their tillage at the request of the Government, he can now modify the Order restricting the guarantee of £6 per ton for potatoes to sales of over 4 tons?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I have been asked to reply to these questions. The hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension as to the terms of the Government guarantee of £6 per ton for potatoes. The first announcement, made by the Food Controller on the 9th January last, fixed prices for potatoes of the 1917 crop for delivery in quantities of not less than 6 tons f.o.r. or f.o.b. at rates representing an average of £6 per ton for the season. A later announcement, made on behalf of the Government on 2nd May by the President of the Board of Agriculture, reduced the unit of delivery covered by the guarantee to 4 tons and fixed the figure of the guarante at £6. As I have already stated, the Food. Controller is not prepared to increase the charge on the Exchequer by further extending the benefits of the guarantee.
      Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask the hon. Member if he or his chief the Food Controller is aware of the fact that in this House on 23rd February the Prime Minister promised, without any reservation or restriction, £6 per ton as a guarantee to all growers of potatoes?
      Mr. CLYNES: The guarantee, as my answer stated, has all along been subject to the qualifications announced in my reply.
      Mr. SCANLAN:May I ask the hon. Gentleman to pay more attention to the question? I asked him whether he is aware of the fact that the Prime Minister, in this House on 23rd February, unconditionally stated that the Government were giving a guarantee of £6 per ton to all growers of potatoes?
      Mr. CLYNES: The fact that conditions were not mentioned on the occasion named does not mean that other conditions were not made on other dates. The guarantee was given in order to stimulate the growth of potatoes on a large scale.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Of course !
      Mr. CLYNES: And small growers were not capable of increasing their yield in order to come under the terms of the guarantee.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Is the House to understand that the Food Controller and the hon. Member are intimating now a breach of the unqualified pledge given by the Prime Minister?
      Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps any further questions as to a promise made by the Prime Minister will be addressed by my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister.
      Mr. SCANLAN: I did address this question to the Prime Minister, and not to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Had the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture in Ire-land any authority from the Food Controller to make the statement that small tenants might pool the quantity of potatoes required to realise 4 tons?
      Mr. CLYNES: I have not previously heard of any such thing.

      BACON AND PORK.
      Mr. ARCHDALEasked the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) whether any representative of the Ulster bacon curers, whose business is entirely different from those of the rest of Ireland, was consulted about the recent Orders as to bacon and pork; if he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails among both farmers and curers: (2) whether he is aware that the three largest bacon-curing firms in Ulster, who are obeying the Controller's Orders as to price, have almost entirely lost all their business, while the buyers belonging to other firms, by giving private bonuses, against the law, are getting all the pigs; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. CLYNES: The Food Controller has sent representatives to Ireland for the express purpose of investigating the matters complained of by my hon. Friend. A representative of the Ulster bacon curers was consulted before the Bacon Order was issued and it is anticipated that this Order will, by limiting the margin of profit, check the practice of giving illicit bonuses which unfortunately appears to exist.

      ANGLO-SWISS CONDENSED MILK.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has now completed his inquiry and will he state what is the average weekly tonnage of milk and sugar consumed by the Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Con-

      2203
      densed Milk Company in the manufacture of their various products; and what proportion of these is exported for purposes other than those of our Navy and Army and Allies?
      Mr. CLYNES: As I informed the hon. Member on 25th October, this company think it undesirable to publish the actual amount of milk and sugar used in their condenseries. They state, however, that the whole of their considerable business is now carried on for the exclusive benefit of the Armies in the field and the Allied civilian populations.
      Captain WRIGHT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of applying to this foreign company some control such as has been applied to so many English companies?
      Mr. CLYNES: That point is not within the original question.

      SUGAR.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why, with regard to the Ministry of Food's Sugar Order, 1917 (L.G. Sugar 5), and the returns and applications to be made by manufacturers using sugar, a distinction was made between those firms who sell to wholesalers and those who do not, by which the former may apply direct to the Ministry of Food and not to the local food control committees; and whether he has received any representations from local food control commissioners, or committees, as to this favoured treatment of these firms?
      Mr. CLYNES: It was thought desirable that the Ministry of Food should deal direct with the requirements of wholesale manufacturers whose undertakings do not necessarily coincide with any single local area. The local authorities concerned have not expressed any dissastisfaction with this arrangement.
      Captain WRIGHT: Will local authorities be furnished with information as to these large companies?
      Mr. CLYNES: I understand they have such information.

      CATTLE (IRELAND).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in fixing the prices for cattle in Ireland, he has taken into account the
      2204
      difficulties which poor farmers themselves will have to surmount in order to produce the cattle required; and whether, if it be found that cattle-rearing is suffering owing to lack of inducement to farmers, he will in any way modify his scheme so that an equitable adjustment may be arrived at?
      Mr. CLYNES: The conditions of the cattle industry were fully taken into account before the maximum prices for meat were fixed. It is not, therefore, anticipated that cattle-rearing will suffer owing to lack of inducement to farmers.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the hon. Gentleman taken the opinion of farmers actually engaged in the work, and of the local representative bodies, who would inform him exactly of the local conditions?
      Mr. CLYNES: Yes, certainly they have been taken into account.

    SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH WORK.

      ASSISTANCE TO MANUFACTURERS.
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any efficient system of co-ordinating the research work now being conducted in the laboratories of our universities, in the National Physical Laboratory, and in the Imperial Institute is being or has been arranged, more especially with a view to bring the results of such researches into close relation with fresh problems connected with our Colonial trade and with our productive industries in this country and in our Dominions overseas; and whether opportunities are afforded for placing at the service of our manufacturers scientific experts to advise them or to conduct in their factories special investigations: and, if so, under what conditions?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The important questions raised by the hon. Member are too large for effective treatment by way of question and answer; but, as he is no doubt aware, the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research are, in the course of their administration, collecting information as to research being conducted in various places and different types of institution which cannot but facilitate the

      2205
      co-ordination of research work which the hon. Member desires. Moreover, as he will have gathered from the Annual Reports of that Department, similar organisations have come or are coming into existence in other parts of the Empire, which are in close relation with the Research Department of this country. As an example of what is being done in the oversea Dominions, I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the Commonwealth Advisory Council of Science and Industry and the recently-published " South African Journal of Industries," which may be seen in the Colonial Office Library. This imperial machinery will enable those who are engaged in our Colonial trade and in our productive industries to become acquainted with the problems arising in different parts of the Empire, and with the results of any researches now in progress either here or in the Dominions. The hon. Member will be aware of the work of the Imperial Institute, which is always willing to put its expert advice at the disposal of manufacturers. As regards the final part of the question, the establishment of research associations, which is one of the main objects of the Research Department, is intended to place at the service of our manufacturers scientific experts who may advise them or conduct in their factories special investigations
      Sir P. MAGNUS: May I have a copy of that answer?
      Mr. HEWINS: Yes.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM
    REGULATIONS.

      LEAFLETS (CENSORSHIP).
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will appoint some person in Dublin to approve and pass leaflets under Regulation 27 c and so save the delay and trouble of sending communications to and fro between Ireland and the Press Bureau?
      Sir G. CAVE: As at present advised, I do not propose to make such an appointment.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great amount of delay, correspondence, and extra work are thrown upon the Press Censor owing to lack of facilities?
      Sir G. CAVE: It is better to wait till trouble does arise.
      Mr. KING: Too late!
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether a leaflet, consisting solely of biblical quotations with reference to peace and the methods of war, comes under Regulation 27 c of the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar question put by him on Monday last.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer does not cover my question at all? I asked whether such a leaflet has to be submitted to the Censor. [HON. MEMBERS: " Order, order !"] Has the right hon. Gentleman, in short, arrogated to himself the right to censor Jesus Christ? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order !"]
      Mr. ANDERSONasked how many extra officials he estimates will have to be appointed by the Press Bureau in order to deal with all leaflets and pamphlets under Regulation 27 c of the Defence of the Realm Act; and what extra cost will in consequence be thrown on the Exchequer?
      Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to questions on this subject on Tuesday last.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the difficulties of administering Regulation 27 c, Defence of the Realm Act, and the consequences likely to follow from its continuation, he will reconsider the advisability of continuing the Regulation, particularly the clauses dealing with the censorship?
      Sir G. CAVE: There is no question of rescinding the Regulation, but any suggestion for amending it with a view to meeting difficulties in administration will of course be considered.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: Is there any foundation for the statements that have appeared that it is the intention of the Government to modify the Regulation?
      Sir G. CAVE: A communication has been received and is being considered.
      Mr. MACDONALD: Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the series of questions that have been put down have

      2207
      shown how impossible it is to apply this Regulation fairly, and will he take all these questions into consideration when he is going to amend it?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view as to the effect of the questions. I know, at all events, that there is one difficulty in administration which has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman and others with regard to literature connected with elections.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the " Times," in its leading article, says that the Regulation is quite unworkable?
      Mr. SHERWELL: Is there any foundation for the impression created and which is widespread in the publishing world that it is intended to construe this Regulation to include bound volumes?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have not heard of any such suggestion.
      Mr. WHYTE: Have not cases affecting bound volumes already arisen?
      Sir G. CAVE: No; my hon. Friend is quite mistaken. Some bound volumes may have been seized with a mass of other papers, but not under this Regulation
      Mr. MACDONALD: Has the Secretary to the Press Censor, with the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, been in communication with certain publishers relating to volumes which are bound volumes and that are now being reprinted?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have not heard of it.
      Mr. MACDONALD: I will give you a case.
      Sir H. DALZIEL: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be in a position to declare the intention of the Government in this matter?
      Sir G. CAVE: At an early date.
      Mr. KING: Withdraw it.
      Mr. MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether it is with his sanction that the directors of the Press Bureau have entered into discussion with the writers of leaflets submitted to them under Regulation 27 c, Defence of the Realm Act; and whether he intends that these directors should argue points with writers either for the purpose of gaining an under-
      2208
      standing of what is written in leaflets or of bargaining for modifications in the statements made?
      Sir G. CAVE: The directors of the Press Bureau do not know to what the hon. Member refers. They have not, so far as they know, entered into a discussion with the writers of any leaflets submitted under Regulation 27 c.
      Mr. MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a letter sent by Sir Frank Swettenham to the Women's International League with reference to the leaflet accurately described in my question, in which such arguments and persuasion were used?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have not heard of this case. The director is entitled simply to reject a leaflet, and if in any case he has pointed out the particular passages objected to, this must have been done in order to assist the persons who submitted the leaflet.

      INTERNED PERSONS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked whether, in view- of the recent addition to Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Act. which makes any breach of the rules in force for interned persons an offence against these Regulations, persons so offending will be tried by the methods laid down in Regulations 56-58 D, or, if not, in what manner?
      Sir G. CAVE: If it is considered necessary to prosecute an interned person for a breach of the rules in force in the place of internment, the proceedings will be governed by the provisions of the Regulations quoted by the hon. Member.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the addition to Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Act giving the authorities power to, punish interned persons who escape or attempt to escape from the place of internment, he will say under what authority Louis Ferdinand Kehrhahn was removed from Islington Internment Camp and placed in Brixton Prison in April last under punitive conditions after his attempted escape; and, if power to take such action was already vested in the authorities, why there was any necessity for this addition to the Regulation?
      Sir G. CAVE: Under the first paragraph of Regulation 14 B, the Secretary of State has power to order a person to be

      2209
      interned in such place as he may specify. Kehrhahn was after his escape interned at Brixton for greater security, as I explained to the hon. Member in reply to previous questions. He is not under punitive conditions, but receives the same treatment as other persons interned at Brixton. By the recent amendments to the Regulation, an escape or attempt to escape from internment is made an offence against the Regulations punishable by imprisonment.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked what are the rules in force referred to in the recent addition to Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Act; whether these rules are made known to interned persons; and whether the new provision that a breach of such rules will be an offence against the Regulations will also be communicated to them?
      Sir G. CAVE: The rules vary in the different places of internment. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.

      POLICE RAIDS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked whether, in the case of any property being destroyed as the result of the recent raids made under Regulation 51 of the Defence of the Realm Act, notice will first be given to the owners?
      Sir G. CAVE: There is no obligation to give such notice, but in the cases referred to owners will be informed before property which has been seized under Regulation 51 is destroyed.
      Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether by No. 51 of the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, under which recent raids have been carried out, the police have power to seize and destroy leaflets, pamphlets, and documents which are not illegal?
      Sir G. CAVE: I must refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Regulation.
      Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is it not a fact that by this Regulation the police can seize and destroy any pamphlets or leaflets, whether they are legal or illegal, according to their own discretion, and is not the right hon. Gentleman, by making all these raids under this Regulation, simply suppressing criticism of the Government without bringing it before a Court of law?
      Sir G. CAVE: I disagree both with the hon. Gentleman's construction of the Regulation and with his inference from the facts.

      HERALD LEAGUE MEETINGS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked why the Herald League meetings in Finsbury Park have been prohibited under Regulation 9 A of the Defence of the Realm Act, which allows the prohibition of meetings likely to give rise to grave disorder, in view of the fact that these meetings have been held for the last eighteen months without disturbance?
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that orderly meetings have been held in Finsbury Park for many months on Sundays by the Herald League and by other bodies; whether, whilst other bodies are still allowed to hold their meetings, those held by the Herald League have been prohibited; if so, will he state the reason for this action; whether he is aware that the police officer who warned the league secretary refused to produce any written authority for his action; whether the suppression of free speech is left to the personal discretion of individual police officers; and whether he will in future instruct the police not to interfere with public meetings or to prevent them without producing to the organisers their written authority for so doing?
      Sir G. CAVE: I prohibited a meeting proposed to be held in Finsbury Park on Sunday last because I was satisfied that there were good grounds for anticipating grave disorder if it were held, and that in view of present circumstances it would be making an undue demand on the police to require them to provide such a force as would be sufficient to maintain order. My action was taken under Defence of the Realm Regulation 9 A. The police officer who interviewed the secretary had omitted to take a copy of the Order with him. I have given instructions that in any future case a copy of the Order prohibiting a meeting shall, if possible, be handed to the promoters.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Have any of the series of meetings held by this league led to disorder before, and, if not, why are disorders apprehended in this case?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid that these meetings have led to disorder.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Never!
      Sir G. CAVE: In this case I think I had a special report.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: In this case no disorder whatever has occurred.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that meetings held by such organisations as the Roman Catholic Guild have been broken up by gangs of scoundrels who come there for the purpose of breaking up all meetings, even meetings that have nothing whatever to do with the War?
      Sir G. CAVE: 1 do not know. Where disorder is apprehended we take action.
      Mr. KING: Did the right hon. Gentleman not receive a most definite and circumstantial report about a Roman Catholic meeting being broken up?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Are we to understand that when disorder is expected the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take action by prohibiting the meeting or by providing a sufficient force to prevent disorder?
      Sir G. CAVE: When I said I would take action I meant that I would take proper action.

      PUBLIC MEETINGS.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to articles constantly appearing in certain London newspapers which incite roughs to break up public meetings; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the publication of such incitements to rioting and to protect orderly citizens in the exercise of their legal rights?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have not seen any newspaper articles which answer to the hon. Member's description.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the "Daily Express," the "Weekly Dispatch," the " Daily Mail," and other papers are constantly publishing these things —[HON. MEMBERS: " No !"] —and will he read these incitements to break up meetings and take action to prevent these incitements to roughs in London to break up meetings?
      Sir G. CAVE: I really have enough to do.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny all knowledge of the publication of these articles?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I must admit that I know nothing of them.

      "YOUNG INDIA."
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary how many copies of " Young India," by Lajpat Rai, were seized in the recent raids; and whether other owners of the work may expect the attentions of the police?
      Sir G. CAVE: Six bound copies of this book and a number of unbound sheets were seized. Any copy of this book is liable to be seized under Regulation 51, but it is not proposed to take action with regard to copies that may be in the possession of innocent holders?
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Have these bound volumes been returned, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a previous question?
      Sir G. CAVE: I did not say that. My previous answer referred to Regulation 27c. That Regulation does not apply to this case.
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether his advisers have yet come to any decision as to the prosecution of the publishers of " Young India"; and has the India Office been consulted in the matter?
      Sir G. CAVE: No criminal proceedings are at present contemplated. The India Office has been consulted in the matter.

      PRESS REGULATIONS.
      Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to issue any further Regulation dealing with the Press under the Defence of the Realm Acts?
      Sir G. CAVE: No such decision has been arrived at.

      BARON VON BISSING.
      Mr. G. FABERasked whether Baron von Bissing, who has recently been released from internment on the ground of ill-health and allowed to enter a nursing home, is the brother of the late General von Bissing, Prussian military governor of Brussels, who ordered the murder of Miss Edith Cavell; and whether any British military or civilian, prisoners in Germany have been allowed to exchange their prisons or internment camps for nursing homes?
      Sir G. CAVE: I understand that this man is a half-brother of the late General von Bissing. I am not able to answer the last part of the question, but I would point out that Mr. Walter von Bissing is not a German prisoner of war, but a British subject interned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations; and, whatever may be the practice in Germany, I do not think it would have been right to put his life in danger by refusing him permission to go to a nursing home.
      Mr. FABER: Is it proposed, as soon as this man's health is sufficiently re-established, to re-intern him?
      Sir G. CAVE: That is a matter to be considered.
      Mr. FABER: But has the right hon. Gentleman considered it yet?
      Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. My answer involves the fact that I have not yet considered it.
      Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few weeks before the outbreak of this War this gentleman boasted of being a personal friend of the Kaiser? [An HON MEMBER: " So did Carson !"]
      Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware of that.

      BARON BRUNO VON SCHRODER.
      Mr. G. FABERasked what was the date in 1914 of Baron Bruno von Schröder's naturalisation, and who were his sponsors?
      Sir G. CAVE: The date asked for is 7th August, 1914. As I explained in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewisham on the 26th instant, it is not the practice to publish the names of the persons who support an application for naturalisation, and I do not think it desirable to alter the practice.
      Mr. FABER: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman was good enough, in response to a question of mine, to give the names of the responsible persons who guaranteed Laszlo, why is the information declined in this case?
      Sir G. CAVE: I expressly stated that I made an exception in his ease because it concerned a Member of this House.
      Mr. HOGGE: Would it be inconvenient to publish the names?
      Sir G. CAVE: Not in the least.
      Mr. HOGGE: Then why do you not do it?
      Sir G. CAVE: Because I do not want to alter the old practice.
      Mr. FABER: Oh, but ought we not to have done with old practices?

      ARREST OF BRICKLAYER IN MANCHESTER
      Mr. FFRENCHasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Nicholas Cullen, Wexford, whose present address is 54, Randolph Street, Levenshulme, Manchester, was sent over to this country some fifteen months ago by the Labour Exchange and has been since working as a bricklayer; that he was arrested, by a detective, owing to his refusal to register, on the 25th October last and detained in prison for three and a-half hours until he was bailed out by his landlady; and that he had to appear before a magistrate on the following morning at Manchester and, notwithstanding his explanation as to how he came to this country and his statement that he had been home three times in fifteen months, he was fined 20s. on the statement of the detective that he had made a home in this country; and whether he will look into this matter with a view of returning the fine to Cullen and recompensing him for lost time?
      Sir G. CAVE: I am making inquiry in this case, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

      SOUTHAMPTON TRADES COUNCIL.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether he has had any report from Southampton showing that, on the occasion when the two detectives were found hiding under the piano at a trade union meeting, they were protected from personal violence only by the timely action of the district secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers; and whether he has taken any steps to show his appreciation of this man's action?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. I have already denied the statement as to the place where the men were found.

      PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce his intentions as to the Petroleum (Production) Bill; and whether, to meet the emergency and avoid opposition, he will proceed with the Bill dropping the proposal to create royalties?
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked whether the Government proposes to proceed with the Petroleum (Production) Bill; and, if not, whether they will take steps to enter on land and bore for petroleum under the Defence of the Realm Acts, leaving questions of compensation to be settled by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am still unable to make any statement on this subject.
      Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is about five weeks ago or more since this Bill was introduced, and are we always to be waiting?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no knowledge as to the number of weeks, but I do know that during the interval we have had more important things to do.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the production of petroleum still considered to be necessary?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: We certainly consider it to be desirable or we should not have introduced the Bill.

      RECONSTRUCTION (FORESTRY SUB-COMMITTEE).
      Colonel STIRLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Report of the Forestry Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Committee will be published; and whether any statement of the policy of the Government towards the development of forestry in Great Britain may be expected during the present Session?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not at present in a position to give a definite reply to the second part of the question.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

      UNIVERSITY REDISTRIBUTION (IRELAND).
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, having regard to the possibility of changes being introduced into the representation of county and borough constituencies in Ireland, he will favourably consider the representation of the National University of Dublin and the Queen's University of Belfast in any redistribution scheme to be submitted to the House, especially with a view to the improvement of, and the creation of a wider and deeper interest in, education throughout Ireland?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: A proposal for giving representation to these universities without increasing the total representation of Ireland would, if it met with general assent among the representatives of Ireland, be sympathetically considered by the Government.
      Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of the Belfast University, if it wants a member, sharing it with the University of Dublin?

      VISCOUNT NORTHCLIFFE.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked if it is proposed to send Lord Northcliffe again to the United States, and, if so, what duties will engage his attention?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 19th of November.

      AMERICAN MISSION.
      Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he will explain the exact position and status of Colonel House in this country; whether he is accredited direct to the British Government; and whether he is to be regarded as the special representative of President Wilson in Europe, and, generally, what his mission is?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The object of Colonel House's visit was fully set forth in the statements which he communicated to the Press, and to which I would refer the hon. Member.

      GERMAN PAID AGENTS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked how many persons have up to the present been arrested as being the agents or tools of German money; and whether it is proposed to bring any of them to public trial?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Since the beginning of the War a number of German agents have been arrested and brought to trial. As far as the public interest permits, the particulars are published from time to time.

      SALE OF HONOURS (PARTY FUNDS).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked whether, in view of the growing opinion that secret party funds lead to political corruption, the lack of independence among numbers of Members, the buying of honours, and the lowering of the prestige of Parliament, he will introduce legislation to abolish all secrecy in respect of the money subscribed to political parties, and to compel the publication of a balance-sheet showing now all the moneys have been raised and expended?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to my previous replies on this subject.

      ITALIAN FRONT.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked (1), whether, in view of the fact that British forces are to be engaged on the Italian front, steps will be taken to prohibit on the Western front in future such sacrifice of life as has occurred during the past seventeen months; will he take into consideration the policy adopted by the French Government for the conservation of manpower; (2) whether, in view of the fact that British forces are to be engaged on the Italian front, steps will be taken to prevent on the Western front such sacrifices of life in future as has occurred during the past seventeen months, and on the line adopted by the French Government for the conservation of man-power?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible to make any statement as to our military plans, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the Government are not less anxious than he to avoid any unnecessary sacrifice of life.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: I never suggested that I was more anxious than he was. I
      2218
      am asking definitely if similar steps will be taken by this Government? [Interruptions.] I know that whenever I attempt to discuss the question of casualties —
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to me to be repeating the question which he has already put.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: On a point of Order. It is very difficult for me to put any supplementary questions in regard to casualties because of the interruptions which always follow. I want to know if I have the right —
      Mr. SPEAKER: It depends upon the manner in which the question is put.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out that, while you instruct me as to my manners, you never instruct those who interrupt me?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If questions are constantly asked of an offensive character, I endeavour to quell them —not otherwise.

      WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
      Mr. KINGasked whether any reason can be given for the delay in taking the Report stage of the War Aims Committee Estimate; and whether any concessions will be given in response to the criticisms made in Committee on the Vote?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There will be no undue delay in taking the Report stage of this Vote, but as yet no opportunity has occurred. As regards the second part of the question, I can make no statement.
      Mr. KING: Will a statement be made when the Report stage is reached?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It is usual in this House to make speeches when you are discussing a subject and I suppose that in this case a similar course will be followed.
      Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman been approached since the Debate with a view to giving concessions?
      Mr. BONAR LAWI have had some private conversations, but the gentleman with whom I had them would not like them to be published. I do not mean that anything happened to be ashamed of, but if that kind of conversation is not to take place the conduct of public business would be most difficult.

      POLISH AND LITHUANIAN MINERS (FAMILIES).
      Mr. ADAMSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn by the Lanarkshire Miners' Association to the condition of the families of Poles and Lithuanians, formerly working in the coal mines, who have returned to Russia to serve in the Army there; whether he is aware that the dependants of these men left in this country have no means of support and have had to sell their furniture to buy food, and that a movement is on foot by the owners of house property in the mining districts to evict these people for non-payment of rent; whether he is aware that if these people are evicted the miners of Lanarkshire have determined to cease work in protest; and whether steps can be taken to provide these people with financial assistance in view of their being bereft of their breadwinners?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have seen a representation on this subject addressed by the Miners' Association to the Coal Controller. I am not yet in full possession of the facts as to recent developments, but the position of these poor people is very unhappy, and in view of their concentration in limited areas the elief afforded by the Government in the ordinary case of aliens becoming chargeable to the Poor Rate owing to the War Seems inadequate. I am in communication with the Treasury in the hope that Some special and immediate form of assistance may be granted.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister if he will define the exact meaning of the term " compulsory allotments," referred to in the Government statement relating to Army and Navy pay?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): A Royal Warrant is about to be issued which will make the matter clear.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say in advance of this Royal Warrant, so as to make it quite clear, whether, in the ease of a voluntary allotment made, say, by an apprentice who joined voluntarily in
      2220
      the early stages of the War, and whose dependants had not got an allowance, that kind of allotment is to be carried by the Government towards an increase of his pay?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until the Royal Warrant is issued. It will be published in a few days.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that we have now been waiting at least fifteen months on this specific question?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend may well wait three more days, seeing that the final decision of the Government was only announced at the beginning of this week.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is he aware that brings us up to Sunday, and I have never known the Government to issue anything on Sunday?
      Mr. KEATING: Have we any assurance that the point will be dealt with by the Government when we have waited?

      BOLOISM.
      Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the accounts of the branch of the Deutsche Bank in London now being wound up have been carefully examined to see whether Boloism in this country was at any time supplied with funds through its agency, seeing that Bolo was supplied with money through the Deutsche Bank for his propaganda in France; and, if no such examination has been made, whether instructions will be given to the liquidator, Sir William Plender, to do so forthwith?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the military and the police are in touch with Sir William Plender with regard to this matter.

      CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
      Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Lord Goschen, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in this House on 31st March, 1890, that, with regard to Customs officers, one fact was quite clear, that rigid good faith must be kept with them and that they should have no reason to

      2221
      complain that the terms upon which they entered the service had been altered to their detriment; whether, under General Order, Customs, 5, 1913, the Board of Customs and Excise state that any member of the service who by the operation of an old scale is actually in receipt of a greater amount of leave than the new scale would give him will, in accordance with paragraph 255 of the Committee's Report, retain his right to that amount of leave; whether, in view of the former Chancellor's pledge and the acknowledgment by the Board of Customs and Excise of the right of certain of the officers to thirty-two days' leave, assessed on the arduous nature of their employment and recognised as such in the adjustment of their salary, he will reconsider his recent decision in the matter; whether all officers not entitled to thirty-two days are granted full leave with a war bonus in addition; and whether he will bear in mind the fact that most of these officers have wives and children to support on pre-war pay and that it is hard on them to be both deprived of leave due to them and at the same time to be denied either compensation for the loss of leave and no recognition of their services for the Crown under difficult conditions by the grant of a war bonus?
      Mr. BALDWN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the 20th instant, and would repeat that a Civil servant's right to the maximum leave allowable to his class is, and has always been, a conditional right, subject to the requirements of the public service. To make it an absolute right, as the hon. Member suggests, would be, not to retain, but to improve, the terms on which men have entered the service. It is a mistake to suppose that the nature of the employment of the privileged officers in question is more arduous than that of the rest of the class to which they belong. It is precisely similar, and the Amalgamation Committee in 1911 distinctly laid down that it did not require a greater maximum leave than twenty-four days. The questions of war bonus and of annual leave are in no way connected.

      FARTHINGS.
      Mr. COCHRANEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if difficulty is being experienced by retailers in the country in selling quantities of certain small food
      2222
      stuffs at the prices fixed by the Food Controller owing to the scarcity of farthings; and whether he will consider the advisability of having a larger supply of these coins put into circulation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the demand for other denominations of coin there are difficulties in effecting a considerable increase in the output of farthings, but the Royal Mint is in communication with the Ministry of Food on this matter. I may add that 42 tons of farthings, or 15,000,000 pieces, have already been issued in the eleven months of this year, an amount about three times the issue for the whole of 1914.
      Mr. COCHRANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no proceedings are taken against any retailers who charge the extra farthing on small amounts of foodstuffs in cases where change is not available?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is hardly a matter for me, but I will inquire into it with the Ministry of Food.

      ENEMY COMPANIES (BRITISH CAPITAL).
      Major HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of British capital invested in the following companies: the Austrian Skoda Gun and Ammunition Works, Krupps, Limited, the North German Lloyd Shipping Company, and the Hamburg America Shipping Company?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The return made to the Custodian, in accordance with the requirements of the Trading with the Enemy Proclamation of the 7th September, 1916, discloses the following total amounts invested by British subjects resident in the United Kingdom in certain enemy companies:

      The Austrian Skoda Gun and Ammunition Works

      £8,333

      Krupp's, Limited

      £2,980

      The North German Lloyd Shipping Company

      £31,172

      The Hamburg-American Shipping Company

      £49,244

      Major HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether there are any Bolos among these investors?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that important point was considered, but to me the amount seems rather small, considering that at the time the investments were made there were no obvious reasons to anticipate war.

      SUPERANNUATED ASYLUM ATTENDANTS.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the number of superannuated asylum attendants who are receiving only small pensions; and whether he will consider the possibility of taking steps to secure some increase in these pensions in order to enable these superannuated servants to meet the increased cost of living?
      Sir G. CAVE: I have not received any representations on this matter, but I am well aware that all persons with small fixed incomes are affected by the increase in the cost of living. The scale of pensions granted under the Asylum Officers' Superannuation Act compares favourably with other pension scales, and I do not know of any grounds for exceptional treatment of this particular class of pensioner.

      HOME OFFICE (SIR ARCHIBALD BODKIN).
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether Sir Archibald Bodkin is retained in permanent employment by the Home Office; and, if so, since when, and at what salary?
      Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative. When, a few weeks ago I was in need of some assistance in dealing with certain questions relating to propaganda in the interest of the enemy, Sir Archibald Bodkin was good enough to offer his voluntary help, and I gladly accepted his offer.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Do I understand from that answer that Sir Archibald Bodkin's assistance at the Home Office is unpaid unless he decides that a prosecution is desirable, when he becomes paid?
      Sir G. CAVE: My hon. and gallant Friend really ought to be more careful in putting his questions. The Home Office do not direct prosecutions. Sir Archibald Bodkin's advice to the Home Office has no reference at all to prosecutions.
      Mr. KING: Does Sir Archibald Bodkin advise the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, and the Public Prosecutor engage Sir Archibald Bodkin to prosecute?

      LAJPAT RAI.
      Commander WEDGWOODasked the Home Secretary whether he has any documentary evidence that Lajpat Rai is subsidised by German agents in America; if this evidence comes from the American Government; and if it can be shown to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme?
      Sir G. CAVE: It would obviously be against the public interest to answer the first two parts of this question. The third part, therefore, does not arise.
      Commander WEDGWOOD: Why did you make the charges against Lajpat Rai?

      NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to give any estimate of the cost of the national shipyard at Chepstow?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Sketch estimates of the cost of the new national shipyards have been prepared and are now under consideration. As I stated to my right hon. Friend the Member for the South Molton Division, on the 13th instant, these estimates will be passed to the Treasury without delay.
      Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow copies of that to be circulated among the Members of this House?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: That will have to be considered.
      Mr. TERRELL: That is the question:
      Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of slipways for new construction which the existing shipbuilding firms have offered to build if granted facilities by the Government for the purpose; and to what extent their offer has been accepted?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Applications from various shipbuilding firms throughout the country have been received for the grant of facilities in respect of the construction of seventy-four new slipways. Construc-

      2225
      tion of forty additional slipways and the lengthening of three existing slipways has already been sanctioned. Remaining cases are still under consideration and it is expected that a decision will be arrived at shortly.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Are the existing slip-ways all fully occupied?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say without notice.
      Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, consisting of Sir George Carter, Messrs. W. F. Abel, F. Henderson, J. Marr, A. C. Ross, W. Rowan Thompson, and C. J. O. Sanders, have resigned; and if he can give the reasons for their resignation?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question addressed by the Member for Maidstone to the Prime Minister on the 26th, in which it was stated that nothing could be usefully added to the notice which was issued to the Press on the 23rd, announcing the formation of a Shipbuilding Council. This notice stated that all the gentlemen who served on the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, and have not since joined the staff of the Controller's Department, have already consented to serve on the Council.
      Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks the reasons for the resignation of this Advisory Committee?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I should have thought the fact that they have consented to place their services at the disposal of the Council would have been a sufficient answer. But I dare say that in the great expedition under which the Controller and the Deputy-Controller of Auxiliary Shipping had to move forward in getting new tonnage there were not all those consultations which would otherwise have been held. That might very well be the case. The whole incident is happily closed now by the fact that these gentlemen have agreed to place their services at our disposal as members of .the Council, under the chairmanship of the Controller.
      Mr. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that this Advisory Committee is in entire disagreement with the policy of the Government in regard to these shipyards?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that. I have said it might not have been consulted, but that was due to the extraordinary expedition with which we had to move in this matter.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what practical experience the Controller of Auxiliary Shipping has, or ever had?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

      NAVY (TRANSFER TO ARMY).
      Colonel F. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the time of men serving in the Navy transferring to the Army is counted either for proficiency pay, pension, or promotion; and, if not, whether the Government will bring in a measure to do away with this disability?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The time served by men in the Army, who subsequently transfer to the Navy, counts in full for naval pension is discharge from the Army is due to invaliding. In other circumstances, such time within a limit of four years may count towards pension, subject to certain conditions. As regards promotion of ratings in the Navy, this does not depend on the mere passage of time, but on the possession of definite qualifications, although, of course, a minimum of time in the lower rating is in certain cases insisted on. The question of time served in the Army counting for proficiency pay does not arise, as this is not a naval emolument.
      Colonel HALL: With regard to this proficiency pay in the Navy, is this to be taken into consideration when the men are transferred from the Navy to the new Air Council, and is the whole of their time going to count; and will the right hon. Gentleman agree to put men transferred from the Army to the Navy under the same conditions?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not apprehend that the question of the transfer to the new Air Ministry was the point involved. I thought my hon. and gallant Friend asked a question with regard to men transferred from the Army to the Navy. That I have tried to answer. Perhaps he will put down the question in a specific form.

      ROYAL DOCKYARDS (JOINERS).
      Mr. T. WILSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if men are being put on the establishment as joiners at the Royal dockyards who have only worked at the trade two or three years, and others who have only been out of their apprenticeship six or eight months; that men who have worked in the dockyards ten and twelve years have been passed over; that this is causing dissatisfaction in the yards; and whether he will take steps to introduce a more equitable method of selecting men for placing on the establishment list?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the settled policy of the Admiralty, and laid down in Dockyard Regulations, that workmen who have served their apprenticeship in the dockyards shall be given preference for establishment, but it is required that length of service and other qualifications shall also be taken into account. Inquiry is being made with a view to ascertaining whether this preference is being carried too far. If it should be found that undue preference is being given to ex-apprentices, further instructions will be issued.

      INOCULATION (ROYAL NAVY).
      Mr. D. WHITEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether inoculation is compulsory in the Navy; whether he is aware that men declining to be inoculated have been refused shore leave for long periods, sometimes over a year; and whether this method of enforcing inoculation is authorised by the Admiralty?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Inoculation is not compulsory. Certain consequences, however, ensue from refusal on the part of any individual to be inoculated against infectious disease. In particular, such individuals would be debarred from landing in ports where there may be any danger of contracting any disease against which inoculation is regarded by the Admiralty as advisable. From what I have already said, my hon. Friend will realise that the third part of the question does not arise.
      Mr. WHITE: Is the action stated in my question authorised by the authorities?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know that it is sometimes for over a year. I should
      2228
      doubt that. But, undoubtedly, if a ship puts into a port where there is an epidemic and a man has not been inoculated, we are entitled to say he shall not go ashore. If he did, he might come back and decimate the ship's company.
      Mr. WHITE: If I send my right hon. Friend particulars of this case, which I do not think comes within the statement he has just made, will he be good enough to look into it?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: As a matter of fact, is not every port treated as dangerous, whether disease is there or not?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say, but the common-sense practice is what I have described.

      WAGES BOARD, DUBLIN.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Dublin Mercantile Association, the Port and Docks Board, and the St. Patrick's Division Nationalists have passed resolutions approving of the Lord Mayor's suggestion to establish a permanent representative conciliation board for Dublin; whether he is aware of the desire to have a wages board established; and whether he can state what the Government intend to do in regard to those demands?
      The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. G. Roberts): The Department are in communication with the Lord Mayor of Dublin on the proposal for the establishment of a conciliation board. With regard to the establishment of a Wages Board, as my hon. Friend has- been informed, the whole matter is now the subject of investigation, and I propose to ask the House for powers which will facilitate the establishment of wages boards in industries in which they are shown to be desirable.
      Mr. FIELD: When does the hon. Gentleman expect that this wages board will be brought into operation—I have been asking questions about it for the last two years?
      Mr. ROBERTS: I do not possess power to set up the wages board. I am asking the House to give me that power shortly.
      Mr. FIELD: How soon will the hon. Gentleman ask for that power?
      Mr. ROBERTS: With the hon. Member's co-operation, I will ask for it speedily.

      Education (Ireland).
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now in a position to lay upon the Table of the House his promised statement as to the allocation of the equivalent Grant for Irish education?
      Mr. DUKE: Decisions have been arrived at upon the minor questions which delayed the production of the Paper, and it will be put into the printer's hands forthwith.
      Mr. M. HEALY: Does it include technical education?
      Mr. DUKE: No; a statement will be made in connection with technical education.
      Mr. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this statement will be made?
      Mr. DUKE: That is a separate matter, and it is very difficult to say.
      Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this Paper will be in the hands of Members by Monday?
      Mr. DUKE: I cannot say definitely. I will do what I can. I understand it mast be printed in Dublin, and therefore some time must elapse. If I can get it by Monday I will do so.
      Mr. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the question of technical education will receive attention?
      Mr. DUKE: That is the question that was put by the hon. Gentleman near. I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have just said.

      Insurance Agents.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the result of his endeavours to have the recommendations of the Industrial Unrest Committee put into operation so far as they apply to insurance agents; and if the Government recognise the danger and undesirability of having thousands of these men communi
      2230
      eating a sense of their own dissatisfaction with the populations with whom they have daily to deal?
      Mr. G. ROBERTS: I have now met representatives of the agents and representatives of the companies, and am inviting the former to meet me again to discuss a proposal which has been made.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the working of the Act in Ireland depends upon these men, and they are entitled to great consideration?
      Mr. ROBERTS: Yes.

      Sheriffs-Principal (Scotland).
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland what are the extra-judicial duties which sheriffs-principal in Scotland perform in return for their salaries of £700 to £850 per annum; are these duties not performable by the sheriffs-substitute under the terms of their appointment; and whether in the majority of instances the substitutes actually do the duties?
      Mr. MUNRO: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my reply of the 28th February last. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the negative.
      Mr. WATT: Why does my right hon. Friend persistently protect the holders of these offices in Scotland? The office of Secretary of State for Scotland was instituted to preserve Scotland against lawyers.

      CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL.
      Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Chequers Estate Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

      STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
      Mr. EUGENE WASONreported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the National Health Insurance Bill).
      Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. ANDERSON (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a signed request by over 100 Members asking for a day to discuss the food problem, and whether it is the intention of the Government to grant this request?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative. I shall try to arrange a day for this discussion before the end of the Session.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday, the first Order will be the Coal Mines Control Bill. We hope to take also the Second Reading of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill and the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill.
  On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the Representation of the People Bill.
  Mr. LAMBERT: When is it proposed to take the Navy Supplementary Estimate?
  Mr. LOUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the great interest taken and hostility displayed throughout the country to the two Bills he has mentioned, and could he give a little further time to, if not postpone till next Session, the Second Reading of those Bills, which deal with matters which will arise after the conclusion of the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad to learn that there is a great deal of interest taken in them, but that is not a reason for postponement. I am not so sure of the hostility, and I cannot promise to postpone them. As regards the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert), I cannot answer that at present.
  Mr. PRINGLE: When will the Report stage of the Estimate for the War Aims Committee be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member had been here at Question Time he would know that I answered a question on that subject.
  Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Will the Schedules under the Irish redistribution scheme be taken next week?
  Sir G. CAVE: We propose to take the Motion to recommit the Bill on that and
  2262
  another subject on Tuesday, and proceed at once with the Committee stage.
  Sir J. LONSDALEWhen will the Report of the Boundary Commission be presented?
  Sir G. CAVE: I expect to receive it to-day or to-morrow, and will circulate it at once.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the recommittal Order deal also with the Clause relating to the alternative vote?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is not proposed.
  Mr. KINGWill not the procedure proposed make it impossible to have Amendments on the Paper?
  Sir G. CAVE: I think not.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Has the Government considered the very absurd position in which this House has been placed by the various decisions given in regard to the alternative vote? Is it not proposed to find some way out of the difficulty, and if so, what way?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is a matter which can be dealt with in the Debate on the Motion to recommit.
  Mr. D. WHITE: As the proposal is to recommit the Bill in respect of certain particular features, will the right hon. Gentleman put the Motion for recommital on the Paper in time for any Amendments to be put down before it comes on for consideration?
  Sir G. CAVE: It will be put down to-day.
  Mr. MOONEY: Will the Motion to recommit be only in respect of the Irish portion of the Bill, or does the right hon. Gentleman intend to recommit the whole of the Bill and to have a general discussion?
  Sir G. CAVE: I thought I had made it clear. The question how to deal with the alternative vote can be raised on the Motion to recommit the Bill in respect to certain things. We propose to put down a Motion to recommit in respect of two matters, namely, the Sub-section relating to conscientious objectors and the question of the Irish redistribution.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself propose, or does the Government propose, to take any action in regard to the present position of the alternative vote?
  Mr. HEALY: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if the Motion to recommit is carried on Tuesday, it will be possible to take the Committee stage on the same day, and, if so, how do Members stand who desire to put down Amendments to any proposal which the Government propose to make in Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the House decides to recommit on Tuesday, of course the Committee stage will be resumed. I understand that the first question to be discussed will be the position of the conscientious objectors. That will occupy some little time. During that time there will be opportunity to hand in such Amendments as hon. Members wish to move at a later stage.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can Amendments be put down in advance, as soon as the Motion for recommital appears on the Paper?
  Mr. HEALY: Does it follow that, if the whole matter is concluded on Tuesday, the only opportunity of putting down Amendments will be by way of manuscript Amendments, so that hon. Members cannot see them on the Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is hardly possible to conceive that the whole matter will be concluded on Tuesday. The Government have allowed two days for it. The probability is that it will go on over Tuesday. The moment the House gets into Committee there will be an opportunity of handing in manuscript Amendments.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Suppose a Motion is made to recommit the Bill in respect of certain specified matters, will it not be in order upon that Motion to move an Amendment to recommit the Bill in respect of others matters?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly.
  Mr. MOONEY: As the Irish Members have been denied any opportunity of discussing this matter on Second Reading, is it now proposed to further curtail our right, and to have the Motion for recommital and the Committee stage on the same day? Is it not the invariable practice of this House, in the case of recommital, that unless there is general consent the Committee stage must stand over until the next day?
  Sir G. CAVE: As the hon. Member knows—or he can find out by consulting
  2264
  members of his own party—we have endeavoured to meet in every way the convenience of Irish Members in this matter. I have never contemplated, and the Government do not contemplate, that the Committee stage upon the Irish Clauses will be taken on Tuesday. We hope to conclude the Motion to recommit on Tuesday, and, if possible, the discussion on the Subsection relating to conscientious objectors. I can say now that we will not take the Committee stage of the Irish matter before Wednesday. That will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of putting down Amendments.
  Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: As I understand the Report of the Irish Boundary Commissioners is actually in print, it would be a great convenience to Irish Members before they went away if that Paper could be circulated to-day.
  Sir G. CAVE: It will probably be distributed to-morrow. Great expedition has been used.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  Adjourned Debate resumed on Question proposed [26 th November], "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to National Health Insurance."—[Sir Edwin Cornwall.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. SHERWELL: On the Money Resolution of this Bill, which received its Second Reading last Friday, there is one point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee. The first commitment to this expenditure was made without any consultation with the House or without any intimation of policy to the House The first information that Members had of this proposed expenditure was contained in a declaration made by the Prime

  2265
  Minister on the 11th of October to a private deputation of representatives of approved societies, and I take this opportunity of calling attention to a practice, which has become very common on the part of Ministers of the Crown in recent months, and which really does involve a very serious departure from the traditions and practice of Governments and of this House. This House ought not to be committed or pledged in advance by any Minister of the Crown, however eminent, for certain expenditure for certain purposes, until the House itself has been consulted as to the propriety of those proposals. I cannot help thinking that these instances, of which there have been so many recently, where Ministers by declarations to private deputations commit this House to expenditure, practically mean that when legislative proposals are placed before the House the hands of Members are tied in advance. I sincerely hope that we may not have a recurrence of these quite recent practices, and that Ministers will not commit Parliament and the country to sweeping forms of expenditure until Parliament has been consulted.
  4.0 P.M.
  Colonel GODFREY COLLINS: I want to ask the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Cornwall) one or two questions connected with this Financial Resolution. We appreciate the information which he has placed before the House, not only before the introduction of this Bill, but in his speech last Friday, and we recognise that his attitude in these two matters is in striking contract to the attitude of many other Ministers during the last twelve months, who, in coming forward to ask for public money, have given the House little or no information. As I understand it, the object of the Government in this Resolution is to readjust the financial machinery of the original Act, so as to maintain the solvency of certain societies. They do that by two methods. The repayment period, which was from 1913 to 1932, is to be postponed until 1947. By a simple book-keeping entry, therefore, they disbursed as income money which in the ordinary way would have been placed on one side to wipe out this balance. It is always easy by a simple piece of book-keeping to treat as income money which has been set aside for capital purposes. I regret that the Government have taken this simple method to get over an awkward position. One would have thought, in view of the daily increase of our National Debt, that they would have
  2266
  endeavoured to safeguard the interests of the insured person by not postponing the redemption period for another fifteen years. The redemption period to-day is more distant than it was under the original Act. The hon. Baronet told us on Friday that the various amounts of benefit which were disbursed amount to £12,750,000 a year. The administration expenses amount to £22,250,000; in other words, for every 20s. which is paid out the cost of paying it is 3s. 4d. I think that that far exceeds the original estimate. Whether that be so or not, it should not cost the insured person, or in other words the State, 3s. 4d. to have £1 disbursed. Included in the £12,750,000 benefits is a sum of £4,750,000 for medical benefits. Medical benefit is not nearly so expensive to administer as the other benefits under the Act, and if we take as the general average for administering medical benefit half of that which is paid for administering other benefits, the result is that for every 20s. paid out for benefits, excluding medical benefit, the cost of administration is 4s. 6d. I do not wish to trouble the House with the figures, which I can give if challenged to justify what I have said.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): The hon. and gallant Member seems now to be going into matters which were really covered by the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Colonel COLLINS: My point at the end will be that instead of the Government coming to this House to ask for more public money, they should have taken steps to simplify the administration of the Act and so safeguard public money by their action. That is the only object that I have in rising this afternoon. The House has been asked to vote a considerable sum of money for national insurance. My argument is to show that instead of the hon. Baronet coming to this House and asking for public money during this period of the War, when employment is more plentiful than at any other period in our history, he should readjust the administrative expenses of the original Act so as to safeguard the interests of the insured person and also the interests of the public purse. Undoubtedly during the next few years we are going to be asked to pass several measures dealing with State control This at any rate is a sample of State

  2267
  management and State administration over a period of years, and undoubtedly the expenses under the Act take from the insured person money which otherwise would be spent for his benefit. The hon. Baronet said on Friday that this Bill would simplify the working of the Act. He did not say what saving he expected to effect. I hope that he will give us some assurance that the administrative expense of 3s. 4d. for every 20s. disbursed will be reduced, and that the benefits under the Act will go for the benefit of the insured person.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The form in which this Motion is drafted is the ordinary form in which all these Motions have been drafted from time immemorial, that is to say, it is in a form which gives to the Government unlimited power to raise any sums of money for the particular purpose mentioned in the Motion. I have always objected to that, because I have always held that it is not wise, even at this period of the Bill, to give unlimited powers to any Government. I am not alluding to the particular Government; I am alluding to Governments as a whole. On many occasions I have proposed limiting Amendments which sometimes have been carried and sometimes have been defeated. I was not present on Friday, and if I ask the hon. Gentleman a question which he has already answered I apologise for doing so, and hope he will tell me that the qustion has been answered already. We are now in a very exceptional position with regard to finance. We have to find enormous sums of money to enable us to continue the War, and we have, in addition, very much to my regret, large sums being spent by the Government upon matters which, in my opinion, are not connected with the War. Now we have this Resolution, which proposes to spend an unknown sum upon national health insurance. It would be out of order to go into the question of the rights or wrongs of the National Insurance Act, but it is open to me to say that we have found in the past that all the statements of the Government as to the financial results of that Act have been falsified. I do not for a moment say that the Government deliberately or intentionally deceived the House, but they did make certain statements as to the financial results of this Act which statements have
  2268
  not been realised. I do not blame the Government for that, because my experience, which is considerable, of insurance schemes is that invariably the statements of the people who initiate the schemes as to their financial results turn out to be wrong. The actuaries have always made certain statements which have never been realised at the time. In view of the necessity of providing large sums of money for carrying on the War, ought not we to know what the Government think they are going to spend if we give them this Resolution? As far as I know, no detailed statement was given of that sum.
  Sir E. CORNWALL(Comptroller of the Household) indicated dissent.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I have nothing more to say on that. Perhaps, when the hon. Member speaks, he might repeat the statement for the benefit of those who were not here on Friday.
  Mr. WATT: I desire to say one or two words of criticism of the excessive expenditure in managing this Department. As my hon. Friend has told us, the benefits that have been distributed have amounted to the large sum of £12,750,000, while the cost of distributing them has been £2,250,000, and the hon. Member for Greenock has also pointed out that the cost of administering these benefits is 3s. 4d. in the £.
  Mr. LOUGH: Are those figures per annum?
  Mr. WATT: I understand that these are the figures for 1916. They are per annum. There is part of these benefits, namely, the payment to the doctors, which would be administered at a cheaper figure. One could hardly imagine the expense incurred by the Department in making these simple payments. An expert friend of mine has indicated that £400,000 is the amount of expense incurred by the Departments in paying the money direct to the doctor. If that were deducted from the administration expenses, and if you deduct the £4,750,000 which the doctors got, we see this sad fact, that for the administration of £8,000,000 of benefit the expenses of the Department would be £1,850,000—that is, 4s. 6d. in the £. That is entirely money which is utilised for the payment of clerks, office expenses, and so on, in the payment of 20s. of benefit.

  2269
  This Bill, I understand, is based upon what is known as the Ryan Report, and .yet the—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I remind the hon. Member that the Second Reading has been carried?
  Mr. WATT: The point is this: My hon. Friend, who is in charge of this Resolution, has the most expensive Department in the State, and in that Department the cost of administering £1 comes to 4s. 6d. I hope that he will give to the Committee some indication how this has come about, and that it is his intention to administer it in a cheaper fashion in the ensuing year.
  Mr. RENDALL: I wish to add one or two remarks to those which have already been made by hon. Members. It seems to me that we find ourselves in a somewhat difficult position in dealing with the finance of measures, because the Minister comes down with a Bill which is already an agreed Bill, all its financial provisions having been agreed for all sorts of different purposes. Members of this House have the right to know for what the sum asked for is required, and I think the Minister might have taken the House of Commons into his confidence a little bit earlier and that he might have found some opportunity under the Rules of Procedure in this House of informing us about these various proposals that are being considered and what is likely to be the liability, seeing that a large amount is to be thrown upon taxation. I trust that the hon. Baronet will be able to afford some explanation—though it cannot be satisfactory, yet may be partially satisfactory—as to what he honestly, no doubt, considers to be very good purposes that ought to be achieved. Why could he not have done that more openly, and why has he not taken Members into his confidence earlier before committing and tying the House? I think the hon. Baronet ought to give some explanation. As regards the point raised by my hon. Friends as to the administration of expenses, I think they do not make allowance for the extraordinary difficulties which this national insurance scheme, at the outset, had to face. After all, we were starting a brand-new insurance scheme, which had to be worked in association with friendly societies and their branches all over the country, managed by different persons, and many of them managed badly, with the result that there was an
  2270
  extraordinarily difficult task to be discharged in trying to work with these innumerable bodies.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into a Second Reading discussion.
  Mr. RENDALL: You allowed, Sir, the point about 4s. 6d. to be discussed, and I was desirous of showing the reason why that amount was necessary, and I would point out that the expenditure was never under control of the Insurance Commissioners, or of the hon. Baronet at all, and it is not quite fair to deal with a point in regard to expenses over which the hon. Baronet had no power at all.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, I think the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill was passed without a Division is some answer to the observations which he made. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Grenock (Colonel Godfrey Collins), he went into questions which I think were mainly Second Reading points and which can be considered in Committee, but not on the Financial Resolution, which after all is a formal stage in our proceedings and not a stage for general discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman laid special stress on the cost of administration, as also did other hon. Members. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part to give the figures as to administration expenses on Friday without giving some further explanation. I admit that on merely glancing at the figures they look large, but closer examination shows that the expense of administering national health insurance is not excessive. I shall be very glad to deal with the matter in Committee, when there will be some opportunity of looking into the question of administration expenses; but the House must remember that we are dealing with matters affecting 15,000,000 insured persons, that we are dealing with weekly contributions and weekly payments of sickness benefit together with all the other complications which come in, and, in dealing with such a huge mass of insured persons, it will be seen that you cannot do that in the same way as you would administer insurance funds, carrying perhaps large premiums and large insurances. I am informed that the cost of administration expenses is 13.7 per cent., or 2s. 8d. in the £1 on the contribution income. This is not the time to go into a full argument

  2271
  on this point, but I only mention it because it is a fair subject to be opened up by the House for further examination. The cost of administration expenses is not at all excessive, and may be regarded as a very reasonable percentage. With regard to the other point raised, namely, the question of simplification, that is a part of the Bill, many Clauses of which deal with it, so that it should, to a considerable extent, help us to minimise expenses. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London asked me whether I would give some explanation as to the amount which is involved. I did give an explanation on Friday, but no one knows better than does the right hon. Baronet that the Financial Resolution is generally wider than the Bill itself; it is a Resolution covering such sums as may be required. On Friday I gave a full explanation of this financial proposal, but I think perhaps it may be in order if I give some further response to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City to what I think is the fair question he puts to me—first, for what purpose the money is required, and secondly, to what extent that money is required. Those, I understand, are the two precise points with which he wishes me to deal.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I allowed the hon. Member to go into those points, it would clearly open up a full Debate on the whole Bill. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London asked for a general idea of the amount.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On the point of Order. Is it in order to ask how much money is going to be spent under the Financial Resolution before the Committee decides whether or not to vote the money? That is all I ask, and also the purposes for which that money is going to be spent.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I quite agree that I must reply in a sentence or so. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that the two funds for which money is required are the women's equalisation fund and the special risks fund. As to the women's equalisation fund, I explained it on Friday. It is to meet the abnormal claims falling upon approved societies in respect of employed married women's sickness and pregnancy sickness. Clause 4, Sub-section (1), deals with the special risks fund, the purpose of which may be
  2272
  briefly stated as meeting abnormal expenditure arising from an undue proportion of members in particular societies living in unhealthy surroundings and engaged in hazardous and unhealthy occupations. Then there is the question of the amount of money required. The Bill provides for a Grant not exceeding 8s. per member per annum for each married woman member. The present estimated number of married women is 630,000, and that represents about £250,000 per annum. For the special risks fund the Bill provides for a Grant of £150,000 per annum to be distributed to approved societies needing assistance by reason of their membership being of the character I have mentioned—that is, being in unhealthy occupations. No one realises more than I do the enormous strain on the country's resources due to the War, and I think the need in this instance is emphasised by the War, and that the Bill may be looked upon as a war measure. Our duty at a time like this is to deal with excessive sickness—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now entering upon a Second. Reading discussion.
  Sir E. CORNWALL:I will not say more, save to ask the House to pass this Financial Resolution, and thus enable the Committee upstairs to proceed with the measure. Without this Resolution the Committee cannot enter upon its labours.
  Question put, and agreed to; Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
As amended, further considered.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    REGISTRATION RULES.
    9.The form of claim shall contain as declaration of the qualification of the claimant to be registered, including a declaration that the claimant has attained the required age, and of the character in which the claimant desires to be registered, that is to say, either as a Parliamentary elector, or as a local government elector, or as a local government elector who is not entitled to vote for all local government elections, and where the claimant claims in respect of a non-resi-

    2273
    dential qualification a declaration of residence or in case such person has no settled residence an address to which communications may be sent. A note shall also be added to the form warning the claimant that any false declaration for the purpose of this provision will involve a penalty.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Rule 9, after the word "sent" ["communications may be sent,"], to insert the words, "It shall be an offence on the part of any claimant to give different addresses in respect of different qualifications."
    This Amendment deals with the form of the claim made by the person who desires to be put upon the register, and it arises in connection with the last part of Rule 9, which states that
    "where the claimant claims in respect of a non-residential qualification a declaration of residence, or in case such person has no settled residence to which communication may be sent."
    An Amendment had been drafted to cut out those last few words, but was withdrawn in order that I might move this Amendment. Objection is being taken by persons who are experienced in electioneering to the suggestion that a person who is entitled to non-residential qualification shall have the right to give any address to which communications can be sent. I suggest, as a matter of commonsense, that it should be made obligatory upon every person who has a non-residential qualification, and who has probably two votes if he has a residential qualification, to state some adddess in respect to the various qualifications. A man for instance might have half-a-dozen business qualifications in different parts of the country. I suggest that such an individual should be compelled to state on the claim some one address. The reason for it is this, that when the election occurs it is in the interests of straightforward dealing and also of those who are engaged in the election to know the people who have got these duplicate qualifications. People of this kind will be challenged by personation gents, and if there was this one address there would be a means of ascertaining the identity of the persons. I think we ought to do what we can to ensure that the law will be carried out, and that persons should not vote more than once or twice, according to what their rights are. That can only be effected if the electioneering agent
    2274
    and others know exactly who those people are, and the only way by which that can be done is by insisting that the person should give the same address in respect of whatever number of qualifications he may have.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope the Ministers in charge will be able to accept this proposal. Under this Bill a number of persons will be entitled to two votes, and those people will have a number of different qualifications. It will be necessary at election time to check the voters in order to see that they do not vote more than once. In the London County Council elections a person can only vote once, and in that case it has always been necessary to make an extract of the number of people on the various London registers who had more than one vote. The only way that could he done was by sorting out those people according to the addresses which gave their places of residence. If persons are allowed to give varying addresses, it will simply be an impossibility to check people with more than two votes. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend will simplify matters very much, and where people may have four, or five, or six votes will provide an opportunity of finding out the identity of the voter and enabling him to be challenged by the personating agent. We ought not to make it more difficult for local people to find out the rights of those who claim to be entitled to vote.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I really do not think that any attempt has been made to answer the observations which were made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the last occasion when this matter was under discussion. A man may have more than one nonresidential qualification. He may treat his business premises as his address, and he would be entitled to give that particular address. He may have his residence near his place of business, and there is nothing to prevent him giving as his address, the residence nearest to the place out of which he gets his non-residential qualification. You cannot enter on suspicions which are not likely to arise. I really am very anxious to meet fair points, but I do not think that this is one that I can meet.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am afraid that Ministers in charge of the Bill do not quite grasp the magnitude of the change which they are allowing to creep into this measure. We withdrew an Amendment asking that persons who had no fixed residential qualification should provide the opportunity of being communicated with. What we want is that the person shall have one distinct place where you can locate him and know that he is the same John Jones, or Thomas Brown, or whoever he may be. Anyone who has had experience of elections knows that one thing that you have to do is to identify the person who is claiming the vote. Take the ordinary form for registration, which is the best criterion you have, there is first of all the name of the individual and the qualifying property and place of residence. Those have to be placed on those forms in columns. We say that in this case there should be one address, so that the individual may have communications sent there, and so that those engaged in the election may be able to trace the name and so that the personating officers can check any attempts at personation. We know that bogus voting has taken place in the past, and that some people, overcome by their enthusiasm for a particular object, have taken the risk of giving more votes than they are entitled to give. The Amendment will enable those concerned to establish the identity of the man, and it is, I submit, a businesslike proposition in connection with elections and will facilitate the work.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: At first I was disposed to agree with what was said by the President of the Local Government Board when we previously discussed this matter, but on going into it more carefully and discussing it with those specially familiar with these questions, or, at all events, with one who is very familiar with our election law and procedure, it appears to me there really is rather more in this point than at first appears. The question is a new one, owing to the provisions of this Bill, and the point has not arisen hitherto. In the past, any man who had five or six plural votes was fully entitled to use them all. Now, for the first time we provide that he shall not use more than one vote in addition to his residential vote at a General Election. The qualifications which he may have in addition to residential qualifications may be very wide. We talk about business
    2276
    premises and imagine that it refers to a man who has an office or shop in one place, and that therefore there would be few occasions in which his identity would not be known. But if hon. Members will recall the definition of business premises, they will see how wide it is. It means land or other premises of the yearly value of not less than £10, occupied for the purpose of business, profession or trade by the person to be registered. Any small piece of land occupied by a person, if it is of the value of £10 will qualify.
    We are all at one in desiring to prevent so far as possible the provisions of the law being evaded. We know also the temptation there is to a man to use as many votes as he can, particularly in times when party passions run high and every vote may be of great importance. In such times some people will run risks and will register their votes where they can. If a man has, in respect of two or three different qualifications, two or three different addresses entered on the register, he knows that the risks are infinitesimal that he will be found out to be the same individual. It would almost be a question of accident under such circumstances that it should be discovered that the man who has voted in one town has already voted in another, if there is not a clearing house, or a process of comparison of the lists, so that the lists can be examined and the identity of the individuals established by the personating agents. I am not painting a fanciful picture as to what happens, because in the case of the London County Council elections, where plural voting is illegal, a man who has qualifications in several constituencies is unable to vote in more than one, and runs great risk in attempting to do so, because the party agents have compared the lists of the different constituencies, and wherever possible find out the identity of the individual and warn the personation agents to see that the person does not vote more than once. I would suggest to the members of the Government that if they cannot accept this proposal now, at all events, between now and the consideration of this Bill in another place, they should look into this matter rather more carefully and consider whether there is not really a serious point and a danger to be met in some such way as is proposed by my right hon. Friend. I would suggest also that if that consideration is given it should be given

    2277
    not only to such a case as is now in question, where claims are made to put on the register persons who have been omitted, but also as to whether this principle should not apply to all cases of the occupation vote.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): We all want to limit plural voting to the extent agreed upon in the compromise, but if the House carries this Amendment there will be fuller opportunity given for exercising voting power which ought never to be exercised. Now that elections are to be all on one day. the opportunity for plural voting will be very small indeed. I think my hon. Friends are really forgetting the inconvenience that would result, if this Amendment were carried, to those who have a perfect right to be registered for a vote in respect of a non-residential qualification.
    Mr. SAMUEL: What is the inconvenience?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Everybody knows that people want to exercise as much voting power as possible, and some will take advantage of this Act, which enables them, if they have a nonresidential property—and it is not only from business premises, but from an office or even a small piece of land that the qualification for a non-residential vote is obtainable—

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
    The House went, and, having returned,
    Mr. SPEAKERreported the Royal AE sent to

    1. Parliament and Local Elections, No. 2, Act, 1917.

    2. Air Force- Constitution Act, 1917.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER (resuming): The proposal is that anyone who has a number of non-residential qualifications shall be com-
    2278
    pelled to give one address, and that it shall be a penal offence if he does not give one address in respect of all those qualifications. The right hon Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) asked what inconvenience that would be to the owner of these qualifications. It would arise in this way: Quite possibly under the Act a man may have six different qualifications in six different parts of England, and he may desire to be registered in respect of those qualifications, not because he hopes to exercise them at a General Election, when all the polls in all the constituencies must be taken on one day, but because he hopes to be able to exercise them when by-elections take place. At all events, he thinks it worth while to be on the register in respect of those different qualifications in view of the fact that a by-election may take place in which he is interested, and in which he would desire to record his vote. After all, if the law—as it does in this Bill—gives the power to be registered in respect of qualifications in, say, six different places, surely we ought not to put difficulties in the way of the exercise of that right. We ought not to take away with the left hand what we give with the right. The right hon. Member for Cleveland says that a man must give only one residence in respect of all these, and that to that residence all communications must be sent relating to all these different elections in those constituencies. That might be most inconvenient. As the Home Secretary says, a man might have a residence quite close to that place for which he gets the non-residential qualification, and that would obviously be the proper place to which to send all communications in regard to that particular vote. Not to do that would be a very great inconvenience and hardship.
    We do not share the view that if we do not put this Amendment into the Bill there will be a great abuse of plural voting. On the other hand, we do put forward the argument that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to one who quite legitimately desired to exercise the right to do this in connection with a by-election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland asks whether we will look into this between now and the time when it goes to another place. That we will do, and we will see if we can block up any holes there may be in the

    2279
    Bill for enabling improper use to be made of the plural vote, while we desire at the same time to protect the interests of those who have the right to record these votes.
    Mr. GLANVILLE: I am afraid the Government does not quite realise what a serious necessity there is for putting difficulties in the way on polling day, of those who desire to vote two, three, or four times. As to its being practically impossible to do that, of course, that cannot be sustained for a moment. Everyone knows that in fourteen hours, in a densely-populated district, it would be possible for a man to go from constituency to constituency—a man who has a number of shops, for instance—if he felt inclined to run the risk, and to record as many votes as time and opportunity allowed. Under the Bill the occupier will have to give one residential address, and all that is asked is that he should give that one address for all his qualifications, whatever they are. I want to deal with the hardship which the President of the Local Government Board refers to with regard to by-elections. A man may have a vote in the county of Durham—I think that is far enough away for the right hon. Gentleman's argument—he may be an occupier in London, and have a residence somewhere in Surrey. What is the hardship? A by-election takes place in the county of Durham. He knows there is a by-election in the county of Durham, because he gets the electoral communications early enough from the candidates in the county of Durham at his private address—a week before the election. I agree that the conditions would be different where a telegram was sent out the night before the poll, but a man can get his information in time to go up to Durham if it is posted in Durham the night before. For all the purposes of a by-election he gets all his electoral communications early enough and satisfactorily, and it is a mare's nest to say that it is inconvenient to a man who may have a dozen qualifications in different parts of the country to have his communications with regard to by-elections sent to one address. Our Post Office do not take two, three, or four weeks to deliver a poll card and other election literature. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman is not more up-to-date than that.
    Sir C. SEELY: I think hon. Members opposite might be satisfied with what has been said by the President of the Local Government Board. He said he would see if anything can be done to stop the difficulty which has been pointed out, but I think the method which is proposed in this Amendment is not a very desirable one. It will practically have the effect of creating an offence where no offence is intended, and I cannot help thinking that that is a great mistake. Take the case of the numbers of men—not that it affects business communities much—who live in London but who have a house in the Isle of Wight or in some other place in the South of England. Naturally, a man of that kind will have a vote for that house, and that will be described as being his address. For such men to be the subject of penalties if they put down the houses where they live in August and September because they also have a business in London is making offences too common, and creating offences where there is no need for them. I have no doubt if there is a real difficulty with regard to the description of residence the right hon. Gentleman will find some way out, but I think this particular Amendment goes too far, and I suggest that the matter should be left as it is.
    Amendment negatived.

    RULE 10.—(Publication of Lists of Claimants.)
    It shall be the duty of the registration officer to publish the lists of claimants, as respects the lists for the spring register not later than the twenty-first day of February, and as respects the lists for the autumn register not later than the twenty-first day of August.
    Amendments made: Leave out the word "twenty-first" ["twenty-first day of February"], and insert instead thereof the word "twenty-fourth."
    Leave out the word "twenty-first" ["twenty-first day of August"], and insert
    instead thereof the word "twenty-fourth." —[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]

    RULE 11.—(Notice of Objections.)
    Any person may object to the registration of any person whose name appears on the electors' lists for the constituency whose name is included in the electors' list by sending notice of objection in the prescribed form to the registration officer

    2281
    not later than the fifteenth day of February in the case of the spring register and the fifteenth day of August in the case of the autumn register, and may object to the registration of any person whose name is included in the list of claimants by sending notice of objection in the prescribed form to the registration officer not later than the seventh day of March in the case of the spring register and the fourth day of September in the case of the autumn register.
    Amendments made: After the word "person" ["any person may object"], insert the words "whose name appears on the electors' lists for a constituency or local government electoral area."
    Leave out the words "whose name appears on the electors' lists for the constituency."
    Leave out the word "list" ["in the electors' list"], and insert instead thereof the words "lists for the constituency or the local government electoral area, as the case may be."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after Rule 12, to insert,
    "13. It shall be the duty of the registration officer to publish a list of the names of persons to whose registration notice of objection has been given as soon as practicable after the seventh day of March in the case of the spring register and the fourth day of September in the case of the autumn register."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I want to ask the Home Secretary a question about this Amendment. I had an Amendment on the Paper yesterday to alter these dates from the 21st day of February and the 21st clay of August. The difficulty in the matter, which was pointed out to me by the experts, is that the dates of the 7th March and the 4th September are regarded as too late a period to enable these objections to be satisfactorily dealt with before the revision of the roll can take place. What I want to point out is that we are altering these dates and muddling about, so that it is very difficult to follow where we are. I am mystified to know how these dates fit in, and what the timetable really is, but I shall be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to say that he will take care to see that these dates are carefully looked into in case some alteration is required. The whole House last night agreed that there ought to be a reasonable time allowed and it is not a reasonable time if
    2282
    there are only three days. If that is so, I am sure the Home Secretary will promise the House that he will consider the matter and, if necessary, in another place make a slight change in the date.
    Colonel GRETTON: Surely there ought to be some more definite instruction given to the registration officer as to the publication of the lists than is contained in the Home Secretary's proposed words "as soon as practicable." They are too vague. The time which you are allowing is so short, even when the table is adjusted as has been suggested, in which to revise the long lists which will be entailed by the great number of voters now to be added to the lists of electors, that there ought to be some definite instruction that these lists should be published by some definite date and not later than that. These words, in the opinion of many people, give too much discretion to the registration officer and leave too much to accident.
    Mr. FIELD: I think anyone with any experience of registration work will admit the objections raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Gretton). There is not a sufficiently reasonable time allowed in order that these lists may be examined, particularly in view of the fact that we may expect an enormous increase in the number. We, therefore, want more time than has hitherto been given; and, if my argument is correct, instead of more time we have less. In addition, the greatest publicity ought to be given to the dates, so that everything may work harmoniously, and opportunity be given to the voter to be put on the list.
    Sir G. CAVE: With regard to the date suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), I think he will see that the last date for the objection to claims is the 7th March, and that the provision is that these shall be published as soon as possible after the 7th March. I will gladly give the assurance for which he asks, that we will look into the whole time-table; but I rather demur to the statement that we are muddling about. One change has been very reluctantly made at the most urgent request of hon. Members, including, I think, the hon. Baronet himself, and if there was any kind of confusion it was not in our minds, but in the minds of other people. With regard to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Gretton), I think that if you limit the time there is a tendency not to do the work until that time is about to expire. We

    2283
    want to enjoin the officer to act quickly and as soon as he can. I think the words referred to are elsewhere in the Bill, and that they should be kept here. I think I have answered the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Patrick's (Mr. Field) in saying that we will look into the time-table.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    RULE 13.—(Information from Admiralty and War Office.)
    The naval and military authorities shall furnish to the registration officer, for the purpose of the registration of persons as naval or military voters, and their voting as such, such information as may be prescribed after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council respectively.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 13, to add the words "but nothing in this rule shall relieve the registration officer of his duties with regard to the preparation of a complete list of soldiers and sailors qualified within his registration area."
    My object in desiring to add these words to this rule is really to make the registration officer do thoroughly this work of putting the naval and military men on the list. It seems to me that if this rule is left as it is without putting such words in—
    Colonel SANDERS: On a point of Order Has not this question been already dealt with on a former Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: To which does the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer?
    Colonel SANDERS: An Amendment moved last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras. These are practically the same words as were part of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think, Will bear out what I say. Certainly they were the same point as was dealt with last night.
    Mr. GILBERT: If it was defeated last night, there is no good in going on with it to-day.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move at the end of Rule 13, to add the words, "The particulars to be published in the naval
    2284
    and military section of the register shall include the name of the soldier or sailor, his rank, number, regiment or ship as the case may be, and his former abode and occupation."
    This is an Amendment which we tried to get in on the Committee stage. The object of it is to put down on the register the exact position of the man who is noted there under the special Clauses of the Bill. It will be a check on the man to have his regiment and number; and I think it will also be very helpful if we can get into another column the former abode and occupation of the man—this in view of demobilisation after the War. Such information will probably be of the greatest assistance to the demobilisation department, and, also, possibly, to the Ministry of Reconstruction. Some of us feel very strongly that it will help very considerably to have on the list the regiment, number, and the rank of the man, and then nobody but the man himself will be able to obtain the naval or military franchise. I hope the Ministers in charge will favourably consider this Amendment, and see their way to accept it.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.
    No party driving force behind it can possibly prejudice this proposal in its consideration by the House and the Government. On the contrary. But the point, however, I personally myself am keen about is the last part of the Amendment, that as to occupation. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that last night the Government gave an undertaking that there should be a house-to-house canvass for the purposes of this register. One hopes we shall have demobilisation soon. In View of that, I think it would be deplorable if, at the public expense, you are going to call at every house in this country, and ascertain, as you will under this Bill as it stands, the name of the absent soldier or sailor—I do not think I use too strong a word in saying it would be deplorable—and to neglect to instruct the canvasser who makes this canvass to obtain the information which I suggest, and the occupation of that particular soldier or sailor. It is palpable of what enormous use it would be to those likely to be engaged in the process of demobilisation. You will provide in a handy form a local list of all those soldiers and sailors who have left, and you would have then, prepared for you locally, the occupations

    2285
    of these absent men. I can conceive that such a list as that, prepared without any additional expense except the trouble of printing an extra column for "occupation," will be of enormous value to the local people who deal with demobilisation. They will be able roughly to say that they have got, it may be, 500 soldiers who were carpenters who have come back into the constituency; and so, right away through the various trades. The Government is often accused, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, of working in separate departments, and it is quite conceivable that those who are to prepare this list will look at it purely from the point of view of the voter. I cannot, however, help thinking that the country would deplore the fact that the Government has gone to the trouble, at the public expense, to visit every house, and yet have neglected to instruct the canvassers to get information as to the occupation of each particular soldier or sailor. It may be argued—probably will be—that this will occasion a lot of trouble. It may be that if all these particulars—
    Mr. HOHLER: What about changes of occupation?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I will deal with that point in a moment. To obtain all these particulars may be considered very troublesome for the canvassers, but the mere "occupation" would not be so. It may be said that that information would not in all cases be absolutely accurate. It will, at any rate, be much more accurate in my view than the information you get as to occupations in the Census papers, where the man himself generally fills up the paper. Instructions will be given to the canvassers as to the lines upon which they make their inquiries as to occupation. I do not quite appreciate the point of the question put to me a few moments ago as to what about changes of occupation?
    Mr. HOHLER: Supposing at the commencement of the War a man lived, say, in Smith Street with his parents. His parents are now dead, and a new tenant has come in, what is the position?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: In this register you are going to every house and asking whether a soldier or a sailor who has left that house has gone to the War.
    Mr. FIELD: How can you tell where he proposes to live when he comes back?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Of course I am not asking for that; but anyone who has anything to do with the work of demobilisation would, I think, say that it would be of inestimable value to them to have a list of the soldiers and sailors who have left that district with a list of the occupations engaged in prior to going away. I trust the House would regard this as a practical sort of suggestion.
    Mr. DICKINSON: My hon. Friend will notice that this Rule contains the words
    "Much information as may be proscribed after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council, respectively."
    That Clause, if properly carried out, would effect the object for which this Amendment has been set down. At the same time I think that both the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board ought to give serious consideration to this particular proposal, which has been put forward for their careful consideration by persons intimately connected with this particular question of registration. In regard to the matter of occupation, may I point out that at the present time the Scottish register always contains that information?
    Mr. FISHER: Is that so?
    Mr. DICKINSON: Well, whatever lists I have seen contained it. In my opinion, the Scottish register is very much better than the English one.
    Mr. FIELD: What about the Irish?
    Mr. DICKINSON: Oh, doubtless the best; but I have never seen one! The President of the Local Government Board will have the duty cast upon him of making some Regulations in this matter, even if they are not put into the Bill. I am certain the advantage of the course suggested would be real. It would be a very great thing if the right hon. Gentleman can give some assurance that this particular question will be seriously considered. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who preceded me that there is a great opportunity that you may never have again of getting information about our soldiers. It is very important, even from the point of view of registration, that we should know exactly where the individual soldiers are who are the absent voters and who have the right to vote. I hope that this will be carried out. If it is it will very greatly improve the English register.
    Colonel SANDERS: I have considerable sympathy with the suggestion put forward, but I think we ought to be careful about throwing more work than is absolutely necessary upon the compilers of the register. It is a great undertaking, at the very least, and it does not seem desirable to ask for more than is absolutely necessary in the way of information. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment was challenged by being told that the information might not be accurate. He admitted that very likely it would not be. Surely if it is not accurate it is of no use? I would point out that even if accurate at the time it is collected it may not he so afterwards. If we take these things one after another, the name of the soldier and sailor is the only thing that is necessary. He may change his rank, his number, or his regiment. There are very large numbers of soldiers who do not belong to a regiment. The regiment only applies to a few cases. He may change his former abode, and his occupation. On the other hand, his occupation is not so very easy a thing. I quite see the laudable object in view. I think, however, if you insist on occupation being placed in one column you will throw a lot of extra work on those concerned, and also upon those in His Majesty's Forces who have now to send in a pretty large number of returns, and who will not be very pleased if they have to send in another.
    Mr. FIELD: If you add all these particulars, what kind of a register will you have?
    Mr. FISHER: I can assure my hon. Friends I have given very serious attention to this Amendment, and I can cordially agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn Jones), and others who have spoken, that the information which they are seeking to obtain by this Amendment would be of great advantage to the State at the present time, and of still more advantage to the State when we come to the period of demobilisation. But what I ask the House to remember is that they are now seeking to obtain, not a national register, but a Parliamentary register, and the difficulties already in the way of the officers who have to take what, after all, in the first place must be a house-to-house canvass, will be very great, and they will be greater if you try to impose, in addition to the duties of obtaining many other particulars, which they must obtain in order
    2288
    to ascertain whether a man is qualified to vote, the duty of finding out what is his occupation, which, after ail, makes no difference whatever so far as his vote is concerned. He may be a carpenter or a costermonger. He is entitled to a vote, not because he is a carpenter or a costermonger, but because of other qualifications. I have had to spend a good deal of time, particularly in the last few days, in trying to see if we could improve our National Register, and I am not altogether indisposed to think that, when the registration officers are empowered to make a house-to-house canvass for the Parliamentary franchise, and when they have an adequate staff with which to make those inquiries, at the same time they might be armed with authority to leave another form at the same houses, by which we seek to improve our National Register, and seek to obtain information which may be of real value to the State as to the occupants of those houses. I am now conferring with other Ministers in other Departments to see what amount, and what kind, of information would really be of value to the State, and whether we could obtain that information by utilising the same staff which we shall very shortly use in respect of the register for the Parliamentary qualification.
    Mr. DICKINSON: That will not apply to the absent soldiers. You will not get the absent soldiers in a National Register.
    Mr. FISHER: It would depend on legislation, and you may have to have legislation in connection with the matter. But let me point out some of the difficulties here. After all, from what sources are we going to get information as to our soldiers and sailors? First, from the canvass conducted by officers; secondly, from statements by soldiers and sailors who desire to give information under Clause 5; and, thirdly—and this will probably be the most reliable source of information—the information we get under Rule 13, which says:
    "The naval and the military authorities shall furnish to the registration officer, for the purpose of the registration of persons as naval or military voters, and their voting as such, such information as may be prescribed after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council, respectively."
    We shall endeavour to get as much information as we possibly can for the purpose of this register under any form

    2289
    which we may prescribe, but I wish to endorse what has been said by one or two hon. Members that it is exceedingly difficult for the naval and military authorities to find out the occupation of many of these men. Many soldiers enlisted in a place away from their residence, and the Record Office has not the information about them which would indicate the former occupations of those men. So far as I can I shall seek to obtain for the State, by one means or other, the information which undoubtedly will be valuable at the time of demobilisation, and in connection with the great work of reconstruction, but I do not think we can go further than obtain all the information necessary under Rule 13 which may be prescribed after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council.
    Mr. GILBERT: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    RULE 15.—(Obligation to Place Naval and Military Voter on Absent Voters' List without Claim.)
    It shall be the duty of the registration officer, without any claim being made for the purpose, to place on the absent voters' list any person registered as a naval or military voter, unless

    (a) that person before the fifteenth day of February as respects the spring register, and the fifteenth day of August as respects the autumn register, gives notice to the registration officer that he does not desire to be placed upon that list or

    (b) that person is registered, in pursuance of an application to the registration officer, for the constituency in which he has been serving or in which he has an actual residence qualification.

    Amendments made: In paragraph (b), leave out the words "an application to the registration officer," and insert instead thereof the words "a claim for the purpose."
    In paragraph (b), leave out the words "he has been serving or in which." —[Sir G. Cave.]

    RULE 16.—(Record of Addresses to be Kept.)
    The registration officer shall keep a record of any address which may be furnished to him by any person placed on the absent voters' list, or by the Admiralty
    2290
    or Army Council, as the address which is to be for the time being the address of the voter for the purpose of the provisions relating to voting by absent voters and shall cause instructions to be sent to the voter as to the mode of voting under those provisions.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words,
    "The registration officer shall publish a complete list of such addresses and on application of any person during business hours and on payment of the prescribed fee shall furnish copies to the applicant."
    That is a matter which was raised in Committee, and really means the publication of the list of proxy holders for the absent voters. I want to urge what was urged in Committee, that I think it is absolutely necesary, if we are to have a proper check, that we should have a public list of the proxy holders. It would be quite impossible to have any kind of check or to canvass proxy holders unless you have a published list. Rule 16 is all very well if you insist that the registration officer shall have a record of the names, but that record will be really useless unless people outside are enabled to obtain a copy of it.
    Sir G. CAVE: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not noticed that there is a Government Amendment on the Paper to this effect, which requires a list of addresses of proxies.
    Mr. GILBERT: If the Home Secretary is going to move an Amendment which practically covers my Amendment, of course I will at once give way.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not say it covers all the Amendment, but it covers the whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words,
    "The record of addresses shall be published from time to time and shall be open to inspection under the same conditions that govern the publication of the register."
    This does not refer to the addresses of the proxies. This is a list of addresses given by the absent voters which, I think, should be published, and I do not see any reason why it should not be published. It is just as essential that persons interested in elec-

    2291
    tions—candidates and others—should know the addresses of the absent voters as it is that they should know the addresses of the present voters.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There is an absent voters' list. That, as the Home Secretary has already provided, does not mean that a name shall be taken off its proper place of register and transferred to an absent list. It is provided that it shall remain in its normal place on the register, but, in addition to the ordinary register, there is to be an absent voters' list. There is to be no publication of that list. I would not at all insist on the absent voters' list being published in the way that the lists of claims, objections, or electors are published, but I think it should be published to this extent, that it should be printed; and that it should be open to anyone interested to get a copy of it. I Cannot imagine any objection to that. The best way, I think, of meeting the difficulty dealt with by this Amendment is that the addresses should be published as part of the absent voters' list. I cannot see any possible objection to it. There can be no secrecy about it,, and no one desires secrecy, which is impossible. There must be some publication in the way of the list being open to anyone who desires to get it; consequently, everybody will know who the absent voter is, and I take it there will be no objection to anyone knowing the address to which he wants his voting papers sent. Consequently, I think the best way would be to provide that the absent voters' list should be printed, and that it should be competent for anyone desiring a copy to get such a copy, and that, as part of that list, the address given by the voter should be printed on it.
    Mr. FIELD: It is quite evident that something of the nature suggested by the hon. Member for Cork must be done. You must have some address to get at.
    Mr. FISHER: I believe. there is real difficulty in this, inasmuch as these addresses will be constantly changing from time to time.
    Mr. HEALY: Is it contemplated that there will be a complete list of absent voters?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes, that is quite obvious. So far as the proxy voters are concerned, anybody would be able to inspect the list and take extracts from it.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: The rules provide already that the registration officer shall make all necessary corrections in the lists, including the absent voters' list, and do everything necessary to form those lists into a register in time to allow the publication of the list. That means there will be a publication of the absent voters' list. My hon. Friend desires that the list shall include the addresses away from home that the absent voter gives, so that election matter may be sent to him. I am not sure that this can be done by amending the new provisions which the Home Secretary has put down in Schedule 3, because that deals only with the proxy vote. This Amendment does not really relate to the proxy voter, but to the absent voters, who are a much larger class. Whether it is necessary to add an additional address to the list instead of letting the communications go to the voter's home address and readdress them from there, I confess that there is some little doubt.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think the President of the Local Government Board has rather exaggerated the magnitude of the work put upon the registration officer if this Amendment is carried. Like him, we do not desire to cause the registration officer more work than is absolutely necessary. You have, however, to prepare an absent voters' list, and the registration officer has to have in his possession at the time the list is published the addresses of the men on the absent voters' list. All we ask is that that information shall be inserted in the list in order to give to those concerned in the election the addresses where those men are at that time. Undoubtedly there will be changes. We know that that is a difficult thing which continually arises now, and the larger your register the larger the removal list. There may be a much larger percentage of removals in this case than in the ordinary register, but experience alone can tell us whether that will be so or not. I trust that those in charge of the Bill will see their way to give us this list of addresses printed at a suitable time when the register is issued, so that we may know where these people are.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think it is rather unnecessary that this list of addresses should be given out to the whole of the public. What the Mover of this Amendment wants is that there shall be some facilities for persons who take an interest

    2293
    in elections to get at these addresses, and I am prepared to grant those facilities. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) that the proxy Schedule is not the most convenient place to deal with this point. I am prepared to grant the right to use the list and on payment of a fee to have copies. I think that would meet the right hon. Gentleman's objection.
    Mr. DICKINSON: If provision is made that the record of these addresses shall be open to inspection, that will meet my point. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of Rule 16, insert the words "The record of addresses shall be open to inspection under the same conditions that govern the publication of the register."—[Mr. Dickinson.]

    RULE 17.—(Consideration of Objections.)
    The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable, consider all objections of which notice has been given to him in accordance with these rules, and for that purpose shall give at least five clear days' notice to the objector and to the person in respect of whose registration the notice of objection has been given, of the time and place at which the objection will be considered by him.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, after the word "all," to insert the words "claims and."
    The Amendments I have put down deal with the same point and are designed to make the working of the measure more simple. As the Clause is drawn, it will be necessary for the registration officer to give individual notice to every claimant or voter who is objected to as to when his claim or objection shall be heard, and when his case has been disposed of by a decision it will be necessary for the registration officer to convey to the claimant whether his claim has been allowed or disallowed, and in the case of those who are objected to he will have to inform them whether they have been struck off the list or not. Nothing like that is done at present. As regards the latter part, the giving of notice to a person as to how his case has been dealt with, that has never been done in any Court with which I am acquainted. The High Court does not send out any information as to how a case
    2294
    has been disposed of; neither does the County Court. The person concerned is supposed to look after all these things himself, and in practice there is not the smallest inconvenience resulting.
    Similarly, at the present moment what is done is that when the claims and objections have all been published then the lists are closed and notice is given as to the day when they will be considered. That notice is given by posters and newspaper advertisements, and that has always been found to be quite adequate for the information of the voters. If under our present system the revising barrister had any such obligation imposed upon him as is being imposed upon the registration officer, his work would never done. In some constituencies, if it were necessary that the officer should begin by giving notice of any particular day when a case is going to be heard, or inform those concerned as to how the cases have been disposed of, the revision would take a whole year. My Amendment would made the paragraph read:
    "The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable, consider all claims and objections of which notice has been given to him in accordance with these rules."
    I submit that unless the procedure is simplified, that a very heavy burden will be placed on the registration officer. The general idea is that the work of revision is done by the voter, but that is not so, because it is done by the party agents, and will always be done by them, and unless it is done by them it will not be done at all. That is the present system, and it will be the system in the future so long as there are parties My experience is that voters are very, careless about taking any trouble to get on the register, and if there were not party agents to do this electoral work the lists would be very imperfect indeed. I hope the work of the party agents will be greatly reduced by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may rely that through the party agent every voter will get ample notice as t when and where his case will be dealt with, and what the result of it is after it is all over. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this proposal careful consideration, because it is made solely in the interests of relieving the heavy burden which is placed by this Bill on the registration officer.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Rule 11 sets out the form of the notice of objection, and Rule 12 provides that
    "The registration officer shall, as soon as practicable after receiving any notice of objection, send a copy of the notice to the person in respect of whose registration the notice of objection is given."
    To that extent the person who is likely to be injured receives notice from the registration officer, but in addition to that these rules propose that the registration officer shall give a second notice of the time and place of hearing to the person who has been objected to as well as to the objector. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is giving almost too much trouble to the registration officer. It is quite fair that the objector and the other man should know when the case is going to be heard, but I think some further justification is required for putting this duplicate function on the shoulders of the registration officer.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite recognise that this Amendment has been moved to save
    time and cost, but whereas we propose that the registration
    officer shall give the individual notice of the time when the objection to his vote is going to be heard, my hon. Friend proposes that he shall give public notice to all the world. I think that would act to the detriment of the individual.
    Mr. HEALY: It is done at present.
    Sir G. CAVE: That may be so, but it is better for the voter that he should have personal notice than that he should have to watch for a public notice. The registration officer will not sit as a Court to hear a series of objections, but I have no doubt that he will hear so many on one day and so many on the next, and it will be very convenient for each voter to have notice of the exact day on which his case will be heard. If public notice were given, people would have to attend and wait until he arrived at their case. There is another objection to the Amendment. The registration officer would be compelled to give notice to every claimant even although there was no objection to his claim and no reason why it should not be allowed without any hearing at all. In Rule 18 we provide, in cases where the officer is satisfied as to the claim, that he
    2296
    may allow it at once without any hearing whatever. My hon. Friend's Amendment would alter that.
    Mr. HEALY: My Amendment simply provides for a general notice that this Court or tribunal will sit to dispose of the business of revision, just as at present.
    Sir G. CAVE: Without giving any name at all?
    Mr. HEALY: That is what is done at present.
    Sir G. CAVE: It would not be sufficient under this Bill.
    Mr. HEALY: The objections are already provided for earlier in the Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have just dealt with that point. This Amendment would require notice to be given to everybody even if their claims were not objected to. If that were done, everybody would turn up and you would have people attending even although their claims had been allowed. I think our scheme is much better than that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    RULE 18.—(Consideration of Claims.)
    The registration officer shall also consider all claims of which notice is given to him, in accordance with these rules, and in respect of which no notice of objection is given, and, if he considers that the claim may be allowed without further inquiry, shall give notice to the claimant that his claim is allowed.
    If the registration officer is not satisfied that any such claims can be allowed without inquiry, he shall give at least five clear days' notice to the claimant of the time and place at which the claim will be considered by him.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move at the end of Rule 18, to add the words,
    The registration officer .shall hold sittings at convenient places in each constituency or local government area to deal with the claims which have not previously been allowed, the objections and the other matters necessary for the correction of the lists, and in the case of registration units situated in i"Parliamentary borough, and in an urban district with a population of not less than ten thousand forming part of a county constituency, shall hold at least one evening sitting commencing not earlier than 6 p.m. or later than 7.30 p.m.

    2297
    Such public sittings shall be held not earlier than the tenth day of March in the case of the spring register, and the seventh day of September in the case of the autumn register. Due notice thereof shall be given not less than seven days before the holding of the first sitting."
    I think some such provision really ought to be made. In the first place, it is necessary to have the inquiries held in convenient places. This is more essential now that you have added so many of a class who find it difficult to attend in the middle of the day. The system has worked extremely well in Scotland. Our officers hold local Courts, and people have no difficulty in attending them. It is also desirable to make it clear that it is to be a public sitting, so that there may be no suspicion of the officer being biassed, and every confidence that every man will have a fair chance. An officer might easily fix his own office or some place convenient to himself, and not suitable for the purpose. It is desirable to provide against that being done. There is an old Act, the Parliamentary Voters' Registration Act of 1843, which deals with this very point, and from my own experience I am quite sure that the provision is desirable.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This was fully discussed in Committee, and I thought it was agreed, so far as possible, to make the new system as convenient for voters as the old system Under the existing law, the greatest pains are taken to bring justice home to the doors of voters. How monstrous it would be if the registration officer of a large county area were to say, "I will sit in my own office." It would be scandalous. Under the present law, the revising barrister, who has a much higher standard, is not too proud to go from town to town holding Courts of Revision and giving the voters in each locality the opportunity of having their cases heard at their own doors. With regard to late sittings, they were provided for by a special Act as far back as 1895. They are an established feature of the Revision Courts in every large city and centre of population where there is a substantial artisan vote. They are not held at the pleasure of the revising barrister. He is compelled to hold them. I am surprised that this matter has not been dealt with by the Government. It is plainly necessary, and I hope that they will not resist the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: A similar Debate took place on the Committee stage, and I then said that while I thought the registration officers generally would be most anxious to consult the convenience of the public both as to the time and place at which claims and objections could be dealt with, yet now and again you might have a registration officer who, perhaps, had got tired of his work or who for one reason or another was not willing, courteous, or obliging, and we did desire to have something in the Bill to assure the public of proper facilities with respect to the hearing of their claims and objections. The hon. and learned Gentleman says he is surprised that we have not put anything into the Bill. The memory of the hon. and learned Member is generally very accurate on these matters, and I would ask him to remember that on Clause 11 the Government did put down an Amendment empowering the Local Government Board to give any special or general directions with respect to the arrangements to be made by the registration officer for carying out his duty as to registration. We thought it far better to make it a general instruction directing these registration officers as to the means that they ought to take both as to time and place in making arrangements convenient to the general elector, so that he might be quite sure that he would be justly and fairly treated. My objection to the Amendment is that it is too particular. It is too full of details. It is taken from an antiquated Statute, and now that we have a much larger number of electors—voting, perhaps, under rather new conditions—we ought to be exceedingly careful that the Local Government Board, after thoroughly surveying the situation, issues a code of regulations and instructions covering all the points—many of which are in this Amendment—necessary to ensure that the voters generally may be quite certain that they are treated fairly as regards their claims and objections. I can hardly imagine any registration officer who is really doing his duty failing to consider the convenience of the public both as regards place and time at which these very important matters are discussed and heard. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend and the House that it is the full intention of the Local Government Board to provide such instructions and regulations, and that the voters may rest assured that every facility will be given

    2299
    them, both as to time and place, to put forward their claims and also their objections, if they desire to do so.
    Amendment negatived.

    RULE 20—(Correction of Lists.)
    The registration officer shall make such additions and corrections in the electors lists (including the absent voters list) as are required in order to carry out his decisions on any objections or claims, and shall also make any such corrections in those lists by way of the removal of duplicate entries, subject to any expression of choice by the person affected as to those entries, or the correction of marks placed against the name of an elector or otherwise as he thinks necessary in order to secure that no person is registered as a Parliamentary elector in respect of more than one qualification in the same constituency, and otherwise make those lists complete and accurate as a register.
    Amendments made: After the word "entries" ["duplicate entries"], insert the words "the expunging of names of persons who are dead."
    After the word "or" ["or the correction of marks"] insert the words "the placing of marks or."— [Sir.G. Cave.]
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 20, to add the words,
    "The registration officer when revising such lists shall read out audibly in open court the names expunged and inserted by him therein, and all corrections and insertions made by him, and shall in open court write his initials against the names respectively expunged or inserted, and against any part of the said lists in which any mistake shall have been corrected, or any omission supplied, or any insertion made by him, and shall sign his name to every page of the several lists so settled."
    I am afraid, at any rate, at the first revision under, this Bill that there will be a great many alterations and changes, and it is very necessary that there should be Some rule fixing what is the correct list passed by the registration officer. This Amendment follows out the practice which now obtains in the Revision Courts of the Revising Barrister, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept it so as to make it perfectly clear.
    Mr.ROWLANDS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that this Amendment is not one which the Government could regard with favour. It is really contrary to the scheme of the Bill. It was never intended to be an open matter. We are going to change our procedure. The procedure suggested was well suited to the old revising barristers' Court, but we are inaugurating an entirely new system under which there is no Court. If the registration officer makes any material change in his lists it will be his duty to communicate that change to the person affected. That is all we can ask. This Amendment would necessitate the setting up of a new Court on the lines of the old revising barrister's Court and would be entirely foreign to the scheme of the Bill.
    Mr. HEALY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that it will be competent for the registration officer to sit in private. This Amendment embodies the existing law. It is sometimes very convenient to examine every name. Surely it ought not to be said that the registration officer, if he thinks fit, may decide the matter in private. A public sitting gives the Press the right to be present, or rather they have no right but come in as the public. A registration officer who sees no necessity for this sort of thing being dealt with in public may say that he will sit in private, that he does not wish the Press to be present, and that he will proceed behind locked doors, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman gave me a good answer to my last Amendment. He said that what I was contending for would be secured by rules made by the Local Government Board. I should be greatly surprised if is left to the power of the Local Government Board to say that these sittings may, if the registration officer thinks fit, be private sittings. I should like to see it in the Bill, so that the rights of voters shall be decided in the face of the public, and with the full knowledge of the whole world. It would be most objectionable to have a kind of Star Chamber held by any registration officer who chose to be insolent to some individual or who, perhaps, has had some quarrel with a particular person before him and who took it into his bead to order everybody present to go out while he dealt with this matter in private. I hope we shall have some assurance that it has not entered into the head of any person connected with this Bill that these Courts are to be held in

    2301
    private. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the word "Court" filled him with horror. A public Court is a very good thing. Where would all our rights be if we had not public Courts to decide upon them? I do not say that necessarily this Court is going to be presided over by a man who is weak in his head, but publicity is the sweetener of all public affairs. However we may change the existing system of registration, I hope that the one thing we will not change is the right that every voter shall have his claim decided upon in public in the presence of the Press and of the world
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: There appears to be a point of some substance in this Amendment. Under Rule 18 it is provided:
    "The registration officer shall also consider all claims of which notice is
    given to him, in accordance with these rules, and in respect of which no notice
    of objection is given, and, if he considers that the claim may be allowed without further inquiry, he shall give notice to the claimant that his claim is allowed. "Will there be any opportunity for anybody else to know that that claim is allowed? Will it be too late after that for notice of objection to be given? I confess that I am not quite clear as to what is the procedure. Will it be possible for the registration officer, in any circumstances, to make an alteration in the register and nobody know about it except the person affected to whom a notice was sent? That seems to be wrong. If nobody knows about it except the person to whom notice is sent, he may be quite satisfied, but other persons may be much dissatisfied and might wish to register an objection. Perhaps the point will be further considered.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope we are not to take it from the President of the Local Government Board that there is going to be any privacy in this matter. I have already alluded on a previous Amendment to the Act of 1843, and I notice that in the Schedule that Act is repealed, with the exception of Sections 81, 82, 85 to 90, 93, and 97. I do not know whether those Sections include the provisions for a public hearing. If they do, no rules of the Local Government Board can possibly get over them unless they are repealed. If, on the other hand, the Sections dealing with a public hearing are being repealed, I think we ought to consider this matter further.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: When the House did away with the revising barrister and his
    2302
    Court, we had no idea that we were turning registration into a matter for the registration officer to decide in his private room. If there is any doubt about it, we should be wise to insert this Amendment, or, if the words are not appropriate, they could be dealt with in another place. The House, and the country generally, will consider it very important that the management of registration should be a public matter known to everybody, and not a private matter between each individual voter and the registration officer. I should like to press the Amendment very strongly on the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope the words will not be inserted. The Amendment requires the registration officer to read out audibly in open Court the names. Under the Bill he has claims submitted to him and gives notice of them. If there are objections he gives proper notice to everybody affected and the lists are published. That gives the whole world notice of what is done.
    Sir C. SEELY: Will not the Press be able to be present at the hearing?
    Sir G. CAVE: That, of course, is a. matter for the Local Government Board to determine; I do not know at all.
    Sir C. SEELY: That is the way in which publicity is secured.
    Sir G. CAVE: That would not be the effect of this Amendment. This Amendment requires the registration officer to read out audibly in open Court what the registration officer has done. The Bill requires that notice shall be given publicly of what has been done.
    Mr. GILBERT: At present there is a hearing of the objection in open Court, before the revising barrister, to decide whether the objection is good or bad, and he allows or disallows the vote. The voter knows it, and the people in Court know it. Under the present scheme the registration officer will consider the matter privately and will only inform the person affected but not the public.
    Sir G. CAVE: Not at all. The person objected to will be there and the register will be published.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 20, to add the words
    "Any person whose name shall appear in the list of voters of any parish in any

    2303
    county constituency and who resides outside the polling district in which he is entitled to be registered shall be at liberty to make his claim before the registration officer to be registered to vote at any other polling place within the same constituency.
    Any person so registered shall be admitted to vote at such polling place accordingly."
    This Amendment was considered in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman did not actually reject it. I can best show what is meant by giving a personal instance. I have a habitation not very far from Lynton in North Devon, and the polling place is Lynton. Railway communications there are very bad indeed, and it is a difficult place to get to. I have voted for this place hitherto in Barnstaple, which is in another polling district. That means that I have to apply at the Registration Court to be starred to vote in another polling district. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are starred in the same way. That is the existing law. All I ask is that the existing law may be continued in this particular. There is no recommendation on the subject by Mr. Speaker's Conference, and it is only right, when no such recommendation has been made, that the existing law should not be altered.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: If there is no objection to the Amendment, I think the words might be inserted in the Bill. I have a vivid recollection of trying to find the residence of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sanders) some distance from Lynton, and it took me about half a day to get there. It must take him a long time to get to Barnstaple to vote.
    Amendment agreed to

    RULE 25.—(Notice of Appeal from Registration Officer.)
    A person desiring to appeal against the decision of a registration officer must give notice of appeal in the prescribed form to the registration officer and to the opposite party, if any, when the decision is given or within five days thereafter, specifying the grounds of appeal.
    The registration officer shall forward any such notices to the County Court in manner directed by rules of Court together, in each case, with a statement of
    2304
    the material facts which, in his opinion, have been established in the case: and of his decision upon the whole case and on any point which may be specified as a ground of appeal, and shall also furnish to the Court any further information which the Court may require and which he is able to furnish
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, in Rule 25, to leave out the words "specifying the grounds of appeal."
    This matter was considered in Committee, but it was left open. It is already provided in a previous part of the Bill that the procedure on appeal shall be determined by rules of Court. As that is to be determined by rules of Court, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave this point open and not to tie their hands by express provision in the Act. These words were introduced when the Bill was in quite another form. It was only proposed then that there should be an appeal on questions of law. There may be some reason for contending that if you want an appeal on a question of law you should specify in your note of appeal what your point of law is, but we have now a general appeal on fact and law, and a man would appeal because he says, "You have struck me off the list and I want to be admitted," or vice versâ. If the objector is appealing he says, "You have put this man on the list when you should have struck him off." In those circumstances, what more is necessary in the notice of appeal than to say, "I appeal against the decision?" Is it not quite plain in that case what he is appealing against? If a man is struck off the list he does not appeal wanting to be more struck off. He wants to get on. If an objector appeals against a man being put on his object is quite plain, and there is no doubt about it. In all our Courts in recent years the tendency has been to get rid of elaboration of notices. If a man wants to appeal at present from the decision of a judge sitting in nisi prius he does not specify the point of law on which he appeals. He says, "I appeal." His opponent knows perfectly well what he is appealing about. Accordingly I submit, first, on the merits, that these words are unnecessary. But even if the right hon. Gentleman is not gully persuaded that I am right, I ask him to leave it to the gentlemen who are making the rules to decide what the notice of appeal is to be like, and not beforehand fetter his hands

    2305
    by telling him what must be and what must not be in the notice of appeal. It may very well be in some cases that the point of law may be specified. In some cases a general notice of appeal is sufficient and in others not. At any rate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave the matter open, so that those who make the rules may take any course they think fit.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not any very strong feeling about keeping the words in the Bill where they are, but I think the grounds ought to be specified. It is very convenient for the respondent to an appeal to know what it is he is going to fight when he gets before the tribunal. That is the object of specifying the grounds of appeal. It is also convenient for the Court to know what it is that it is going to decide. It may be a question of consolidating a number of appeals or using one as a test case for deciding the others. For that purpose it is very useful to know what are the points of law which are raised on a particular appeal. That is the reason why these words are here. I am very reluctant to differ from the hon. Member.
    Mr. HEALY: Leave it to the rule makers.
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope the hon. Member will not press that. I had rather keep the words in.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, after the word "appeal" ["specifying the grounds of appeal"], to insert the words,
    "The opposite party may notify in writing to the registration officer his desire to be heard on appeal and thereupon shall be joined with the registration officer as respondent."
    Under the present law the clerk of the county council, or the overseer, or the, town clerk can, without his consent, be made respondent. The registration officer now takes the place of these people, and would be the respondent, and obviously, being supposed to be more or less an impartial official, he is placed in considerable difficulty in arguing his case as strenuously as he would otherwise do. The opposing party ought to have an opportunity of presenting his case properly.
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I certainly think the opposite party ought to have a right to be heard, but I should have thought, as we have said he shall have notice of appeal, it follows that he has a right to go and be heard on the appeal. No doubt this will be solved by the rules of Court. I do not quite like putting in the words.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I should be glad if, in the consideration of any rules dealing with this matter, the right hon. Gentleman would remember the question of cost. I do not know what the position would be under the Act as to whether the registration officer would be liable to pay the costs of the appeal if he lost, but I think it is worth consideration whether, if you are to give the right to any party agent to come in and act as respondent in all these cases he should not be made liable for costs if he loses.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "together, in each case, with a statement of the material facts which, in his opinion, have been established in the case; and of his decision upon the whole case and on any point which may be specified as a ground of appeal, and shall also furnish to the Court any further information which the Court may require and which he is able to furnish."
    I think this Clause is drawn on the original basis of the Bill when there was
    only an appeal on a point of law. It is quite right in that case that the registration officer should submit a statement of material facts. But as we are now to have an appeal both on law and fact I take it the case will be heard ab initio by the County Court, and I cannot imagine what good purpose would be served by directing the registration officer to submit to the
    tribunal which is to re-hear the case a statement of the material facts which, in his opinion, have been established. It would seem to suggest that the County
    Court is not to hear the case. I think the County Court would hear the evidence,
    just as the registration officer heard it, and probably more fully and with additional witnesses if necessary. I know of no form of appeal on a question of facts in which the Court below submits its view of the facts. It is quite probable that on some question of law the Court below

    2307
    should state the facts on which the Court of Appeal is to decide the law. But if this is to be an appeal on fact and on law, the view which the Court below has taken of the facts is entirely immaterial.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: This has been considered by the County Court judges, and they have approved it.
    Mr. HEALY: After the change in the Bill?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think so. I think it has been recently done, but I will inquire about that. The practice sanctioned by this rule is followed in other cases, and the object of it is this. If there is no statement at all for the information of the Court the Court has to go into all the facts from beginning to end. If the facts were proved or admitted before the officer in question they do not require to be proved again. Of course, where there are disputed facts the case is different, but if you have to decide a point of law it is worth anything to have the facts proved clearly stated.
    Amendment negatived.

    RULE 29.—(Supply of Copies of Claims, Objections, etc.)
    The registration officer shall, on the application of any person, and on payment of the prescribed fee allow that person to inspect and take extracts from or supply to that person copies of the electors lists for any registration unit in his area and any claim or notice of objection made under these rules.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and on payment of the prescribed fee."
    This Clause provides for two things. The first is that the registration officer shall allow any person who applies to inspect and take extracts from the electors lists, and in the next place shall, at that applicant's desire, supply to him copies of the electors lists. In one case it involves no trouble whatever to the registration officer and in the other case it does. I move the excision of these words in regard to the matter which causes no trouble and afterwards to put them in in regard to the copy, which does give him some trouble. 1 sincerely hope my right hon. Friend may accept the Amendment, but I do not quite under-
    2308
    stand his Amendment to leave out the words "inspect and." It is very much desired that the present right of inspection and taking extracts shall be continued, and I hope, therefore, that he will not find that necessary. What we ask is that for inspection and taking extracts there shall be no fee, but when copies are asked the prescribed fee shall be paid.
    Mr. BOLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think the House might accept this Amendment, in which case I shall not move my Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    RULE 33.—(Declaration as to Age.)
    The registration officer, before registering any person as an elector, may, if he thinks it necessary, require that person either to produce a certificate of birth, or, if that is not practicable or convenient, to make a statutory declaration that such person has attained the required age and is a British subject, but where a declaration is so required any fee payable in connection therewith shall be paid by the registration officer as part of his registration expenses, and the declaration shall be exempt from stamp duty.
    The registration officer shall during business hours allow any person to inspect and take a copy of any such declaration.
    Amendments made: After the word "necessary" insert the word "(a)."
    After the word "and" ["required age and"] insert the words, "(b) require that person to produce a certificate of naturalisation, or to make a statutory declaration that he."
    Leave out the word "but" ["but where a declaration"] and begin a new paragraph.—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 33, to add the words,
    "Where for the purposes of this Act the age of any person is required to be proved by the production of a certificate of birth, any person shall, on presenting a written requisition in such form and containing such particulars as may be from time to time prescribed by the Local Government Board for England, Scotland, and Ireland as the case may be, and on payment of a fee of sixpence, be entitled to obtain a certified copy of the entry of birth of that person

    2309
    under the hand of the registrar or superintendent registrar having the custody thereof, and forms for such requisition shall on request be supplied without any charge by every registrar of births and deaths and by every superintendent registrar."
    I must apologise to the House for not having this Amendment on the Paper, but I have submitted a copy of it to the right hon. Gentleman. This Rule 33 empowers the registration officer if he thinks it necessary before registering any person as an elector to require that person to produce a certificate of birth, or if that is not practicable or convenient to make a Statutory declaration that such person has attained the required age. I think it will become absolutely necessary in a great many cases that a certificate of birth should be insisted upon. Nothing is more common than for over-zealous youths who want to vote to claim a vote before they are twenty-one. A certificate costs 3s. 6d. under the present law. My Amendment provides that it shall not cost more than 6d. That is the law for the purpose of national registration, and it is the law under the Education Act, so that the person who requires a certificate of birth is not put to the expense of 3s. 6d., which means a heavy tax upon poor people. The words of my Amendment are taken word for word from the National Registration Act.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Amendment. I think it is a very reasonable proposition.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think this is a practical proposition, and there is much to be said in its favour, but a large number of people may be required to apply for certificates, and this really puts an end to the fee. That may or may not be a good thing. I do not know what the effect upon the revenue would be
    Mr. HEALY: This does not affect the revenue. The fee goes to the officer.
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly it ought to be considered. I have tried to get the Registrar-General here in order to consult him on the point, but the hon. Member only gave me a short notice of this proposal and I have not been able to obtain the presence of the Registrar-General. I am quite willing to see and to consult him with every disposition to accept the Amendment and, if there is no objection, the Government will bring it in in another place.
    Mr. HEALY: In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    RULE 35.—(Power to Require Evidence on Oath.)
    The registration officer may at the request of any person interested, or if he thinks fit without such request, on the consideration of any claim or objection or other matter require that the evidence tendered by any person should be given on oath and may administer an oath for the purpose.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 35, to insert the words,
    "A registration officer may require any person to attend and give evidence for the purpose of proving or disproving the right of any person to be registered or to produce documents, and any person who, after the tender to him of a reasonable amount for his expenses, fails to attend, or who fails to answer any question by the registration officer, or to produce any document required, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, which penalty shall be recoverable."
    This is obviously very necessary in order that the registration officer may obtain evidence and necessary documents.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether the object of his Amendment is not dealt with under Rule 31, which provides that
    "The registration officer may require any householder or any person owning or occupying any land or premises within his area, or the agent or factor of such person, to give, in the prescribed form, any information in his possession which the registration officer may require for the purpose of his duty as registration officer; and if any person fails to give the required information, or gives false information, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
    I think that would meet my hon. Friend's point. If it is not covered by that rule, it is covered, I think, by the regulation which provides that if anyone wishes to establish a claim or objection and the registration officer desires that certain evidence shall be given in connection with the establishing of the claim or objection,

    2311
    the registration officer has it in his own hands to obtain that evidence. He is in command of the situation.
    Mr. HEALY: Rule 31 is preliminary to the preparation of the lists. The Amendment deals with quite a different matter, namely, with a hearing of evidence. Under Rule 31 you simply get a statement, but under this Amendment you get the sworn testimony of a person viva voce and subject to examination and cross-examination. There is no effective Court which can discharge its duties properly without the form of subpœna which is provided for by the Amendment.
    Mr. WATT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his decision to reject this Amendment and to leave the point to be covered by the regulation to which he has referred. Rule 31 enacts that the registration officer can only ask questions which bear upon the purpose of his duty, but this Amendment is very wide and enables the registration officer to ask any questions he likes. It is very wide, and some of us can easily imagine questions that might be very awkward to answer, but which the registration officer would be entitled to ask under this Amendment, whether they come within his jurisdiction or not.
    Amendment negatived.

    APPLICATION OF RULES TO SCOTLAND.
    RULE 37. These Rules shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications, namely:
    The inspector of poor in each parish shall, on or before the fifteenth day of January and the fifteenth day of July in each year send to the registration officer for the county or burgh, as the case may be, a list in the prescribed form duly certified by him of all persons of twenty-one years of age or over resident in the parish or occupying lands or premises therein who have been in receipt of poor relief (other than medical relief) for thirty days or more in the aggregate during the six months preceding the said fifteenth day of January or of July, as the case may be.
    The provision for the transmission of a copy of the register to the Local Government Board shall not apply.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move to leave out the words from "namely" to the word "be"
    2312
    ["as the case may be"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "The Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board."
    Mr. WATT: I think we should have some explanation, because this is no ordinary change which is being made; it means leaving out eight or ten lines and substituting a single line.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. MUNRO: I was going to give an explanation, but the hon. Member, with his usual alertness, intervened. It is a simple matter. The omission is consequential on the changes made in Clause 8, with reference
    to the disqualification for poor relief. That is the reason for the disappearance of the words I am moving to leave out, and the words I am inserting are purely formal.
    Amendment agreed to.

    APPLICATION OF RULES TO IRELAND.
    RULE 38. These Rules shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications, namely:

    (1) References to the Local Government Board shall be construed as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland.

    (2) The district electoral division as constituted under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be the registration unit; but—

    (a) where a district electoral division is divided into wards, each such ward shall be treated as a separate registration unit; and

    (b) where a district electoral division is situate partly in one Parliamentary polling district, partly in another, or partly within and partly without any town (within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898), or ward of a borough or town, each part shall be treated as a separate registration unit;
    and references to parishes or parts of parishes shall be construed as references to registration units.

    (3) The expression "overseers" includes town clerks, secretaries of county councils, clerks of urban district councils, existing clerks of the union within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and collectors of poor rate.

    (4) The power of the registration officer in certain cases to require the over-

    2313
    seers to perform duties in connection with registration under this Act shall be construed in all cases as an obligation upon him to require each person holding the office of overseer to perform duties analogous to the duties which, but for the passing of this Act, would have been performed by that person by virtue of his office under the enactments relative to registration in force at the commencement of this Act.

    (5) The overseers shall be entitled to payment for services performed and expenses incurred by them in the execution of any duties under these rules. The payments shall be at such rates and shall be made at such times as may be fixed by order of the Local Government Board for Ireland under this Schedule, and any sum payable to an overseer under this provision shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as part of the expenses of the registration officer on whose requisition the services were performed or the expenses were incurred.

    This provision shall apply to any superintendent registrar of births and deaths or clerk of the union who is not an existing clerk of the union, so far as respects lists or information supplied by him in connection with deaths or persons in receipt of poor relief in like manner as it applies to overseers.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I beg to move, at the end of Rule 38 (2), to insert the words "References to the Autumn register shall be construed as references to the yearly register and references to the Spring register shall not apply."
    This Amendment is consequential on the decision that there is to be only one register in the year in Ireland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. HEALY: At the end of Rule 38 (3), insert the words "and in the case of a Parliamentary borough comprising a municipal borough and an area outside such municipal borough the electors lists for the whole Parliamentary borough shall be prepared and furnished to the registration officer by the town clerk of such municipal borough."
    Mr. HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman says that this Amendment is not necessary, I will not press it.
    Mr. DUKE: I have considered it, and I am advised that it is not necessary.
    Mr. BOLAND: I beg to move, in Rule 38 (4), to leave out the words "duties analogous to."
    On the Committee stage there was a discussion in which the claims put forward on behalf of the county secretaries were met to a certain extent, but it has been represented to us that the words in the Bill at present do not make their position sufficiently clear. Therefore, I propose to omit these words and in a subsequent Amendment to insert words which will make the position clear. In connection with the large increase of voters owing to the extension of the franchise to women an additional amount of work will be cast on these officers, and they have the natural fear that the words "duties analogous to" do not sufficiently cover their new duties, especially in respect to Clause 4 of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I trust that he will undertake in any regulations subsequently to be issued to make quite clear the position of these officers.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: This Amendment has been considered, and if accepted would, I am afraid, have quite unexpected results. The duties at present performed are defined in various Acts of Parliament. Secretaries of county councils, clerks of urban district councils, have duties including the preparation of supplementary lists and lists of £10 occupiers and of householders. There are minute instructions based on the existing franchise and a variety of other matters. The result of the Amendment would be to define as the general duties of these persons duties that have ceased to be performed, and there would be no provision for the performance of duties which the Act is intended to impose. With regard to new duties arising from the extension of the franchise to women I am advised that it would be a mistake in drafting, even if my hon. Friend's Amendment were valid, to specify the duties as to women franchise. It would raise questions which it is quite unnecessary to raise. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the words as they stand provide fully for the performance of, among other duties, those duties which arise from the enactment of woman franchise. Section 4 extends the

    2315
    franchise to women, and the lists of electorates which are to be prepared are to contain the names of those who are entitled to vote. The combined effect of the two provisions with the provision to which an Amendment is now moved is to impose upon the officers the duty of including the names of the women who are entitled to the franchise.
    Mr. BOLAND: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that Regulations are necessary to make the matter clear, perhaps he would qualify his statement by saying that he will see that those Regulations are properly drafted.
    Mr. DUKE: Certainly.
    Mr. BOLAND: On that undertaking I will withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. BOLAND:I beg to move, at the end of Rule 38 (4), to insert the words,
    "Provided always that nothing in this Clause shall alter or vary the right of the secretaries of county councils or existing clerks of the union within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, from requiring the collectors of poor rate to furnish to them the information hitherto furnished to them under the enactments relative to registration in force at the commencement of this Act, and to furnish the like information with respect to Section 4 of this Act."
    I think that there is a difference of position between the collectors of poor rate and county secretaries. As the Clause stands these officers stand in the same relation one to another. The county secretaries are in a higher position. They will have to give directions. It is important that their position, as being superior to the collectors of poor rate, should be established, and that is the object of this Amendment.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: There is no original authority at present in secretaries to the county councils. The original authority, the operative authority, is that derived from the precept under which the secretaries to the county councils perform their duties. That precept will go in the future as it has gone in the past, and I am advised that he Sub-section confers the powers and the corresponding duties on all the persons concerned to do what is
    2316
    required of them, so that the Amendment is not necessary. If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be a satisfaction to the secretaries of the county councils, who have serious responsibilities in these matters, I am willing to add to the Subsection words providing that it shall be the duty of every such person to comply with these demands, and if the Amendment is withdrawn I am willing to move that Amendment, making clear that each of these subordinate persons is bound by the precept to discharge the duties.
    Mr. BOLAND: On that undertaking I withdraw my Amendment and accept the words of the Chief Secretary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: At end of Rule 38 (4), insert the words, "And it shall be the duty of every such person to comply with those requirements."
    In (5), leave out the words "shall be at such rates and."
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, at the end of Rule 38 (5), to insert,
    "(6) The reference to the authority whose officer the registration officer is, or by whom he is appointed, shall be construed as a reference to the county borough council in the case of registration units in a county borough, and as a reference to the county council in the case of registration units in an administrative county, and the register for any registration unit in an administrative county shall be arranged alphabetically in townland order if the county council consider that such arrangement is more convenient than arrangement in alphabetical order of names or in street order."
    This Amendment is an endeavour, if possible, to simplify and establish uniformity in the preparation of the voters' lists. This was the subject of a great deal of discussion in Committee by my hon. Friends opposite and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. Several views were expressed, but I think that there was a general opinion that it was desirable to give facilities for taking account of the existence of streets and for providing for the preparation of these lists alphabetically, or in townland order. To make the governing factor the existence of streets would be to introduce the topic of discussion in every case as to whether a place was a street. There might be discussions as to whether a row of houses or a little cluster of houses constitutes a

    2317
    street or not. On the whole the conclusion arrived at is that the best method is to place the business of registration under the control of the local authority to have the right to determine as to townlands and streets and the alphabetical arrangement of names.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "if" ["townland order if the county council"], and to insert instead thereof the word "unless."
    I have two Amendments, the second being to leave out the words "such arrangement is more convenient than," and to insert instead thereof the words "more convenient." The Amendment which I have down on the Paper is the one which I moved in the Committee stage, but, as it may not meet with the approval of the Chief Secretary, I move the Amendment which I have now submitted. The word "street" has been greatly discussed in regard to its meaning, but I think it is a fact that, in 999 cases out of 1,000, nobody has the smallest doubt as to what is a street. As I do not move the Amendment on the Paper, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make some modification of the Amendment he has proposed, more or less adopting English lines. The preparation of the list in English boroughs is this: It is arranged that the list shall be prepared in street order, unless the local authority think that street order should not be adopted. That at any rate creates a presumption in favour of streets, and it lies upon anybody who has any other proposal to show that it is a better one. The criticism which I have to make on the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is that it does not create a presumption in favour of townlands away in the country, and I ask him to create some presumption in favour of adopting town-lands in rural areas, just as he has attempted to create a presumption in favour of streets.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    I think the more simplification we can secure in these matters, the better it will be, and I therefore hope that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman will be accepted.
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. and learned member for Cork is quite right in thinking that we have a common object here. We have very carefully considered the
    2318
    whole of the matters involved in this question. There is a substantial difference between the hon. Member for Cork's proposal and the proposal of the Government. The hon. Gentleman moves to substitute the word unless," making it read "unless the county council consider that more convenient'—that is, the hon. Member suggests that there shall be the other method unless the county council make a contrary determination. We ought to consider on this matter what is the weight of experience as regards the county councils. It was pointed out in Committee that the Bill which was introduced in 1908 empowered county councils to adopt townland areas, but only one county council has shown a disposition to do that. If there were a disposition to adopt town-land areas, I agree that there should be a presumption in favour of that, just as there is a presumption in favour of the course which is being taken. The county councils have not shown any such disposition, and I believe the only county council which has is the council of county Down. Therefore, I do not feel at liberty to run counter to the inclination of county councils.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

SECOND SCHEDULE.
  PART I.

    MODIFICATIONS OF THE BALLOT ACT, 1872 (FIRST SCHEDULE).
    The following provisions shall be inserted in the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, after Rules 2, 14, and 61 respectively, that is to say:—
    "2A. In an election of members to serve in a new Parliament of the United Kingdom the day fixed by the returning officer for the election shall in all cases be the eighth day after the date of His Majesty's gracious Proclamation declaring the calling of the Parliament."

  PART II.

    Questions
    3. In the case of a woman voting in respect of her own or her husband's local government qualification—
    Have you already voted at this General Election in respect of your own or your husband's local government qualification?
    Declarations at University Election (Applicable only at a General Election)
    (In the case of a man)—"I have not voted at this General Election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification."
    (In the ease of a woman)—"I have not voted at this General Election in respect of any qualification other than my own or my husband's local government qualification."
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to move, in Part I., to leave out the word "eighth" ["be the eighth day after"], and to insert instead thereof the word "seventh"
    I raised this question in the Committee stage with a view to diminishing the duration of a General Election, and on that occasion there was general agreement, as no doubt there will be on the Report stage, that we all desire to reduce the length of an election to the lowest possible limit. The limit of time provided in the Second Schedule of the Bill was the period between the proclamation and the nomination on the one hand, and the nomination and the polling on the other. The first period was ten days, and the second period was nine days, making a total of nineteen days for the whole duration of the contest —very nearly approaching three weeks. In the Committee stage I moved two Amendments. The first was to reduce the first period by two days, and the other to reduce the second period by two days. The Home Secretary very graciously consented to my first Amendment, and the ten days were reduced to eight, reducing the total number of nineteen days to seventeen days —a concession for which I was very grateful, and I believe all concerned in elections are, too. When I came to the second period of the election, my Amendment was to reduce the nine days to seven days, but though the Home Secretary was very sympathetic he did not see his way, at any rate at that stage, to concede the Amendment that I moved. It was said that the matter could be raised again on the Report stage. I raise it now in these Amendments, in the hope that in their new form they may prove a little more acceptable to the Home Secreatry. When the Amendment was introduced in the Committee stage the Home Secretary had two or three difficulties to overcome. One of them was the question of having all the elections on one day. That question was not then decided, but now it has been decided. The other question was with regard to absent voters,
    2320
    to make it clear that they would not be inconvenienced in the slightest degree. That has been provided for, and I do not think my Amendment will in the slightest degree affect that. The only point is whether or not it will be practical. I assume that it is the general desire to reduce to the lowest possible limit the length of the General Election, which causes a dislocation of business, is a great inconvenience to all concerned, and creates many difficulties in various directions. I sincerely hope the Home Secretary will see his way to meet me in this, or that he will, in some other way, meet the desire of all of us to reduce the period of elections to the lowest possible limit.
    Mr. BLISS: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: I think there is a generally expressed wish that we should reduce the period of an election, not only in the interests of trade, but in the interests of the public generally. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton having got the period of election between the proclamation and the contest reduced from ten days to eight days, seeks to reduce the period further by one day between the date of the proclamation and the date of the nomination. After all, it may be that when the next election takes place a great many candidates who desire to become Members of Parliament may be abroad, and I think there must be some time, at any rate, for those who are thinking of standing for Parliament to make up their minds whether they are going to stand or not. There would also be the question as to what programme they were going to stand on and what colleagues they were going to stand with. If you seriously curtailed the time between the proclamation and date of nomination you might probably run the risk of keeping many desirable candidates out of the field and of preventing constituencies from having a proper opportunity of saying what candidate they would select. My right hon. Friend thinks he has gone far enough in giving the two days and reducing the number from ten to eight in this particular Bill, and that for the present we ought to content ourselves with the considerable abbreviation my hon. Friend obtained. I am not saying when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament we can expect that it will completely satisfy the country, and we cannot expect that it will remain

    2321
    unaltered. I believe that this Bill when it becomes an Act after we have had experience will necessitate a good deal of alteration in a good many particulars. 1 think we have done enough now so far as the interval between the proclamation and the nomination is concerned.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Part II., Question 3, to leave out the words "in respect of her own or her husband's local government qualification," and to insert instead thereof the words "at an election other than a university election."
    This is a matter which refers to the question to be put to women voters. It was pointed out in Committee that the question would be a difficult and puzzling one for the ordinary voter. The case where a woman would have a university vote in addition to her ordinary vote would be one in a hundred thousand, and we think it will be enough to ask her, "Have you already voted at this General Elections? "If she has done so and replies "Yes," she will be asked whether it was at a university. It will be better to ask only the general question.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Question 3, leave out the words "in respect of your own or your husband's local government qualification," and insert instead thereof the words,
    "[Note.—Unless the answer to this question is in the negative the woman shall not vote unless she satisfies the presiding officer that her previous vote was given at a niversity election.]"
    In "Declaration at University Election," leave out the words "in respect of any qualification other than my own or my husband's local government. qualification."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  THIRD SCHEDULE.

    PROVISIONS AS TO VOTING BY PROXY.
    1. A proxy must be appointed by means of a proxy paper issued to the elector, or to some person on behalf of the elector by the registration officer of the constituency in which the elector is registered, on an application made or authorised by the elector in accordance with Regulations under this Act.
    2. After a proxy paper for any constituency has been issued to an elector, or to some person on behalf of the elector,
    2322
    in accordance with this Act, that elector shall, unless the proxy paper is cancelled in accordance with this Act,—

    (a) be entitled to vote by proxy in that constituency; and

    (b) be prohibited from voting otherwise than by proxy in that constituency;

    until the time for which the proxy paper is in force has expired.
    3. It shall be the duty of the registration officer, on any application for a proxy paper, to issue a proxy paper to the applicant, or to some person on his behalf, if he is satisfied that the applicant is registered on the Parliamentary register of electors for the constituency in respect of which the application is made, and is, at the time of the application, entitled to appoint a proxy.
    4. A proxy paper shall remain in force only so long as the Parliamentary register of electors which is in force at the time the proxy paper is issued, remains in force.
    5. A person shall not be appointed as proxy under this Act, unless the person appointed is the wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister of the elector, or is registered as a Parliamentary elector for the constituency or one of the constituencies in which the elector is registered.
    6. An elector shall not appoint more than one person as proxy to vote on his behalf.
    7. A person shall not vote as proxy on behalf of more than two absent voters at an election in any constituency unless that person is the parent, brother, or sister of the absent voters.
    9. If any person—

    (a) to whom or on whose behalf a proxy paper for any constituency has been issued under this Act, himself votes or attempts to vote at any Parliamentary election in that constituency otherwise than by means of the proxy paper, while the proxy paper is in force; or

    (b) votes or attempts to vote as proxy on behalf of more than two absent voters at an election in any constituency unless that person is the parent, brother, or sister of the absent voters; or

    (c) votes or attempts to vote at any election under the authority of a

    2323
    proxy paper when he knows or has reasonable grounds for supposing that the proxy paper has been cancelled, or that the elector to whom or on whose behalf the proxy paper has been issued is dead or no longer entitled to vote at that election;

    that person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practics Prevention Act, 1883, and the expression "corrupt practice" shall be construed accordingly: Provided that the Court before whom a person is convicted under this Section may, if they think it just in the special circumstances of the case, mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by Section six of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, at the beginning of paragraph 1, to insert the words "subject to the provisions hereinafter appearing with regard to proxies by naval and military voters during the present War."
    In moving this Amendment I am giving an opportunity to the Home Secretary to tell us exactly what his proposals are with regard to the proxy vote. My reason for putting this Amendment down was in order that the soldier and the sailor should have the simplest and shortest method of getting the right to vote. My suggestion was that the commanding officer should issue a proxy paper to him, and that that should be signed in the presence of the officer and returned to this country and should be valid and last during the whole of the War. I understand that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us that his procedure is very nearly akin to that.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am very glad to have an opportunity of stating to the House what our proposals are with regard to the proxy vote. It was pointed out in Committee that the system suggested might involve considerable loss of time, and that under our scheme it might be that the soldier abroad would have to send or write home for a form of application for a proxy and that the proxy form might then be sent to him and that he would then have to send it back again, and in that way much time would be lost. It was also pointed out that by that procedure some soldiers would not get the proxy papers in time to exercise the vote. I did suggest a
    2324
    much simpler plan, and that is the one which we propose to adopt and which is now on the Paper. What we suggest is this, that the soldier should get his application form, and in most cases he would get it from the adjutant or in the regiment in some form or other. We do not want to prevent him getting it elsewhere. That is the only paper the soldier will get. He will fill it in with the name of the person whom he desires to appoint as proxy, and will sign it and send it to the registration officer. The registration officer will take note of it and will issue the proxy paper in those cases to the proxy, and there is an end of it. If a soldier is in this country he can send on the proxy to the registration officer.
    Colonel SANDERS: Under that system, how will you guard against a dozen men filling in the same name—I mean a dozen men in different places filling in the name of the same person to exercise their right to vote and then being all disqualified because they have done that?
    Sir G. CAVE: The voters must take care that they do not appoint the same person. Neither the system of my right hon. Friend nor that in the Bill no mine would prevent that risk being incurred. If my hon. Friend has some scheme which would do so, I shall be glad to see it. As the matter will be left in the Schedule, there is considerable scope left for regulations, and arrangements will be made with the naval and military authorities. We hope to arrange with those authorities to take charge of forms of application, so that they may be ready at the request of the soldier or the sailor to give him his form of application. I do not wish, however, to accept a proposal that no one except the naval or military authority shall issue a form of application. I do not want to prevent a man getting it elsewhere—for instance, when he is at home—and sending it on himself.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Will he require a witness as to the signing?
    Sir G. CAVE: That depends on the form which will be pr3scribed under our Regulations. It should, I think, be witnessed by some person who would know the person signing it, and I think the Regulation should so provide.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are a very considerable improvement on the previous

    2325
    plan, and I see no objection to them, subject to anything that may be said later in the course of this discussion. But they do not cover one point raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson). He proposed that the proxy of a soldier or a sailor once signed shall be valid during the course of the War and twelve months thereafter. That is not the same point we discussed before, when we were discussing whether the proxies should be for the duration of the War or longer. The proxy system, where it applies, is now to be permanent. My right hon. Friend suggests that during the War and for a period of twelve months afterwards, when a soldier or a sailor has signed his proxy, it shall be valid for that period, without being renewed every six months. That is the scheme at present in the Bill as it now stands. You have to communicate with the soldier, get him to sign an application for a proxy, and then a proxy paper is issued by the registration officer to the person who is to act as the soldier's proxy. If the war goes on, and another register comes into force at the end of six months you have again to send out the same notices, to the same soldiers, in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, and get them to make similar applications for proxies. That may be necessary in the future, after the War is over, and in the limited class of cases to which the system shall apply. I suggest to the Government that they should consider whether, in the special circumstances of the case, it is worth while troubling the military and naval authorities, and post office authorities, supposing the war lasts for another year, or more than a year, to send all those papers every six months to the whole of our armies and our fleet, in different parts of the world. My right hon. Friend suggests that the soldier should have the right to recall his proxy; but that if he does not do so it should remain valid for the time mentioned.
    Sir G. CAVE: I ought to have mentioned that point when I spoke last. I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says, and when we come to the proper place in the Bill I am going to suggest the insertion of these words:
    "Provided that the proxy paper during the continuance of the present War or a period of twelve months thereafter shall remain in force until the termination of that period as long as the elector continues to be registered and the proxy paper is not cancelled."
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In paragraph 1, after the word "elector" ["on behalf of the elector"], insert the words "or to the person appointed as proxy."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    In paragraph 2, leave out the words "to an elector or to some person on behalf of the elector."
    Leave out the word "that" ["that elector"], and insert the word "the."
    In paragraph 3, after the word "behalf" ["some person on his behalf"], insert the words "or to the person appointed as proxy."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 4, to insert the words,
    "Provided that the proxy paper during the continuance of the present War or a period of twelve months thereafter shall remain in force until the termination of that period as long as the elector continues to be registered and the proxy paper is not cancelled."
    Mr. PETO: I think there is one difficulty which has been overlooked in the drafting of this Amendment. Voters will become accustomed to the fact that the proxy paper when issued is given for twelve months, but after a certain period it is only to hold good for six months. Now, a sailor may start off on a long voyage under the impression that the proxy he has already given will cover the period of his absence, whereas the six months may expire before his return. It is also possible that many of our soldiers will be unable to return from abroad until long after the expiration of twelve months from the end of the War, and there will be a good deal of strain on the authorities in communicating with them as often as once in six months. I should like to hear from the Home Secretary whether he has any proposal for meeting these difficulties, especially so far as they affect sailors. In my opinion, in their case a twelve months' proxy would be very much preferable to one renewable every six months.
    Sir G. CAVE: I hare considered the case of the seamen. We can either by a Bill, I think, or by a line in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act continue this provision

    2327
    for seamen as well as soldiers, but I think we have gone far enough by enabling proxies to be given for the period of the War and twelve months after.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 5 insert the words, "Provided that the brother or sister shall not be capable of being appointed proxy unless of full age."—[Sir G. Gave.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in paragraph 7, after the word "is" ["unless that person is "], to insert the words "voting as the husband or wife or."
    Mr. GULLAND: I should like, with regard to this Amendment, to be told if the intention of the right hon. Gentleman is quite clear. I think the idea of the Amendment is that the person voting as proxy shall not vote on behalf of more than two absent voters unless he is related to the absent voter. But I make it out that he may vote for two absent voters in addition to those to whom he is related. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman, by this and the next Amendment, wishes to prevent that, but I do not think the words are clear upon the Paper, and it would perhaps be better to insert the words "husband, wife" before the word "parent," and after the word "sister" to insert the words "of each" ["of the absent voters"].
    Sir G. CAVE: We will consider that at a later stage. I am a little afraid of the suggestion that a woman may be the wife of each of these absent voters.
    Mr. GULLAND: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's intention is that a man shall not be a proxy for two voters in addition to those to whom he is related?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "voters," and insert the word "voter."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after paragraph 7, to insert,
    "8. A registration officer shall keep a list of absent voters entitled to vote by proxy in any constituency within his area and of the persons entitled to vote as proxy and that list shall be open to inspection during business
    2328
    hours at some convenient place named by the registration officer in the constituency.
    A registration officer shall, on the application of any person, allow that person to take extracts from or on payment of the prescribed fee supply to that person copies of the list."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (9, a), to insert the words,
    "(b) collects, fills in or distributes or attempts to collect, fill in or distribute proxy papers on which the name of the person nominated as proxy by the absent voter has not been filled in or on which it has not been filled in by name in accordance with the absent voter's written instructions."
    I move this Amendment in the hope that the Home Secretary will be in a position
    to state if he can see his way to put into this part of the Schedule, which provides against certain things being done and makes them subject to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices (Prevention) Act, 1885, some words which will prevent what I may call trafficking in proxy papers. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) on the Committee stage pointed out what I think is the real danger of large quantities of proxy papers being collected at the port from which a ship starts on a long voyage without any names being filled in in those papers by the elector, they being, so to speak, blank voting papers. The hon. Member for Hexham said:
    "I think the Committee ought also to bear in mind that merchant seamen are in some respects in a very different position from soldiers and sailors, and we should very likely find in practice, if merchant seamen were allowed to vote freely by proxy, that they would find it very difficult to get employment on board ship unless they had handed their proxies to the officials of their trade union."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 25th October, 1917, col. 1089, Vol. XCVIII.]
    I do not wish to put the point quite so strongly as did the hon. Member for Hexham, but I do sympathise with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) when he pointed out that the proxy vote is not a personal vote. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on one occasion of the creation of plural voters. I do not think this provision will do that, but I should like to get inserted some such words as I have suggested, in order to secure as far as possible that each proxy vote shall be the personal act of the voter. I do not want any room left for an intermediary

    2329
    —for any person, be he an election agent, a trade union official, or one occupying a public position—to take charge of what, after all, is the responsibility of the individual elector, and to be able to nominate other electors to take the place of the elector who ought to register his personal vote and would if he could do so, and who, even under the proxy system, is able to show his personal preference by filling in the name on the paper of some person in whom he has confidence that he will carry out his (the elector's) views. As to whether these words are too wide in some respects or not wide enough in others, I am not concerned. I do not pretend to be an expert draftsman, but in the latter part of my Amendment there is an omission. It should read, "filled in by the elector," and, later, instead of the words "the absent voter's written instructions," it should be "his written instruction." With these two small Amendments I do not think the words are bad, and unless the Home Secretary has thought out some better method of making it a corrupt practice to deal in these proxy papers, I suggest that the Amendment would help to make the giving of the vote, after all, more of a personal act. I hope, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will accept my words, subject to any Amendment he may deem necessary and which could be put in in another place. At any rate, I am satisfied that words or some kind are required to fill in the gap and to meet the view so frequently expressed that it is not desirable to leave this matter too loose or too open to possible abuse. I personally had been a very strong advocate for giving facilities to soldiers and sailors, and to the sailor in the mercantile marine to record their votes, and I should be very sorry if, after the experience of one or two elections, it should be found some abuses which might have been stopped by words such as these were to throw the whole system into disrepute, and even induce Parliament to withdraw the privilege. It is for these reasons I move the Amendment.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to second the Amendment.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I
    am afraid this particular form of Amendment would be open to so many objections that it could not be accepted. It refers to any person who collects, fills in, or dis-
    2330
    tributes the proxy papers, but the proxy paper will simply go from the registration officer to the proxy. What is intended to be dealt with is the application form. The words also apply to a form to which there was no signature at all, and those forms it is not desirable to protect in this way. It is too vide in that respect. It would also impose the duty on someone to see whether the form is filled in in accordance with the voter's instructions.
    Mr. PETO: I suggest that they will have to produce the written instructions.
    Sir G. CAVE: That introduces a further complication. I am disposed to think that the matter can be dealt with under Clause 20, Sub-section (6), of the Bill, by virtue of which His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for the purposes of the Section and make Regulations for carrying the Section into effect. As at present advised, I think provision might be made under that Subsection requiring that the name of the proxy shall be filled in before the application form is signed, and that is the main point the hon. Gentleman desires to secure. We will further consider the point, and if it appears necessary that some provision should be made we will make suggestions in another place.
    Mr. PETO: In asking leave to withdraw my Amendment, I should like to say that I do hope the Home Secretary will see the advisability of putting in some words in this particular part of the Bill connecting it with the Corrupt Practices Act, as a warning to those who might otherwise abuse this system of proxy voting.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In paragraph (9, b), after the word "is" ["that person is the parent"], insert the words "voting as the husband or wife or."
    Leave out the words "voters" and insert instead thereof the word "voter."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  FOURTH SCHEDULE.
    PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR PART IV. OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO 46 AND 47 VICT. C. 51, AND FOR PARAGRAPH (3) OF PART V. OF THE SAME SCHEDULE.

      Maximum Scale
      The expenses mentioned above in Parts I., II., and III. of this Schedule, other than personal expenses shall not exceed an amount equal—

      2331

      in the case of a county election, to seven-pence for each elector on the register;

      in the case of an election for a borough, to fivepence for each elector on the register.

      Where there are two or more joint candidates at an election, the maximum amount of expenses mentioned in Parts III. and IV. of this Schedule shall, for each of the joint candidates, be the amount produced by multiplying a single candidate's maximum by one and a half and dividing the result by the number of joint candidates.
      Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, after the word "than" ["other than personal expenses"], to insert the words "the fee of the election agent as hereinafter provided and."
      This Amendment and the one which follows standing in my name are down with the object of ensuring that the election agent shall have an adequate remuneration for his services at an election. I think everyone is anxious to keep the expenses of an election as low as possible, and I think everybody rejoiced at the decision of the Speaker's Conference that the election expenses should be reduced. At the same time, it is absolutely essential that if an election is to be conducted properly, with due regard to the law and to the safeguards we all feel to be necessary during an election, the agent should be properly remunerated. There was considerable discussion in regard to this point on the Committee stage, and the Amendment that I move is in a rather different form from that of the one that was then proposed. Let me just recall the figures as I think they are. In an existing constituency, say, of an average of 11,000 electors, the maximum expenses for a county division would be £1,250, and for a borough division £650. Under this Bill the number of electors in a somewhat similar constituency would be roughly—nobody knows exactly—24,000, and the maximum for a county division would be £700, and for a borough £500. So you practically double your electorate and reduce your possible expenses very, very, considerably. In ordinary times that would be serious enough in a sense, though it would be delightful in another sense to think that those of us who do stand again will only be allowed to spend considerably less than we have in the past. At the same time, we must remember what really is in
      2332
      front of us. We are all thinking very largely in connection with this Bill of the first election that will take place. At that first election I think it is probably certain that everything will be dearer. Paper will be dearer; printing, advertising, even postages, telegrams and telephones will be dearer. There is one saving—a saving of one postage, but on the basis that I have taken of the constituency of 24,000 the saving of one halfpenny postage means exactly £50, which, after all, is not very considerable in view of these totals that I have named. The only other saving I can think of is that some of the meetings will be held in school rooms where the expenses will be very much less than they have been in the past with regard to halls. Nevertheless, however, you look upon this if any Member will make a sort of test balance-sheet of his expenses at the next election, I think he will find that really on this basis there is practically nothing left for the election agent. I cannot think that that is a satisfactory result. The agent is a most important man in an election, in some ways he is more important than the candidate. The candidate depends on him, for he can easily make a mistake. While the candidate is busy making his speeches the agent is working and making all the arrangements all through the constituency; and especially in connection with a new Bill of this sort, where so many new points are turning up, it is of the utmost importance that for an agent you have a thorough skilled and expert man. You cannot get such a man unless you are prepared to pay for him. It is no use in this or any other sphere of life to get poorly-paid labour, because you get poor results. In connection with this Bill you will get all sorts of extra work put upon the agent, and I think that even since this matter was considered in Committee there are many points that have arisen, such as the absent voters, the proxy voters, and others, that will give the election agent not only more to do but more difficult points to consider and to watch. I think that since this point was considered in the Committee stage some such provision as this has become more important than it was before. The Home Secretary expressed sympathy with this proposal for an additional sum to the agent, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman at present in charge of the Bill will agree with and accept this Amendment. I know there are other Members who are

      2333
      keenly interested in this question, and who will be ready to discuss it from other points of view.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I very heartily support the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland). I do not think I can add anything to what he has said, except this: I am quite sure that unless some provision of this kind is made we shall be all forced to use some expedient to retain the men whom we expect to look after our elections. There will be something in the shape of a retaining fee paid during the years of peace—I mean electioneering peace—which will cover what may be expected from the agent as services. I do not think that is satisfactory. It is very much better to say straightforwardly that you may pay a certain amount in certain cases and a lesser amount in other cases. We shall then have a clear cut, and shall know where we are, while we shall not be required necessarily to pay the maximum. The candidate will require greater protection in the future than in the past. This Act is more stringent in some provisions than the old law, and I think we should now give some consideration to the candidate.
      Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I am rather reluctant to differ from the last two speakers, and I do so in no controversial mood. I do, however, feel that, considering the principle involved, the House, and especially an empty House like this, should not be rushed into this kind of legislation. I cannot help remarking that it is rather an unholy combination when the Chairmen of both political parties combine, and especially when both of them are Scottish. I cannot help viewing this Amendment with some suspicion. I always understood that the Scots were a frugal race, but here they are going suddenly towards the end of a very long discussion of this Bill to introduce a new principle into legislation, setting, I venture to think, a very bad precedent. The late Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith) always laid it down that it was a bad principle to fix wages. He we are, in a Bill for the first time, fixing wages—it is true a maximum, but it will be very difficult to make it anything of a minimum. We are going practically to say by Act of Parliament that the fee for election agents should be fixed. I am not one of those who for a moment would suggest that it would be a wise thing for a candidate to be frugal in the payment of his agent. On the contrary, I agree that the agent is highly necessary. Much depends upon
      2334
      him, both as to the successful organisation of the election and also on the candidate's freedom from illegal practices. I venture, however, to say that the suggestion is one which, as I understand it—seeing that the elections are all going to be on one day, and that the time will be very much shorter—
      Mr. GULLAND: Longer!
      Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman says longer.
      Mr. GULLAND: Longer in the boroughs.
      Mr. HARRIS: But not in the counties? I am not in a position to say, but my impression is that the elections will be shorter. I hope certainly the elections will be much more simple and straightforward. I do not believe the public wants, or anyone wants, the amount allowed for election expenses to be such as will allow the complicated elections which under the present law prevail. At any rate, £150 is a very large sum to pay to an election agent. If, for instance, the election drags on for three weeks it is a very large amount to fix by legislation. There is some complaint about the small amount allowed for the total cost of the election. I would remind the House that it is going to be the same for both sides. On both sides the candidates will be limited. Though the amount to be spent will be small, as the expenditure will be limited for all the candidates contesting a division, and as people get accustomed to the idea that elections are going to be very much less costly affairs, the scale of expenditure will be reduced. All those posters and elaborate leaflets, which played such a big part in the old-fashioned election, will, I hope, in time disappear, and the literature of elections will be confined merely to sending out election addresses—the envelopes for which, at any rate on one occasion, will be franked—and the notices of public meetings. I suggest this is a bad principle. The Speaker's Conference decided that one of the most important reforms required was to reduce the cost of elections. You do not want, therefore, any candidate to be precluded from standing for Parliament because of the excessive cost. This is a retrograde step. If it is necessary to increase the expenses or to pay any fees, I would rather add to the total amount. I suggest that what is recommended is excessive.
      Mr. NIELD: As one who has had very considerable experience of this particular post in the past, I am bound to say that I do not see the necessity altogether for this proposed Amendment. I have generally in my experience managed to get through the election at less than the usual expenses. Possibly I knew where to resist pressure. What surprised me about this motion is that it is made by a Scotsman and seconded by a Scotsman. I should have thought that both of them would have had a very much better judgment of their fellows' capacity to look after themselves. My own recollection of the methods of Scotsmen—I most respectfully submit to the hon. Members—is of men who take good care that the first work as an agent is to appropriate sufficient funds to make his own quite safe. It has been suggested that a candidate requires a personage of the kind to go about the constituency to make speeches for him. I should prefer to say, to make promises. The candidate, it is said, must necessarily have all this business conducted for him by an agent. I am not going to deprecate the party agent or his payment. Generally he is a most capable man. Whether, however, it is wise to fix his fee at £150 or £100, as the case may be—
      An HON. MEMBER: Not exceeding!
      Mr. NIELD: That does not depend upon the ordinary candidate. He may not be of sufficient courage or character to be able to keep within the sum mentioned in the scale. I thought this Act was going to bring about, as the last speaker suggested, a considerable reduction in the cost of elections which would make it less necessary for the candidate to appeal to that benevolent chest which is said to be kept in various quarters, and the key of which is in the possession of certain privileged individuals. I can authority for a prescriptive fee, because, points of view, that those who have the direction of affairs should at least be made secure if they cannot secure themselves. I do think, however, that we ought to be careful before we give any statutory authority for a prescriptive fee, because, whatever you may say, that "it shall not exceed," we all know what that means. A Chancery taxing-master will generally "not exceed," but he will probably go up to the limit of the scale. I think, therefore, it will be a very unwise thing, and perhaps scarcely worth our while, to arrange a sum that shall be the same all
      2336
      round. It will simply mean the increase of election expenses. I should hope that the matter will be left in the Bill as it now stands.
      Mr. WATT: I desire, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough, to enter my protest against the Government accepting this Amendment. I think it is a most unfortunate one. I am surprised that it has been brought forward by the hon. Members who have brought it forward. Reference has twice been made to the fact that the Mover and Seconder are Scotsmen. As one of the same nationality I was thunderstruck that extravagance of the kind should be suggested by any hon. Member—for it is extravagance! I am inclined to think that the House has not got hold of the importance of this. There are several Amendments on the Paper. The last is the most important—that the fee to the agent shall be £150 in the counties and £100 in the boroughs. This is to be in excess of the maximum amount allowed for election expenses. For sixty years we have been struggling to keep election expenses down, and, in particular, to get the returning officer's fee withdrawn from the payments made by the candidate. We have now in this measure succeeded in getting that. In my particular division that reduces the expenditure by £125. After sixty years' struggle, and succeeding in getting that £125 down, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs, and—shall I say? —his accomplice, the hon. Baronet for Ayr Burghs, now suggests that £100 should be added to the expenses for the borough and £150 for the county. That is to say, it has taken all sixty years on the one hand to achieve what I have stated, and at the suggestion of these two hon. Members the amount is to be given to the agents. I have nothing—none of us have!— to say against the valuable services of the agents who help us to fight our elections. But I say that it is a good thing that their fee should be placed in the maximum expenses, particularly in Scotland, where Scotsmen are keen, notwithstanding the extravagance of the two hon. Members, who are not a fair sample!
      In Scotland the agent is keen to realise that unless he saves, and scrapes, gathers together, and keeps together, he will not have anything left for himself. That from the candidate's point of view is a wise arrangement, for it keeps the party agent up to the mark to keep

      2337
      down the expenses so that he will have some money at the end. It is a very wise provision indeed. This, however, entirely does away with that tendency to conserve the expenses. What will be the result? Before the election is half over Mr. Agent will have reached the maximum of the expenses, and there will be nothing left to spend, and instead of the election being well worked under that system it will be miserably worked, because the latter part will not be done at all, there being no money left to spend. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs said it was necessary to have it very carefully and well done. I venture to say this system will not cause the work to be well and thoroughly done. There is another point against it, namely, that this particular proposal was smashed in Committee. My hon. Friend raked it fore and aft, and it sank in a very turbid sea. Now it has been launched again on Report, when we have a very poor House, when not one-sixth of the Members within the precincts of the House are aware of what is passing. I venture to say the majority of the rank and file, humble Back Benchers like the hon. Member for Market Harborough and myself, would strenuously object to a proposal under which the cheapness of elections, for which we struggled so long, is to be absolutely nullified by a proposal of the Chief Whip of the Liberal party, aided by the General Manager of the Tory party.
      Mr. HEALY: As the sole representative of the Speaker's Conference present at this moment, I rise to protest against this evasion of the recommendation which that body made. Reduced to its elements, this is a proposal to increase election expenses. The existing scale of charges to be found in the Corrupt Practices Act does not distinguish the election agent's fee. It prescribes a scale, and that scale is to cover the election agent's fee. If the former scale covered the election agent's fee, why should not the new scale? I join with the last speaker in surprise at the source from which this Amendment has come. I can very well understand the hon. Baronet for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) proposing it, or I could very well understand it coming from the other side of the House, but coming from the Chief Whip of the Liberal party this proposal is certainly startling. I am sorry we have not a larger Labour element here. I .should like to know what the Labour party think of this proposal. It will affect them,
      2338
      as it will affect everyone else. Are they in favour of having election
      expenses reduced or increased? One of the most beneficent proposals of the Speaker's Conference was this proposal to cut down expenses. It cannot be said that it hurts any party in particular; all are equally affected by it. If anybody is at a disadvantage, all are at a disadvantage, and I should have supposed all Members in this House, both as individuals and as public representatives, had an equal interest in reducing expenses. The hon. and learned Member opposite said he had often acted as election agent, and I think in all three countries it would probably be found that the best election agents are those who are eager volunteers on the side of the party on which they are fighting. As the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) has ventured into poetry, and expressed a hope that this proposal will be engulfed in a stormy sea, I will wind up with what I hope is even a more appropriate quotation, by hoping that it will go down
      "To the dust, from whence it sprung.
      Unwept, unhonour'd and unsung."
      Mr. SHERWELL: I confess that, on the surface of things, any Amendment of this kind is suspect when its sponsors are the representatives of two political caucuses. I understand, and I quite appreciate, what may be a very generous motive animating both my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs. They are intimately concerned with the interests of election agents. We quite appreciate their point of view. We quite appreciate the motive which probably inspires the Amendment. But it will not be an encroachment upon the monetary interests of these election agents to reject this particular Amendment. It is still possible, under the Schedule in the Bill, to secure that the election agent shall have a return commensurate with his services. It only means that in that case, if you establish and maintain a proper standard of remuneration for an election agent, there is less cash available to be spent in much more questionable ways. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M. Healy) referred to the departure from the Speaker's Conference. I confess frankly, in the light of the proceedings on this measure within the last ten days, I do not believe it is now in its present state entitled to be considered a compromise measure at all. The departure from the Resolutions of the Speaker's

      2339
      Conference, and the departures from the text of the Bill as originally introduced into this House, and the grounds on which it was consistently supported by some who, like myself, disapproved of certain provisions, but voted solemnly for the Bill as originally introduced—the departure from that original structure are so great and so important that we cannot any longer regard it seriously as a compromise measure. If the experience of the last fortnight is to afford a moral to be drawn from attempts at compromise legislation, then I say quite frankly I myself am not prepared to consider in the same spirit any further compromise legislation which the present Government or any succeeding Government may introduce.
      The matter concerned in this Amendment is a very serious one. There has been a very strong, a very real, and a very laudable desire on the part of men of all parties to cut down the absurdly extravagant scale of expenditure in connection with Parliamentary elections. Even if the scale under this Bill in its original form be allowed, every practical man must recognise it does put a very serious ba and handicap upon candidates who are poor men, and I am bound to say that, consistently with the spirit in which this legislation has been proposed and supported, we ought to reduce to the most rigid minimum any scale of expenditure that is to be allowed by Statute. I certainly hope that the House will not for one moment give its support to this particular Amendment. I should strongly oppose it, and I shall be prepared to vote for its rejection if it is carried to a Division.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I hope the House will refuse to consider this Amendment for a moment. The whole object of the Bill is to make this House more democratic and representative, and to enable persons of comparatively small means to put up for election and get to this House. This House has long since ceased to be the preserve of millionaires, and this Amendment will increase the chances of the rich as against the poor. As this proposal is contrary to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, I hope everybody who calls himself a democrat will oppose it. Whatever the limit of expenditure is the election agents will, of course, recommend expenditure to the full extent. This proposal will add —100 to the possible limit allowed under the Bill, and that will make it much more difficult for the independent
      2340
      man, or a comparatively poor man, to come forward who does not depend on party funds. This Amendment will make them more dependent than ever on the party funds, and they will be tied to their party. If the object of this Bill is to make this House more democratic, then this is a proposal which will defeat that object, and I hope the Government will refuse to accept this Amendment.
      Major BOWDEN: I am afraid that I cannot support this Amendment. I agree with what the last speaker said in regard to fixing a rate for the agent. I might be inclined to support this proposal if the agent took the entire responsibility for his action. Many hon. Members are aware of the result of the action of an agent for which the candidate has to take the entire responsibility. If it is permitted to mention a figure outside the ordinary cost of the election expenses as being justifiable to an agent, I should say that some agents might be worth more than £150 and some of them very much less. The point of view I want to express is that a figure has been fixed as the maximum for future elections, and this Amendment greatly increases that figure. In my conversations with hon. Members I have formed the opinion that this Amendment in a full House would have no possible chance of being carried.
      Mr. FISHER: One thing I have learned from this Debate is that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Gulland) is really actuated by the most ardent desire to make the House of Commons the preserve of millionaires. After all, we have to interpret the decisions of the Speaker's Conference. Undoubtedly the desire expressed by that Conference was that the necessary expenses for obtaining a seat in this House should be materially diminished. The Conference was strongly and unanimously of opinion that the expenses entailed in fighting a contested election were unjustifiable, and should be materially reduced. That object is carried out in this Bill, and anyone who looks at the Schedules of this Bill dealing with the expenses and compares the amount of money which would be allowed under this Bill with the amount allowed under the old system will find that the amount allowed in contesting a constituency is cut down by something like 50 per cent., which is a very material reduction. [An HON. MEMBER: "And with double the number of electors!"] Yes, it is 5d. per head, and, of course, if there are more electors there

      2341
      are more fivepences, while in the counties it is 7d. per head. The amount goes up and down, according to the number of the electors.
      I want to point out that in the desire, which I share, to materially reduce the present expenses we must not lose sight of the fact that we must have enough money to put the cause and the issues for which you are fighting distinctly and prominently before the electors. The candidates of the future will be allowed one free postage. But we must get into communication with our electors at least twice. You must also have a very large printing bill, and I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries that, at all events at the next election, the money we shall have to spend in printing is likely to be materially increased and the paper will be very difficult to procure and very expensive. Then there is the hiring of places for public meetings. We are to have an enormous number of electors, many of them women, absolutely new to the game. You must have committee rooms in prominent places, and you cannot always pick and choose them. You must take the first committee rooms which your party desire you to take; otherwise you may give an unfair advantage to your opponent. Then, again, those you place in charge of your committee room must have a certain amount of knowledge and experience, and they have to be paid. I looked into this matter very carefully, and I think the amount allowed is almost the least possible to make the issues for which you are fighting well known to such a large number of electors. There is no Act of Parliament which makes any provision whatever for the amount of money which the candidate may give his agent, because in the past the amount at the disposal of the candidate was so large and liberal that it was perfectly possible for all of us to make provision on quite a liberal and generous scale for our agents; but now, with the money cut down to this extent, it will be extremely difficult and almost impossible, particularly for new candidates who are not very well versed in economy and not very good business men to find out of the money allowed enough to adequately reward a really skilled agent.
      I always think the position of an agent is most unusual. He has an immense amount of work to do at one time and can be almost idle at another; but his life is not one to be envied at all. He is either
      2342
      too elated or too depressed. He has very few opportunities of putting by for his old age, and long before he is old it is found by the chairman or by his employers that he is not the man for the position.
      Mr. WATT: They are all solicitors in Scotland.
      Mr. FISHER: We cannot make our laws for Scotland only, although we always have Scotland in our minds. We are legislating for England as well as Scotland. 1 maintain that I am well within the truth when I say that agents as a rule are badly paid and have very few opportunities of putting by money for their old age, long before which they find themselves out of a job. This Bill does not diminish by a single one the many traps which are laid for candidates. We are to have the same corrupt and illegal practices, and whoever fights an election in the future will fight it with great risks; indeed, instead of finding himself in the House of Commons, he may well find himself in gaol. I dare say by that time that the gaol may be the more preferable place; but, at all events, it is not his ambition. I at least, even although I am an old electioneerng hand, would not think of going in for a really stiff and stubborn contest unless I were guided by an agent of some experience and skill. There may be fortunate candidates—and there evidently are in Scotland—who will be able to get their legal friends to give them all the benefit of their experience for nothing, and who, just for the mere sake of friendship, or possibly relationship, may be willing to see them through all the turmoil and snares of an election. I do not think it will be the ordinary lot of the ordinary candidate. The ordinary candidate will provide himself with a skilful agent, and he will have some difficulty in extracting from these fivepences adequate remuneration for him. I should not be inclined to accept this Amendment if it were compulsory to pay the agent £150 in the case of a county constituency and £100 in the case of a borough constituency.
      I know hon. Members will say that if you put in the Act that the agent may be paid this sum it will, become the fee that the agent will demand. There is something in that contention, but I have endeavoured to make inquiries, and I rather fancy that £100 is quite a common fee to give an agent at the present time. A fee of £150 is more rarely given, but it is

      2343
      given when men contest very difficult seats. I want to put before the House an argument which has not yet been used, but which greatly impresses me. If we do not put in some fee and do not give any extra money, but simply allow the agent to work on the chance of being able to save something out of these fivepences, it will inevitably lead to rich men finding some means of evading the Act. A rich man will say, "I have either got to break with my constituency, and I have a conscience as regards my agent, or to break the law. "There would be a real temptation to many men when on the last two or three days of the election they were almost bound to spend the money which they had tried to put aside for the agent. After all, there are different ways of looking at the law, and a rich man in some way or other would evade the Act perhaps by taking the agent temporarily into his employment or raising his salary as registration agent or by some subterfuge of that kind. It would be better to meet this case quite openly and to recognise that the money allowed is not sufficient out of which to pay the agent a reasonable fee. I am not inclined to accept the fees of £150 and £100, but I would suggest £100 for the counties and £75 for the boroughs. My right hon. Friend and I have come to the conclusion that we had better put some fee into the Bill, and, if the House will agree to that compromise we will accept the Amendment in that form, recognising at the same time that it is not absolutely necessary. It is only "may" and not "shall." [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood that some Scotsmen now do not pay any money, and that practice may still go on. I have endeavoured to the best of my power to meet the two sides that have taken part in the discussion, and if the House is willing to agree to the Amendment in that form the Government are prepared to accept it.
      Mr. T. WILSON: I am absolutely astonished by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Why has he not made any allowance for motor cars and taxicabs? There is no election agent in the country worth £150, and I say that with a full knowledge of the responsibility I am taking. To insert in an Act of Parliament that a candidate may pay his election agent £150 or £100, as the case may be, is absolutely astounding. The amount allowed under the Bill now is quite
      2344
      sufficient to cover all the expenses of any candidate. In the name of the Labour party I protest strongly against this Amendment. I hope the Government will leave this matter an open question and will not use their influence in whipping Members into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment. I am also astonished that anyone who pretends to be a democrat in any shape or form should bring forward an Amendment of this kind. It is absolutely contrary to the principle of democracy. So far as I and the party with which I am connected are concerned, we shall vote solidly against the proposal. If it is accepted by the House it will be a blemish on what is otherwise a good Bill, although there may be certain things in it which are not altogether good. The proposal lends itself to gerrymandering. There may be a multiplicity of candidates in an election. Some of them will not stand the least chance of getting 2 per cent. of the votes, but they will be allowed to spend £150 on an election agent. The influence of those candidates and of their election agents may, and probably will, be used in support of another candidate altogether. In this Bill we ought to keep clear, so far as we can, of gerrymandering. There is no doubt that the principle of this proposal, which, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept, does lend itself to gerrymandering. I protest also in the name of the poor man who cannot afford to pay the extra amount which candidates will be allowed to spend if the Amendment is accepted. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision and will leave out of the Bill a proposal to fix the maximum amount which shall be paid to election agents.
      There is another consideration. An election agent might probably be the registration agent also. He may be receiving a good salary as registration agent, and if he is made election agent as well—I do not wish to be brutal in my remarks—it will give an opportunity to use the money for other purposes than the election agent's expenses. If this Amendment is put into the Bill it will be an excrescence, and it will not redound to the intelligence or integrity of Members of the Government. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) to shake his head. I have seen him shake his head before. He is not a poor man, and does not know what £150 means to a poor man,

      2345
      and he does not know what £150 extra spent on an election very often means in connection with an election. From the democratic standpoint, and also in the interest of the honour of candidates who fight an election, this Amendment ought not to be accepted. I would again beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position he seemed to take up, and to say that he will have none of it, that he will not give a rich man who is a candidate for Parliament an advantage over the poor man, which he will have if this Amendment is accepted.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. T. DAVIES: I wish to support the last speaker in his attitude towards this Amendment, and I hope the Government will again consider and not consent to
      its insertion in the Bill. It is quite true that none of us
      want to pay our election agents less than the value of their work, but what we want and the whole idea of the Bill is, to reduce election expenses. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if this Bill passes as it stands it will reduce the expenses by 50 per cent. in boroughs and more than 50 per cent. in the counties. The suggestion made in this Amendment is to pay 22 per cent. more on an average election in the boroughs arid 25 per cent. more for an average election in the counties. Under the Bill an average election for boroughs would cost £450, and £100 added to that means £550, while the average election in the counties would cost under the Bill £600, and £150 added to that means £750, or 25 per cent. more. It is quite possible to run an election in large boroughs on £450. I have several times contested a London County Council election with 24,000 voters, and fought th, whole thing for less than £450, and won each time. If a county council election in London with 24,000 voters can be fought for £450, surely £450 is quite sufficient to fight any borough election for Parliament. The expenses of the presiding officer are to be paid by the State. 'Hie sum allowed by the Amendment is too much, and, in view of the attitude of the Labour party, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gulland) will not press it, and that the Government will not accept it.
      Mr. GULLAND: Perhaps I may be allowed to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech and the strong arguments he put in favour of something like the Amendment. Had the Debate been in the
      2346
      ordinary course I should have gladly accepted the sums he suggested, but it is quite evident to everybody that the feeling of the House is against it. I certainly have no desire to press such a matter against the expression of opinion from every quarter of the House, and I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir G. YOUNGER:I beg to move, after the word " register " [" sevenpence for each elector on the register "], to insert the words " in the case of a group of boroughs election, sixpence for each elector on the register."
      I argued on the Committee stage that groups of boroughs were in a wholly different position from either single boroughs or divisions in a, large town. It is perfectly impossible in such a group, with places sometimes a considerable distance from one another, to run that election 9, scale which is perhaps suitable enough for a division which is inside a ringed fence. The Amendment on the last occasion was objected to by my right hon. Friend opposite, although he must know quite well that there is an essential difference between the two cases. You cannot use schools as you can at council elections in a town like that. You would have to use the public hall in every case and pay a good deal for it, and you would have other expenses. If you have a biggish town you must have a sub-agent. In the group of boroughs, for example, which I represent at present, 5d. would be a perfect impossibility. It would be bad enough in the new constituency, where you have a pretty large town in addition to the principal borough. One town has 14,000, another 8,000, another 6,000, and so on. You cannot hold an election in a board school. It is quite impossible. You would have to go to the public hall and perhaps pay a £5 note for it or something like that. They always put the price up at election time. In a large? borough it will be higher. I do not see how it oan reasonably be suggested in a case of that. sort that you should stick to exactly the same limit that you allow for a division of a borough. I think, therefore, there ought to be a third scale for groups of boroughs.
      Mr. BOYTON: I beg to second the Amendment
      Mr.FISHER: I am placed in rather an awkward position by this Amendment being moved, which I have had no opportunity of thoroughly looking at. I should like to know to what extent it would apply. I have had no experience myself, but there seems to be something in my hon. Friend's argument that a group cf boroughs would be more expensive than a single borough. At the same time, I rather think the Amendment was down on the Paper in Committee.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes; I moved it.
      Mr. FISHER: Then it was not acceptable to the House. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. There may be other opportunities of it being moved in another place where it can be considered.
      I have had too little time to consider it to advise the House.
      Mr. GULLAND: This was moved by the hon. Baronet in Committee, and I for one opposed it, and the Home Secretary concluded the proceedings by saying:
      " I could not possibly accept this Amendment. A group of district boroughs should be treated as a borough and not as a county. The position is no worse under the Bill than it is to-day. This embodies the recommendations of the Commission, and I cannot depart from it."
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.

      REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
      1. The names, contents, and boundaries of each Parliamentary borough and county and division thereof shall be as specified in this Schedule.
      2. The areas mentioned in the second and last columns of this Schedule shall

      PART I.—PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS.

      (1)LONDON.

      Name of Parliamentary Borough

      Contents of Parliamentary Borough

      Total Number of Members for Parliamentary Borough.

      Name of Divisions of Parliamentary Borough

      Contents or Boundaries of Divisions.

      Stepney

      Metropolitan Borough of Stepney

      Three

      Limehouse

      Limehouse North, Limehouse South Mile End Old Town North East, Mile End Old Town South East and Ratcliffe Wards.

      be taken to be those areas as constituted on the first day of October, 1917: Provided that any misnomer or inaccurate description of any of those areas in those columns shall not in any way prevent or abridge the operation of this Act with respect to the subject of the description if it is so designated as to be commonly understood.
      3. The wards mentioned in this Schedule are, in relation to any borough in London, wards of the Metropolitan borough; in relation to any municipal borough, wards of the municipal borough; and, in relation to any urban district, wards of the urban district.
      4. If any doubt arises as to the constituency in which any parish, townland, ward, or other place, whether larger or smaller than a parish, townland, or ward, is intended by this Schedule to be included, that doubt shall be determined by the Local Government Board.
      Mr.MUNRO: I beg to move, at end of paragraph 3, to insert,
      " 4. The expression ' burgh,' when used in this Schedule, means a burgh as bounded for police purposes on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
      This Amendment will make it perfectly clear that "borough " means the police boundaries of the borough. That, I understand, was the intention of the Commissioners, and this will give effect to their intentions.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 4, insert the words " or in Scotland by the Secretary for Scotland." [Mr. Munro.]
      Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, in column 5, to leave out the words "Mile End Old Town North East," and insert instead thereof the word " Shadwell."
      The Boundary Commissioners had a, ,difficult task when they had to deal with the East-end of London, and one of their proposals was that the two divisions of Whitechapel and St. George's should be amalgamated. They apparently found the number somewhat in excess of the average, and in order to reduce it they conceived the idea of taking away one of the wards of Whitechapel, with some 12,000 population, and putting it into another division; and in order to do that they went to still another division, Lime house, and took away a ward with a population £of 8,000. That may make very little difference on paper, but when one considers local interests it considerably alters affairs. The other evening a deputation interviewed my hon. Friend (Sir W. Pearce) and myself in this House, and they explained that this ward of Whitechapel, which contains the Poor Law institution, has been transferred to another Parliamentary district, and that it happened to be one of the heaviest rated wards, which would have a considerable effect by taking away a large part of the rateable value. They also explained what the effect would -be on an election day. The Poor Law elector would still vote in one division for the Poor Law, for Parliamentary he would vote in another division, and for the county council a further complication would arise. They also showed, what is a matter of some importance to the House, that local affairs would all have to be disorganised and rearranged, and the only advantage which could possibly be derived would be a reduction of some few thousands in the total populations of the different districts. This rearrangement effects the transference of some 12,000 people from one Parliamentary division to another, and replaces it by a further 8,000, making an interference with some-

      Stepney

      —

      —

      Whitechapel

      Mile End New Town, St. George-inthe-East North, St. George-in-theEast South, Shadwell, Spitalfields East, Spitalfields West, White-chapel Middle, Whitechapel South and Tower Wards.

      Mr. GLYN-JONES: In the absence of: he hon. and gallant Member for St. -George's, I beg to move, in column 4, after the word " Whitechapel," to insert the -words " St. George's."
      2350
      thing like 20,000 people in all. As far as I can ascertain, not one single person of these 20,000, whose interests will be considerably affected, has the slightest desire for a change, and that opinion, I believe, is well backed up and endorsed, and that view is confirmed by the hon. Member (Mr. Brookes), whose interests are affected, and also by my hon. Friend (Sir W. Pearce).
      Mr. BOYTON: I beg to second the Amendment.!
      Sir G. CAVE: If I follow the Amendment, this affects the constituencies of Limehouse and Whitechapel. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. George's (Captain Wedgwood Benn) came to see me before going away, and lie was strongly opposed to this change being made. I feel very reluctant to entertain this Amendment in his absence, especially in view of the recommendations of the Commissioners. It is very difficult for the House to turn itself into Boundary Commissioners, and I think in a case of this kind, unless there is agreement, the House had better keep to the decision of the Commissioners.
      Mr. GULLAND: I should like to say a word in support of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. George's, who is a very well known and very popular Member, was home for about a month, and while at home the Committee stage was going through. Nothing was said then about altering these boundaries, and it is a little difficult for the House to make an alteration of these boundaries in his absence. He stated privately to the right hon. Gentleman and to my self that he was opposed to this change. if the matter had been brought up in the Committee stage when he was here, there might have been something said for it, but, on the grounds I have stated, it is undesirable for the House to alter the decision previously made.
      Amendment negatived.
      The whole of my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency is incorporated in the new constituency of Whitechapel, and it is felt by his constituents that the name should be Whitechapel and St. George's.
      Sir H. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I deprecate having too many double-barrelled names, but I am anxious to have regard to the wishes of the locality, and if there be no opposition

      Birmingham

      Hockley

      St. Paul's Ward, All Saints Ward (except the part thereof included in the Aston Division) and the part of Lozells Ward which is not included in the Aston Division.

      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word " Hockley," and to insert instead thereof the words " West Birmingham."
      I move this Amendment in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain). West Birmingham is the old name of the constituency, and it carries with it many associations. The right hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) the other day urged as a reason for restoring the name of his constituency the feeling of sentiment existing in the locality. The name of West Birmingham is associated with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and, as can

      Coventry

      County borough of Coventry

      One

      —

      —

      Mr. DAVID MASON: I beg to move, in column 3, to leave out the word " one,- and to insert instead thereof the word " two."
      This means an increase of the representation of the city of Coventry by one member. I think hon. Members who listened to the Debate in Committee will agree that I am justified in recalling the figures that were quoted, because they made an almost complete case. The actual figures supplied to me by the town clerk show that the Registrar-General's estimate of the population in July, 1914, was 115,489. The figure taken by the medical officer of health on confirmation of statistics in connection with birth and death rates in 1914 was 119,003. One hundred and twenty thousand is the exact number to qualify for two members, so that the medical officer's estimate is only about 900 short of the required number. Since then I believe I am right in saying that the population has increased by 30,000., There is no doubt that to-day there is ample qualification, and even in 1914, when the Census was taken, there was, almost ample qualification for two mem-
      2352
      to the proposal I shall ask the House to accept this Amendment, especially as it is supported by the hon. and gallant Member for St. George's, who is not here.
      Amendment agreed to.
      be easily understood by hon. Members,. it is desired to retain it in the future, in view of the respect and great affection in which he was held in his city.
      An HON.MEMBER:I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G.CAVE: I hope the House will give itself the pleasure of accepting this Amendment. We would not willingly lose the name of West Birmingham from the list of British constituencies, and I shall_ be exceedingly glad to accept the proposal.
      Amendment agreed to.
      bers. It is suggested that the medical. officer's figures more nearly approximate to the population because he is guided by figures obtained from different sources—by the number of unoccupied houses ascertained by actual visitation, the number of births and deaths registered, reports from the Labour Exchange, and the amount of overcrowding which exists in the city. The medical officer says his figures of 119,000 may well be within the mark, as he always tries not to overestimate. They are only 997 below the 120,000 required to entitle the city to a, second representative. Recently Coventry was faced with a food shortage on account of the greatly increasing population, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food assured me in this House that an extra supply of food would be sent to Coventry to meet this substantial increase in population. I hope that that will be an additional fact which will go to convince my right hon. Friend that Coventry is entitled to a second representative, although when the 1914 register was made up there was not quite a sufficient number.
      Then, unfortunately, we have a deplorable strike at present in Coventry. The Labour party feel very keenly that the city is entitled to two members, and it would, I believe, tend considerably to allay the unrest which exists if this constituency, which is largely composed of highly skilled artisans, had another member to represent it, perhaps in the Labour interest, and from this point of view it may appeal to hon. Members that in the national interest it would be a good thing to concede this demand, which is but fair and equitable, to Coventry. Hon. Members may think that the increase of population is transitory, being made up largely of munition workers. On this I may point out that in the ten years previous to the War the population increased by 50 per cent. There is no city in the United Kingdom which made such progress in population. In this respect it was more like an American city. There was an enormous increase in motor engineering, and now we have the construction of aeroplanes, which is likely to become a permanent industry, if we are anxious, as we naturally are, to develop that very important arm of our Service. So that the substantial increase of population is in the main likely to be permanent, and to bring the figure far beyond that which would qualify the city for additional representation.
      Coventry, of course, has played a great part in national history. It once had a double membership, but lost its members. It hopes again to revive the old Bishopric. The people, I understand, have saved 245,000 for that purpose. Though it had many periods of depression, it has shown all through its history a marvellous capacity for recovery, as well as indomitable vigour and great pre-eminence in various trades and industries which it has taken up. If it were a city of mushroom growth, or one likely to sink to a low level of population, there might be some justification for refusing this demand, but its history shows that it is likely to become one of the most progressive cities of the United Kingdom, and its present population is likely, largely. to remain permanent, and therefore its qualification is assured. It may be said that if we make an exception in this case an exception will have to be made in others. Naturally, that is a very proper comment to make, but I submit that this is really an exceptional case. There is no
      2354
      city which can compare with Coventry in its progress, or has advanced in population to anything like the same extent. L have not bombarded hon. Members with. circulars showing the progress of the city, but I have approached a considerable number of various parties, and I do-not think that there w as a single member who disagreed with me when I said that this is really an exceptional case. With great confidence I leave the matter to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman and the impartiality of my fellow Members.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I have great pleasure in seconding this Amendment.
      Recently I saw a very important deputation from the city of Coventry, who. gave me all the facts of the case and impressed me with its great strength. It. is a most remarkable case, and one in which the taking of the population at the figure of 1914 did a serious injustice in not recognising the actual facts when the Boundary Commissioners dealt with the matter. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. Coventry has now a population that entitles it to two members. If the population were taken as it is at present, it would be very much greater than the number required for two members. The Mayor informed me that during those years a very considerable number of houses have been built within the area, and that population is quite certain to be permanent. I know the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman as to increasing the total number of memhers, and that we cannot punish some other great constituency to oblige Coventry, but if there is any exception to be made at all this is certainly the strongest case which I have seen.
      Sir G. CAVE: This is one of those hard cases which come under the rules that the Conference has laid down and the House has adopted. In the matter of: population they have taken the number of 70,000, but they do not require a population of 140,000 for two members. but only a population of 120,000. Already there is a margin allowed in our calculations, but Coventry falls short—according to the figures of 1914—by something like 5,000 from the number required. The hon. Gentleman, who has pressed this forward with great perseverance, says that the present population exceeds the figure required, and probably he is right. But the same observation,.

      2355
      applies to a number of other cases. It is not, he says, merely a munitions increase, but is one which will last. It was, however, absolutely essential for the Commissioners to work on established facts, and not to indulge too much in speculation. The case is a hard one, and all the harder because I understand that 'Coventry may, within a not remote period, extend its boundaries and take in an area which would give it another member. As regards the argument in reference to the strike being settled, if I accept this Amendment on that ground there. again, we should be indulging too much in the pleasure of speculation by

      Grimsby

      County

      One

      —

      —

      Borough of Grimsby and Urban District of Cleethorpes

      Mr. TICKLER:I beg to move, in column 2, to leave out the words " and urban -district of Cleethorpes."
      At the present time the Parliamentary borough of Grimsby consists of the county borough of Grimsby, the rural district of Grimsby, and the urban district of Cleethorpes. Grimsby has a population of -77,000, that being the computed population at the present time. Cleethorpes has a population of just over 23,000. It is v.-ell known to Members that Lincolnshire, being an agricultural county, very largely populated, will suffer if its representation be reduced, and the county will have a less number of representatives under the new redistribution than it has at the present time. One of the Instructions given to the Commissioners was that a borough with a population of 70,000 should be entitled to one Member, and thus Grimsby 'claims to be entitled to one Member. Grimsby, amongst other things, is the largest fishing port in the world, and also has a considerable trade as a shipping port and a commercial port, timber and
      coal being the principal business. The urban district of Cleethorpes is a seaside resort that has nothing in common with Grimsby. Grimsby has its trade and commerce to look after, and is not concerned as to whether Cleethorpes has any visitors at all. The business of Cleethorpes is to cater for visitors, and a great many of its population are engaged in letting lodgings to visitors in summer-time. I may .say that Cleethorpes was represented
      2356
      accepting an argument of that kind. As regards the historical argument, I listened to it with interest, and was grateful to my hon. Friend; though I observed that he did not refer to a certain heroine, whom we all knew so well in our youth. I cannot, however, accept the Amendment. First, because it would add to the number of the House, which none of us desire to do, and, secondly, it would be opening the door to a number of other and similar claims, and I think it is of the greatest importance that we should not do that. I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      before the Commissioners at Lincoln, and objection was made to its being included in the Parliamentary borough of Grimsby. It was stated that Cleethorpes wished to be included in the neighbouring Louth Division, because its interests were more identified with the county division than with Grimsby. It was also represented on behalf of Cleethorpes, that the Lincoln County Council had passed a Resolution unanimously in favour of that urban district being included in the county division. The borough council of Grimsby passed a Resolution unanimously to the effect that they preferred that the -Parliamentary borough of Grimsby should consist of the county borough of Grimsby only. They made that representation to the Commissioners.
      After these various expressions of opinion in support of what I am now proposing, everybody in the district was surprised to find that the representations which had been made to the Commissioners had been unheeded and passed over. They were very much surprised that the Commissioners had decided, and recommended to Parliament, that the urban district of Cleethorpes should be included in the Parliamentary borough of Grimsby as before, making it very much out of proportion to the rest of the county; in fact, it will have a population of about 104,000, whereas some of the county divisions have a population of only about 45,000. Another objection taken was that Hull, a competing port on the Humber

      2357
      with Grimsby, is to have four members, with only a population of about 300,000, thus giving a population of about 60,000 to each member. Therefore, if anything comes before the House affecting the two ports in competition, Grimsby will have no chance at all to compete with Hull, seeing that the member for Grimsby, whoever he may be, is representing 104,000; while one member in Hull only represents 60,000, and, therefore, it practically would take the votes of two members for Grimsby to equal that of one member for Hull, on the basis of number of population. All these matters have been thoroughly thrashed out by the places concerned. The Lincoln County Council, the Grimsby Council, and the Cleethorpes Council, have all discussed the matter thoroughly, and they appeared before the Commissioners at Lincoln, before whom Grimsby also put forth its objection. All were very much surprised, indeed, after the very great trouble taken to put the matter seriously before the Commissioners that no notice at all was taken of their representations.
      Colonel WEIGALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The county authorities and the borough authorities are unanimous in their support of Cleethorpes being included in the county Division rather than in the borough of Grimsby. A few years ago there was a proposal to incorporate this urban district within the borough of Grimsby, and the main consideration I want to put is this. In rural divisions with industrial' and urban centres the agricultural vote is inevitably swamped by the urban vote. The county authority felt that by incorporating Cleethorpes in the Louth Division you would overload for the moment the population of that division. The answer to that is that the North-East of Grimsby in the near future must become purely an urban area on account of the establishment of the Immingham Docks. At the moment Immingham happens to be a portion of a rural district. I submit that by adding Cleethorpes to the Louth Division you will maintain the division as agricultural, and inevitably Immingham area will be added to the borough of
      Grimsby. I understand that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. T. Davies) will object to this proposal on the ground that it would increase the population and area of his division to an unreasonable extent. I would point out, however, that as against the increase of population by adding Clee-
      2358
      thorpes he can look to a reduction in the Immingham side. Although this conflicts with the existing administrative area, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way ho accept the Amendment.
      Mr. T. DAVIES: I oppose this proposal in the first place because the matter has been fully considered by the Commissioners on' two occasions, and secondly because it would increase the population of the Louth Division to about 82,000, while in the other county divisions there are about 58,000 or 59,000. My objection is really to the Amendment which follows and which would add to my division 24,000 beyond the proper number. At Lincoln the suggestion was made that Cleethorpes should be included in the Louth Division and that two administrative areas should be taken away from the northern part of the Louth Division, that is the rural area of Grimsby and Caistor. I understand that both political parties in the Louth Division would agree to that arrangement. It would bring the population to about 50,000 and would reduce the area. Although that arrangement was agreed upon between both political parties in Louth the Commissioners found some difficulty in accepting it, and by an arrangement at Grimsby between the different parties the original boundaries were agreed to. Therefore I am bound to support the agreement come to between those parties at Grimsby. If the present proposal were entertained the Louth Division would consist of 82,000 of the population, whereas Grimsby would only have 70,000. I think the House will see that it is quite unreasonable, at this late stage of the Bill and without consulting all the authorities, to accept this proposal. Both the Mover and the Seconder left out of account entirely the borough council which is most interested, namely, the ancient borough of Louth. We are content with the arrangement made by the Commissioners and hope that it will be adhered to.
      Sir G. CAVE: It is not possible to accept this Amendment for the reasons given by the hon. Member for the Louth Division and for other reasons. Cleethorpes, which it is proposed to transfer from Grimsby to Louth, is an urban district immediately adjoining the borough of Grimsby. The policy of the Commissioners throughout, as far as they could, was not to divide urban district areas where they could join them, and this is exactly the kind of case where they ought to be joined. If you

      2359
      took Cleethorpes away from Grimsby it would increase the population of the county division of Louth far beyond the

      Manchester

      County Borough of Manchester

      Ten

      Ardwick

      Ardwick, New Cross and St. Mark's, Wards.

      Blackley

      Blackley, Crumpsall and Moston Wards.

      Collyhurst

      Collyhurst, Harpurhey and Mlles Platting Wards, and the part of St. Michael's Ward which is not included in the Exchange Division.

      Exchange

      Cheetham, Collegiate Church, Exchange, Oxford, St. Anne's, St.. Clement's and St. John's Wards,. and the part of St. Michael's Ward which lies to the north-west of a line drawn along the middle of Rochdale-road.

      Gorton

      Gorton North, Gorton South and Openshaw Wards.

      Hulme

      Medlock Street, Moss Side West and St. George's Wards.

      Moss Side ...

      All Saints, Moss Side East and St. Luke's Wards.

      Newton Heath

      Beswick, Bradford and Newton Heath Wards.

      Rusholme

      Levenshulme, Longsight and Rusholme Wards.

      Withington

      Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Didsbury and Withington Wards.

      [The Amendment next on, the Paper, in the name of Mr. SUTTON,proposes to substitute a new scheme for the county borough of Manchester]
      Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is not drawn in a proper form. It proposes to omit a great number of words from the Bill in order to replace them. An Amendment should be drawn in such a way as to leave out words from the Bill and to insert fresh ones.
      Mr. SUTTON: Is it not in order, seeing that my suggestion is to leave out certain names so as to substitute for them the scheme which the town clerk of Manchester presented to the Commission in Manchester for the ten divisions?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have pointed out to the hon. Member that he proposes to omit from the Bill a great number of names and divisions, and then proposes to reinsert them. That is quite contrary to the method of our procedure in Committee or on Report. The proper course is to move to omit such names as, for instance, the name of Ardwick, which he does not wish to be in the Ardwick Division, and to insert in the Ardwick Division the wards he wishes to put it there; but it is not the
      2360
      average and would necessitate a redistribution of the other divisions throughout. the county.
      Amendment negatived
      proper course to propose to leave out eight or ten divisions and then the reinsert six or seven.
      Sir J. RANDLES: I beg to move, in column 5, to leave out the words " Ardwick, New Cross, and. St. Mark's Wards," and to insert instead thereof the words " Beswick and Bradford Wards and the part of Ardwick Ward which lies to the north of a line drawn along the middle of Hyde Road."
      10.0 P.M.
      On the last occasion when the question of the Manchester boundary was under consideration the President of the Local Government Board was good enough to tell us that he would look into the question very carefully and see if the proposed inclusion of a number of electors in the Exchange Division was desirable or whether there should be some alteration. My contention is that in creating these constituencies care should be taken that there should be some community of interests, some association of interests,. which would justify the inclusion of fresh areas. We were on that occasion given an, assurance that attention would be paid to. this, and I venture to hope that the Home. Secretary will now be able to suggest some course, if he does not adopt exactly

      2361
      the plan I have proposed in my Amendment, which will give to the Exchange Division of Manchester no change from its present condition, unless it be a change by adding to it a population or electoral area that would be of the same type and.of the same class as the commercial interest which predominates that Ex change Division. The object of my Amendment is to avoid so far as may be any disturbance of the electoral area as now represented by Members in this House. My proposal is to try and preserve the present electoral areas instead of disturbing them. I say that the population justifies their retention. The number of electors justifies their retention, and the minimum amount of inconvenience will be caused to all concerned if my proposal is carried. I believe that two of the three parties are agreed that the Amendment I am proposing now will be better'for the electoral area of Manchester and an improvement on the scheme of the Commission. If it is possible by any means to avoid disturbance it is generally agreed it should be done. We have not succeeded in arriving at complete unanimity. I believe some of my hon. Friends from Manchester still hold the opinion, which they expressed in Committee, that the Exchange Division, which is now the North West Division of Manchester, need not be considered to be essentially a commercial area. It was suggested in the last discussion that limited liability companies bad taken the places of private firms.I venture to suggest there have been'for a very long time limited liability companies, but there are more private firms and more concerned entitled to be represented to-day than ever was the case at any previous period, and when the
      House is agreed that a certain vote should be retained, that, for instance, the business vote should be retained it should naturally give effect to it. Under the scheme of the Bill as it stands the Exchange Division has the largest electorate by far of any of the ten Manchester constituencies, and it will have this large electorate imposed upon it by bringing into its area a population which has nothing in common with it, which has never been associated with it and which more properly belongs to another area in Manchester, a residential area including a large number of lodging houses and establishments of that kind which could more
      2362
      properly be represented in association with areas of its own type rather than by a great commercial centre where we expect to have something like 16,000 electors who are non-resident but are qualified by reason of having their business premises in the city of Manchester. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept my Amendment to carry out the expectation which was properly aroused by the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board on the last occasion, but I am quite sure of this, that if he does anything to minimise the disturbance that is being caused he will find it very easy to take the northern portion of Manchester and without any disturbance at all of the old electoral areas to retain these areas and give them their old names to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is only in the southern portion that there need be some disturbance, and such disturbance as is there inevitable could be carried out on the lines of the Bill.
      I suggest it is desirable to mitigate the existing inconvenience. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce by resolution had asked to have this Exchange Division retained as a commercial area, and it is the only one constituency out of ten in Manchester in regard to which that body has passed such a resolution. The majority of the members of the corporation have also signed a memorial to the same effect. They desire to retain the commercial character of the one constituency which has a history. We heard just now that West Birmingham was to be allowed to retain its individuality because of the history which attached to it, and in the same way we ask that North-West Manchester should retain its individuality, a retention hich is justified by its commercial preeminence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) is at the present moment seeking the suffrages of that particular constituency. Why? Because I presume of its preeminence as a commercial centre in the North.
      Sir W. BARTON: No, no
      Sir J. RANDLES: It has in the past been represented by men eminent in the commercial and political world and equally distinguished men are seeking and will seek to represent it. With a view to carrying out this desire, and in order that the matter may be in order, I move the first of the Amendments that stand in my name.
      Mr. NEEDHAM: On a point of order, the hon. Member has moved the first of his Amendments, but his speech has related to the whole matter. I suppose it will be the opinion of the House that the whole series of Amendments standing in his name are to be under discussion following his speech.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is so. If you pull one piece out of the building it all tumbles down, and you have to reconstruct on those lines. It is therefore necessary, I think, in a case of this sort, which is not merely a change of name but a change of substance. to discuss the whole situation.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like the opportunity of seconding this Amendment because I do happen to know something about the proposal made. I shall only deal with the point with regard to the Exchange Division as a commercial centre. The proposal is to transpose a portion of the Northern Division of Manchester to the Exchange Division. I think I have the unique honour of being the only living person who has stood for both, and so I know something of the section of the North Division that is proposed to be transferred, and of the Exchange Division into which it is proposed to transfer this St. Michael's Ward. I want to emphasise the case on behalf of the Constituency that did me the honour to elect
      Sir W. BARTON: Reject!
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: me some years ago, and which the hon. Gentleman so kindly reminds me rejected me so quickly. I think the hon. Member for Waltham-stow (Major Sir J. Simon), who we thought was going to be the candidate, has already rejected himself. At all events, the hon. Gentleman said he was not yet the candidate, and I take it something has happened to cause him—and I think perhaps it is wisdom on his part—no longer to he a candidate.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Does that really signify? He is very well employed.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman tempted me to that digression. The constituency is really the great commercial centre of Lancashire, the centre in which all the business part of Lancashire exists. All the railway stations, most of the banks, the exchange,
      2364
      the great cotton firms, all the great business houses of Manchester have their homes in this constituency. If it is desirable—and I think the House believes that to be so—inite types of constituencies should be represented, this is at least one particular constituency that should have its type preserved. There is the Exchange Division of Glasgow, and the City of London, which, as we know, is specifically and specially reserved by-the Commissioners as a commercial centre, and I do plead with the House that this particular division should be retained as a commercial centre. With regard to the ward proposed to be put in, St. Michael's Ward, I know it almost as equally well as the commercial centre. It is a portion of the Northern Division of Manchester, and is a purely working class centre throughout. It is a ward where nearly everybody is of the working-class type, a typical working-class constituency. There is very little commercial life in that division at all, and St. Michael's Ward is a ward inhabited" almost entirely by working-class people. They are the same type as the rest of the, division, and to take them out from the Northern Division and put them in a cornmercial centre would be to transfer them from a division sui generic with themselves, and to put them in a division where they have no relationship at all. That being so, I venture to suggest that the hon. Member for North-West Manchester has. made out a case, and I venture to ask the House to accept it. It is not a party question. I have no axe to grind in any way whatever, because, as the hon. Member-(Sir W. Barton) reminds me, it is some, years since I was a Member for it; but I do take an interest in the division, and knowing the commercial supremacy of that particular division, I have come here to-night to plead for it, in order that it may be retained as the commercial centre, of Manchester—I almost go further, and' say the commercial centre of South-East Lancashire.
      Sir G. CAVE: I foresee the possibility-of considerable debate on this proposal, and I think it may save time if I state at once the view the Government take. This has been a very troublesome matter indeed. The President of the Local Government Board promised in Committee that he would look into the proposal which was made then, and which is again made now. Unfortunately, the-scheme in the Bill is only approved by

      2365
      one of the three great parties which are interested in Manchester, the other two parties having each of them a favourite scheme of their own, which is a rival scheme to the one in the Bill. The main difficulty, as the House will realis from the speeches that have been made, concerns the Exchange Division of Manchester, which was in the main the old Division of North-West Manchester, a division which I suppose has rejected more great men than any other division: If a change were made in the boundaries of that division to satisfy the objections of the present Mover it would affect a number of other divisions.
      Mr. SUTTON: All of them!
      Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman says all of them. I am not sure of that, but it would affect a considerable number of the other divisions of Manchester. You would have to redistribute Manchester almost from the beginning, and that is what the hon. Gentleman does in this series of Amendments. This is, of course, a serious and very important question for Manchester, and I have done my best to induce the parties to come to some agreement. They were good enough, through their representatives, to come and see me and talk it over, and I did my best to get them into line either on this or some other scheme. I regret that in the end I found that quite impossible. It was impossible to bring the parties to a common opinion, and I am afraid they are as much at issue as they were. I would have suggested a compromise if my local knowledge had been sufficient for the purpose, but I felt that after the local inquiry that had been held, after careful consideration by the assistant Commissioner, by the local authority, and by the Commission itself, it was perfectly certain that no suggestion I could make would be better than the one proposed. I do not pretend to go into the case on its merits, but I am afraid that. with the difficulty that still exists, it will be practically impossible for the House to take the matter into its own hands, and I think the only thing we can do—and I say it with the greatest regret, because it must lead to dissatisfaction somewhere—is to follow the decision of the Commissioners and adhere to the Bill.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: This is not by any means a usual case. It is a very unusual case. You have only to look at the facts, and consider the situation from the point
      2366
      of view which has been so well exposed by my hon. Friend behind me, almost to come to the conclusion that there must be a quite unnecessary disturbance of the divisions of Manchester, and a distinct ignoring of certain directions given by this. House. Natural boundaries have been entirely neglected. There is a river, the Medlock I think, which would form an admirable boundary, which is entirely ignored, and the river is crossed and recrossed here and there in a perfectly unnecessary way. One direct instruction given was ignored—where there is an
      electorate of 16,000. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the proposal will increase the number of members. The matter is very unfortunate. It leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, and I do not mind saying so.
      Mr. NEEDHAM: After what has fallen from the Home Secretary I feel that it is necessary to urge upon the House the importance of supporting the Government. The Commissioners have examined all the plans which have been proposed, and have given their decision, which is embodied in the Bill. The hon. Member for East Manchester and myself put down Amendments which would have ensured a measure of agreement between the two parties in Manchester, and would have brought into being the plan which was. proposed by the town clerk of Manchester, and adopted by the Commissioners in their provisional arrangement. But the Amendments were out of order, and we were unable to speak to them. On the general question I will repeat what I said on a previous occasion, that the particular part, St. Michael's Ward, does not in any sense differ from the ward upon which the hon. Member laid stress; that it adds something to North-West Manchester which is different in character to what is at present in North-West Manchester. The fact of the matter is that that part of St. Michael's Ward does not differ in any way from its contiguous neighbour. I do not wish in any sense to repeat all the facts and arguments, but I shall be glad to support the suggestion made to the Home Secretary.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. SUTTON: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word "Collyhurst,", and to insert instead thereof the word "Platting."

      2367
      The three parties, I believe, in Manchester, agreed upon this, and it is the wish of the hon. Member for North-East Manchester.
      Mr NEEDHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I have no objection
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. SUTTON: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the words "Newton

      Rochester

      Municipal Boroughs of Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester

      Two

      Gillingham

      Municipal borough of Gillingham, St. Mary Ward of the borough of Chatham, and the part of the municipal borough of Rochester which is not in cluded in the Rochester Division.

      Chatham

      Municipal borough of Rochester (exvept the part of St. Peter's Ward which lies to the north and east of a line drawn, in prolongation of that part of the borough boundary which lies between St. Bartholomew's Chapel and Boundary Wharf, to the borough boundary in the River Medway), and Luton and St. John Wards of the borough of chatham.

      Mr. HOHLER: I beg to move, in column 1, before the word "Rochester," to insert the words "Chatham and."
      The effect of this is to associate the Parliamentary borough of Chatham with that of Rochester. The Report of the Commissioners gave the name of the borugh of the new divisions created out of the tow old Parliamentary boroughs of Rochester and Chatham. Rochester has a population of 31,000, and therefore, under this Bill, it is quite clear it would have to disappear. The Parliamentary borough of Chatham had a population at the last Census of somewhere about 9,000. Under the Report of the Commissioners the two old Parliamentary boroughs were divided in this sense: about 30,000 inhabitants of Chatham were added to Rochester and called the Rochester Division. On the other hand about 10,000 inhabitants of Chatham, with the 52,000 inhabitants of Gillingham, were known as the Chatham Division, and the commissioners recommended that those two divisions should be known as the Medway boroughs of Rochester and Chatham Division. Those names were not acceptable to any of the corporations concerned, and in Committee I moved an Amendment to give to the Parliamentary borough the name Chatham, to leave the Rochester Division,
      2368
      Heath," and to insert instead thereof the word " Clayton."
      Whereas Clayton has a population of 57,000, Newton Heath has only 20,000. The town clerk suggested Clayton in the original scheme
      Mr. NEEDHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I accept it
      Amendment agreed to
      and to give to the Chatham Division the name of the Gillingham Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Reochester, on the other hand, asked that the title of the Parliamentary borough might be given to Rochester, and that the other should be known as the Chatham and Gillingham Division. I could not accept that, but I said that I did not object to Rochester being the Prlimentary borough because I did not think Chatham would object. The Member for Rochester was careful to say that he reserved to himself all his rights in case the proposal was not acceptable to the Corporation of Rochester. The people of Chatham very much objected to their name disappearing from the title of the borough and they would prefer Rochester being one division and Gillingham the other. Having regard to what has happened, I could not ask that the name of Rochester should disappear, bit I ask that Chatham may be associated with the title. I do not mind whether it is called Chatham and Rochester or Rochester and Chatham. When it is remembered that Rochester has received from Chatham a certain number of inhabitants in order to enable her to continue as a Parliamentary entity at all, I think it is only fair that the Home Secretary it is only fair that the Home Secretary should meet me in the matter and associate the two names of Rochester and
      Chatham together. Chatham has been a borough for a great number of years, and as Rochester has had to take over a portion of Chatham's population to preserve her representation it is only fair that the name of Chatham should appear in the Parliamentary title.
      Colonel STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to second this Amendment.
      Sir ERNEST LAMB: I am astounded at the suggestion which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend. On the Committee stage I was a party to a compromise which I specifically stated that I did not like and which I said I was not sure that I could convert the Rochester Corporation to appreciate. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who was then in charge of the Bill, I said I was not going to stand out on this domestic matter, but I was willing to do anything I could to obtain agreement to a compromise which the right hon. Gentleman felt was a fair one. My hon. and learned Friend to-night says that as the scheme was originally drawn it was not acceptable to any of the corporations concerned. I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend has been handling the truth rather carelessly, because, on the last occasion, I stated that the Rochester Corporation were quite content with the arrangement come to by the Commissioners and were very sorry any suggestion had been made to upset it. I also stated that I was unable to get into contact with the corporation and could not, therefore, take the responsibility of saying that they would accept it, but in order to come to an amicable conclusion 1 said that I would do my best to bring them to that view. I, therefore, wrote to the corporation, and they were good enough to call a special meeting. I went down and explained the whole position and asked them to help me, because, having acceded to the compromise suggested by the President of the Local Government Board, I was in a difficulty. I want to remind the House that it was not my compromise. The President of the Local Government Board said he felt that Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham had each made out a case for inclusion in the Bill, and I said that I would fall in with the suggestion and be content with the Parliamentary borough being known as Rochester and the two divisions being known as Gillingham and Chatham, dropping the name of Rochester. The Rochester Corporation Vol. 99.
      2370
      much preferred the original arrangement of the united boroughs being known as the Medway Boroughs. I stated that in the House. I hope, having agreed to this compromise on the Committee stage, that the House will not go back upon that understanding. This is essentially a domestic matter. All three corporations concerned find their names included in the Bill, as at present before the House, and we ask the Government to stick to their guns and let Rochester's name stand for the United Boroughs, the two divisions being known respectively as Gillingham and Chatham. I therefore oppose the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE:It is a great pity that the parties did not accept the decision of the Commissioners, but I think they must now adhere to the compromise come to in Committee that the Parliamentary borough as a whole should bear the name of Rochester and the two divisions the names Gillingham and Chatham. I do not think the House ought to-day to go back upon that decision
      Mr.NIELD: I cannot help regretting the answer of the Home Secretary. The Amendment only asks that two ancient boroughs should join together in this title, and I should have thought that Rochester by reason of history would gain in respectability by being associated with Chatham. I would venture to compare for a moment the two statesmen who had those names, and ask what they did respectively for England and what England would be if Rochester had had his way as compared with the great services Chatham rendered to us upwards of 100 years ago. Surely out of recollection and thankfulness for those services Rochester ought to be glad to add to it the name of Chatham so as to redeem itself for the recollection of the famous Minister of the Restoration. Chatham has an exceedingly clean sheet, but I remember a very old friend of mine saying that at a certain window in a certain city half-a-sovereign could be picked up. Heads, however, have long ceased to ache since those things occurred. Therefore, let us give Chatham a chance. It has its clean sheet, it has its association with the illustrious statesman, and why Rochester should not beglad to share that distinction I am at a loss to understand. As to the title of the
      Medway Boroughs, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr.
      L. Hardy) pointed out in Committee,

      2371
      there are other boroughs—Maidstone for instance—which are entitled to claim that name, and it was a confusing title.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: In column 5, leave out the word " Rochester "[" is not

      Wolverhampton

      County Borough of Wolver- East hampton, and urban districts of Bilston, Coseley, Heath Town West or Wednesfield Heath, Sedgley, Short Heath, Wednesfield and Willenhall

      Three

      Bilston

      .I Urban districts of Bilston, Coseley and Sedgley.

      East

      St. James's, St. Mary's, and St. Peter's Wards of the county borough of Wolverhampton, and urban districts of IHeath Town or Wednesfield Heath, Short Heath, Wednesfield and Willen-hall.

      West

      Blakenhall, Dunstall, Graiseley, Merridale, Park, St. George's, St. John's,St. Mark's and St. Matthew's Wards of the county borough of Wolverhampton.

      General HICKMAN: I beg to move, in column3, to leave out the word "Three," and to insert instead thereof the word "Tow."
      This Amendment, with the others standing in my name, I moved on the Committee stage. I do not wish to bore the Home Secretary, but as there may be hon. Members present who were not present in Committee, I would briefly state the reasons for these Amendments. The borough of Wolverhampton had two Members from 1834 until 1885, when it was formed into three separate divisions which I represent and have represented for the last seven years, consists of three separate parishes, entirely outside the municipal borough of Wolverhampton, and there is no single elector in those three parishes who lives in the municipal borough of Wolverhampton. According to the Instructions which were given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Boundary Commissioners, it was distinctly laid down in paragraph 5 that so long as an existing Parliamentary borough has not less than 120,000 inhabitants in the municipal borough it shall be entitled to retain two members. The municipal borough of Wolverhampton has only 95,000 inhabitants, yet the Commissioners have retained to this borough three members. Neither the division I represent nor the interested, has any objection to the municipal borough having two members, although the number of inhabitants
      2372
      included in the Rochester Division "], and insert instead thereof the word " Chatham."
      After the word " the " [" Wards of the borough of Chatham "], insert the word "municipal."—[Sur G. Cave.]
      is only 95,000 instead of 120,000. What we do say is that where you have three urban districts entirely outside the municipal borough, where there is not a single inhabitant in those districts inside the municipal borough, where no services whatsoever are rendered by the borough of Wolverhampton to these three parishes, which are entirely independent as regards electric light, gas, water, sewage, trams, and every other service, where all the inhabitants, including manufacturers, labour, and the three urban district councils, are unanimously of opinion and wish that these three parishes should be severed from the municipal borough—that they should become, what they certainly ought to be according to the Instructions to the Commissioners, an entity of themselves and a division of the county of Stafford. These three parishes comprise in the county of Stafford a Petty Sessions area of themselves. Since the Committee stage of the Bill I thought the thing would have to be dropped, but I have found that Labour in the constituency is very much exercised, very much interested, and very anxious that they shall be severed from the borough of Wolverhampton. They expressed their feelings very strongly to me, and it is on their behalf in a great measure that I am moving this Amendment again on the Report stage.
      The only arguments which were advanced by the two other Members for Wolverhampton on the Committee stage

      2373
      were something like this. Because Wolverhampton as a Parliamentary borough had had three members since 1885 it would be a pity to disturb existing arrangements. That was one argument. I would reply that this anomaly and anomalies of this sort are intended to be put right by this Bill. Where we are having a Reform Bill for any borough which is over-represented by members it is intended by the Instructions to the Commissioners that these things shall be put right, and where a county is strictly entitled to one more member that member should be restored to the county and taken away from the borough. If it was right to deprive York of one of its members and to dispossess Canterbury and Colchester of a member entirely, why should it be right to give Wolverhampton three members when by the population of the municipal borough she is really only entitled to one 1
      My hon. Friend (Mr. G. Thorne) on the Committee stage, also said there was a community of interest between the three because they were all manufacturing districts, and therefore it was to the benefit of all the neighbourhood that there should be three members to represent industry. I can only reply that the whole of the manufacturing interests of these three parishes is absolutely and distinctly opposed to being joined with Wolverhampton in any sort of way. I have, through my own firm, which is in the district, canvassed the other manufacturers and they are unanimous in wishing that I should put forward these Amendments to sever them from the borough of Wolverhampton.
      My hon. Friend (Mr. Bird) in the Committee stage said my division received a benefit in the way of technical education for the borough of Wolverhampton. That is only half a truth, to say the least of it. It is a matter of fact there is a technical school, which is just on the boundaries of the boundary of Wolverhampton, which was instituted jointly by the county of Stafford and the borough of Wolverhampton, the expenses of which the borough and the county pay in equal shares. They also paid equal shares for the building of this technical school, which takes scholars from the borough of Wolverhampton and also from the parishes which I represent, in equal shares. Therefore I do not know that my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that we have no benefit from the borough of Wolverhampton in this particular technical school, when the
      2374
      county of Stafford pays its fair share of the cost. I have found during the last seven years that I have been pulled both ways—one way by the borough of Wolverhampton through the town clerk, and another way by the county council representatives for Stafford, and I have always found that it was my duty, in the interests of my Constituents, to side with the county of Stafford. I have found that the interests of the parishes which I represent are entirely bound up with the county of Stafford, and entirely distinct from the borough of Wolverhampton. Under the circumstances I do hope that my right hon. Friend, who said on the Committee stage that he was inclined to think I had made out a good case for the severance of these parishes from the borough, will now change his attitude and vote according to his conscience in this particular case, because there is no danger now, when we have arrived at the Report stage, of there being any delay which might endanger the success of the Bill.
      Colonel STAVELEY - HILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Having regard to the arguments used by my hon. and gallant Friend, and the fact that the House in Committee had all the facts before it, I do not propose to do more than formally second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: This matter was argued very fully in Committee. I repeat what I said then, that the hon. and gallant Member has made a strong case for his Amendment if there were no other consideration to be borne in mind; but, as a matter of fact, both the other hon. Members for Wolverhampton are strongly opposed to this proposal. This Amendment would split up the old Parliamentary borough of Wolverhampton, and would sever from that Parliamentary borough the Southern Division. I appreciate the fact that there are links which unite this division to the neighbouring county, but I think it would be a bad precedent if we were to divide up this Parliamentary borough which has existed for so long. There is no case for disturbing the decision come to in Committee.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to move, after the paragraph dealing with the Carnarvon district of boroughs, to insert

      2375

      Denbigh and Flint District of Boroughs

      Existing contributory Boroughs of Denbigh, Holt Ruthin, Wrexham, CAergwrle, Caerwys, Flint, Holywell, Mold, Overton, Rhuddlan; and St.Asaph.

      One

      This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was half-hearted in support of it. I hope he will now modify his heart. This Amendment concerns two counties in Wales. At present they have five members, and the proposal is to reduce them to three. This Amendment will raise the representation from three to four. The case generally with regard to Wales is this. The number of members in England is to be increased from 456 to 485, and the present average population of 73,000 per member is to be reduced to 71,000. In Scotland the number of members is to be increased from 70 to 71, and the average population per member is to be reduced from 68,000 to 66,000. But while in England and Scotland the average population per member goes down, in Wales the average goes up from 71,000 to 72,000. The House will see at once that we are more hardly dealt with than either England or Scotland. Whereas in Scotland the population has decreased from 1911 to 1914 by 13,000, in Wales the population has increased in the same period by 102,000, and yet Wales gets only one additional member while Scotland gets one additional member. I appeal to my right hon. Friend not to differentiate against Wales in this matter, but to have an independent mind on the subject. Wales is entitled to one additional member, and there is no reason why she should be at a disadvantage as compared with Scotland.
      On this particular Amendment we are content to reduce the number of members for these counties from five to four, but we think it a hardship that they should be reduced to three. The population of the two counties is 243,000, and it is quite true that you only get an average population of 61,000 for four members, but there is a great number of constituencies in England and Wales where the population per member is much smaller than this figure. Denbighshire and Flintshire, the two counties affected by this Amendment, have an increasing population. That has been the case for many years past, and it is more the case now than it has ever been. Though it is a personal matter I may mention that the effect of this Bill is to disfranchise two Members who have rendered very distinguished service in the course of
      2376
      this War—the services of one of them has already been recognised in a very marked manner—and it is a little hard that these two hon. Members who have served their country with such distinction should find their constituencies gone at the end of the War when, as we hope, they will return to this country. I submit two considerations: First, that Wales is entitled to another member, and also that upon the facts these two counties should have not five members as they have now but four members, and that therefore this Amendment should be accepted.
      Sir G. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman has made his protest in the briefest possible language, and his argument did not lose in the least by its brevity, because he has put his points so clearly. I am grateful to him for exercising this restraint in the matter of time. He desires to add another member to the House. His case is mainly, I think, that Wales is entitled to one more member. Exactly the same rule has been applied to Wales as to Scotland. Of course, I accept his assurance that the average of population per member is greater in Wales than in Scotland. I accept that, but it is the result of working on the rule which we have all adopted, and I do not think that even in this case we should depart from it. With regard to this particular division I am told that it is a very awkward one, although it may be a good way of putting it forward in order to get one member. I do not say that it is not a fair case to put forward, but, on the whole, I hope the House will adhere to the decision arrived at.
      Mr. JOHN: We are glad to have the admission that the case is a strong one. It is really a very powerful one, and by all the rules of the redistribution of seats, Wales has a claim to greater representation. Scotland is one of the minor partners of the United Kingdom, but, as a matter of fact, she gets the most-favourednation treatment, and England also gets the favoured-nation treatment, whilst Wales is absolutely the least favoured. That is not a position in which to put the smallest member of the United Kingdom, and it is an absolute reversal of the entire practice of this House. With regard to the movement of population, in

      2377
      England the population has increased 10 per cent., in Wales 20 per cent., and in Scotland 6½ per cent., and during the last three years in England the increase has been 2.33 per cent., and in Wales 2.39, while the average increase over thirteen years is in Wales quite double the increase in England. The result of the arrangement which is now being worked upon will be increasingly unfair in the case of Wales, where the population will continue to increase rapidly, while in Scotland the population will probably remain

      Glasgow

      Central

      That portion of the city which is bounded by a line commencing at a point at the intersection of the centre lines of Parliamentary Road and Castle Street, thence southward along the centre line of Castle Street to the centre line of Alexandra Parade, thence eastward along the centre line of Alexandra Parade to the centre line of Fir park Street, thence southward along the centre line of Fir park Street and Ark Lane to the centre line of Duke Street, thence westward along the centre line of Duke Street to the centre line of Sydney Street, thence southward along the centre line of Sydney Street to the centre line of Gallowgate, thence westward along the centre line of Gallowgate to the centre line of Salt market, thence, southward along the centre line of Salt market and Albert Bridge to the centre line of the River Clyde, thence westward along the centre line of the River Clyde to a point in line with the centre line of McAlpine Street, thence northward along the centre line of McAlpine Street, Pitt Street and Scott Street to the centre line of New City Road, thence south-eastward along the centre line of New City Road and Cowcaddens to the centre line of Buchanan Street, thence southward along the centre line of Buchanan Street to the centre line of Parliamentary Road, thence north-eastward along the centre line of Parliamentary Road to the point of commencement.

      Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word " Central, and to insert instead thereof the words " St. Mungo"
      I moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and the Secretary for Scotland then stated that he would communicate with various bodies in Glasgow, in order to ascertain their opinions on the matter. None of the other divisions in the city under the new system are called otherwise than by some historical name. The name I suggest is that of the patron
      2378
      stationary. With regard to the Amendment before the House, we accept the position of the right hon. Gentleman that possibly it is not the most convenient method, and my own preference would have been to make a group with Denbighshire. All these facts show that there is a very real grievance here, and one that ought to be dealt with. I hope that the Home Secretary will still give further consideration to the question and get it put right in some form in another place.
      Amendment negatived.
      saint and founder of the city. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be influenced by the fact that the Corporation of Glasgow have voted on this question, and have, unfortunately by a small majority, carried a resolution against my Amendment, but my right hon. Friend is aware of the saying of a great statesman, I think it was Lord Beaconsfield, that minorities were always right. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider seriously the wisdom of abandoning the descriptions of North, South,

      2379
      East, West, and Central, and of adopting the preferable principle of having each division associated with some historical name.
      Mr. MORTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. MUNRO: When this Amendment was moved in Committee, I undertook to consider it on the Report stage, and, in a sympathetic manner if, in the interval, I obtained satisfactory evidence that the Amendment was supported by the authorities in Glasgow. The evidence on that matter, I am afraid, is entirely against

      FIFTH SCHEDULE.

      PART II.—PARLIAMENTARY COUNTIES.

      (1) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING MONMOUTHSHIRE.

      Name of Parliamentary County.

      Contents of Parliamentary County.

      Total Number of Members for Parliamentary County.

      Names of Divisions of Parlimentary County.

      Contents or Boundaries of Divisions.

      Chester

      —

      —

      Stalybridge.

      The rural district of Tintwistle, the municipal boroughs of Dukinfield, Hyde, and Stalybridge and Hyde, and the urban districts of Hollingworth and Mottram in Longdendale.

      Wirral

      The rural district of Wirral, and the urban districts of Brom-borough, Ellesmere' Port and Whitby, Higher Bebington, Hoylake and West Kirby, Lower Bebington, and Neston and Parkgate.

      Amendments made: In column 4, after the word " Stalybridge," insert the word " Hyde."

      Cornwall

      —

      —

      Launceston

      The rural districts of Calstock, Camelford, Launceston, St. Columb Major, and Stratton, the part of the rural district of Holsworthy which is within the administrative county of Cornwall, the part of the rural district of Bodmin which consists of the civil parishes of Egloshayle, St. Endellion, St. Kew, St. Minver Highlands, and St. Minver Lowlands, the municipal borough of Launceston, and the urban districts of Newquay, Padstow, Stratton and Bude, and Wadebridge.

      my hon. and learned Friend, because I have had a representation from the Town Council of Glasgow, which spent a considerable time in debating this matter, and which came to the conclusion that they did not desire any change in the name of this division adopted. Under these circumstances, while I have great respect for the opinion of the minority as well as for that of the majority, I am very much afraid that the condition which I indicated to the hon. Member on the Committee stage has not been satisfied, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      In column 5, leave out the words " and Hyde."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Sir F. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word " Launceston," and to insert instead thereof the word " Northern."
      Many of the electors in this constituency desire that it shall be called the "North-East Division," but " Northern " would appear to be a more suitable description, and I move accordingly.
      Sir CROYDON MARKS: I object to taking away the name of a constituency

      Cornwall

      Penryn and Falmouth

      The part of the rural district of St. Austell which is not included in the Bodmin Districts of East Kerrier and Truro which is not included in the Camborne Divison, the municipal boroughs of Falmouth, Penryn, and Truro and the urban district of St. Austell.

      Sir F. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the words " Penryn and Falmouth," and to insert instead thereof the word " Mid."
      In Committee I moved that " St. Austell " be added to the name of the constituency, but the Home Secretary objected to have a three-barrelled title, and therefore I have now suggested " Mid " as the name. I beli,3ve that the Commissioners found considerable difficulty in rearranging the Cornish constituencies. They have suggested " Penryn and Falmouth " as a suitable title in this case, but, as St. Austell forms part of the new constituency, one rather objects to its name disappearing altogether. I have been furnished with certain figures which are rather remarkable as to the way in which the constituency is constituted. St. Austell contains nearly 88,000 acres, Truro 25,000, and Penryn and Falmouth 1,113. More important than that is the fact that the population of St. Austell amounts to 37,500, that of Truro to under 20,000, and that of Penryn and Falmouth to 15,800. The rateable values of the three parts of the constituency are: St. Austell £219,000, Truro £86,000, and Penryn and Falmouth £59,000. 1 do not base much of my argument on the rateable value, but I have quoted it as evidence that the St. Austell part of the constituency is the great industrial part of the constituency. It contains the china-clay works which are now the most important industry that exists in Cornwall, and I think, in view of the fact that this is what I might almost call a patchwork constituency, and that St. Austell is by
      2382
      which has been represented in this House as long as Parliament has existed, and I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. Would it not be possible to add to " Launceston " the words " and Northern "?
      Sir G. CAVE:I do not think I can agree to that. We have acted on the rule of either accepting the name of a place or a point of the compass.
      Amendment agreed to.
      far the largest in area, population, and rateable value; larger than the other two sections put together, I am only asking a reasonable thing that instead of giving the name of any section to the new constituency it, should be called " Mid-Cornwall."
      Sir C MARKS:I beg to second the Amendment.
      Major GOLDMAN: I regret that the
      hon. Member has moved this Amendment, and I believe he has done so encouraged by certain words of the Home Secretary in the Committee stage of the Bill in connection with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Morgan). I think those observations were probably founded on some misapprehension and misunderstanding. The Home Secretary seems to have been under the impression that I was opposed to the inclusion of the name Truro, while my hon. Friend was ready to fight in the last ditch to see that the name of Penryn should not receive the name of Truro. He suggested a neutral denominator, which, I think, is not necessary for this purpose at all. I should like to point out that Penryn and Falmouth would deeply resent it, and that a great controversy would be caused in those parts of the country if we were to depart from the Instructions laid down by the Speaker's Conference, and given to the Boundary Commissioners, that where an ancient borough is to be merged into a division, that division should assume the name of the merged borough. I believe there is a great deal in the matter of a name where you are dealing with

      2383
      great historical boundaries and associations, such as are connected with such a borough as Penryn and Falmouth. Penryn and Falmouth will feel it deeply if their names are removed from the register of this House, with which they have been associated for so long. May I point out that Penryn represents a vast industry? The hon. Member (Sir F. Layland-Barratt) has spoken of the china-clay industry. I speak of the granite industry. The great docks of this country, the great public buildings—Waterloo Bridge, Westminster Bridge, Kew Bridge — all bear testimony to the greatness of Penryn May I point out that in the case of Falmouth it is proud of its association with the great merchant service that started from there, for the West, and I should like to remind the Home Secretary and the House of the importance of the part that Falmouth has played during the War? To that testimony has been given by the enemy in suggesting in a patronising form that be would allow one steamer to pass to one port only, and naming Falmouth as that port. I would urge upon the House to carry out the spirit of the understanding with the Boundary Commissioners. They met the political associations, and our constituents in these areas which are being incorporated in the new division. They met public bodies and corporations, and we all came to a unanimous agreement that the name should be Penryn and Falmouth. The Boundary Commissioners, on account of that agreement, have given the name of Penryn and Falmouth. Under these circumstances I would urge upon the Home Secretary not to introduce a new feud when we are at the point of arriving at a peace between the various constituent boroughs of the new division. If the Home Secretary does not give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Cornwall he, too, will fall into line. Finally, it is not a historic name—that of Mid-Cornwall. It is not geographically accurate, because the area which has been brought into this division is not in Mid-Cornwall at all, but in South-West Cornwall. I would press upon the Home Secretary not to accentuate the feeling between the places. May I remind the House of the time when Penryn and Falmouth had their separate constituencies?
      2384
      When they were merged into one there was great controversy which raged for years; so that for generations a young Penryn girl would have no dealings with a Falmouth boy. That being so, I would urge the House to back up the Home Secretary in carrying out the spirit of the Boundary Commissioners, and retain the name Penryn and Falmouth.
      Sir G. CAVE: When we discussed this matter before, I am bound to say that I was struck by the fact that it was desired to include in the name of this division not only Penryn and Falmouth, but also Truro —the name of a very important borough —and also St. Austell. That could not be accepted as a whole, and it occurred to me, or someone else, that we might take the shorter name. That was only a suggestion.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. HAY MORGAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. My Amendment has not been called upon?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary has disposed of it.
      Mr. MORGAN: With all deference, Sir, the point is this: On the Committee stage the Home Secretary naturally asked for agreement between the parties concerned. We got it, and agreed that the name should be Penryn, Falmouth, and Truro. That does not bind the Home Secretary, but he asked for agreement between ourselves, and he got it. I beg to move, in column 4, after the word "Falmouth," to insert the words " and Truro."
      Sir F. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to second. I really think if the question is raised of the name of the ancient borough being included, Truro has a higher claim than the borough of Falmouth. It is a much older borough. I assure the Home Secretary that the local authorities never came to me in regard to the acceptance of the name of Penryn, and Falmouth, and Truro. Mid-Cornwall was repudiated.
      Sir G. CAVE: I would appeal to the House as a whole not to depart from the Instruction to keep to the names of the merged boroughs.
      Amendment negatived.

      Cumberland

      Penrith and Cocker month.

      Mr. BLISS: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the words " Penrith and Cockermouth," and to insert instead thereof the words "Cockermouth and Penrith."
      I would like to guard against any claim to speak on behalf of the constituents with whom you, Mr. Speaker, have been so happily associated for so many years past. I am speaking only on behalf of the electors of the Western part of the old division of Cockermouth I have had representations made to me by most of the public bodies in that part of the county. There is a very strong feeling there that the name of the new constituency should be Cockermouth and Penrith rather than as proposed, Penrith and Cockermouth. I bring that forward for two reasons: first of all because of the long historic association which the name Cockermouth has had with this House. From the thirteenth century the borough has had the right to send two members to this House, and certainly since 1640 she did send two members continuously until she became a one-member constituency, in 1862. After the next Franchise Act the borough gave its name to the county

      Derby

      Belper

      The rural district of Belper, the part of the rural district of Repoton which is not included in the Ashbourne and Shardlow Divisions, and the urban districts of Alfreton, Belper, and Heage.

      The rural districts of Clown and Norton, the part of the rural district of Chester field which consists of the civil parishes of Beighton, Coal Aston, Dronfield Woodhouse,Eckington, Holmesfield, Killamarsh, Staveley, and Unstone, and the urban districts of Bolsover and Dronfield.

      Bolsover

      Amendment made: In column 5, leave out the words " Ashbourne and Shard-low " and insert instead thereof the words " Southern and Western."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Major BOWDEN: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word " Bolsover " and to insert instead thereof the words " North Eastern Derbyshire."
      2386
      division. Thus for many centuries the ancient name of Cockermouth has had very close association with this House of Commons. But I also move my Amendment because of the larger population which is contained in the western part of the division. The rural district and urban district of Cockermouth contain a larger population by 25,000 than the other end of the division. It contains 27,530 of the population. The Penrith urban and rural districts contain 21,350, leaving a majority of 6,100 in the Cockermouth Division. For these reasons, and others which I will not enumerate at this hour, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to this Amendment.
      Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: The Commissioners proposed to name this Penrith. On the appeal of Cockermouth, Cockermouth was added to Penrith. Now they desire to become the senior partner. I think they are asking too much. I really think these names ought to remain as in the Schedule.
      Amendment negatived.
      I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to keep the existing name. This is a question of an area approaching 200 square miles without a big town in it, and there are seven or eight other districts with an equal claim to Bolsover. It is true that Bolsover has a lovely old castle and it is a growing and prosperous mining district, but there are a number of other districts just like it. Bolsover is on the extreme boundary of a very large constituency. The other districts, through their parish
      councils, have passed resolutions begging that the constituency may retain its old name.

      Gloucester

      The adminis- trative county of Gloucester exclusive of the parts thereof comprised in the Par- liamentary borough of Cheltenham

      Four

      Cirencester mid Tewkes- bury

      The rural districts of Campden, Ciren cester, Marston Sicca, Northleach, and Pebworth, the part of each of the rural districts of Faringdon, Stow-on-the Wold, Tewkesbury, and Winchcomb which is within the administrative county of Gloucester, the part of the rural district of Cheltenham which con sists of the civil parishes of Prestbury, Swindon, and Uckington, the muni cipal borough of Tewkesbury, and the urban districts of Cirencester, Stow-on the-Wold, and the urban and rural dis tricts of Tetbury within the adminis trative county of Gloucester.

      Forest of Dean

      The rural districts of East Dean and united parishes, Lydney, Newent, and West Dean, the part of the rural dis trict of Gloucester which consists of the civil parishes of Ashleworth, Lassing ton, Highnam, and Maisemore, and the urban districts of Awre, Coleford, Newnham, and Westbury-on-Severn.

      Stroud ..

      The rural districts of Dursley, Stroud, and Wheatenhurst, the part of the rural district of Cheltenham which is not included in the Cirencester Divi sion, the rural district of Gloucester which consists of the civil parishes east of the Severn, and the urban districts of Nailsworth and Stroud.

      Thornbury

      The rural districts of Chipping Sodbury, Thornbury, and Warmley, and the urban district of Kingswood.

      Amendments made: In column 5, after the word "Stow-on-the-Wold," insert the wort "Tetbury."
      In column 5, leave out the words "the urban and rural districts of Tetbury, within the administrative county of Gloucester," and insert instead thereof the word "Tetbury."
      In column 5, leave out the words "Lassington, Highnam," Over and Linton, Lassington."

      Holland with Boston

      The administrative county of the Parts of Holland

      One

      Mr.DIXON: I beg to move, in column 1, to leave out the words "Holland with."
      This is an Amendment to give the name of Boston to the new divison of Lincolnshire. I will not again refer to the historical and sentimental reasons why Boston should give its name to the
      Sir G. CAVE: If there be no objection, I will accept the Amendment
      Amendment agreed to
      In column 5, after the word "Cirencester," insert the words "and Tewkesbury"
      In column 5, after the word "Divison," insert the words "the part of."
      In column 5, leave out the words "consists of the civil parishes east of the Severn," and insert instead thereof the words "is not included in the Forest of Dean Division."
      Division, except to say, when every insignificant street is getting rid of its horrid name and substituting an English name, it seems a pity that the richest agricultural district of the whole of England should not be able to get rid of the name of Holland and choose an English.
      name. I wish to refer more to the question of right. Boston maintains that it has the undoubted right to give its name
      to this new division, relying upon the words of Instruction 14, which says,
      " Where an ancient Parliamentary borough loses its representation, the county division in which the borough becomes merged shall be named after the merged borough."
      The other night the Home Secretary, speaking on the question of Oldham, said that he considered the Commissioners were bound by Instruction 11, and he also said, " I am a lawyer, thank God, and can understand the meaning of plain words." Nothing could be plainer than the words of Instruction 14. Everyone in the district thought they meant what they appear to mean and that the ancient borough had the right to give its name to the division, but in Committee I was informed by the Home Secretary that I failed on a technicality. He pointed out that Boston was not going to be merged in a county division, because under the Bill they were creating something new, a Parliamentary county. That is rather splitting hairs. The Speaker in his letter of 27th January, says,
      " The boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies shall, as far as practicable, coincide with the boundaries of administrative areas,"
      and the only reason for making this a Parliamentary county, we are informed, is that it is an administrative area, and that it is convenient to create a Parliamentary county of the old Spalding Division with part of the Sleaford and Stamford Divisions, and Boston thrown in. It is not, however, going to be made one of the counties of England; it is only going to be a county in the sense that it will be a county division for Parliamentary purposes, and it will be spoken of as a division of Lincolnshire. Therefore, we say that we have a right to demand that it shall be given the name of Boston, just as other divisions in the county are to be known by the names of much less important towns like Gainsborough, Horn-castle, Louth, Brigg, and Stamford. The words in the Instruction on which we relied as a matter of right appeared on an earlier occasion. In the letter written by Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister, in Recommendation No. 20, these words appear exactly as they do in Instruction No. 14. On 23rd January, when Mr. Speaker wrote that letter to the Prime Minister, he could not have had anything in his mind about Holland and Boston. Probably he had never heard of the name,
      2390
      because it had never been hinted at or decided that that name should be given by the Commissioners. He would only have had in his mind the names of the counties of England, and in that case he would know of Boston in relation to the county of Lincolnshire. His letter, therefore, meant that when any dividon tcok place under which Boston was merged into the county of Lincolnshire, it should have the right of giving its name to the county division. We prefer to give that name to the county division rather than that we should create a fictitious right on the part of Holland to force its name upon the ancient borough of Boston. The Home Secretary had to admit that at present Holland had no such right, because the Parliamentary county does not exist. It is only going to exist if this Bill passes, as I hope it will do, although I shall lose my old borough. I hope that the Home Secretary, who is very just and fair, will see the rightness of this appeal and grant it.
      Sir ERNEST POLLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
      For many years I was associated with this division, and had the honour to be a candidate at two elections. Boston is the great town which stands pre-eminent as the centre of the district. It has the largest population and is known throughout the length and breadth of the district as containing the features to which everybody looks in these matters. Holland is a name often used, but there is no history of Holland in connection with Lincolnshire. There is a town of New Holland on the Humber, which is in the Brigg Division. To introduce the word "Holland " here as a description is a misnomer; it has no general association. Boston Division would be far better understood. It would be appreciated that the central town rightly gave its name to the district, and Boston should be put in the position it deserves from its association with the county.
      Major PEEL: I am sorry to find myself in conflict with my hon. Friends, but I would express the hope that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment. In the first place, this question was thrashed out in Committee, and no new argument has been advanced in favour of the Amendment. There is no precedent when a borough enters into a county for the borough to give its name to the county. That is the case here. Not only is there no

      2391
      precedent, but there is no reason why it should do it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Pollock) said the name Holland was not in common use. Since I have been there I have heard no other name. They have said it is a new name, even not English. The name of Holland is old English. It was used so long ago as the time of the survey of Henry I. Since I have been there I have not found a single individual who is otherwise than in favour of retaining the name of Holland, Therefore I think the compromise arrived at by those who framed this measure is extremely reasonable that the two names should go side by side and it should be called the county of Holland and Boston. It pleases all parties, as far as I know, in the county.
      Sir G. CAVE: It is one thing to say, as the House has said, that where a county

      Parts of Kesteven, and Rutland

      The adminis- ! trative county of the Parts of Kesteven (exclusive of the part thereof comprised in the Par- liamentary borough of Lincoln)

      Two

      Grantham...'

      i The rural districts of Branston, Claypole, and Sleaford, the part of the rural dis trict of Grantham which consists of the civil parishes of Ancaster, Barrowby, Belton, Carlton Scroop, Great Gonerby, Harrowby Without, Heydour, Honing ton, Hough-on-the-Hill, London thorpe, Manthorpe, Normanton, Welby, I and the detached part of the civil parish of Spittlegate Without which is wholly surrounded by the municipal borough of Grantham, and the urban districts of Ruskington and Sleaford.

      and the ad- ministrative county of Rutland

      Rutland and Stamford

      The whole of the administrative county of Rutland, the rural districts of Bourne and Uffington, the part of the rural district of Grantham which is not included in the Grantham Division, the municipal borough of Stamford, and the urban district of Bourne.

      Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in column 1, to leave out the words " and Rutland."
      This House has been very tender with any new county. Apparently, in this Bill, it is going to treat very much less tenderly the county of Rutland, which has been a county nearly as long as any county in England, and has been represented in Parliament since the first institution of the House of Commons. If the House decides that small counties must go, and that localities must only be represented by numbers, then Rutland must go. But I cannot pass this over in silence, and I feel it to be my duty to call the attention of the House to the matter, and to ask for their sympathetic consideration before a final decision is given.
      2392
      is split into divisions, and an old borough is merged into one of those divisions, you shall name the division after the old borough. That one understands. But it is quite another thing to say that where a borough is merged in a Parliamentary county, whether new or old, you are to give the whole county the name of the borough. In the first case you are simply naming the part of the county after the borough. In the other you are taking away the name of the county. That is not a technicality at all, but a matter of substance. One recognises the great importance of Boston in this part of the county, but I do not think one ought to alter the compromise, namely, the suggestion to keep both the name of the county and that of the borough.
      Amendment negatived.
      Sir H. ROBERTS: I beg to second the Amendment, and to associate myself especially with the reference to the county of Radnor. It will save the time of the House if the Home Secretary will reply to both cases at the same time. There are two counties which ought to be dealt with as exceptions. They are the only two counties which cease to have Parliamentary representation, and I think they have a right to special treatment. One of my hon. Friends has already put the demands of Wales before the House, and I would suggest that one way of meeting that demand would be to retain the Parliamentary representation of the county of Radnor.
      Sir G. CAVE: I think both my hon. Friends must feel that they are leading

      2393
      a forlorn hope. These are two counties which it is proposed to associate with other counties in Parliamentary representation. It would be very difficult to

      Lancaster

      —

      —

      Clitheroe

      The rural district of Burnley (except the detached part of the civil parish of Foulridge which is included in the Parliamentary borough of Nelson), the rural district of Clitheroe, the municipal borough of Clitheroe, and the urban districts of Great Harwood and Padiham.

      Amendment made: In column 5, after the word "Nelson," insert the words " and Colne."—[Sir G. Cave.]

      Lancaster

      —

      —

      Darwen

      The rural district of Blackburn, the municipal borough of Darwen, and the urban district of Turton.

      Sir J. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, in column 5, to leave out the word " district" [" urban district "] and to insert instead thereof the word " districts."
      The series of Amendments in my name are the same as I moved in Committee when the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he would take them into consideration, although he could not accept them then. I take another, a serious view of the action of the Commissioners in regard to the Darwen Division.
      I have had the honour of representing that division for twenty-one years, and I find that it has been more drastically dealt with than any other division in Lancashire, and I wonder why it is. I dealt with the population question in Committee, but I do not propose to go deeply into that now, because I do not attach the greatest importance to it. It may be argued that I wish to inflict upon the Fylde Division what I am complaining about in regard to Darwen. But the Fylde Division is an entirely agricultural division and the population of that division is increasing far more rapidly than that in Darwen.
      The argument which I would like more particularly to put before the Home Secretary is this, that it was an Instruction to the Commissioners that counties entitled to return two or more members shall be divided, and in the formation of such divisions the Commissioners shall endeavour, after ascertaining local opinion, to segregate as far as possible adjacent industrial and rural areas. In Committee there was very little opposition to this Amendment; indeed, there was none of substance. I notice that one
      2394
      give separate representation to counties of this size when there are urban districts with much bigger populations. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. -
      Amendment negatived.
      hon. Gentleman who opposed it, the Member for Blackpool, is not now in his place, and I assume that he has withdrawn his opposition to the proposal. The proposal is that the urban district of Walton-le-Dale, Cuerdale, and Salmesbury shall be replaced in the Darwen Division. The Darwen Division is an industrial division. I may call it a cotton industrial division. That is our predominant manufacture in the constituency. I ask the Home Secretary to replace Walton-le-Dale in that division, and for this reason, that Walton-le-Dale is entirely an industrial urban 'district. It is a very important cotton district. I have been going to the district for twenty-five years, and the audiences that one addresses are to the extent of 95 per cent. engaged directly in the cotton industry. Some of the most important cotton mills in Lancashire are there. Yet the Commissioners have placed this industrial community in an entirely agricultural division. It was unnecessary. There was quite enough population. They did not need to take population into consideration, because they could take area, and there is plenty of area in the Fylde Division lying between the estuaries of the Ribble and the Wyre. If that is so, what reason is there against replacing Walton-le-Dale in the Darwen Division? I am at a perfect loss to understand any, and I hope therefore that the Home Secretary will accept this proposition. I will only add that the Ribble forms a well-defined -and well-understood line for this boundary. Though I feel very anxious about this Amendment, yet, as the Home Secretary

      2395
      knows all the arguments, I shall content myself by moving the Amendment standing in my name.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid it is partly my fault that the hon. Member has moved this Amendment again on Report, because I was impressed by his argument in Com

      Oxford

      Woodstock

      The rural districts of Banbury, Chipping Norton, Witney, and Woodstock, the municipal boroughs of Banbury, Chipping Norton, and Woodstock, and the urban district of Witney.

      Colonel STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word " Woodstock," and to insert instead thereof the word " Banbury."
      I moved this Amendment in the Committee stage, and I will not repeat the argument, in which I hope I then persuaded my right hon. Friend that at any rate Banbury has superior claims to Woodstock.

      West Sussex

      Horshan

      The rural districts of Horsham, Steyning West, and Thakeham, the municipal, brough of Worthing, and the urban districts of Horsham,Shoreham-by-Sea, and Southwick.

      Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in column 4, after the word "Horsham," to insert the words " and Worthing."

      York,North Riding

      The administrative county of York, North Riding, Exclusive of the part

      four

      Cleveland

      The rural district of Middlesbrough, the part of the district of Guisborough which is not included in the Scarborough Division, and the urban districts of Eston, Guisborough, Hinderwell, Loftus, Redcar, Saltburn-by-the-Sea,and Skelton and Brotton.

      Amendment made: After the word "Scarborough," insert the words and whitby"—[SIR G.Cave]

      York, North Riding

      Thirsk and Malcon

      The rural districts of Easingwold Flaxton, Helmsley, kirkby Moorside, Malton,Thirsk, and wath, the part of the rural district of Pickering which is not included in the Scarborough Division, and the urban district of Malton

      Amendment made: After the word "Scarborough," insert the words and whitby"—[Sir G. Cave.]
      mittee, not being sure that there was a large division of opinion. I have looked into the matter, and I have also been " snowed in " with protests in regard to it. I am afraid that there is very strong opposition to this proposal, and though there is something to be said on its merits, one is unwilling to cut up a rural district, and I do not think, acting on our principle, that I can accept this Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Sir G.CAVE: I suggested that terms of the points of the compass might be used if there were any dispute, but as there is now no one here to support that view, I accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      I do not propose to repeat the argument which I used in Committee.
      Sir G. CAVE: I accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

      York, West Riding

      —

      —

      Keighley

      The rural district of Keighley, the municipal borough of Keighley, and the urban districts of Denholme, Haworth, Oakworth, Oxenhope, and Silsden.

      Skipton

      The rural districts of Bowland, Sedbergh, Settle, and Skipton, and the urban districts of Barnoldswick, Earby, and Skipton.

      12.0 M.
      Mr. CLOUGH: I beg to move, in column 5, after the word " Oakworth," to insert the word " and."
      This is the first of a series of Amendments, the second being to leave out " and Silsden " in the fourth line, and the third to insert " Silsden " after " Earby " in the seventh line. Their object is to transfer the Silsden urban district from the Keighley division to the Skipton division, where it has played an honourable and distinguished part for the last thirty-two years. Since I raised this question in the Committee stage I have received this resolution passed unanimously by the Skipton Urban District Council on 13th November:
      " That this Council is decidedly of opinion that the Silsden urban district should not be severed from Skipton Parliamentary Division, and support the claim of the Silsden Urban District Council, which has been placed before the House of Commons, to be permitted to remain part of the Skipton Parliamentary Division. Silsden is very closely allied with Skipton, particularly in matters affecting local government. The Silsden Urban District Council are partners with the Skipton Urban District Council and the Skipton Rural District Council in the joint Infectious Diseases Hospital for the three areas. Silsden is in the Petty Sessional Division, of which Skipton is the centre. Cases from Silsden in the County Court are dealt with by the Skipton County Court, which meets monthly at Skipton. A member of the West Riding County Council is selected for the polling districts of Silsden and Skipton combined. Silsden is connected with Skipton in regard to education, and also in regard to national insurance and old age pensions, and meetings of the committees controlling those matters are held at Skipton."
      I will content myself with three remarks concerning that catalogue. The first is:— Should Silsden be retained by Keighley, then it will be the one and only constituent of the Skipton Poor Law Union stranded outside the Skipton Parliamentary division. The second is: —Should Silsden be separated for Parliamentary purposes, and for those alone, from its partner Skipton in their joint representation on the county council there will be a bit of a muddle amongst the Wakefield registration authorities in getting out the voters' registers for the two Parliamentary divisions. The third is: Silsden is not associated with Keighley for any local government purposes. The only ground I can conceive that originally influenced the Commissioners in tearing Silsden away from
      2398
      Skipton and stitching it on to Keighley was that of population, and that just at that moment they were seized with the idea of making them equal in population and as near as possible in the region of 70,000. The Commissioners do not seem to have slavishly adhered to that counsel of perfection in the case of other West Riding constituencies. If I can persuade the right hon. Gentleman to restore Silsden to Skipton, neither constituency will possess an unusual or record population. Under the scheme as it is now, Skipton's population is 72,999, and Keighley's 71,789. If we take Silsden's population 5,125 from Keighley and add it to Skipton then the revised populations will be, for Skipton 78,124, and Keighley 66,664. Neither of them has a record for either smallness or largeness, and even in the West Riding there will still be two county constituencies of Colne Valley and Wentworth with a larger population than that of Skipton and the four county constituencies of Don Valley, Elland, Hems-worth, and Pudsey-with-Otley with a population smaller than that of Keighley; therefore the question of population need not stand in the way of the Commissioners making this restoration of Silsden to the Skipton. Division.
      Sir G. CAVE: I understand from the hon. Member for the Keighley Division that his constituents are strongly opposed to this Amendment, and under the circumstances I cannot accept it. The two divisions-Skipton and Keighley-at the present moment are fairly equal in size, and if we make the proposed transfer one will be made considerably larger than the other and the rural division will, in fact, be overweighted. There must be very strong reasons indeed to induce the Government to vary the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, and as they do not exist in this case we cannot accept the Amendment.
      Mr. CLOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the objections of Keighley are? Will he give the House some guidance by expressing an opinion whether they are good, bad, or indifferent?
      Amendment negatived.

      PARLIAMENTARY COUNTIES. —SCOTLAND.

      Ayr and Bute

      The counties of Ayr and Bute, inclusive of all burghs situated therein (except the burghs of Ayr, Ardrossan, Irvine, Prestwick, Saltcoats, and Troon)

      Three

      Bute and Northern

      The county of Bute, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, and the county district of Northern Ayr, inclusive of all burghs situated therein except in so far as included in the Ayr District of Burghs.

      Kilmarnock

      The county district of Kilmarnock, inclusive of all burghs situated therein except in so far as included in the Ayr District of Burghs.

      Southern

      The county districts of Ayr and Carrick, inclusive of all burghs situated therein except in so far as included in the Ayr District of Burghs.

      Sir W. BEALE: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the word " Southern," and to insert instead thereof the words " South Ayrshire."
      This is an Amendment the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider sympathetically, and to ascertain whether there was any opposition to it. In the meantime, I think I have laid before him evidence that will convince him on that point, and it ought not to be necessary for me to take up the time of the House further.
      Mr. EUGENE WASON: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so because I have twice represented South Ayrshire in Parliament. I was born there and live

      Berwick and Haddingtoin

      The counties of Berwick and Haddington, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

      One

      —

      —

      Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in column 1, to leave out the words " Berwick and Haddington," and to insert instead thereof the words " East Lothian and Berwick."
      The official name is East Lothian, and, as to Berwickshire, although larger in area

      Caithness and Sutherland

      The counties of Caithness and Sutherland, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

      One

      —

      —

      Mr. MORTON: I beg to move to leave out the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof

      Caithness

      The County of Caithness, inclusive of all Burghs situated therein.

      One

      —

      —

      Sutherland

      The County of Sutherland, inclusive of all Burghs situated therein.

      One

      —

      —

      I am sorry it is so late, because it gives one such a poor opportunity to do justice to what is before the House. I should like
      there, and I know how strong the feeling in the county is that the name should be "South Ayrshire" and not "Southern."
      Mr. MUNRO: When this Amendment was brought up on the Committee stage of the Bill, I said I would consider it very carefully before Report, and if satisfied that there was substantial agreement on the subject, I would accept the Amendment. I see it is put down to-night in the name of three hon. Friends of mine, and looking to the interests which they represent, I think the condition which I laid down has been satisfied, and I have very great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      it is much less in population, and it has been thought that it should come second. Although I cannot expect my right hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant) to agree to that, I do not think he would dispute the case for East Lothian.
      Amendment not seconded.
      in the first place, to express a hope that the Home Secretary will take off the Whips on this question, and allow us to

      2401
      vote freely. The big question that I have to call attention to is that of the local inquiry. Hon. Members will remember that on Tuesday, 11th of June, the Home Secretary agreed, and it was unanimously agreed by the House, to give the Boundary Commissioners further Instructions, so that they might deal with areas and other matters, as well as population. The Home Secretary at that time, answering a question I put to him, said that Sutherlandshire was one of those cases which ought to be considered. Following that, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Boundary Commissioners have not carried that Instruction out properly. If there was a county that wanted consideration, it was Sutherlandshire. I have found from the Debates in the House and Committee that there have been a number of inquiries. Why they left this particular case to which attention had been called— Sutherlandshire—without any attempt to hold a local inquiry, I do not know. I should like to read a letter I sent to the Boundary Commissioners on 26th July. The receipt of it was acknowledged, but beyond that I have had no reply to my letter. Probably I shall get that reply from the Front Bench shortly?
      "I hasten to give briefly, with great respect, my objections to Sutherlandshire being joined up with Caithness for Parliamentary purposes. Sutherlandshire has for many years had separate representation, and, when in 1868 this was challenged in the House of Commons, the seat was retained by a majority of 92—"
      Both Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone spoke in favour of Sutherland having separate representation. I have read their speeches, and they are very interesting.
      "In 1885, when the question was again brought up, there was no Division. I therefore venture to hope that the Boundary Commissioners may come to the same decision. The House of Commons in a late discussion gave the Boundary Commissioners power to consider the area, etc., as well as population, and the Home Secretary at the same time stated that Sutherland was a county that should have that consideration."
      I do not see why we should not have had the question of separate representation considered by the Commissioners.
      "The population of Sutherland is about 20,000, and may seem small, but the area of the county is 1,297,914 acres—"
      A. very valuable area, I assure hon. Members—
      "besides which there is the water area of 47,631 acres, foreshore 12,812 acres, and tidal 1,558 acres. Undoubtedly after the War the land question will have to be dealt with, and when that is done the population may soon be increased to 50,000 or 60,000. The Royal Commission on Deer Forests reported in 1895 that there were nearly 400,000 acres in Sutherlandshire
      2402
      of land suitable for extension of crofts, new crofts, and small holdings. The experience of the War has proved the need for a larger rural population and for increased food production. The adequate representation of agriculture in the House of Commons is therefore a matter of vital importance to the urban and rural population. Sutherland is practically an agricultural district. I have found from my own experience that there is an abundance of work in the county and, especially bearing in mind the distance from London, a need for separate representation without regard to party politics. In such a large area there are so many local matters which can only be attended to by a Member of Parliament. There is the want of railway accommodation or other means of transit which require constant attention, postal matters, and various other things.
      It is generally admitted that constituencies far away from the Metropolis should be more fully represented in the House of Commons than those nearer to the centre. In my humble opinion, the representation in the House of Commons of Highland constituencies should be increased, not diminished, as proposed. The population of Sutherland is most orderly and law-abiding. They have turned out for the War in the most loyal and remarkable manner, and it would seem very harsh to reward those who are spared by taking away their representative in Parliament.
      I have no personal interest to serve, but am most anxious that Sutherland should retain her separate representation in Parliament, not only for her own good, but for the benefit of the people of the United Kingdom generally. It is our avowed policy now to encourage agriculture and the production of food for the people, so that we should not be so dependent on foreign countries. In the language of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, ' We should colonise our own country.' I may mention it takes about a month to get over the county for election or other purposes, and to join up this county with another somewhat equal in size would make it practically impossible to properly see the electors and their circumstances, or for the electors to see their representative. I sincerely hope that your Boundary Commissioners may be able to do as the House of Commons did in 1868 and 1885—that is, allow Sutherland to retain her separate representation in Parliament, and, if so, I am sure the decision would never be regretted."
      In that letter I think I have made out a clear case as to what is wanted, and it is a most astounding thing that, for some reason or other, Sutherland is neglected and there has been no inquiry at all. The matter is in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland, who understands these affairs very well, and I hope he will be able to tell me why we did not have a local inquiry. I have not altered my mind as to the necessity of Sutherland having a separate representation on account of the distance and its great area, and for every other reason it is advisable that she should have a member to look after her interests. I regret, however, that we have not been able to attract the attention of those in power, and the real difficulty is that very few hon. Members know where Sutherland is, and a still larger number have never been there. Consequently, we do not get that amount of attention which is given to other parts of the United Kingdom. I have tried to

      2403
      do my duty, and I have done my best for the people. These crofters are entitled to your generosity and good feeling. At the beginning of the last century a good many of them were turned out of their holdings by the landlords, driven into the sea, and their houses were burned. There is one part where the women turned out and thrashed the bailiffs and drove them away. Within recent times, owing to the Crofters Act and other Acts, there has been a little improvement, but that, to my mind, is a further reason why this House should give some further consideration to this matter.
      Mr. LEICESTER HARMSWORTH: I beg to second this Amendment.
      I will confine myself to making a very few observations. I think we are entitled to an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill as to the manner in which the Boundary Commissioners interpreted their Instructions. As my hon. Friend who preceded me has already pointed out, the Commissioners did not visit Sutherland or Caithness. It is highly probable that such a visit would have led to a different result, and, at any rate, it would have satisfied the people in those parts that their case had been properly considered. They would then have accepted the decision of the Boundary Commissioners, and they would have felt, at any rate, that their case had had a fair trial. I extend to the right hon. Gentleman a certain measure of sympathy in regard to the position in which he finds himself. The right hon. Gentleman is compelled to acquiesce in, if not actually to instruct, the dismemberment of his own constituency. No decent-minded person will think the worse of him for that, and his constituents refuse to take a narrow or selfish view of his duty in this matter. I hope it is not too late even now to ask the Government to give a favourable consideration to this proposition. Really, the proposal to amalgamate these two counties is of a monstrous character. It constitutes an area, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, which is, I believe, beyond a practical proposition as a Parliamentary unit. I believe that even the strongest and ablest men will find themselves unable to do justice to a constituency of this extent—a constituency which I may be allowed to point out will be nearly double as large as the whole of Lancashire, considerably more than one-
      2404
      third the size of Wales, and larger than Surrey, Sussex, and Middlesex combined. It has very few methods of travel; the roads are indifferent, and there is only one railway. I think this constituency certainly fulfils the term used by the Home Secretary, of "inconvenient, both in size and character," and I hope one right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland may be able to allow these two counties to remain separate constituencies.
      Mr. MUNRO: It is with very great. reluctance and very great regret that I feel constrained to resist the Amendment. I confess that the woes of Morley and Batley, and of London, York, and even Wales, left me cold, but I must own that the plea of those counties, with which I have been associated from early boyhood, and with which I have close ancestral as well as political ties, makes a very strong appeal to me. I sympathise very much with the two speeches which have been made by my hon. Friends, and .I feel the force of the arguments which they have adduced, but I am afraid they have ignored the one argument which is fatal to their contention. They will remember, and the House will remember, that the Instructions which were given to the Boundary Commissioners, and which were deliberately sanctioned by this House, include in their number Instruction 2, which prescribes this: " A county or burgh, or district of burghs, with a population of less than 50,000 shall cease to have separate representation." What are the facts of the case with which we have to deal? The facts are that Caithness, with the town of Wick, which at present I have the honour to represent, has a population of 29,910. The county of Sutherland, with the town of Dornoch, which I also have the privilege to represent at present, has a population of 18,829. That is to say, those two counties combined fall short of the 50,000 minimum which was prescribed by the Instructions which were deliberately sanctioned by this House. Accordingly, the practical question which arises is whether a county like Sutherland, with a population of less than 19,000, can reasonably in those circumstances claim separate representation.
      Obviously, so far as I have gone, the answer to that question must be in the negative. But then my hon. Friends have invoked the relaxation which was included in the supplementary Instructions to the Commissioners, which directed

      2405
      them that in cases where there was inconvenience in size or character they might depart from the strict application of the primary Instruction. But I would like to point out that the Commissioners had to invoke that relaxation in order to provide that those two counties combined should have not two but one member, because, apart from that relaxation, the Commissioners would not have been entitled to give one member to these two counties, the joint population of which falls short of 50,000. In no case, so far as I am aware, has there been any successful claim to secure separate representation for a constituency the population of which was less than 19,000. In the relaxation the House will have observed that the Commissioners are empowered to depart from the strict application of this Instruction, but it would require a very liberal interpretation of these words to entitle the Commissioners to depart from the Instruction to the extent of enfranchising a constituency with a population of only 19,000. My hon. Friends the Members for Caithness and Sutherland have pointed to the extent of the constituency which is so formed by the Commissioners, and they have said that it is a very large area. They have said so with perfect truth. but I must remind them of the constituency of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, which has an area in square miles of 3,724, as compared with 2,714 for the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, and of the Parliamentary county of Argyll, which has one member, and which has an area in square miles of 3,110. Accordingly, from the point of view of area, I am afraid the argument must fail.
      It has also been pointed out to me very forcibly in the representations which I have received, that the electoral wedding which is proposed is somewhat anomalous. It is said with truth that Caithness is a more or less Norse county, whereas Sutherland is purely Highland. That is true, but perhaps I may remind the House that experience has shown that matrimonial alliances are sometimes successful even when the temperament and outlook on life of the contracting parties are not entirely similar, and one can only hope that the electoral wedding of these two counties may be equally successful. If the Government were to accede to the arguments used in this case. it would open the floodgates, even
      2406
      at this late stage of the Bill, and Orkney, with a population of 23,000, and Shetland, with a population of 26,000, might urge that they have an equal if not stronger claim to separate representation. I will not go into the claims of English counties, such as Rutland and Radnor and others which have been discussed lately. The real point of the whole argument is this, that if you begin tinkering with the decisions of the Speaker's Conference you will bring the whole structure tumbling down about your ears. The Conference deliberately adopted the population test, and this House deliberately sanctioned it; and, judged by that test, I am afraid this Amendment, and the claim which is made for these two counties, must fail. It fails not because I decide to reject it—I should very much prefer it if I were in a position to enable it to succeed—but because it is inconsistent with the expressed determination of the House of Commons.
      In these circumstances, while I greatly regret it, while I have the greatest possible sympathy with my hon. Friends, and wish I could give them a different answer, I feel I have no option in the performance of my duty but to ask the House to adhere to the determination of the Commissioners. I ought, perhaps, to add that reference has been made to the absence of a local inquiry. To have held a local inquiry would have been to mislead. It would have led to an anticipation that these two counties might have been kept separate. So far from being kind it would rather have been cruel to raise false hopes by holding a local inquiry, and to encourage the anticipation that if certain evidence were adduced a different result would have been reached. A different result could not have been reached under the Instructions under which the Commissioners were acting. In the circumstances, I have no option but to refuse to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. BRYCE: There is one point which I do not think has been raised in this discussion, although unfortunately I missed the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, and that is the point of the very diminished representation of the small holders. Both these counties are interested in this, and as the North of Scotland is losing three members it means that the representation of the crofters will be sensibly diminished. This question is becoming more and more important. The necessity for amending the

      2407
      small holders' legislation is becoming more apparent, owing to the administration of the existing Acts, and it is a great misfortune for the small holders that their

      Fife

      —

      —

      Western

      The Dunfermline County District, inclusive of all burghs situated therein except in so far as included in the Dun fermline District of Burghs, together with so much of the Kirkcaldy County District, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, and is included neither in the St. Andrews Division nor in the Dun fermline and Kirkcaldy Districts of Burghs.

      Amendment made: In column 5, leave out the words " St. Andrews " [" St.

      Lanark

      —

      —

      Southern

      The Upper Ward County District, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, together with the part of the Middle Ward County District which is con tained within the parishes of Avondale, East Kilbride, Glassford, and Stone house.

      Amendment made: In column 4, leave out the word "Southern," and insert

      Perth and , Kinross

      —

      —

      Perth

      So much of the county of Perth as is contained within the Eastern or Blair gowrie and Perth County Districts, inclusive of the city of Perth and all burghs situated within the said county districts.

      Kinross and Western

      The county of Kinross, inclusive of the burgh of Kinross, together with so much of the county of Perth as is contained within the Central, Highland and Western County Districts, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

      Colonel STIRLING: I beg to move, in column 4, to leave out the words " Kinross and Western," and to insert instead thereof the words " West Perthshire and Kinross."
      I have no wish to repeat the arguments in favour of the Amendment standing in my name which I gave in Committee. They were not answered or refuted on that occasion. I would only ask Members of the House to look at this map. The whole of the area on one side of the map is West Perthshire and the small appendage is the county of Kinross. The proposal in the Bill is to give the name Kinross and Western to the whole constituency. I would remind the House of what was once said by a sceptic, that he would have thought more of a certain miracle if Jonah had swallowed the whale. That is exactly what has occurred in this case. I know
      2408
      representation should be diminished in this way. It is a very great pity, therefore, that two members cannot be left to these counties.
      Amendment negatived.
      Andrews Division "), and insert instead thereof the word "Eastern." — [Mr. Munro.]
      instead thereof the word " Lanark."—[Mr. M. Macdonald.]
      that in this decision the Commissioners have followed their usual practice, and I would only ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to notice that the discrepancy in this case is much greater than in any other. The ground for not accepting the Amendment was that it was opposed, but the opposition to the proposal in the Schedule is very much greater than the opposition to the Amendment. There are some 48,000 people concerned in opposing the name as it stands in the Schedule. There are only 7,000 who have any interest in opposing my Amendment. For these reasons I would appeal most strongly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Kinross (Mr. E. Wason) to withdraw the opposition which he has made to this Amendment.
      Mr. DALRYMPLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. E. WASON: I am not surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should have moved this Amendment; but I sincerely hope that the Secretary for Scotland will adhere to the decision which he gave the last time this question was raised in the House of Commons. My hon. and gallant Friend, in supporting his Amendment, laid a good deal of emphasis on size, and I believe that it is quite true to say that we often judge a good many things in this country by size in one way or the other. It is, for instance, quite obvious to the House that my hon. and gallant Friend is not quite as big a man as I am, though I have no doubt he is as good a man as I am in every respect. What I would emphasise to this House is this: that in this, as in all other cases, the Boundary Commissioners have gone on the lines that where a part of a county is taken over by a whole county, that division should take the name of the whole county. Let me give the House three or four illustrations of this. I would give you first Kincardineshire. That is far in excess in point of population and in point of area about the same. Then take Perthshire. West Perthshire is four or five times more than Kincardineshire, and there is some discrepancy as between Kinross and West Perthshire, but there the Boundary Commissioners have given the name of Kincardineshire and West Aberdeen. Then, so far as the other counties are concerned, there was the question raised here this afternoon by my hon. Friend, who did not, I think, get a seconder on that occasion, but in that case Berwick takes the lead—I think very rightly—and the same thing applies in the case of Peebles and the Southern Division of Midlothian, where, as the House knows, Peebles takes the lead. I am only asking that in this case, as in others, what has been the universal practice of the Boundary Commissioners should be adhered to. I do not want to labour the

      PART III.—UNIVERSITIES.

      Description of University Constituency.

      Number of Members.

      England and Wales—

      The University of Oxford

      2

      The University of Cambridge

      2

      The University of London

      1

      The University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Wales, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol

      2

      Scotland—

      The University of Edinburgh, the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, and the University of Aberdeen

      3

      2410
      question any further. I am sorry to say that my own Constituency, like the Kingdom of Judah and Israel, is being rent in twain, and where I am to go 1 do not know; so that I do not think I am asking too much when I ask that one of the most beautiful counties (Kinross) should take the lead in this matter. That is why I sincerely hope that the Secretary for Scotland will adhere to the view he has previously taken on this question and that he will support the determinations of the Boundary Commissioners.
      Mr. MUNRO: I find myself in rather a difficulty with regard to this Amendment, but I think that the safest course which I can advise the House to follow is that they should adhere to the determination of the Commissioners. The Commissioners in this matter have followed out the principle which they have adopted in all cases of similar character. That principle has been enunciated by my right hon. Friend has referred. I think that it is both a reasonable and an agreeable principle. been swallowed up it is not an ungraceful tribute to its memory that the constituency of which it forms part should be primarily known by its name. That is the principle which the Commissioners have adopted in the various cases to which my right hon. Friend has referred. I think that it is both a reasonable and an agreeable principle There is also a principle which has guided my right hon Friend the Home Secretary and myself in dealing with all these Amendments—that if there is a controversy about the name of a constituency the safest guide is to adhere to the determination of the Commissioners. There is a controversy here, an acute controversy, and having regard to the circumstances and to the reasonable rules which the Commissioners have followed I regret I cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, in column 2, before the first " 2" [" The University of Oxford I 2 "], to insert " 1—until the university grants degrees to women and thereafter."
      There is also a second Amendment standing in my name relating to the University of Cambridge, and I will deal with them both together. I do not know whether the House is aware that, these two constituencies, to which these two Amendments refer, namely, Oxford and Cambridge, are the only universities in the country which do not give degrees to women. In every other constituency in the country women will have votes, and I therefore propose that some pressure should be put upon these two constituencies to make them give votes to women. I propose, therefore, that they should each have only one member now, and that they should wait until they agree to women having degrees before they have two. If the Home Secretary can assure me that in another place Amendments will be introduced to give the votes to the women who have passed the qualifying examinations in Oxford and Cambridge, I shall be ready to withdraw the Amendments, but I certainly think we ought to put some pressure on those two universities to grant degrees to women. They are, I believe, the only universities in the United Kingdom which do not give degrees to women. Some of them have only adopted that course lately, but I believe that these are absolutely the only two left.
      Mr. NUTTALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
      Mr. HOLT: When these questions were previously considered, I moved an Amendment to try and bring the same subject before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, who had only just come into the House at that time, gave a sympathetic answer to the proposal. So that the whole subject has been discussed before, and perhaps it would simplify matters a good deal if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us what is the result of the communications which he promised to make to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He has already promised to do that, and, if the replies are unsatisfactory, I do think my hon. Friend has made an ingenious suggestion for bringing about the object which I am sure all of us desire.
      Sir G. CAVE: I quite agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down that
      2412
      this is a novel way of bringing pressure to bear upon the universities concerned, and I dare say it would have some efficacy. But I really do not think it is within the purpose of this Bill. My right hon. Friend did say, I believe, that he was personally sympathetic to the proposal that degrees should be given to women, and that he would cause representations to be made to the universities, but I do not think he would expect a reply before the Report stage. At the same time, I could not possibly accept the Amendment.
      Mr. BRUNNER: May I ask, in reply to that point of my right hon. Friend, whether an Amendment will be put in the Bill in another place to give the vote to the women who pass the qualifying examination, although they do not get the degree?
      Sir G. CAVE: I cannot undertake that.
      Mr. SHERWELL: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ha; referred to pressure being put by this House in a particular direction, but I believe he will admit that this pressure is of quite a legitimate kind, and a form of pressure which is perfectly consistent with the legitimate object of this Bill. After all, in reference to the universities, you are conferring an additional vote in respect of an educational qualification. It does seem extraordinarily anomalous and unjust because a degree which is the outward and visible sign of this educational qualification is limited by sex, that therefore those who possess the qualification should be disqualified from possessing the vote. This seems to me such a question of rudimentary justice, and so strictly in conformity with the purpose and spirit of the Bill that I most sincerely hope that the Government will, if not at this stage of the discussion of the Bill, in another place give consideration to it and see if something cannot be done to confer this very simple measure of plain justice.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I am strongly inclined to support these two Amendments, and for this reason: that under these circumstances the universities are certain to return one Tory and one Liberal, while under this proposal they would only return one Tory, so that we should gain in this House.
      Mr. WATT: Under the present circumstances Oxford and Cambridge will be over-represented in getting two members because the University of Oxford is under 7,000 for two members, while

      2413
      Cambridge has 7,254 for two members, and therefore that is an argument why they should be forced to enlarge their electoral strength by taking in the women—I will not say embracing them in this case. I support the Amendment, and I hope it will be accepted.
      Amendment negatived.

      The University of Wales

      1

      The University of Durham, the University of Liverpool, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol

      2

      This Amendment proposes to give a member to the University of Wales. I move it on the ground that Wales is entitled to a member to represent her university, and I feel sure that this House will wish to accord this privilege and be in agreement with the principle that the Welsh University should be recognised in this way. The House will remember that the Welsh University is composed of three constituent colleges, one at Bangor, the other at Aberystwyth and the other at Cardiff, and that those three colleges are federated to a national university vesting entirely upon the national idea. These colleges were brought into being—were brought into being as the result of the great wave of popular enthusiasm many years ago for the cause of higher education. All classes contributed towards the foundation of these colleges, and they are all of the most democratic character, for on their governing bodies are represented the local authorities and the county councils of Wales.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member proposes to take out these words and in the same Amendment he puts them in again, and the Speaker has ruled it cannot be done.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir D. Maclean): The Amendment is to insert " The University of Wales |1."
      Sir G. YOUNGER: The hon. Member proposes to leave out words and to put them in again, and the Speaker has decided that that cannot be done. I think it was in connection with an Amendment relating to Manchester.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is to insert " The University of Wales |1."
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I refer to the next part of the Amendment, which deals with
      Major DAVID DAVIES: I beg to move to leave out the words " The University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Wales, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol | 2," and to insert instead thereof,
      the University of Durham, the University of Liverpool, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol —all exactly the same. These are taken out first of all and then put back again, and it has been ruled that that cannot be done.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it is open to the hon. and gallant Member to move the first part of the Amendment, and that is to insert after the University of London "The University of Wales|1."
      Mr. BRUNNER: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because Wales is in the Schedule already.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Member should move his Amendment in that way and raise his point.
      1.0 A.M.
      Major DAVIES: I beg to move it in that way, and in doing so I will endeavour to show the House that the Welsh University is one of the most democratic institutions in this country. It has representatives on its governing bodies of the local authorities and of the county councils throughout Wales. In the past it has turned out some most eminent graduates, some of whom have distinguished themseves in this House. It may be said that the University of Wales has not the traditions and the ancient character that some of the other universities in this country possess. On the other hand, I think there is no doubt that there is a great future before higher education in Wales, and steps are being taken already to levy rates throughout the country in support of our educational institutions and especially of our colleges. Therefore, I think we can look forward to a great increase in the number of our students. We can also point to the fact that we have already

      2415
      in Wales a system of intermediate education which has been built up during the last thirty years and has provided a stepping-stone from the board school to our colleges. I submit to the House that they should give this Amendment their sympathetic consideration, because, after all, in this matter mere numbers is not the only or the supreme test. We hear a great deal in these days about the rights of small nationalities, and surely if there is one thing that any nation does cherish it is its ideals in respect to its higher education. I think the House would do well to recognise this principle and grant our right to a separate representative for the University of Wales in this House. The Government, I feel sure, will give this Amendment their sympathetic support. My hon. Friend the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. John) told the House to-night that Wales had not been treated at all generously in this Bill, and I venture to suggest to the Home Secretary that here is an opportunity where he can display—I will not say his generosity, but his anxiety that Wales should not be left in the lurch. He can do so by indicating that in regard to this matter he will meet our just claims. I feel sure the House, and especially the Members for Scotland and Ireland, will give us their support in connection with this Amendment. In Scotland they have three members for their universities. The University of London has also been given a member, and surely this House is not going to deny to Wales the right and the privilege of being represented by a separate member in this House. I do appeal most earnestly to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill that he will recognise the) part which Wales has played so conspicuously in the past in the development of our educacational institutions.
      Sir GARROD THOMAS: I beg to second the Amendment.
      As has been said—and, I think, very correctly said; at any rate, it has not been contradicted—Wales is certainly entitled to one more member. We tried for one in North Wales—for the Denbigh Boroughs—and failed. We tried for one in Mid-Wales—that is, in Radnorshire—and failed. We tried for one in South Wales—that is, for Carmarthen Boroughs —and we failed there also. May I repeat the words used by my
      2416
      hon. and gallant Friend and say that here is an opportunity for the Home Secretary to right what is now a little wrong, and to placate the whole of Wales by giving its university a representative in this House? Wales is the smallest and the weakest of the nationalities represented here, and it is our custom, in our our own households, to treat anyone who is weak and small with a certain generousness and indulgence. I ask for that indulgent treatment on this occasion; and, after all, it is not an unreasonable request. The Guild of Graduates of the University of Wales is equal to about half those on the voting list of Oxford University and Oxford is given two members. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more than this, that all the nations have their representatives for their cities, boroughs, and county divisions, and so has Wales, and we now ask you to put us on the same footing as the others by giving us one representative for our university.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept the Amendment quite in the shape in which it is moved. It would be right, I think, if moved in this way: After " London " insert "University of Wales | 1."
      Amendment proposed, after the line "The University of London | 1," insert the line " The University of Wales | 1."— [Major David Davies.]
      Sir H. ROBERTS: Before the Home Secretary replies, I desire, in a sentence, as the present Chairman of the Welsh Members, to express, on behalf of my colleagues, their strong opinion in favour of the suggestion made in the Amendment. I think anyone who knows anything about the Welsh University must admit that it stands on a somewhat different footing from the other universities throughout the country. It represents the whole of Wales, and it is surprising how great is the amount of interest which is taken in higher university education by all the counties and local authorities and public bodies which are represented upon the university governing authority. In that way, as I say, the University of Wales I think stands on a different footing from other universities. I would only say this: I admit that at the present time the numbers of the graduates of the Welsh University are not very large, but they are a rapidly increasing body, and on the ground of national sentiment, and having regard to what Wales has contributed to education and the great interest of Welsh

      2417
      people in all forms of education, it would give the Principality the greatest satisfaction and pleasure if on this occasion the Government were able to say that they would at all events favourably consider the Amendment.
      Mr. NEEDHAM: I do not rise in opposition to the very persuasive speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who has borne testimony to the value of education in Wales and of the Welsh University, but I would venture to point out to him that it is most unfortunate he should have put down this Amendment at so late a date. I have no right to speak on this point for the University of Manchester, but I hold in my hand a Resolution which was passed by convocation of the University of Manchester—of which I in my time have had the honour of being chairman—when they discussed the question whether London should or should not have separate university representation. Provided that London did get that representation, they went on to discuss what should happen with regard to other universities, and the discussion was only carried upon the assumption that all the other universities should be grouped. My hon. and gallant Friend said, "Give us a representative for the University of Wales." But suppose that is done, is the total number of university representatives to be increased? As the Bill stands there are only two members allocated to the modern universities. If one of the two is taken by Wales does it mean that the other universities are to have only one member? I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details of the number of graduates of the various universities, as that will be pertinent on a later Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends from Liverpool, but I want to know what view the Home Secretary takes of the position of the other grouped universities, supposing Wales gets a separate representative. I should like to say that I am not opposed to that, provided the other universities are not going to suffer in any way in their representation on that account.
      Sir G. CAVE: There are really two questions involved in this series of Amendments affecting the eight younger universities in England and Wales. The first is: Are you going to divide up the constituency at all? It now consists of the whole of the eight universities, with two members, who are to be elected on the
      2418
      system of proportional representation. We have not left very much to the supporters of proportional representation. If we were to divide up this group of universities there would be nothing left but the three older universities and the Scottish universities. The second question is, If you are to divide it up, is this the right way to divide it? I say most emphatically that I do not think that under any conditions the House will increase the number of members, and, therefore, if Wales is going to have one member the younger English universities would have to be content with one among them. That is the view of English Members; I do not say it is the view of Welsh Members. The total number of voters in these eight universities is estimated at 14,300.
      Mr. HINDS: What is it in Oxford and Cambridge?
      Sir G. CAVE: Approximately, 15,000 in one, and 16,000 or 17,000 in the other. The total estimated number for these eight universities, with two members, is 14,300 voters. The number for Oxford, with two members, is more than that-15,000 or 16,000. Cambridge has about the same number. It is quite true that there are two members to each of those constituencies, but the point I was on was, Can you divide up the two members in the manner proposed? Wales has something like 2,500—
      Mr. HINDS: No.
      Sir G. CAVE: I am giving my estimates, which have been very carefully drawn up. They may be wrong, of course, but I am told that Wales has about 2,500 voters. Is it right that Wales should take one member, leaving the other member to the remaining seven universities, which would then have between 11,000 and 12,000 among them? Clearly, that would not be a fair division of the two members, and I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can propose that. As I say, I am arguing on the basis that the House will not increase its membership. Whatever is done as regards dividing the groups of universities, I am sure the House would not accept this Amendment.
      Mr. CARADOC REES: The first part I would like to make is this: The Home Secretary has spoken in the case of Flint and Denbigh Boroughs against grouping the boroughs together. One point was that some of the boroughs have not the same interests as the other boroughs, and

      2419
      that they are difficult to group. The first result of grouping a Welsh and an English university is not a clash of politics, but a clash of nationalities. If the Welsh University had one member you would have members of different political opinions against each other, and someone would be chosen. If, on the other hand, you had a Welsh university grouped with an English university you would have Welsh opinion plumping for one man and trying to get their candidate in as against the candidate of the English university, and instead of Conservative, Liberal, and Labour fighting the contest in Wales you would have the clash of nationalities instead of a clash of politics. If the Home Secretary felt the House was not averse to one more member being added—and I am certain No one is averse to that— [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh ! "] —for this reason, that if one member be added there will still be for the total members for Wales as many electors per member as there are in England and Scotland—and seeing that everybody would be desirous of placing this as far as possible on an equal footing, this is the way to do it. When, instead of having five members for Denbigh and Flint, we are reduced to three and ask for four we are told, "We cannot consider you as a nation; we have to consider each county separately, and although under this scheme you have more voters it cannot be helped." This is a way of rectifying it without harming anybody. It would secure this further: The Welsh university and education, we hope, will go forward and develop. I think it is important in the interests of the university that there should be one representative of the Welsh University in this House. He would centre round himself educational opinion in Wales, and I am certain that would be good for the university, for this House, and for Wales generally. For these reasons I support the Amendment, and I hope that even at this late stage, having regard to the fact that two members will be left for the other university divisions in England—there are to be two for the remainder of the group and one given to Wales, and that is the reason for the one additional member—and that the Sheffield and Victoria Universities are being harmed because they will deal with education in England and will not be fastened to the Welsh University, which will have different sentiments and interests, it is better that the Welsh University should be separately represented.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I wish to appeal to the Home Secretary on a different ground from those which have been urged hitherto, and that is the ground that Wales as a nation ought to have its educated people separately represented in this House. I am not myself enamoured of university representation, and if my own feelings were consulted I should be against university representation. In Oxford, in Cambridge, in Scotland, and in Ireland I do not think it has been very successful in the past history of this House, but the Speaker's Conference has taken university representation as part of our body politic. Here is a little nation that has come late into the field of education—it is true though no fault of her own, because if we had had the conduct of our own affairs for the last five hundred years we should have had a Welsh university as early as the first Scottish university. Our great patriot, Owain Glyndwr, wanted to have a Welsh university in 1405, and but for the fact that he failed in the attainment of his desire we should not be in the position of being taunted with the fact that we have only 2,500 voters where we should have had about 10,000. Why is it we have so few to-day? Simply because the Welsh university was only started in 1894 or 1895. All our graduates are young men, and in another twenty years we should probably have double the number. The one thing Wales has done which ought to stand as an example for the rest of the country is in the domain of education. Wales during the last generation has expended her best energy in building up her own system of education, which has not been bequeathed WI us by our fathers, which owes nothing to the pious donor, but which has been due to the sacrifices of the working people of Wales during the last twenty or thirty years. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will he look kindly upon this matter Wales, after all, is perhaps the most distinct nationality in this kingdom. It has its own language still. I look around me and see Members for Welsh constituencies here, nearly every one of whom, I think, is conversant with his native tongue. Wales has its own traditions. It has a record in the matter of education during the last generation of which any country might be proud. Why, the greatest romance that has been enacted in the history of Britain in the last forty years is the romance of education in Wales; and the culmination

      2421
      of that history has been the crowning glory of our Welsh University. Small in numbers hitherto it may be but still in comparison with the population, compared with the poverty of the people, compared with the sacrifice which every boy and girl sent to the university means, it is a great achievement. We ask you, since we are going to have university representation, not to leave little Wales alone among the four component nations of this great Kingdom unrepresented as far as her university is concerned, and with not a member of her own to represent higher education. I will not trouble the House with statistics or compare the number of graduates in the Welsh University with the numbers at Oxford and Cambridge or in the Scottish and Irish universities. I would ask the Home Secretary and the House generally to show their sympathy and respect with the greatest effort that democracy has ever made in this Kingdom to rear up a great educational structure by their own sacrifices, with none or very little help from the Government—none at all at the beginning and very little help since—in order that we should have this official and fundamental recognition of the efforts of the Welsh people in this direction by saying that Wales shall be treated exactly as England has been treated, and Scotland and Ireland, by having her university represented here. You are really doing a mean thing when Wales, by grouping her university, built it up in the way I have suggested, with seven other universities in England. It means that you do not give the Welsh University a, chance of being represented in this House in any possible way. We shall be submerged by the great university colleges of Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and Leeds. We shall have no chance ever of getting the distinctive voice of educational Wales heard in this House. Does the Home Secretary really mean to say that that is not a bad thing, if university representation is a good thing in itself? Does he mean to suggest that the voice of Wales in university representation should not be heard here at all? I put it on broad national grounds. I appeal to my English friends. All I can say is that I have never found English Members averse to bearing and to sympathising with the demands of Wales, and I do ask the English members to come to our rescue, to come to our aid, not to look upon us as a small people and therefore
      2422
      a people to be despised. I appeal to the generous instincts of England in dealing with small nationalities, especially small nationalities at their best—because that is what the Welsh University represents—and to give us elementary justice by allowing our educated young men and women a voice that can be heard in this House.
      Mr. T. WILSON: Like the last speaker, I am not in favour of university representation in this House, and, holding those views, I hope the Government will stand by the Bill and by the Schedule and will not concede the point asked by the Welsh Members. The last speaker said he did not believe in university representation at all, but bad as that may be he wants to make it rather worse. It is a curious feature in connection with politics to say that a thing is as bad as it can be and then want to make it worse. That is exactly what the last speaker has suggested. I think the universities will be well represented under this Bill, and I suggest to the Welsh Members that if they were to put up the present Prime Minister as a candidate for the group of universities in the Schedule very probably they would have a Welshman representing their university in this House. There is another reason why I am opposed to this Amendment, and that is that it is not fair to the House of Commons to make this alteration at this time of night, with so very few Members present. [How. MEMBERS: " That is not our fault !"] I know it is not your fault; but I say that if the Government give way to the demand of the Welsh Members now they will not be treating the Members of the House of Commons quite fairly, and I do hope they will oppose the Amendment and stand by the Schedule as it is printed.
      Mr. HINDS: We in Wales are labouring under the injustice that we have got one member less than we ought to have, and having failed in other quarters we think we ought to be given another member in this direction. Wales is on a different pedestal from the other universities. It is the only national university in the Kingdom. I do not know where the Home Secretary got his figures from, but I have very different ones. I will not go into statistics, but we have got a case with regard to representation even if the question were only one of figures. Like the last speaker and my hon. and learned

      2423
      Friend the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewellyn Williams), I am not very keen on university representation, but as we have got ten members coming to the House representing universities I think we have a claim to have one representative of Wales. It has been pointed out already that there is in Wales a passion for education, and by appealing as we do to-night for a Welsh university member, we are only appealing for justice. My feeling is that the House of Commons is at all times fair, and I think if you look at this matter from the point of view of Welshmen and Welsh education the least you can do is to give us one representative of Welsh education.
      Mr. JOHN: I very much regret that the voice of Labour has been heard in opposition to this Amendment, for no university in the country owes more to labour than does the University of Wales. It owes much to the sacrifices of the colliers in particular, and its personnel, to-day, from the Principal down to the students, come very largely, indeed, from the labouring classes. I would urge on the hon. Member who made this reference that he is acting very unfairly when he presses the argument as to the undesirability generally of university representa-
      tion to our detriment. He undoubtedly, like many of us, disapproves of university representation; but while that is the opinion of all the progressive forces in Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, it is unfair to urge that to the prejudice of Wales. I would add further that there is no reason whatever why we should not have the representation that we are entitled to. There are two Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench now, two very keen intellects representing England and Scotland, and I defy them, with their joint genius to give any satisfactory reason why Wales should be treated so much less generously than Scotland in this matter. I would also urge, too, that even in the whole United Kingdom the Welsh University is the only national university—it is entitled to speak for a nation, and that is more than any other university in England, Scotland, or Ireland can do. Indeed, it is doubtful whether any university in the world can do that, and I hope, therefore, that the House will recognise this special position of the University of Wales in the way we desire.
      Question put, "That the words 'The University of Wales1| 1' be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 12; Noes, 50.

      Division No. 125.1

      AYES.

      [1.36 a.m

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arlon)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Hinds, John

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Rchinsoil Sidney

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-Major

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      David Davies and Sir G. Thomas.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin, U.)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Holt, Richard Burning

      Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

      Barton, Sir William

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

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

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Bliss, Joseph .

      Lindsay, William Arthur

      Stewart, Gershom

      Boyton, James

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Macmaster, Donald

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Whiteley, Herbert James

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Mount, William Arthur

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

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Clough, William

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Young, William (Perthshire, East)

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Nuttall, Harry

      Younger, Sir George

      Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Lord

      Craig, Col. James (Down,E.)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington) 1

      Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

      Pratt, J. W. i

      Mr. BRUNNER: I beg to move, to leave out the words " The University of Durham, the Victoria University of Wales, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol | 2," and to insert instead thereof,

      2425

      The University of Durham, the University of Leeds, the University of Liverpool, the Victoria University of Manchester, and the University) of Sheffield

      1

      The University of Birmingham, the University of Bristol, and the University of Wales

      1

      The object of the Amendment is to group the universities named in two groups for the purpose of returning one member as regards each group. I have to point out that there is a mistake in the printing of this Amendment and that the first group should be " the University of Durham, the University of Leeds, the University of Liverpool, the Victoria University of Manchester, and the University of Sheffield, and the other group would consist of the University of Birmingham, the University of Bristol, and the University of Wales. I propose this Amendment because I have been asked to do so by one of the universities, and let me say that I do not know what the feeling of the other universities may be in this matter. I move it because I am connected with the University of Liverpool, and they have asked me to do so. I would just point out that the four universities of Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield are already connected together in that they have examinations in common. I have put Durham into the group because they are in the same geographical area in the North. It would be far more convenient for these universities to have one member standing for a smaller constituency than to have two members standing for the whole of the eight universities.
      Mr. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment. It. is quite clear that Liverpool are afraid of being cast into the maelström of proportional representation, and they hope by reducing the number of the constituencies to maintain a certain personal touch between the university and its representative, which they fear would be lost if two members represent a great number of universities. I do not propose to detain the House at this late hour, but I wish to say that it is the fact that they already work reciprocally with the Universities of Sheffield, Manchester, and Leeds, and if Durham were added to the group it would form a great Northern group of universities, which, I think, would be a valuable thing to have under the system of university representation, for which the Bill makes provision.
      Mr. NEEDHAM: I want to offer opposition to the suggestion of my hon. Friends
      2426
      for the division of the universities in the manner they propose in this Amendment. May I inform the House that the Amendment was only put down on the Paper, I think, yesterday, and, that being so, obviously there has been no opportunity of consulting any of the universities who are mutually interested? In May or June of this year Convocation of the Manchester University passed the following resolution:
      "That in the event of separate Parliamentary representation (one member) being given to London University, the remaining universities of that group suggested by the Speaker's Conference constitute a single constituency with two members.
      That resolution of Convocation was, I believe, sent to every one of these constituent universities. I remember making the suggestion that it should be done, and I believe it was done. I do not think there was any indication from a single one of the universities named in the Schedule objecting to the resolution passed by the Convocation of the Manchester University. At any rate, if there was such objection, it has only just been raised at the instigation, as I understand, of the University of Liverpool. I am not here in opposition to the University of Liverpool, but to those of us who are connected with modern universities it seems rather unfortunate that we should be called upon to decide on these matters without having an opportunity of consulting our constituents. I have another objection to urge to the proposal. There is the question of the graduates who will be voters. According to the information given me by the University of Manchester, the total number of the voters in the first group, according to the division suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner), would be 14,883, comprising 5,600 for Durham, 1,371 for Leeds, 2,300 for Liverpool, 4,600 for Manchester, and 412 for Sheffield; whereas in the next group the voters would number only 4,977, comprising 1,398 for Birmingham, 413 for Bristol, and about 3,000 for Wales. That obviously is a very inequitable distribution of these universities. I oppose the suggested division on the ground that one university was very strongly against it, and indicated this as long ago as June last. Secondly, I oppose it on the ground that the proposed division works out in an extremely unequal

      2427
      manner. The hon. Member for the Wirral Division (Mr. Stewart) supported the Amendment on the ground that Liverpool had asked him to do so, but he did not give us any great reason for his advocacy of it beyond the fact that it would leave Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield working together in regard to certain examinations. That is quite true, but when I urged the same plea to the Home Secretary in connection with a joint register it was refused on the ground that a separate university register should be kept. I hope that the Home Secretary will resist the suggested division.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL:I imagine the opposition to the proposal which has come from the hon. Member who has just spoken would alone be sufficient to prevent the Home Secretary accepting the Amendment, but in addition there is another reason. The Speaker's Conference recommended the retention of university seats on the understanding that where a university, or group of universities, returned two members or more the minority should be represented. In the Bill, as it stands— and it follows more or less the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference—the election of two members for this group of eight universities would be on the principle of proportional representation. Therefore both the majority and the minority would be represented there, as they would be in the case of Oxford and Cambridge. But if the group is divided into two groups, each returning one member, then that principle disappears, and, as the compromise was agreed to in the Speaker's Conference on the understanding that minorities should be represented on condition of retaining university representation, I hope the Government will not accept an Amendment which impairs that principle.
      Sir H. ROBERTS: I also hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment in its present form. There are certain reasons in favour of regrouping the eight universities, but this particular grouping—if I may speak from the standpoint of Wales—would not be in harmony with the general interests which we all have in view. A far better grouping, if we were to divide the eight universities, would be the University of Wales with Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool attached to it. From the standpoint of community of interest and for other
      2428
      reasons that would be a far better grouping than that now proposed. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: I think if the grouping is revised at all it certainly cannot, after the speeches we have just heard, be divided in this way. The numbers will be more than two to one in favour of one group as against another. The hon. Member who speaks for Wales objects to Wales being included in his group and, that being so, I do not think we could accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in column 1, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words, "The University of Edinburgh | 1."
      This is another national plea, and I hope it will be more successful than the last of that character. London has a special Member to itself, and we do not see why Edinburgh should not also have one. London has only some 6,500 electors, whereas Edinburgh has 10,000 graduates, and if the university m the capital of one country gets a member we think the university of the capital of another country should also get a member. The main contention in favour of this Amendment is the figures. Scottish universities are extremely under-represented in the representation given them under the Bill. In Edinburgh, as I have already said, there are 10,000 graduates, in Glasgow 8,500, in Aberdeen practically 5,000, and in St. Andrews over 1,500, making a total of 25,000 voters in the universities of Scotland. These get three Members among them under the present Bill. The figures for England and Ireland are quite different. I do not know where the Home Secretary obtained the figures for Oxford and Cambridge, which he read out earlier in the Debate, but I have the figures from the Librarian— hours ago now—and they were for 1915-Oxford 6,977—the Home Secretary made the figures practically double that—
      Sir G. CAVE: The hon. and learned Member is giving the present number of electors for Oxford. I gave the estimated number under the Bill.
      Mr. WATT: I am giving past figures and, of course, others will be brought in. I am dealing with the 1915 figures, and those for Cambridge were 7,200, London

      2429
      6,500, and Ireland 4,400. These four universities make up 25,000 voters, practically the same as the four universities in Scotland, and yet the four in Scotland get three members whereas the other four that I have named get seven. It is because of these figures, and because London gets a member to itself, that I propose this Amendment.
      Mr. PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The figures entirely bear out the claim that Edinburgh has to separate representation. I think the annual students we used to have were something like 10,000, and as it was the largest medical school in the world I think on that ground this Amendment should be specially agreeable to hon. Members. I see there is a very distinguished graduate of the university on the Treasury Bench, next to the Home Secretary, and I hope I shall appeal to him successfully in favour of the Amendment. With regard to women, I think Edinburgh was the first university to grant degrees to women, and that is in my opinion a further reason for granting this appeal. In any case, the figures ought to be sufficient justification for giving Edinburgh separate representation, and I appeal to its distinguished graduate on the Treasury Bench to use his influence with the Home Secretary.
      2.0 A.M.
      Mr. MUNRO: The Bill as it stands embodies the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference in assigning three Members to the four Scottish universities. I think if the Amendment were accepted the modern universities in England might very reasonably agitate for increased representation over the two members allotted to them. I think it is unfortunate that my hon. and learned Friend put this down as a manuscript Amendment on the Report stage, giving me no opportunity of communicating with the Scottish universities and of ascertaining their views. I can well believe that the University of Edinburgh—of which I am an alumnus and for which I have the highest affection end regard-might desire this Amendment, and I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) should support it. But I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow should have proposed it.
      Mr. WATT: That is my large-mindedness.
      Mr. MUNRO: Everyone knows my hon. Friend's large-mindedness and generosity and even daring. He has had a tilt with the Glasgow Town Council already to-day, and I think he will now have to settle accounts with Glasgow University as well, because I think that while Edinburgh would welcome this change Glasgow would not. I think it unnecessary to go into the figures. It is sufficient for the purpose that this Amendment would involve an addition of another Member to the membership of this House, and that has been regarded as a stile which it is hopeless to get over. On this particular occasion I think the result must be the same as in the other similar cases. Reference has been made to the London University proposal, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the vital distinction between that case and this is that the proposal there did not involve any addition to the membership of this House, whereas this does. In these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.

    SIXTH SCHEDULE.

      ADAPTATION OF ACTS.
      6. Sub-section 4 of Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (which makes. the number of county councillors and the boundaries of the county electoral divisions in London depend on the number of. members for Parliamentary boroughs and the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs, and divisions in London), shall have effect as if the words "for the time being" were substituted for the words "at the passing of this Act"
      8. The Local Government Board may, by order, make such further adaptations in the provisions of any Act (including any local Act and any Act to confirm a Provisional Order, and any scheme under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, as-amended by any subsequent Act) as may seem to them necessary to make these provisions conform with the provisions of this Act; and any order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act.
      As respects Scotland the Secretary for Scotland, and as respects Ireland the Local Government Board for Ireland, shall be substituted for the Local Government Board in this provision.
      Amendment made: At the end of paragraph 6, insert the words, "and in order

      2431
      to meet any difficulty (consequent on the change of boundaries under this provision) in filling casual vacancies by election in the London County Council, any such casual vacancy shall, until the first election of the whole number of councillors takes place after the passing of this Act, be filled by means of the choice by the council of a person to fill the vacancy, and the councillor so chosen shall hold office in such manner and in all respects as if he had been elected to fill the vacancy."— [Sir G. Cave.]
      Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next two Amendments, I think the best order is to take that of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) first, as that raises the general question.
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
      "Provided that in cases where a Parliamentary borough in London loses one or more county councillors under this Act such borough shall retain its existing number of county councillors."
      I am only too well aware that this late hour and the state of the House are entirely out of tune with the importance of the matter embodied in this Amendment. I only hope that that will not prejudice it in the eyes of the few Members who are present, because it is not my fault. I do not know whether the Home Secretary intends to finish the Bill to-night.
      Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Then I am afraid I must trespass on the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. I put down this Amendment to relieve the Bill of a very palpable injustice which it does, which is not concerned with the intrinsic merits of the Bill at all, but which has a result that I think was quite unforeseen by those who drafted the Bill and have it in charge. It is, therefore, a result which I venture to submit, because it was unforeseen, is one that they are called upon, if possible, to remedy, particularly if, as I think I can show, that could be done without in any way altering the purpose or structure of the Bill. May I explain the position for the information, at any rate, of non-London Members?
      At present each municipal borough in London, coterminous I think in all cases with the corresponding Parliamentary borough, is allotted two county councillors
      2432
      for each Member of Parliament. The loss of a Parliamentary seat under this Act involves, therefore, to the borough concerned the loss of two county councillors. In those circumstances the following boroughs, Shoreditch, Finsbury, St. Pancras, Marylebone, and Westminster, would each lose two, and Stepney would lose four members on the county council. These are the only boroughs, six in number, affected. It is worth while to look for a moment into the history of this curious interdependence between the representation of London to the county council and its representation to Parliament—two things quite different from one another, and between which there is really no logical connection. It was done by the Local Government Act of 1888, Section 4, which the right hon. Gentleman is confirming by his Amendment, to which I am asking him to add this proviso. The reason for it at that time was twofold. First, because in 1888 London was divided for local government purposes into a large number of vestries and district boards, many of which were too small to constitute into an electoral division for county council purposes. Secondly, this sort of rough and ready plan was adopted in order not to delay the passing of that Act, and it has been allowed to remain ever since But, in the meantime, the difficulty of small areas has been got rid of. The large Metropolitan boroughs have been established, and there is no reason or logic in taking the Parliamentary representation as the sole guide to county council representation. That the plan was an ad hoc one, adopted for the convenience of the moment, is shown by the fact that, outside of London, county electoral divisions and representation have no connection with Parliamentary representation. Anyone can see that by examining Section 2, Sub-section (3), of the Act of 1888, which deals with such representation outside of London. But I do not wish to detain the House over that matter.
      Confronted with this state of things in London, and naturally not desiring to undertake the reorganisation of London County Council representation in this Bill, the Government have decided by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to perpetuate it—for the present at any rate, and in order not to overload the present Bill. I do not know that under the circumstances any other course was open to

      2433
      them. But this course has this inevitable result: That whereas what is called a Reform Bill always consists of two parts, as this Bill does with regard to Parliamentary representation, namely, franchise and redistribution, when it enters into the arena of local government matters it becomes a Franchise Bill (which this Bill certainly is with regard to the local government franchise) without the proper concomitant of a Redistribution Bill.
      I am not blaming the Government for this. The Redistribution Bill with regard to local government matters must come in the future. All I ask them to do by this Amendment is to remove the injustice and loss which is incidental to this method of proceeding, and which accrues to the few boroughs in question. I cannot illustrate what it really means better than by taking the case of Westminster. Westminster loses a Parliamentary seat, and therefore loses two of its six representatives on the county council. But Westminster contributes to the Equalisation of Rates Fund £50,000 more per annum than all the other contributing or paying boroughs put together. That is to say, it contributes 62 per cent. of the total charged on the paying boroughs. And yet it has to lose two of its county council representatives. Put in another way, Westminster contributes 15 per cent. of the whole expenditure of the County of London, and its representation on the county council, the spending authority, is reduced to 3.2 per cent. Marylebone, the next largest contributor to the Fund, is prejudiced in the same way.
      I hardly think the House will be unwilling to remove such an injustice. It is not like these propositions which we have been listening to to-night of alterations of nomenclature and adding to seats. This is a proposal to remedy an injustice which is consequential to the Bill as it stands. I should like to say a word about one other point. I have beard it objected that there is some technical reason with regard to the registers of the electoral districts why this proviso should not be put in, and the county council representation left just as it is. I have not been able to discover the difficulty. It will certainly not be the case in Westminster, because we can adopt the new Parliamentary register for each of the new divisions and give three, instead of two, county councillors to each, which
      2434
      will leave the total number of county councillors for the City of Westminster at six, as at present. All these constituencies are solid constituencies, so to speak. It is not like the case of Tower Hamlets, where a number of constituencies are being broken up and regrouped. All these constituencies remain as they were, clean-cut and solid, although one Parliamentary Member has been taken away. All they would have to do would be to vote for their existing number of county councillors en bloc. Even if it will necessitate keeping up some of the old registers, I am sure the boroughs involved will gladly put up with that slight inconvenience in order not to lose any of its county council representation.
      There is only one other point, and that is with regard to the London County Council. I have good reason to believe that this proposal has the support of the county council, because it is well known that they are very much in want of more members. They cannot fill their committees, and they have not got enough members to do their necessary work. This will prevent them from losing, I think, eight members. The matter is one which I wish I had the time and strength to explain a little more clearly, and which I wish I could explain to a somewhat larger House, because it is a palpable injustice which was never intended by the right hon. Gentleman, and which can easily be remedied in the way I suggest.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has gone over the ground so far as rateable value is concerned, but I want to appeal to the Government on quite other grounds. The London County Council is under-manned at the present time. It has not enough members to fill its committees and to do all the enormous amount of its detailed work. Since education has been added to its other work it has been almost impossible to get through all the work, and undoubtedly the work has suffered from the paucity of members. The construction of these new constituencies in Wandsworth and elsewhere will, of course, add a certain number of members to the county council if the existing condition of things obtains in the future, though I am not suggesting that the addition of those two members will make the membership more numerous than is necessary. I do suggest, however, that other districts which have

      2435
      hitherto been fairly represented—other parts of London—will have serious disadvantages. I take the case of the constituency which I represent. The borough of Shoreditch has hitherto had two divisions for the purposes of Parliamentary representation—Haggerston and Hoxton. Each of those divisions has had two members on the London County Council. The borough of Shoreditch is densely populated. It has a large school population-a large number of schools, and there is a great mass of detailed work to be done, especially in connection with the child population—work which now comes under the county council. If you take away two of its members, I suggest to this House that it will be impossible for the other two members remaining to do anything like what is necessary for the population. I cannot, I know, make out the case on the ground of rateable value or upon what it contributes per person to the Equalisation of Rates Fund in the same way as my hon. Friend was able to do in the case he instanced, but I do urge that the county council should not be rendered incapable of doing its work by an accidental oversight in the construction of this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman himself, having been a member of the county council, and knowing a great deal more than I do about the details of its work, will, I am sure, recognise that I am not overstating the case, and I hope will give us a sympathetic reply.
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) is an authority on the question upon which he has addressed the House, and I do not think he would have been faithful to the duties he has discharged as a member of that constituency for thirty-two years if he had not brought this question to the attention of the House. I only regret for his own sake that it will not be possible for me to accept his Amendment. He rightly described how it was the Act of 1888—Section 4 of the Local Government Act of 1888—which decided that the Parliamentary divisions should be the divisions for the election of members for the London County Council, and that, following those divisions, two members should be elected for the London County Council practically with every member sent to Parliament by every Parliamentary division. Then this Bill comes along, and is so formed that it operates in exactly the way that my hon. Friend has
      2436
      described, so that wherever a Parliamentary division is limited so that one member is taken away from it, it follows that that Parliamentary division loses two members upon the London County Council. That, I agree, is very hard, and it imposes a very great hardship in connection with the constituency of which my hon. Friend is a member—the constituency of Westminster. It works hardships in other cases also, but it is particularly a greater hardship in the case of Westminster, because there are many of us who think that the members of the London County Council ought to be apportioned, to some extent, at all events, from the point of view of the contribution which the constituency makes to the rates, because, after all, members are elected to our county council for very little other purpose than to direct, wisely or unwisely, the expenditure of the rates. Westminster, as my hon. Friend says, is an unusual contributor to the rates, and, while being such a large contributor, is to be deprived of two of the members it has had since 1888 sitting on the county council. It is so also in the case of Marylebone. The Parliamentary Division of Marylebone has been altered by the Bill and as it has been altered by one Member of Parliament being taken away from it, two members of the county council are taken away and yet Marylebone has gained and, if you judge it from the point of view of its contributions to the rates or from the point of view of the population, would be entitled to its full members on the county council, namely, four. I am quite certain of this, that the framers of the Bill had not any idea that this was going to be the result of the Bill, and I may say that, although I pay considerable attention to London matters, that when I first saw this Bill, and for a long time after I had seen this Bill, I had no idea that this would be one of its results. It is an accident and now my hon. Friend comes along with an Amendment and says, "Will you accept an Amendment by which the constituencies, although deprived of the members of Parliament under this Bill, shall not be deprived of members of the county council?" And he argues that that should be done in connection with this Bill. It really could not be done in connection with this particular Bill. My right hon. Friend and I are fully sympathetic with the little hardship which results quite accidentally—not with the intention of the

      2437
      framers of the Bill, not with the intention of those who are conducting the Bill through Parliament, and not with the intention of the House of Commons—but while we are fully sympathetic with the points raised it would be a very improper thing to tear up, as it were, by the roots the Act of 1886, which is the very foundation of the whole system upon which the members are elected on the London County Council. That is not the way in which it could be done. My hon. Friend himself suggests that, whereas now there will be only two members for West-minster instead of three, and there will be two Parliamentary divisions for West-minster instead of three, we should allot to each of those two Parliamentary divisions three members. Well, that would be to tear up, to overthrow, the whole of the structure upon which the election of the London County Council was based under Section 4 of the Local Government Act of 1886. I do not think that the objections of my hon. Friend can be met in that way. I am sure that if palpable injustice be done it will be remedied, and I am quite willing to admit that from the point of view of the administration of the London County Council there is much to say for increasing its members, but let my hon. Friend recollect that the members of the London County Council will be increased from 118 to 124 as it is. I do not say that that is enough, and, although they are increased on the whole, yet I quite agree that a constituency may be deprived of two most useful members and will not be able to have its interests adequately served by the two remaining members, and naturally request that the four members they have had ever since 1888 should still be allowed to them. The best advice I can give to my hon. Friend, who takes such a great interest in local government, is that he and his Friends should approach the London County Council on the whole of this question, fairly put it to the London County Council, suggesting that that body should deliberate upon it—upon the accidental result of this Bill in this respect. The county council, after carefully deliberating upon the whole of this situation, should then approach this House, not as a party, but as a body, and should make unanimous recommendations to this House as to the effect which this Bill has had upon the fortunes of the London County Council, making proposals to this House which this House should consider in the next Session of Parliament.
      2438
      If they can agree fairly unanimously, I do not see why they should not put forward some suggested remedy for the grievance of which my hon. Friend complains, and I cannot help thinking that this House would turn a very willing ear to any request which came from the London County Council to strengthen their administration and remove an injustice, provided that it was based on no party considerations.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in paragraph 8, to leave out the word " provision" [" for the Local Government Board in this provision "] and to insert instead thereof the word " Schedule." This Amendment and the following three Amendments are of a purely consequential character.
      Amendment agreed to.

      SPECIAL ADAPTATION OF ACTS FOR SCOTLAND.
      9. The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832 (2 and 3 Will. 4. c. 65):
      In Section twenty-eight the reference to Schedule L to that Act annexed shall be construed as a reference to the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
      Section thirty-eight shall apply as if this Act were mentioned therein as well as the Act therein mentioned.
      Section eleven shall apply as if this Act were mentioned therein as well the Act therein mentioned.
      The County Electors (Scotland) Act, 1853 (16 and 17 Vict. c. 28):
      In Section five the expression "hereinafter provided" shall be deemed to include the provisions of this Act.
      In Section six the words " the registration officer before the first day of February or the first day of August, as the case may be in any year " shall be substituted for the words "the sheriff at the registration Court of the county" and the words " and the registration officer" shall be substituted for the words" and the sheriff."
      The County Voters Registration (Scotland) Act, 1861 (24 and 25 Vict. c. 83):
      Section forty-three shall apply with the substitution of the registration officer for the sheriff, and of the words "when he next compiles the register" for the words "in his registration Court"
      The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. c. 48):
      Section twenty-three shall apply as if appeals from the Sheriff Court under this Act were mentioned therein instead of the appeals therein mentioned.
      In Section twenty-four the references to Schedules A. and B. to that Act annexed shall be construed as references to the First and Second Parts respectively of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
      The Registration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885 (48 and 49 Vict. c. 16):
      In Section six, for the words "dwelling-house within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1884," there shall be substituted the words, " house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling: Provided that no such entry shall render liable to be rated in respect of any such house or part of a house any person who occupies the same by virtue of any office, service, or employment."
      The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 50):
      In Section six, the words " in the Representation of the People Act, 1917," shall be substituted for the word "hereinafter."
      The Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900 (63 and 64 Vict. c. 49):
      In Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-three the words " registered as local government electors for the burgh in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1917," shall be substituted for the words " entitled in respect of premises within the municipal boundary to vote in the election of a member of Parliament."
      Amendments made:
      Leave out the words, "In Section twenty-eight the reference to Schedule L to that Act annexed shall be construed as a; reference to the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
      Leave out the words: "In Section twenty-four the references to Schedules A. and B. to that Act annexed shall be
      2440
      construed as references to the First and Second Parts respectively of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
      After the paragraph on the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, insert the words,
      "The Ballot Act, 1872 (35 and 36 Vic., c. 33),—
      For Rule 58, of Part I., of the First Schedule there shall be substituted the folio wing rule: —
      In Scotland the place of election shall be a convenient room situated in such place as the Secretary for Scotland may by order from time to time determine.
      In Rule 60 of Part I. of the First Schedule a reference to Division (4) of Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for the reference to the schedules in that rule mentioned." —[Mr. Munro.]

      SPECIAL ADAPTATION OF ACTS FOR IRELAND.
      10. The Juries Act (Ireland) 1871 (34 and 35 Vic., c. 65):
      In Sections twelve and fourteen, a reference to the County Court shall be substituted for a reference to the Court at which the register of Parliamentary voters is revised.
      The Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885, 48 and 49 Vic., c. 17):
      In Section sixteen the registration officer shall be substituted for the clerk of the union; "first of July and first of January" shall be substituted for " first of July" where it first occurs; and "first of January and first of July " shall be substituted for "first of July" where it secondly occurs and the word "male " shall be omitted.
      Amendments made: Leave out the words " first of July and first of January," and insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth of July"
      Leave out the words, "where it first occurs; and first of January and first of July' shall be substituted for ' first of July' where it secondly occurs"—[Mr. A. Samuels.]

      SEVENTH SCHEDULE

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED.

      2&3. Will. 4. c. 65

      The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832.

      Sections two to four, six to thirteen; section twenty-seven from "Provided . always" to the end of the section; section thirty-five; section thirty-seven; section forty; section forty-two, and the schedules so far as unrepealed.

      3& 4 Vict. c. 108

      The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1840.

      Sections six and eight to ten.

      12 & 13 Vict. c. 85

      The Dublin Corporation Act, 1849.

      Sections two, three, six, seven, and ten to twelve.

      18 & 14 Vict. c 68

      The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act, 1850.

      Sections "six to, eight; section pipe from "the persons on the register " to" not elsewhere, and " and the words " in respect of any property qualification or."

      13 & 14,Vict. c. 69

      The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1850.

      Sections ,one to nine, thirteen to sixteen, nineteen to twenty-seven, twenty-nine to thirty-eight, section forty-two from "but every " to "hereinafter directed"; sections forty-three, forty-four, forty seven to fifty, fifty-two to eighty-four, eighty-seven, one hundred and ten to one hundred and fourteen.

      20 & 21 Vict. c. 68

      The Dublin Revising Barristers Act, 1857.

      The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

      27 & 28 Vict. c. 22

      The Registration of County Voters (Ireland) Act, 1864.

      Sections ten to twelve and fourteen to nineteen.

      30 & 31 Vict. c. 102

      The Representation of .the People Act, 1867.

      Tbe whole Act (except sections one, two, seven, eleven, thirty-four, thirty-seven, forty-one to forty-five, forty-nine to fifty-two, fifty-seven, fifty-nine, and sixty-one); section thirty-four from " and shall name " to " places not so named," and from "where any parish" to " division of the borough into polling districts."

      31 & 32 Vict. c. 48

      The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868.

      Sections three to six, sections nine to four teen, sections sixteen to twenty, sections twenty-two, twenty-six, forty-two, forty-five, forty-seven to fifty, fifty three, fifty-five, fifty-six, and in section fifty-nine the definition of " premises," and Schedules A., B., C., D., and I.

      Amendments made: In paragraph on 2 and 3 Will. 4, c. 65, after the word"
      After paragraph on 3 and 4 Viet. c. 108, insert,

      5 & 6 Vict, c. 74

      The University of Dublin Registration Act, 1842

      The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

      In paragraph on 12 and 13 Vict. c. 85, after the word " three," insert the word "five"
      At the end of paragraph on 13 and 14 Vict., c. 68, insert the words "Section nineteen"
      In paragraph on 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, leave out all the words in column 3, and insert instead thereof the words the whole Act so far as unrepealed (except Sections eighty-eight to ninety-seven and Sections one hundred and three, one hundred and eight, and one hundred and eighteen"
      At the end of paragraph on 20 & 21 Vict. c 68, insert the words" except Sections two and five"
      In paragraph on 27 & 28 Vict. c. 22, leave out all the words in column 3 and
      After the paragraph on 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, insert,

      33 & 34 Viet. c. 11

      The Dublin Collector of Rates Act, 1870

      The whole Act.

      In paragraph on 35 and 36 Vict. c. 33, after the word "sixteen," insert the words "Sub-section (4) of Section 17, Sections 18 and 19."—[Mr. Samuels.]
      At end insert,

      36 & 37 Vict. c. 2

      The Polling Districts (Ireland) Act, 1873

      The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

      36 & 37 Vict. c. 30

      The Registration of Voters (Ireland) Act, 1873

      The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

      In paragraph on 40 and 41 Vict. c. 57, leave out the word "Ireland."
      After paragraph on 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, insert,

      47 & 48 Vict. c. 35

      The County of Dublin Jurors' and Voters' Revision Act, 1884

      Section two, so far as respects the appointment of revising barristers and the registration of voters.—[Mr. Samuels.]

      After the words last inserted, add,

      47 & 48 Viet. c. 70

      The Municipal Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1884

      Sub-section (3) of section thirteen.

      Section" ["to he end of the Section "], insert the words " Section twenty-eight.'—[Mr. Munro.]
      insert instead thereof the words, "The whole Act so far as unrepealed"—[Mr. Samuels.]
      In paragraph on 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, leave out the word "eleven," [" except Sections one, two, seven, eleven"].—[Sir G. Younger.]
      In paragraph on 31 & 32 Vict. c. 48, after the word "twenty-two," insert the word " twenty-four." —[Mr. Munro.]
      In paragraph on 31 & 32 Vict. c. 49, leave out the word " and."
      At the end, insert the words "and twenty-four."
      In paragraph on 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, after the word "two," insert the word " three."
      In paragraph on 31 & 32 Vict. c. 112, leave out the words " (except Sections thirty-three and thirty-four) and the proviso to Section thirty-three."
      After the words last inserted, to insert the words: Section 25, from "or were" to "employment," and from" or so retained" to the end. —[Sir G. Younger.]
      After the word" Act " insert the word "(Ireland)."
      —[Sir G. Younger.]
      In paragraph on 48 & 49 Vict. c. 17, leave out the word " four."
      After the word "eight," insert the words "in Section nine, Sub-sections (1) and (2), and the words from ' The register of voters' to the end of the Section, Sections."—[Mr. Samuels.]
      In paragraph on 48 & 49 Vict. c. 23
      After paragraph on "8 Edward VII., c 21," insert,

      8 Edw. VII. c. 35

      The Polling Districts and Registration of Voters (Ireland) Act, 1908

      Section 3

      Bill to be read the third time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110].
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
      leave out the word "fifteen." —[Sir G. Younger.]
      At the end, insert the words " and (as respects Ireland) Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section thirteen.
      In paragraph on 53 & 54 Vict. c. 58, after the word "Parliamentary," insert the word "registration."—[Mr. Samuels.]
      — [Mr. Samuels.]
      It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock on Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes before Three a.m. Friday, 30th November, till Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February.

WAR.
  IRISH UNIVERSITIES (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION).
  IRISH UNIVERSITIES (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION).
  LORD ROTHERMERE.
  LORD ROTHERMERE.
  WESTERN FRONT (CASUALTIES).
  WESTERN FRONT (CASUALTIES).
  ARMY OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
  ARMY OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
  EDUCATION BILL.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  NATIONAL LIABILITIES.
  NATIONAL LIABILITIES.
  INLAND REVENUE (CLAIMS AGAINST DISTILLERS).
  INLAND REVENUE (CLAIMS AGAINST DISTILLERS).
  TRADE PROFITS (TAXATION).
  TRADE PROFITS (TAXATION).
  INTERNED ALIENS (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).
  INTERNED ALIENS (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).
  WEXFORD HARBOUR (DREDGING).
  WEXFORD HARBOUR (DREDGING).
  WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
  WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  FOOD STORAGE.
  FOOD STORAGE.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  TEA.
  TEA.
  SEVILLE ORANGES.
  SEVILLE ORANGES.
  COMPULSORY RATIONS SCALE.
  COMPULSORY RATIONS SCALE.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  PIGS.
  PIGS.
  LABOUR SHORTAGE (IRELAND).
  LABOUR SHORTAGE (IRELAND).
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  BEET SUGAR.
  BEET SUGAR.
  DAMAGE BY PHEASANTS.
  DAMAGE BY PHEASANTS.
  IRISH REBELLION (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  IRISH REBELLION (COMPENSATION CLAIM).
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
  ARMY HORSES (GRAZING).
  ARMY HORSES (GRAZING).
  MEDICAL VOLUNTEER CORPS.
  MEDICAL VOLUNTEER CORPS.
  SOUTH WALES MINERS.
  SOUTH WALES MINERS.
  GERMAN PRISONER (RAILWAY JOURNEY).
  GERMAN PRISONER (RAILWAY JOURNEY).
  VACCINATION, ETC. (CANADIAN FORCES).
  VACCINATION, ETC. (CANADIAN FORCES).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (RUSSIAN SUBJECTS).
  LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  LAND SETTLEMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
  BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
  ABSENTEES.
  ABSENTEES.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  TRANSFERS FROM NAVY TO ARMY.
  TRANSFERS FROM NAVY TO ARMY.
  HUTMENTS.
  HUTMENTS.
  ORDNANCE WORKERS, DUBLIN.
  ORDNANCE WORKERS, DUBLIN.
  ARMY OFFICERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
  ARMY OFFICERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS).
  BEACHLEY CAMP.
  BEACHLEY CAMP.
  MARLBOROUGH CADET CAMP.
  MARLBOROUGH CADET CAMP.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  TRADE DISPUTE, MANCHESTER.
  TRADE DISPUTE, MANCHESTER.
  WORKERS' CLAIM.
  WORKERS' CLAIM.
  NATIONAL SERVICE (COTTON OPERATIVES).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (COTTON OPERATIVES).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RETIRED OFFICIALS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RETIRED OFFICIALS).
  TAXI-CAB DISPUTE
  TAXI-CAB DISPUTE
  MATCHES.
  MATCHES.
  POST-WAR TRADE POLICY.
  POST-WAR TRADE POLICY.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  POLITICAL TRIALS (FRANCE).
  POLITICAL TRIALS (FRANCE).
  COAL PRICES.
  COAL PRICES.
  Education (Ireland).
  Education (Ireland).
  North-West Agricultural School (Ireland).
  North-West Agricultural School (Ireland).
  Flax Cultivation (Ireland).
  Flax Cultivation (Ireland).
  Education Grants (Sierra Leone).
  Education Grants (Sierra Leone).
  Infant Mortality.
  Infant Mortality.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following two Bills received the Royal Assent:—
Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2). Air Force.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT FARQUHAR: My Lords, I move that the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next, December 4th.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five o'clock.