said, he had some excuse for moving the Adjournment of the House, because he had a Notice on the Paper for discussion in a fortnight's time, having reference to this subject, and although the Notice was rather low down on the Paper, yet he had observed in this House that the unexpected always happened, therefore there was some chance of that Motion being reached and the question debated. He did not desire to occupy the time of the House at length on this question, there being other Members more competent to deal with that subject than he, and his remarks should be the concentrated essence of agricultural depression. He thought, perhaps, he had some right to address the House on this subject because he represented a large stretch of country in the south-eastern corner of Essex, reaching from the Erith Marshes to the North Sea, where agricultural depression was prominent and in the most extraordinary manner pronounced. Hon. Members who bad had the advantage of seeing the Report of Mr. Pringle, the gentleman who investigated this part of the country for the Agricultural Commission, would know that nearly a third of that wide stretch of country had practically gone out of tillage, which meant that it was going under rough grass, and those who knew any tiling of the subject, and particularly of agriculture in the Eastern Comities, must be aware that grass was practically useless. Grass would not carry sheep or cattle, and therefore going into rough grass meant going into prairie and entirely out of cultivation. The reason of that in Essex was not far to seek. In the French War—100 years ago—the bush lauds and common lands of Essex were ploughed up to grow wheat which was worth 90s. a quarter, and when it was worth only 24s. a quarter it did not pay to cultivate it. They had, consequently, in South East Essex villages which were becoming depopulated, and land which used to be worth £40 per acre people were glad enough to get £5 for, whilst some land sold the other day for £3. Last year the agricultural depression was very pronounced in that district, stock absolutely dying of starvation because there was nothing on the ground on which to feed them, the men who owned the land having no money to buy anything so as to cultivate it. The County of Essex, to paraphrase the language of the Secretary for Scotland in making his proposal for a Scotch Grand Committee, was only a micro-crosm of the condition of the whole of agricultural England; Last year something like 172,000 acres went out of cereal cultivation, and although a certain amount of grass was brought under cultivation, yet the total head of live stock was diminished. In his part of the country they did not blame the Government for the bad seasons and the bad times. And it was rather extraordinary they did not, for in 1879, when they had about as bad a year as last, they were told in almost every chapel and at almost every Liberal meeting that Providence had visited them with bad seasons on account of the perversity of the country in supporting an immoral Tory Government. But that was not at all the line that was taken by agriculturists at the present crisis. They did not blame the President of the Board of Agriculture for their condition. The right hon. Gentleman was speeding the plough according to his lights, and they were obliged to him for what he had done for them; though there had been a temporary aberration of what he would call the right hon. Gentleman's bright common sense when the deputation recently waited on him to ask for an order for the compulsory slaughter of cattle at the ports of debarkation. But the agricultural Members had not been able to get anything out of the present Government. Last Session he asked for a day to discuss the agricultural depression, and of course the Prime Minister refused, though he hept the House for 10 weeks on the Home Rule Bill, for which no labourer, farmer, or landlord in Essex cared one brass farthing. The Government would not help the agriculturists and would not allow them to do anything for themselves. They did not expect impossibilities. They did not expect that the Government would put back the clock, reverse the precession of the equinoxes, or put a 40s. duty on wheat. If that were done it would be magnificent from one point or view, but it was not business, and the Government would not do it. Protection was out of the question, because the agricultural labourer knew that his condition under Protection was worse than it was now. If they told the agricultural labourer that though bread might be. dearer under Protection his wages would go up also, he would reply, "That's all very well; but my father can remember that under Protection we paid 7d. for bread and we only got 9s. a week in wages." It was, therefore, absolutely hopeless to do anything in the way of putting a duty on wheat. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had suggested remedies which to him, as a practical man, seemed absolutely futile and utterly useless. Some time ago the Chief Secretary for Ireland visited Essex, and at a great agricultural meeting declared that, if the Essex farmers and labourers would only vote Home Rule, their valleys would smile with golden corn. There were not many valleys in Essex, and, though some people had taken the Chief Secretary's advice and voted Home Rule, there had not been much to smile about yet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session stated that, with respect to the agricultural depression, he hoped great things from the Parish Councils Bill. The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division, who was a practical farmer, was convinced that if a shilling was called eighteenpence under bimetallism the depression would vanish. The hon. Member for the Harborough Division thought that the hope of agriculture lay in the widening of the Agricultural Holdings Act. There was something in that last suggestion, but all the others were absolutely futile. The Minister for Agriculture said that the agricultural Members were never agreed among themselves; that each wanted something different. That was not consonant with the facts. They knew what they wanted; and, though they might not get it from the present Government, there was a probability of getting it from some other Government. What they wanted was a sweeping reform of local taxation. Recent statistics showed that the farmer in some places paid 36 per cent. in rates and taxes, while his neighbour in the village only paid 7 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that they got grants in aid of local taxation; but what was the use of putting a shilling into one pocket and taking eighteenpence out of the other? for that was what grants in aid came to. Local taxation now amounted to something like 6s. in the £1 for agriculturists all over the country. The tithe question was also of great importance with respect to the laud. In Essex the tithe amounted to nearly 6s. an acre. Why should there not be a grant from the Treasury—following the analogy of Ireland—to buy up the tithe, 2½ per cent. being charged for the loan, which could be paid off in 40 years, and the tithe abolished without anyone being the worse? Of course, the present Government would not take this step, because it would remove some of the disabilities of the Church and make it more popular. Then there was the question of improved communication with the agricultural districts. On this subject there was an extremely able article in The Times of March 31, the writer pointing out that in some districts farmers were practically more remote from their markets than the Canadian farmers from Liverpool. If the farmers happened to be on the Great Eastern Railway they were more remote still. Why should not money be lent by the State at a low rate of interest to lay down light lines? There was nothing extraordinary in such a suggestion, for it had been carried out in Ireland. A light railway cost about £5,000 a mile to build, and a steam tramway, which would do precisely as well, about £2,000 a mile. As to the enlargement of the Agricultural Holdings Act, Parliament might safely abolish the Law of Distress. The present result of depression was that the laud was going out of cultivation, the labourers were leaving the country districts, and the villages were becoming deserted. The towns were flooded and the labour market swamped; wages were driven down, and the physique of the population was lowered. He thanked the House in the name of agriculture and of the County of Essex for having permitted him to move this adjournment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— ( Major Rasch. )

As regards the speech which the hon. Member has just made we have no right to complain, for it was moderate in tone and temperate in language; but I must enter my protest against this procedure in the matter of adjournment. If Motions for Adjournment are to be employed in this way there is an end to all arrangement of business. If an Adjournment may be moved on this question it may be moved on 20 others. The House decided the other day that this time should be at the disposal of the Government, and complaints were hurled at us that we did not lay our measures before Parliament. To-day we were going to lay one of our measures before the House; and a Motion is interposed which prevents the transaction of the business which the House had a right to expect, and to which the country is looking forward with considerable interest. Action of this kind dislocates the whole business of Parliament, and in the interest of the House of Commons I enter my protest against it. Turning to what the hon. Member has said, what is the point of his Motion? It is censure of the Government for their neglect in not dealing with the agricultural depression in the present Session, which has not lasted more than a month. The present Session has not lasted a month, and the complaint is that during that time none of the remedies which have been indicated by the hon. Gentleman have been submitted by the Government. How could the Government have dealt with the matter in that time? With the business we have had to transact during that period what time have the Government had for dealing with the questions to which the hon. Member has referred? The hon. Member says the agricultural interest has been suffering from very great depression. We all know and deplore that; but is the agricultural interest the only interest which has suffered from depression? Has it been the custom when other trades—the cotton trade, the iron trade, the coal trade—have been depressed to call upon the Government to give them assistance, and to censure the Government if they did not give them assistance in meal or in malt? As far as I have observed, it is only in the case of the agricultural interest and the agricultural industry that this demand seems to be considered reasonable and, in fact, imperative. I ask Members to consider what would be the consequence if you establish the principle that every industry in this country which happens to suffer from temporary or prolonged depression is to claim to be indemnified out of the Public Purse and out of the general taxation? That is the principle which underlies the Motion of the hon. Member. What is his case with regard to agricultural distress? He looks back with a longing, lingering eye to the time when wheat was 90s. a quarter. He might have put it at 20s. higher than that. In the good old times to which he referred wheat went up to 110s. and even 120s. a quarter, and then, as he justly observed, labourers' wages were 6s. a. week. Since those days, owing to the increase in the facilities of communication, the wheat production of the rest of the world has happily reduced the price of bread; and that is the first cause of the depression the hon. Member has stated. He has said that this country now requires 28,000,000 quarters of wheat, and that of that quantity a very small proportion is produced in this country, and the greater part comes from abroad. Does he wish that the foreign supply should be diminished? He desires that the home production shall be increased—but how? By an increase in price. That is what he and his friends-desire.— an increase in price. There are two methods of bringing about an increase of price—one is protection, by excluding foreign corn; and the other is bimetallism, which deals with money. I am glad the hon. Member has repudiated the latter remedy as being absurd, in which I entirely concur with him. He regarded protection and bimetallism as equally unobtainable; and he bracketed Parish Councils with them as useless for affording any relief. I believe that Parish Councils will have a sensible effect on that migration of which he spoke—of the agricultural population from the villages to the towns; I believe, and the Liberal Party generally are of opinion, that the interest which will be given to the labourers in their own locality—and I hope in the land of that locality—will to a great degree remedy that migration which we all so much regret. The hon. Member says that the Government ought to have done something in the course of the last month; but he recognises that it is idle to think of returning to protection, however desirable it may be that the price of wheat should be raised, so as to enable more corn to be grown in Essex. He says that the possibility of growing wheat in that county is only to be maintained by a price of something like 90s. a quarter. Let us look at the effect of protection in foreign countries. Look at France. From year to year it has been increasing protection; and yet are the agriculturists satisfied? They get, I believe, now the equivalent of something like 15s. a quarter upon wheat, and the complaints of agricultural depression are just as loud and persistent in France as they are in this country. I have heard the right hon. Member for Sleaford say in this House, or have read of his saying elsewhere, that the experience of France, and the failure of Protective Duties to establish agricultural prosperity in France was one of the facts which had convinced him that protection was not a remedy to be looked to by ourselves. You find in highly-protected countries that, although the price of corn is higher, the depression of the agricultural interest is as persistent as it is elsewhere. Again, anyone who has followed the recent action of the agrarian party in Germany must know perfectly well that in Germany complaints of agricultural depression are as great as or greater than they are in this country. The hon. Member, having dismissed protection and bimetallism, and having a low opinion of Parish Councils, has not suggested what the Government ought to have done, except that we ought to remodel the whole system of local taxation. Well, the late Government tried their bauds at that. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer made what he told us was a full and final settlement of the whole question of local taxation by making very large grants to it and charging an additional £4,000,000 of it upon the general taxpayer. I should have hoped that that would have had more effect in diminishing local rates than it apparently has had; but, like most subsidies of that description, somehow the money runs to waste like water on the sand. I know from my own personal observation that the rates are very little lower than they were before; but they are very much lower than they were in the good old days of which the hon. Member spoke. In many cases they are not one-third, and in most cases they are not one-half, of what they were in the times when some estates were acquired by their present holders. Therefore, it is not true to say that the burden of rates upon the land is greater than it was previously; certainly the rating of agricultural land is lighter than it was. It is a common fallacy to mix up all kinds of rates—urban rates, which represent gas and water and all kinds of things; but if you look at the purely agricultural rate, it has greatly decreased in modern times. Of that there cannot be the smallest doubt. The hon. Member speaks of tithes, repeating the usual fallacy that they are a tax upon land. But they are nothing of the kind. Everybody who has bought land has paid a less price for it in consequence of its being chargeable with tithe. Therefore, to give it to the landowner would be to make him a present of something he is not entitled to. It is the same with the Land Tax, which is a fixed charge in some counties of 4s. and in others of 6d. or less, and the man who buys land gives less for it where the Land Tax is higher than where it is lower. It is the same in regard to the old rate—what the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, called the "heredity rate"— the rate subject to which land had often changed hands. There is the greatest fallacy in dealing with these things as you deal with modern and increasing rates. What more had the hon. Member suggested? With all his knowledge, intelligence, and ingenuity, he says that we should deal with the Law of Distress. I am very willing. It is a proposal which, coming from him, might fairly be accepted. If that is one of the remedies which he proposes for agricultural distress, I confess that for my part I am willing to consider it. Then he has spoken of light railways, such as have been carried out in Ireland, and says that County Councils might make light railways and tramways. I shall be glad to see and examine proposals with that object in view, if County Councils are willing to take the responsibility; and I suppose the hon. Member must have some knowledge on that subject, or he would not have made the suggestion. If the County Councils are willing to borrow money upon the security of the rates and at a reasonable rate of interest for making light railways and tramways like any other works, under the Public Loans Act, I shall be extremely glad to examine any such proposal and see whether it is practicable and workable. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I approach the suggestion in no hostile spirit at all. But I do not feel justified in occupying more of the time of the House, and it is merely out of courtesy to the hon. Member and out of sympathy with the distress from which the agricultural industry is suffering that I have entered at so much length into this subject. I do not think that in fairness it can be said we have been remiss in the matter. Hon. Members know how we are situated in regard to time, and therefore I hope they will not think we approach or meet the subject in any unsympathetic spirit. We are bound to state the things which we cannot do and which we ought not to do in the general interest of the community. But we have shown that, if any practical suggestions are capable of being made, we are very willing to examine and forward them if we can. [Commander BETHELL: Cattle.] As to the exclusion of foreign cattle, I accept the principle that when there is a danger of infection the English farmer and the English people are entitled to protection from that. Nothing can be more foolish than to expose the flocks and herds of this country to danger from foreign infection; but where there is no danger, where there is no reasonable ground for asserting there is danger, I am bound to say the consuming classes of the country ought to be able to get their meat from any quarter which is available to them and to get it at as cheap a price as they can. These are the leading principles by which we wish to be governed. However depressed the agricultural interest may be, I am sure hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will feel that when we are called upon to make money grants, whether in the form of substitution of rates or in any other form, we must remember we are dealing with the money of the taxpayers. We must remember that we should be imposing burdens for the benefit of one interest upon all other interests; and that if we once begin to do that in respect of one particular interest, we should begin a system which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not wish to see extended generally — a system of State-aided industry, because that is really what the demand is. It is a demand which, if admitted in the case of agriculture, must be admitted in the cases of trade and manufacture, in the case of the iron man, the coal man, the cotton man, and the woollen man, all of whom will say, "We are the subjects of undeserved misfortune and temporary depression." I can remember well what was the state of the cotton industry in Lancashire at the time of the Civil War in America. But there was no demand then made for State aid. The Lancashire people bore most terrible privations with a courage which will always be remembered to their honour. No doubt they received much private assistance from individuals; but in that case the principle was not established that a distressed industry, on account of its temporary misfortune, was entitled to draw upon the resources of the general taxpayers of the country. Though I know it is very hard for men who are suffering to be told how little can be done for them, I would strongly recommend hon. Gentlemen to remember the danger of principles such as have been advocated. I hope that in the observations I have made I shall not be considered to have spoken un-sympathetically of the great landed interest of the country.

said, he was sure everybody would feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in the reply he had made to his hon. and gallant Friend, had endeavoured to address himself to the question in a spirit of sympathy, at which they were all gratified. But, at the same time, he was bound to say that the agricultural interest was suffering much more seriously than any other industry which had been mentioned. ["No!"] An hon. Member cried "No," but he affirmed that the agricultural interest was confronted with greater difficulties than any other industry in the country. If that were the case, he was afraid that words of sympathy, however kindly and courteously spoken, would prove but a small measure of support to men who thought they were entitled to something more at the hands of the House and of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said he felt bound to protest against the method adopted to bring the question under the notice of the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were loud in their protests now when his hon. and gallant Friend took the only opportunity possible—in a Session in which the Government had taken the whole time of the House earlier than ever before, in a Session in which the Government had made no mention of agricultural depression—of bringing the subject forward, but they were dumb when they sat in Opposition and similar Motions were made, times out of number, about matters which nobody could honestly and fairly describe as being at all equal in their importance or magnitude to the subject of agricultural depression. The time was when agriculture was described as the backbone of the country, but now its very mention was frequently received with sneers and jeers by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that if such a course as the present were persevered in public business would be rendered impossible. Why? Because the right hon. Gentleman told them if this Motion could be made 50 other Motions of a similar character could be made. Did he want them to understand there were 50 other questions of similar importance? The conditions under which agriculturists were called upon to carry on their industry were totally different to those which used to exist. They could not, for instance, make use of improved machinery in the same degree as other traders could. A question of the greatest difficulty which ought to receive the attention of the Government, a difficulty which it was possible to deal with, was that it was no longer a question of landowners who could not properly manage their property being called upon to submit to the unpleasant ordeal of seeing their property pass into other hands, but of men being compelled to own, and in many cases to occupy, property which they had not the capital to work, and of which it was absolutely impossible to relieve themselves. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Opposition they were never tired of telling men they ought to be the owners of the soil they cultivated. The late Minister for Agriculture brought in a Bill to facilitate the acquisition of land by labourers and others, and the Mover of the present Motion had suggested—which suggestion the right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, entirely misapprehended—that they should apply to this country the principle applied to Ireland, and with public money relieve local districts by making local railways and tramways.

He said the County Councils.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend had suggested public funds. He was anxious to call the attention of the House to the fallacy which underlay all the suggestions which came from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Parish Councils, it had been said, would be the salvation of the agricultural interest. Parish Councils were to have power to facilitate the creation of allotments. How were those allotments to be provided under the Local Government Act? Land was to be offered to a limited number of people, but others were to be burdened in order that that might be done. Was that going to relieve the agricultural interest? He was personally aware that a large number of small owners were very much alarmed at the proposal. They believed that in all probability their small properties, in which they had invested their savings, would be very heavily burdened so that other people might get the benefit of the Act. He believed there was a possible policy for a Government and a Party in the direction of the acquisition of allotments by labourers. He believed they might lighten the load which was undoubtedly too heavy for the agricultural interest to bear by, in the first place, facilitating the transfer of land from the existing owner to other owners; and, in the second place, providing money which would enable the smaller man on easy and simple terms to obtain money from the State with which to acquire land. If they did that they would create a market for land in districts where there was no market at all. The right hon. Gentleman had reminded the House that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had done a great deal in the direction of relieving the rates, but that unhappily rates had not fallen. Did the right hon. Gentleman know why rates had not fallen? Since the creation of County Councils there had been a great increase in expenditure upon the improvement of the great roads of the country, and seeing that these roads were used chiefly by the general community and very little by the farmers, it was an injustice that the cost should fall upon the local ratepayers and farmers. The right hon. Gentleman said that local fates could only be relieved by increasing the burdens of the taxpayer. He did not deny that. If the money was to be spent, it must be found from one source or another; but the Government had, in the examples given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, treated the land more unfairly to-day than it had been treated hitherto. The President of the Board of Agriculture had done his best to faithfully represent the agricultural interest, but he had suffered from the great disability, under which Her Majesty's Government ought not to have placed him, of not having a place in the Cabinet; he had, therefore, not been able to advance the cause of agriculture when the Councils of the Government were being held. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the Cabinet he did not believe that that part of the Local Government Act of last year which altered the system of the imposition of local rates would have been adopted without a strong protest on his part. Whatever might be the hidden blessings of the Parish Councils Act— and they were not yet apparent —there was no question that one result would be, if its powers were largely used, to considerably increase the rates. Was that going to be a relief to agriculture? It was no longer a question of rent in many counties. It was no longer a question of the landlord getting more rent than he ought. They were face to face with the appalling fact that thousands and thousands of acres had gone altogether out of cultivation, land which ought to be available for the food supply of the people, and to say that that state of things could be met by a system of allotments was to talk idle nonsense. The labourers were far too practical to be caught by such chaff as that. They would not allow themselves to be made the instruments of attempting to cultivate land as difficult to cultivate as that was. He could give many instances himself of farms which were formerly let at £1,000 a year, and of £700 or £800 a year, which were now let at £150, £100, and in some cases at £50 a year, the reason being that the occupier complained that the burdens on land were so heavy. He contended that that was not a fair condition of things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, at the end of his speech, to the subject of the importation of Canadian cattle. He said it was desirable that the people of this country should have cheap meat, and that therefore the importation of these cattle should not be interfered with where there was no reason to believe that disease existed. But the importation of a single animal from a country whose boundaries were, so to speak, only nominal, might do incalculable mischief and destroy herds in this country. Moreover, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find that there was no justification for his belief that the result of stopping the importation of these cattle would be to raise the price of meat. When his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Chaplin) was President of the Board of Agriculture their importation was interfered with. The disease in this country was almost stamped out, and not only did the price of meat not rise but it actually fell, although there was less meat brought into the country. Even if the immediate result were slightly to raise the price of meat that was a small evil compared with that of getting herds in this country again infected. The House was asked to discuss all sorts of measures, although there was not the remotest prospect of carrying them into law, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been acting more in conformity with the wishes of all who belonged to the great agricultural industry if he had given one day at least for the discussion of the situation, and if he had indicated that the Government were willing as far as possible to give some relief. But they must be content with the meagre comfort the right hon. Gentleman had given them. He hoped the President of the Board of Agriculture would give some explanation of the position he felt bound to assume when he received a deputation the other day on this particular subject, which attitude caused much disappointment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take advantage of this opportunity, and would give the House his reasons for taking up that position. The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, ought to thank his hon. and gallant Friend for the course he had taken, as it enabled him as a responsible Minister to explain the course he took. He thoroughly agreed with the course which had been taken by his hon. and gallant Friend.

I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the House at any great length on the general aspects of the subject, which have been very fully dealt with by the Leader of the House, but I have been challenged by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on a subject peculiar to my Department, and which has not been referred to at any length. I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said that some irritation—I will not say irritation, but misapprehension—exists in the minds of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to a speech I had the honour of making to a deputation which waited upon me the other day. That deputation did not wait upon me with regard to my action in the matter of Canadian cattle. They came to ask that the Government should for the future totally and perpetually order the slaughter of all foreign cattle at the ports. But even if the Government were inclined to, they would be prevented from doing so by the law as it at present stands. The deputation must therefore either have wished me to break the law or to bring in an amending Act. I asked what circumstances had arisen to cause them to press upon the Government such an alteration of the law at this juncture. If there was any prevalence of disease or any fear of the introduction of cattle disease into this country through the importation of live foreign cattle I could quite understand hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent agricultural constituencies coming to me and urging me to adopt the most stringent measures to prevent the introduction of that disease, and, if necessary, to endeavour to alter the existing law on the subject. My right hon. Friend whom I had the honour to succeed in my present Office, when there was a great outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the country —which outbreak he successfully combated—will admit that it might have been said at the time that there was great danger of the spread of the disease. Members might well have come forward then and said, "Why don't you alter the law, giving us a general protection against the introduction of disease by foreign cattle?" But at the present moment no such condition of things exists. There never was a time in the history of agriculture when our flocks and herds were more free from disease than at the present moment. Putting aside all question of interference with foreign trade and of friction with foreign countries and our colonies, I ask is this a time for an hon. Member to move the Adjournment of the House, thereby for a time stopping the business of the country, in order to urge on us the necessity of taking safeguards which are unnecessary? I do not think that my action in the past with regard to the prevention of disease has been such as to cause apprehension in the minds of agriculturists that if there is a danger of the introduction of disease from foreign countries or the colonies I shall neglect to put the law into force as I am bound to do. On the other hand, as I am also bound to do by law as it stands, when there is absolutely no fear, or when I am of opinion that there is reasonable security against the danger, of the introduction of disease from foreign countries, I must allow the importation of foreign cattle. The hon. Member who just sat down spoke about the exclusion of foreign cattle not raising the price of meat. In a great degree I agree with him; but it is not the question of raising the price of meat. It is a question of raising the price of store cattle, and at the present moment, when there seems to be a probability of the price of store cattle rising in the country, it is hardly the time, in the interests of graziers (whatever hon. Gentlemen may think of the interest of breeders), to prevent the importation of foreign cattle. Even in the interest of breeders, if foreign cattle can be safely introduced into the country, there ought to be no law to prevent such introduction. Hon. Gentlemen may rest perfectly satisfied that if at any time there is any doubt as to the safety of foreign importation, I shall give the benefit of the doubt to my own country. I have confined myself to this topic because I do not think I have any right, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to go into other subjects. I only deal with the subject upon which I was challenged, and I can assure the House that I have as deeply at heart as any hon. Gentle- man opposite who represents the agricultural interest the preservation of the sanitary condition of the stock of this country. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that so long as I remain at my present post, whatever restrictions are necessary, will in the future he maintained as they have been in the past.

^* : When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced his observations by protesting against lengthened Debates on Motions for Adjournment I must say it did occur to me that in his case practice would have been better than precept. The right hon. Gentleman addressed to us a speech challenging gentlemen on this side of the House on a whole variety of questions in a way which almost necessitates, it seems to me, some considerable debate. Sir, he taunted us on this side of the House, in connection with this question of agricultural depression, with a desire to raise the prices of food. I should like to meet the right hon. Gentleman by asking him this question: Does he desire them to remain as they are at the present time? If he does, what is the value of his professed and pretended sympathy for agriculture—of what avail has been the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the means of alleviating distress? He says there are two modes of raising prices, one by Protection and the other by what he describes as "a flagrant absurdity"— namely, the existence of bimetallism. I have not the slightest intention of saying a word on that subject to-night, but the House must not blame me if, in a few sentences, I endeavour to meet the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

It was the Mover of the Motion for the Adjournment who referred to the subject, not me.

I did not say the right hon. Gentleman introduced the subject. I say, however, that he made the wholly uncalled-for statement that bimetallism is a flagrant absurdity. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman this: that when he and other Members of this House have, as they will have in due course, an opportunity of reading the evidence that is now daily being given before the Royal Commission that they themselves have appointed, they will be absolutely astonished to find how great and rapid has been the growth of opinion on this question, especially amongst the agricultural interest. I am committing no breach of propriety when I say that only this morning we had before us one of the most distinguished representative agriculturists throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; and if I understood his evidence aright, the drift of it was that the only effectual and real remedy for agricultural depression that he could look forward to in future was the re-adoption of the very system which the right hon. Gentleman opposite without, I believe, ever having given it anything like adequate attention, describes as a "flagrant absurdity." The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of Protection in France and Germany, and he quoted some speeches of mine to the effect that, notwithstanding the existence of Protection in these countries, depression is as great or greater there than it is here. That is true. I have come to that opinion. But it has taught me to do something which it has not yet taught the right hon. Gentleman, I think; and that is, to ascertain with great diligence and by every means within my power to try to discover whether there is not and must not be some other and some great common cause for that unparalleled fall in the price of produce of all sorts and kinds and descriptions, which everyone who has studied the question of the agricultural depression knows lies at the very root of the whole question. Sir, the opinions which, I am not ashamed to say, I have frequently avowed and do hold on this question, which the right hon. Gentleman says is so flagrant an absurdity, are shared by-men often thousand times greater ability than myself, not only in this but in every other country in the world, and their number is being largely augmented day by day. What is happening in Germany at this moment?—and here I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he has said in some of his taunting replies on this subject. "Germany," he used to say, "will have nothing to do with so ridiculous a proposal." I always told him that I believed he was absolutely mistaken. Who is proved to be right to-day? Why, at this very moment, in consequence of urgent pressure by the Agricultural Party in Germany, a Royal Commission Las been appointed to see whether bimetallism can be adopted by Germany itself, and if it cannot be adopted by itself whether there should be an International arrangement. So I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman's taunts on this subject are somewhat out of place to-day. It is very easy indeed to say that anything is an absurdity, but it is a very difficult thing to prove it. Whenever this question has arisen the right hon. Gentleman has shirked it. He has never once attempted to tackle the question, or prove his assertion that bimetallism is absurd; and I think the time is not far distant when the right hon. Gentleman will be compelled to face it. When that time comes I think he will find it more difficult than he anticipated to attach the charge of supporting "a flagrant absurdity" to a number of eminent men throughout the country. It may be said, in defence of the attitude of the Government, that they have appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the agricultural situation at the present moment. That may be an excuse for their inaction. I cannot say that the right hon. Gentleman appears to attach much importance to his own Commission. He appeared to me to have forgotten its existence. He never even mentioned it or alluded to it in the most distant manner. I refer to it, however, because I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are many questions on which, quite apart from the nomination of that Commission, the Agricultural Party throughout the country are already entirely agreed; but whenever we mention one of these subjects the right hon. Gentleman invariably meets us with a flat refusal. There is the question of relief from the rates. I need not remind the House of the attitude he adopted on this question last Session. He absolutely declined to have anything whatever to do with it or entertain the proposal for a moment. There is another subject on which he will not pledge himself, although the farmers are unanimous with regard to it, and that is that all foreign meat coming into the country shall be marked. A question was put to the right hon. Gentleman shortly after the Session commenced, and he refused absolutely to have anything to do with the matter. And so it is with all the matters that have been laid before the Government by the Representatives of the agricultural interest—it does not much matter whether by friends on his own side or by Agricultural Representatives on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government invariably decline to take any action on any subject, be it great or small, which would be satisfactory to the Representatives of that industry at the present moment. Now, Sir, I come for a few moments to the question last raised by my hon. Friend, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture has replied, and that is the question of the restrictions upon Canadian cattle which are in existence at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down a doctrine on this point which I suppose nobody would question. "Where there is danger," he says, "exclude them; where there is no danger, admit them." No one would contest that; but the question is, is there danger at the present time or is there not? and that is a subject on which a great many Representatives of the agricultural interest are extremely uneasy. What we are anxious about is to know explicitly what are the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture with regard to maintaining the present restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle into the interior of this country. We think we have some good reason for feeling anxiety on this point after reading reports of the two deputations which waited on the right hon. Gentleman. Some days ago he received a deputation representing the Central Chamber of Agriculture and some 50 other Agricultural Associations from all parts of the country, urgently pressing on him to maintain the existing restrictions.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension. The deputation was not to urge the continuance of restrictions, but the total and perpetual prohibition, except for slaughter, of the importation of cattle altogether.

I cannot imagine a more effectual mode of maintaining the existing restrictions. The importation of cattle from America cannot be otherwise than dangerous probably for many years to come. The right hon. Gentleman has replied to my right hon. Friend that if a country is free from disease we must admit cattle from it, and his replies—as I stated just now—have given great anxiety to many Representatives of the agricultural interest. What we want to know—and I think it is a subject on which we have a right to ask for information, considering the tenour of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to one deputation—is whether he considers the time has arrived when restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle may be safely removed or not? If they cannot be imported with safety, and if the right hon. Gentleman is willing or able to give to the House an assurance that these restrictions will not be removed during the present season, then I should see no necessity whatever for pressing the right hon. Gentleman further on this point or for prolonging my observations.

I am going to give an answer to that question in the course of next week.

I want an answer now.

I am obliged, first, to put myself into communication with the Colonial Office and with Canada on the subject.

Surely the Minister for Agriculture may take the agricultural public of England into his confidence, and tell them whether he thinks it desirable or not for the safety of their interests that certain restrictions should be maintained without asking permission from the Colonies or a foreign country before he makes that announcement. The answers of the right hon. Gentleman rather add to the anxiety which I own I have felt of late. In order to appreciate the merits of this question the first thing to bear in mind is the nature of the disease of pleuro-pneumonia. There are two great peculiarities which attach to the disease. One is that it cannot be detected in the animal at all by the cleverest experts in the world so long as the animal is alive, and the other is the immense period during which the disease may lie dormant. Sir, I notice from the Papers which have been laid on the Table that even the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, writing on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman, informed the Canadian Government that that period is some- times as long as 15 months. Here are his words—

"There is abundant evidence that contagious pleuro-pneumonia may remain dormant during a lengthened period, and it was stated in evidence given to the Departmental Committee in 1888 that cases had been known of the development of the disease after a no less period than 15 months."

Well, that being so, I must ask the House to recollect what has happened quite recently in connection with this subject. I would go back to the Autumn of 1892, and then to a period much longer. In the Autumn of 1892, after Scotland had been absolutely free from this disease for some time, it was re-imported by cargoes of Canadian cattle, which were proved not only to be suffering from contagious pleuro-pneumonia, but to have contracted the disease at a period before they came into this country. What was the result of the outbreak? It spread to 79 different centres in Scotland, or rather the animals were conveyed to 79 different centres, and I think that something like 1,200 or 1,300 animals were ordered to be slaughtered, and the compensation given in consequence of this slaughter was £13,000. That is serious in itself; but what is infinitely more serious is this—the enormous risk that is run of disease being spread all over the country. There has been a great deal of correspondence on the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman himself stated in one of the Debates last Session there were no less than four different cases found of animals actually diseased, and that the disease had spread so far that Scotch animals were found to have contracted it. The mischief was discovered and was stopped before it had gone farther. Coming to a later period, the right hon. Gentleman, to meet the views of the Colonies, undertook to make a systematic examination of the lungs of animals brought from Canada for a considerable period and slaughtered at the port, and then to consider, when he saw the results of the examination, what course he ought to pursue. That was carried out, and we have the result on page 77 of the Report issued by the Board of Agriculture. We find that in May and June, 1893, there was one case discovered on a ship called the Brazilian, and two sets of lungs were received from a ship called the Lake Winnipeg. In the first case the appearances were identical with pleuro-pneumonia, and in the second, in one instance, there were well-defined indications of bronchial pneumonia in addition to pleuro-pneumonia, whilst in the other typical signs of pleuro-pneumonia were apparent. So that it seemed that so short a time ago as last year the disease undoubtedly existed in Canada. Last Session, in the month of August, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"We are agreed that there is disease in Canada. The Canadians say it is not contagious pleuro-pneumonia:—we say it is."

I have verified the right hon. Gentleman's words this morning. I am sorry I have not the volume of Hansard with me, but I am certain on the point. Well, what does that mean? It means that eight months ago, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, contagious pleuro-pneumonia was in existence in Canada, and we have, at the same time, the authority of the Board of Agriculture itself for stating that this disease is of ten known to be in incubation for 15 months before it is discovered. I have not the slightest doubt in the world that there is plenty of pleuro-pneumonia among the animals in Canada at the present time. I may be told that we receive constant assurances from the Canadian Government to the contrary. So we do. I very often received them, and the right hon. Gentleman received them before this systematic examination was made; and if I had Hansard here I could point to another passage where the right hon. Gentleman says—

"We received assurances from the Canadian Government that the country was practically free, and we took steps to ascertain how far that was correct; and, after a systematic examination, we found ourselves in the presence of this contagious disease again which we had been so often assured did not exist."

I do hope I have submitted to the House some reasons to justify me in the alarm I feel at the replies which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman to questions which we have ventured to put to him. Sir, I have only one thing more to say on the subject. I wish to ask the House to consider why we are to take this course—if we are to take it—of removing the restrictions upon the importation of foreign cattle? What are the arguments in favour of it? To whose interest would it be? Is it in the interest of the consumer? Certainly not; the very opposite is the case. If the meat does not come alive, it must come dead; and if it comes dead, or if the animals are slaughtered at the port of landing, the price is always cheaper than if the living animals are admitted into the country. Meat will not keep for ever; it must be sold within a given time; therefore, it is to the interest of the consumer that these restrictions should be maintained. Is it to the interest of the producer here? Of course, that could not be contended for a moment. It is very greatly to his disadvantage, and the only people who would gain would be the foreign and Canadian exporters, and a very limited number of graziers and farmers in something like four or five counties in Scotland, and a still more limited number in one or two of the Eastern Counties of this country. With these exceptions, I will undertake to say that 9 out of 10, or 99 out of every 100, of the agricultural community are in favour of maintaining these restrictions. There is another reason, which it seems to me ought to turn the scale in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of continuing the restrictions. To remove them would involve an enormous injury on the owners and breeders of stock as a general rule, and, above all, on the Irish farmers. If you are to admit store cattle from Canada, it seems to me impossible that you can continue permanently to exclude them from the United States of America; and if once they are admitted from the United States of America, I have only to express to the House what the result in my humble opinion, in the interests of agriculturists of the United Kingdom, would be. I believe it would result in the immediate depreciation of the capital value of their live stock by 20 or 25 per cent. I cannot conceive what that would mean to the agricultural population, especially at a time like the present. Everybody knows what the chief capital of the farmers of this country consists of. It consists, of course, of the money they have embarked in live stock, and I believe if such a course as this were adopted it would be the only one thing wanted to complete the absolute ruin and destruction of the farming class. I advocate as earnestly as I can the continuance of the restrictions. I maintain that these restrictions are absolutely necessary to ensure us against the re-introduction of this disease. The House will remember that much has been done in recent years to ensure the flocks and herds of this country against disease, and that policy has found favour in the House of Commons. I believe it has been justified to the full by experience and by its fruits, and I earnestly hope the House of Commons will resist by every means in its power anything which is even a first step towards the reversal of that policy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that the question be now put. In assenting to that Motion I think it is my duty to make some remarks in regard to the fact that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House has received such a large measure of support in this House. I do not think that under the Standing Order of 1882 a Motion on a subject of this kind, having such a very wide scope, was ever contemplated. What I think was contemplated was an occurrence of some sudden emergency, either in home or foreign affairs. But I do not think it was contemplated— if the House will allow me to state my view—that a question of very wide scope which would demand legislation to deal with it in any effective manner should be the subject of discussion on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, because if that was so we might have repeated Motions made by the Opposition of the day, not so much in the direction of censuring the Government for action which had been taken or not taken for bringing to notice some grievance demanding instant remedy, as in the direction of wishing to introduce legislation on some particular subject. That is not the purpose of the Standing Order of 1882, and would, I think, cut at the root of the Order. I thought it necessary to make this statement out of respect to a Motion which has obtained so much support of the House. I assent to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I now put the Question, "That the Question be now put."

Motion agreed to.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 208.—(Division List, No. 24.)

tration. Last year my right hon. Friend proposed that the machinery of registration should be performed by officials appointed for that special purpose. That proposal no longer appears in this Bill. It is well-known that there was such a difference of opinion on both sides of the House as to who should be the Superintendent Registrar, and what body should have the power of appointing him, that there seemed very little prospect last year of that proposal receiving the assent of the House. But, since then, the Local Government Bill of my right hon. Friend has been passed; and by one of the provisions of that measure the Overseers are now made directly responsible to the Parish Councils, instead of continuing in a position of responsibility only to non-elective Justices. That is one important provision which we hoped might have found favour with the House, but which we have not thought proper to bring before the House now. Our aim has been, in framing this Bill, to achieve simplicity and directness. We are not going to attempt anything like the satisfaction of speculative Constitutional symmetry. We are making an attempt to remove certain admitted practical blots. We begin by turning into a reality the intention of Parliament that every inhabitant householder in town and country should have his vote; and we do what we can to take this step—that the voice of a constituency, instead of being adulterated and nullified by out-voters, shall be effectively heard. Of course, there are many familiar topics of electoral reform which we have been compelled by our design of simplicity to pass over. For example, there is the question of the returning officer's expenses. That has been before the House for the last 20 years. I remember long before I was in this House Mr. Fawcett brought that subject forward with the approval of the Party sitting on this side of the House. We believe that the dangers connected with that proposal would be avoided either by a second ballot or by other arrangements. I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that I gave notice some years ago of a Bill for such a second ballot. I believe that circumstances are every day in the minds of both Parties pointing more and more clearly in that direction. But such a scheme would require very complex arrangements. Another of the omitted topics is the topic of the lodger vote. It is not entirely omitted, but its larger necessities of reform, such as, for example, the abolition or the reduction of the value qualification, we do not attempt to touch in this Bill, because a proposition of that kind would go rather deep into franchise. Though it is very bard to know always where franchise ends and registration begins, still we think that subject would not come within the scope of the present Bill. The first proposition which the Bill contains is one which was in the Bill of last year, and which reduces the residential period of qualification. It is not at all necessary for me to reproduce my right hon. Friend's arguments in favour of that reduction. It was then made clear that it may happen, under the present conditions of the residential qualification, that the householder may occupy his house for nearly two years, and only at the end of that time find himself on the Register. In the course of the discussion of last year it was admitted in every section of the House that that is a scandal which ought not to be allowed to continue. It was suggested last year that the qualifying period should be six months and not three. We proposed three months last year, and we shall do our best to insist upon it now. I should like to point out one argument in favour of that reduction which I will state to the House. It is an argument drawn from figures given in the Return circulated to-day by the Local Government Board. It appears that in 1891 the number of inhabited houses in England and Wales was 5,500,000, of which there are about 3,000,000 in county divisions. The occupiers on the Parliamentary Register are 4,225,000. Therefore, 1,275,000 occupiers of inhabited houses are not on the Register. Of course, the House will at once perceive that among the inhabitant householders are women. But we have a means of roughly arriving at the number of female inhabitant householders. In 1890 a Return was issued of the number of women entitled to vote for the County or Town Councils, and that number was put somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000, so that from the 1,275,000 inhabitant householders who are not on the Register we have to deduct 600,000 or 700,000 as being women; and then we have 600,000 or 700,000 left as the number of inhabited houses in excess of the male occupant voters. The case may be made considerably stronger; and it can be shown that this statement is, I believe, well under the mark. My argument is that among the reasons which account for these figures, showing the difference between the number of Parliamentary voters and the number of inhabitant householders, is the difficulty of the process connected with registration. If you are to reduce the qualification, it follows that it will be expedient to have two registrations in the year. It is of no use to reduce the period of residence unless you have a corresponding increase in the facilities for getting on to the register. The lists are now made up in July, and the first revision takes place between September 8 and October 12. The first registration comes into force on January 1, and under our proposal will last until June 30. We propose to have an additional making-up of the lists in January, and another revision between March 8 and April 12, the register so revised remaining in force from the 1st of July to the 31st of December. It is not necessary to state in the Bill the date of the second revision, because all provision is made under that head by Sub-section 7 of Section 66 of the Local Government Act of 1888. I may be asked by some gentleman why we should have more than a merely supplementary revision— why we should have more than a list which should be a kind of pendant to the main Register coming into force on the 1st of January. Well, Sir, that is a very plausible and practical proposition, for which there is a great deal to be said; but the answer to it, on the whole, appears to me to be that it would not reduce the expenditure, which is, of course, the great objection to a second revision, at all materially, except perhaps in reference to the single item of printing. Revision would be very expensive, and you could not admit new claims to the Register without clearing from the Register names that no longer had a right to be there. What is of more importance, it would be intolerable not to have your new list tested, and you could only have it tested in one way—namely, by some kind of revision in an open Court. No arrangement of lists by Overseers or other persons without testing or revision would be tolerable or possible. I am afraid that in the Registration Courts really almost everything is thought fair. The third proposal we make is one that was also in the Bill of last year, that is to say, that the law shall no longer require that the person or premises shall be rated, or that the name of the person shall be inserted in the rate book, nor is any person to be disqualified because he has not paid his assessed taxes or his poor or other rates if he is otherwise entitled to be on the Register. I need not say more on that point, because it was learnedly argued last year, amongst others, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who is an expert in these matters, and it was pointed out that the supposed qualification of having paid the rates was not a qualification at all, but only an evidence of qualification. It is, of course, absurd to disqualify a man who has paid his rates in his rent simply because the landlord has not paid his rates. This is a thorough recognition of the fact that in our view the true principle of the franchise is residence or occupancy. I am only sorry that Parliamentary circumstances prevent our carrying out that principle more thoroughly than I am afraid we shall be able to do. Next, I come to a proposal which undoubtedly will be regarded in all quarters of the House as one of the most important in the Bill, and I am astonished when I remember that no formal proposal in that direction has, I believe, ever before been brought before this House. The proposal is that all pollings should take place on one and the same day. That is a proposition to which the Government attach the very utmost importance. I may be asked by gentlemen opposite why, if we attach so much importance to it this year, it was excluded from the Bill last year. The answer to that is a very simple and straightforward one. It was excluded last year because the measure of last year was confined simply and solely to the reform of registration. I confess that I have never heard any body of solid argument, scarcely even of serious argument, against that proposal. I think in all classes of the community, and, I believe in both Parties, there is a feeling, though it may not be as articulate in one Party as in the other, that all over the country the evils of a prolonged period of polling are as serious as they are numerous. To enact that all the pollings shall be taken on one day is a reform demanded by public convenience; it is a reform demanded by the commercial classes, and by all who want to achieve the very desirable end of lessening the expenditure of our electoral proceedings—

It will increase them.

When we come to the Second Reading perhaps the noble Lord will show how it will increase them.

A much larger staff will be needed.

I will in the meantime call the attention of the House to what I believe is the fact, that last year, after the elections, the Associated Chambers of Commerce—so serious did they feel the evil of the prolonged period of polling to be—passed a resolution, or made a representation, to the effect that it was in the highest degree desirable that the polls should all be taken on one day. Does the noble Lord think that elections were cheaper in the old days, when you had the polls kept open for days and weeks?

No; I did not say anything of the kind.

Really the long period over which the pollings extend the present system reproduces some of those features of the old contests which seem to us so barbarous when we read about the old Westminster elections and the elections in the County of Yorkshire and elsewhere. It is the same thing, though not on the same scale. Well, in the interests of the labouring classes, and in the interests of the candidates themselves, we attach the greatest importance to this proposal. The House would, I think, like to know exactly what the details of our proposal are. The Bill enacts that in the case of a General Election the polling shall be on one day. This day will be fixed by the Proclamation which summons the Parliament. It is to be not less than eight nor more than 13 days after the issue of the Writ. Each Writ will command the returning officer to take a poll on the day fixed by the Proclamation—

Only 13 days' notice?

I will answer the noble Lord as I proceed. From the rule that the day of polling is to be the same in every Parliamentary electoral area we must make the not very important exception of the Universities, as long as that most anomalous element of representation exists. The House will wish to know whether we name in the Bill any particular day of the week which the Proclamation is to fix. I believe that opinion is not entirely unanimous on the subject, but we, at all events, propose to enact that the day is to be a Saturday. It is to be the second or third Saturday after the Proclamation. I think the noble Lord asked about the day of election or nomination?

No; I asked whether the notice was to be only 13 days?

No; what we say is that the day is not to be less than eight nor more than 13 days after the issue of the Writ. A word as to the day of election. The returning officer will fix the day of election or nomination. He must fix that day, which is at least three clear days before the day fixed in the Proclamation for the poll in cases where a poll is demanded, and it must not be less than two clear days from the day on which public notice of the election is given in accordance with the Act. There are one or two minor provisions which, though minor, are of importance. There is one affecting very remote localities, and is to the effect that the public notice shall be given by the returning officer on the day on which he receives the Writ or official telegraphic information of the Writ having been issued. The returning officer will on receiving such official telegraphic information proceed as if he had received the Writ. There are not many places to which that will apply, but there are some. There is another minor provision which will affect the comfort of Members of this House not inconsiderably. As the House is aware, Parliament does not now meet till 35 days after the Proclamation is issued summoning the Parliament. That, I understand, is a provision dating in spirit as far back as Magna Charta. It was apprehended that the King might get a snatch or scratch Parliament of his own together, and provision was therefore made that Parliament should not meet till, I believe, 40 days after being summoned. We think we are a little more enlightened than they were in the days of King John, and we propose to alter the period from 35 days to 20. The result will be that Members of the House of Commons will have to spend 10 days less in waiting for the assembling of Parliament. The convenience of that is obvious. If an election takes place in the summer, and Parliament meet in August, as it does generally, for some small and limited purpose, nobody desires that Members of this House should spend 10 days more than they need in uncertainty as to their arrangements. I now come to the last set of the provisions of the Bill—those affecting plural voting. I believed it was my fortune to launch into public discussion the phrase, which was fancied at the time, of "One Man One Vote," and I rather plumed myself at the moment on the invention. But few people are so original as they suppose, and I was reminded by an obliging friend that the phrase was put forward by a certain Radical who was well known in his day—a Major Carter—who said "One Man One Vote, and every man a vote." In those days I did not, and in these days I do not, shrink from the second half of the phrase, although opinion may not at present be ripe for it. Perhaps the House will allow me for a moment or two in connection with this subject to make a little digression. I wish it to be understood that in no proposal we make in this Bill is it attempted to carry out to its full and logical extent the principle of "One Man One Vote." I am given to understand that even any modified approach to that system will be met by the rival formula of "one vote one value." Of course, it would be quite out of place for me to argue that controversy now, but, in order to bespeak something like a fair hearing for our proposals, I would point out that "one vote one value" means redistribution—the breaking up on a great scale of the boundaries both of boroughs and counties, and the disfranchisement of cities. [ Opposition cheers. ] I notice that one of the University Members cheers that. I am afraid it would undoubtedly mean also that gentlemen opposite would lose a certain number of what they regard as safe seats. That is not quite all. If you are going to have "one vote one value" you will have to redistribute at regular periods in proportion as your population changes. I do not fancy that the Americans are so enamoured of their arrangements in that respect that they would encourage us to enter upon that path. It will undoubtedly be said that any interference with plural voting, even such as we propose, is a weakening of the bulwarks of property. I do not believe the least in the world that if you abolished plural voting tomorrow you would impair one of the bulwarks of property. The extension of the suffrage in 1867 and 1885 has produced no sign whatever that the calling of a large body of our population into the management of their own Government has impaired any of the conditions of existence of any of the legitimate rights of property. Gentlemen opposite boast that they are the champions and protectors of property; but they also boast—again I am sorry to say not entirely without justice—that since 1867, in the great boroughs where the decisive preponderance of political power is in the hands of men who do not enjoy the plural vote, they have rather gained than lost ground. That does not look as if plural voting or any of these similar artificial devices were indispensable from the point of view of property. I am as much for protecting the just and legitimate rights of property as any gentleman opposite. But there is, besides the electoral fact to which I have called attention, another fact—namely, that the diffusion of property amongst the humbler classes is very much wider than is commonly supposed. If that be so— and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to admit it—it weakens the argument of the necessity of protection of property by the plural vote. Even if the diffusion of property were not wider than it is sometimes represented as being, and even if there were not in our countrymen that inbred integrity of which great statesmen before now have boasted, if there were not reasons to have full confidence in the right-mindedness of our country, which I for one have an invincible belief in—even if that were not the case, depend upon it property would be in a very precarious position if it depended upon this paltry artificial device. You will not protect property by the ownership vote, because, if you look at the Returns issued to-day, you will find that the ownership vote is possessed by rather less than 500,000 electors. Where there is an enormous electoral roll like ours you will not protect property by the votes of 500,000 electors, and you will not protect property by giving a man a vote in a constituency in which he has no specific local interest, and in whose concerns he never shows an interest except upon the day when he goes to give a property vote. You will not protect property by a system which multiplies a man's voting power on the strength of his having 10 or 20 petty property qualifications, whilst a man of far greater intellectual substance and equal social influence may not possess one-fourth or one-fifth of his voting power. I will now indicate the way in which we approach this problem, and attempt to deal with some of the abuses which have arisen in connection with plural voting. The Government are unable, in view of the circumstances which I have indicated, to deal in any root-and-branch manner with the unfairness and mischief arising from this system. The alternatives before us are all involved, slow and difficult processes. Last year it was proposed by the hon. Member for Norfolk that every ownership voter should be bound to declare when he claimed to be put upon the Register that to the best of his knowledge and belief he was not upon any other Register and had not claimed to be put upon any other. That is one proposal; but it would take a long time before that plan could become largely operative, because all ownership voters on the roll already would remain there. Therefore it would be a slow process, although, no doubt, in the fulness of time it would end in doing some of the things which we want. The Government intend to go further than this. They propose to restrict the voting of an elector to one constituency —that where a Parliamentary elector votes at a Parliamentary election in a given constituency he shall not vote at a Parliamentary election in any other constituency as long as the then current Register remains in force. He is restricted to voting in one area during that time. Of course, no elector will be allowed to vote twice upon the day of a General Election or on any other day. The House will ask how are you going to make sure? We propose to add to the questions which may already be put to an elector this question—"Have you since so and so," specifying the day on which the current Parliamentary Register came into operation, "voted at a Parliamentary election other than the election for this constituency"? Of course, any untrue answer given to that question would subject the elector who gave such an answer to the penalty which we specify. It was before the Government for a time whether we should not extend that restriction to the life of the Parliament— that is to say, that the voter having made his choice and option to vote in a certain Parliamentary electoral area at a General Election he should be confined to vote in that area so long as he retained his qualification upon the Register in force at the time. That proposal will, no doubt, lead, when we come to the Second Reading, to a serious discussion.

Does the Bill apply to the whole of the United Kingdom?

The Bill does apply, with one or two distinctions, to the whole of the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend said that the Bill would apply to some extent to lodgers, and promised to explain to what extent, but he has not done so.

Yes; I forgot. As to the lodger franchise, that will remain exactly as now—that is to say, the lodger is not to be called on to claim again at the spring revision, but if he claims in the spring he will, unfortunately, have to claim again in the September revision. This is, I repeat, a scheme which we regard as moderate and rational. Our proposals establish a great principle of registration reform—that is to say, we aim at making the getting on to the Register as easy as possible for everyone who is qualified. We put partially an end to the irritation caused by the large invasion of out voters, and we believe that on all the other points touched by our proposals they will strengthen in the highest degree the feeling that everyone who is qualified has a share in the institutions of the country.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the Period of Qualification for Parliamentary and Local Government Electors, and to provide for the half-yearly registration of such electors, and to provide for taking the polls at a Parliamentary General Election on one day, and to restrict plural voting at Parliamentary Elections, and for purposes consequential thereon.—( Mr. J. Morley. )

The right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his very clear and lucid explanation of the Bill which the Government propose to lay before us, rather regretted what he termed the new practice in Parliament with regard to First Readings. My Parliamentary memory goes back as far as that of the right hon. Gentleman, and I confess I am very much puzzled by that description of what I have always regarded as a Parliamentary tradition. When the Government of the day introduces a Bill of first-class magnitude it has been the practice to preface the First Reading by a statement on the part of the Minister in charge, and to follow that statement by a discussion not of a controversial character, but bearing on the question and elucidating any point which might have been left obscure in the original statement. If that practice was justified on previous occasions it is certainly justified on the present occasion by the importance of this Bill; for, although the right hon. Gentleman gave us from time to time, in the modest epithets he used, a sketch of the Bill, there can be no doubt it is fundamentally a Reform Bill, which, whether for good or bad, covers a great deal of ground, introducing important alterations in the electoral practices of this country. It is a Bill which, whether we approve or disapprove of its general principle, must have at every stage of its progress, from the first to the last, the critical examination and attention of this House. I will start the few observations I intend to make by saying that in many respects this Bill appears to be a great improvement on its predecessor. I think that in some respects it does not aim at setting up an entirely new and untried machinery for dealing with the voters on the Register. I always felt with regard to the Bill of last year that the whole apparatus which the Secretary for India proposed to set up was a new invention. It was so novel that I doubt whether the House of Commons would ever have been found to approve of it. All that has been brushed out of existence; not a shred of it remains, and so far from this Bill being in any sense a reproduction of the Bill of last year, the only points which the two Bills have in common are the shortening of the term of residence to three months and the abolition of the rating qualification. There may be some other points of resemblance, but I did not happen to notice them. I do not say that these are unimportant points; but it is a singular sight to see the same Government bringing in in two successive Sessions proposals dealing with the same subject with only two points in common. I will very briefly note the changes which this Bill introduces. The Government, I regret to see, have determined to adhere to the three mouths' residence. I am not going now to raise the objection which we raised last year, and which will be raised again this year, to this proposal. There is absolutely no difference of opinion in respect to the desire to see the present long time which may elapse between the day when a man becomes qualified and the day when he is allowed to exercise his vote lessened. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has understated the period at one and a-half years. I believe under some exceptional circumstances it is more than two years. I think the House will do all that it can to remedy that anomaly and diminish that injustice in so far as we can do it without introducing still greater evils into our electoral system. While I am in favour of the reduction of time, I think three months is too short a period. There is one fact we must bear in mind, and that is that we shall require to have a double revision. The strong objection is that it will be very expensive. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had enlightened us as to the source from which that additional cost is to be met. If the whole of the expenses, which at present are heavy, are to be doubled, if every constituency in the country is to have its rates burdened with that double cost, I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a wide and well-founded objection to this part of his scheme. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down the principle that elections for the Imperial Parliament are an Imperial concern, and I think he went further and said that it was an Imperial concern which should be paid out of the Imperial pocket. Although I do not now propose so great a change in the existing system as that—namely, to throw the whole cost of an election upon the Consolidated Fund—I do say that any new cost should be borne by this Imperial Parliament which, in the exercise of its will, chooses 1o remodel its system. It is unjust that the ratepayers should be saddled with the cost of the change. I hope the Government will very seriously consider whether or not in fairness they are bound to throw some of these charges on shoulders more capable of bearing them than the ratepayers. With this exception I see a very great advantage in the double revision, and very few corresponding disadvantages. The next question is the question of the rates, and on this question the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), a high authority, has, I believe, always been opposed to making the payment of rates a necessary antecedent to the enjoyment of the vote. I am perfectly aware of the force of the arguments which may be urged in favour of that view. Lodgers do not directly pay rates, and there is a certain anomaly in saying that one class must pay rates before they can vote, whilst another class is not required to pay. I also admit that there may be cases where, through no fault of his own, an occupier, owing to the non-payment of the rates by the landlord, may be prevented getting the vote. In such cases the occupier is made to suffer for the laches of the owner. It is an anomaly and an injustice, but I think it can be remedied by some scheme short of that now proposed by the Government. My objection to the scheme of the Government is that it has some tendency to divorce in the minds of the electors the obligations they are under to fulfil their public duties before they can enjoy their public privileges. As I have before pointed out, it is no answer to say that it is a local duty to pay rates and that the vote is an Imperial privilege. Our rates are not all local rates. To the greater extent the rates are not for local purposes. The education rate is not a local rate, nor is the highway rate a local rate to any great extent. When we call on a locality to carry out duties which are Imperial duties it is absurd to say that the rates are not paid as much for Imperial purposes as in the interests of the locality. Therefore, when I bear in mind how very small a part of the total burden is paid by direct taxation, and when I recollect how large a portion is paid in the form of rates, I do think that this House should not divorce the payment of the rates from the exercise of the franchise. To do that would be, in my opinion, to take a step backwards and not forwards — to make a change which would diminish and reduce the responsibility which ought to be associated with the exercise of the vote. I know that in a very large number of cases the Local Authorities look at this matter not from a broad point of view but a narrow point of view, holding that any provision of this kind would militate against the punctual payment of rates. I still hope that the advantages which I have urged, and others which I might urge, outweigh the arguments which I gladly admit, though I do not think they ought to lead us to the conclusion to which they have led the Government. I have now gone over all the points in which the Bill brought in this year resembles the Bill brought in last year, and there remain two great changes introduced by the Government which are not only innovations upon their own proposals of last year, but are a very great innovation upon the immemorial practice of Parliament. The first of these is the fixing of all the pollings for one day. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is the first time this proposal has ever been formally brought before the House of Commons, and in that I think he is correct. [ Cries of "No!"] I had assumed that the right hon. Gentleman had got up his facts; but, at all events, no Government has ever made the proposal. I can very well recollect when, in 1880, there was a great alteration in the balance of power as between the two sides of the House, the common opinion of the defeated Party, of which I was one, was that the disaster which then overtook us was largely due to the fact that in the popular elections in the spring of 1880 the tide had apparently set in in a direction adverse to the then Government of Lord Beaconsfield, that the rest of the community was as it were carried away by the rush of the stream, and that the results might have been different had all the elections taken place at the same time, so that one constituency could not have known what another constituency was doing. I do not know whether that explanation was sound, but it was given in good faith, and I have therefore felt-that there was something to be said from our point of view for the proposal made by the Government. But I think the Government have shown great blindness to some of the difficulties which stand in the way of that proposal. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said it would greatly diminish the cost of elections, but he did not tell us in respect to what items that diminution of cost would take place. Whether that was an intentional or an unintentional omission I know not, but I can at once suggest many ways in which the proposal will increase the expense, while on the spur of the moment I am unable to find any particular in which it will be diminished. It will certainly increase the expense of ballot boxes. Now you transfer the ballot boxes from one district to another, but you will have to duplicate the ballot boxes and the machinery of election if you carry out the plan of the Government. Nor do I believe this increase of machinery will be confined to inanimate ballot boxes. You will require a much larger electoral staff. You will want more polling clerks, and you will, undoubtedly, require a larger number of persons to superintend the elections. That is not all. There are parts of the country where at election times the excitement is so great that the presence of bodies of police is absolutely necessary. I make no invidious allusion to any particular districts. That excitement may change from General Election to General Election, but nobody in this House will deny that there are such parts of the country. If all the elections are to be held on one day you will either have to leave the police un supplemented or you will have to supplement them by the military. Everybody agrees that the intervention of the military is, I will not say intolerable, but that it should be reduced to the lowest possible extent. I shall be glad to know how the Government propose to deal with the difficulty which must arise here and there, when the same officers are called upon to provide considerable bodies of police on the same day to a large number of different localities. That seems to me to be a grave objection to the plan of the Government. Another difficulty which occurs to me as attaching to this plan is that there must be considerable confusion when you are carrying on in the same town elections for two different places. You will have in the same town an election for the division of the county in which the town is situate and an election for the town itself. That must end in a good deal of local difficulty and local confusion which does not appear to have occurred to the Government, and which the Government do not appear to have any plan to meet. The right hon. Gentleman gave us as a last argument in favour of his plan that all those interested in trade were anxious to get the elections over in one day. I am not sure about that. I am quite sure they wish to get the elections over as soon as they can, and that they regard the period of a General Election as one of trade stagnation and trade difficulty; but if one day is to be devoted throughout the whole country to electoral purposes, that day will be a dies non for every other conceivable purpose, and it will be quite impossible to find other channels for doing work which is now possible with the elections taking place on different days. I think, therefore, that the Government, if they inquire, will find that the inconvenience will be very great to trade in having the whole of your commercial machinery stopped throughout the whole country for 24 hours. On the Continent they get over this difficulty by having the elections on Sunday. In France the elections always takes place on Sunday, and, therefore, they do not suffer from this particular inconvenience; but as the Government very wisely do not suggest any plan of that sort, we shall have one week in which there will be two days, instead of one, when all public business is forbidden. I think the Government will feel that these are objections of a rather serious character to their proposal. There is one other point connected with this question of polling on the same day on which I must say a word. The Government have thought it necessary to say not only that the polls shall take place on one day, but that that day shall be Saturday. There is a good deal to be said for Saturday in some districts, and a great deal to be said against it in other districts, and one of my objections to Saturday is that it throws the whole country in the same rigid and least-iron mould. However inconvenient Saturday may be in one particular district, nevertheless that district will be compelled to have its election on that day. At present a large amount of latitude is left to the Local Authorities. They know the circumstances of trade, and they are able to judge the day when least inconvenience will be experienced by the election. The principle of local option is very inapplicable to some things, but I think it is not inapplicable to this, and I regret the want of elasticity which will be the inevitable result of the plan to which the Government have committed themselves. There is one other proposal in the Bill which will no doubt excite even more interest and be a more fruitful subject of controversy than anything to which I have adverted, and that is the abolition of plural voting, which, in the opinion of Government themselves, probably, and in the opinion of their supporters, certainly is the main object and justification of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to answer by anticipation the objection which he thought might be urged from this side. He said, "Gentlemen opposite pride themselves on being the special defenders of property, and they are of opinion that plural voting is a great bulwark. I will now set myself to show that the plural vote is not an effectual bulwark of property." I suppose we are all guilty of giving descriptions of the methods and aims of our oponents which they themselves would not accept, and certainly I do not admit that my raison d'être as a politician is to defend property. To defend property is a task which, I hope, devolves equally upon all sections of the House. I do not know whether all sections perform that duty with equal success, but I believe they all recognize it as a duty, and I disclaim for myself and my friends that we come here more bound to defend property or are less interested in other great public objects than any gentleman sitting on that side of the House. We hold that view strongly, but to suppose that we come here, or that we are sent here for no other purpose than to resist any attacks on property, is to give an account of us which we should be sorry to give of ourselves, and which I, for one, entirely repudiate. I go further: if we have supported the existing system of plural voting, we have not done so in the interests of property, and have not regarded it as a plan by which those who have may outvote those who have not. No such wild idea has crossed our minds. If the interests and rights of property are not safe in the keeping of the great mass of the people of the country, no bulwark, no petty safeguard in the shape of an electoral dodge, will have the slightest effect. It does not follow from that that we think the plural vote is either a grave injustice, or ought to be abolished. The right hon. Gentleman in various parts of his speech dwelt upon what I think he called the importance of giving effect to the will of the locality. Now, Sir, I am of opinion, and always have been of opinion, that the whole basis of representation in this House is a local basis, and that the various localities, when they send Representatives here, while conscious, of course, of the Imperial obligations resting upon them, must vote as localities, and have regard to the interests of localities, and it is for that reason those who are interested in a locality by the possession of property of this kind have a perfect right, by the immemorial traditions of our Constitution, to make their voices heard. The right hon. Gentleman found it very easy to denounce those who had a speculative love of constitutional symmetry. That is a very convenient argument when you are attacking those who wish to do away with an anomaly, but a very inconvenient argument to use when your whole case is that you wish to do away with another anomaly. In what interest are you attacking the speculative love of constitutional symmetry? You find an anomaly, or what you think is an anomaly, you start with the speculative maxim that every man should have a vote and no man should have more than one vote, and you attempt to carry out that purely speculative doctrine in this Bill. Then what are you but the advocates of a speculative symmetry, and who are you that you should complain of us? We say that if you mean to go in for speculative symmetry you should go in for speculative symmetry all round. I am not now, and never have been, one of that class of politicians who think that the gravest evil that can happen to any country is to possess a Constitution in which there are no anomalies. I should be very unhappy if I held that view, and I do not hold it. Our Constitution is full of anomalies. Every Constitution which has been of slow growth must be full of anomalies. I think you might spend your time more profitably for the community in endeavouring to pare the anomalies away one by one until you reduce the whole fabric to the symmetrical outline which pleases the lovers of speculative Constitutional symmetry. I want to know what excuse the Government have under these circumstances for asking us to touch one, and that the least hurtful, of these anomalies when all the other anomalies, injurious though they may be, are staring them in the face. Of course, everybody knows that when we talk of this House reflecting the will of the people of this country we are using a phrase which is fairly accurate, but which will not bear close examination, and I understand the whole object of the Government is to make it bear a closer examination in the future than in the past. If that is their view let them attack the gravest anomalies first and leave the minor ones till afterwards. And what are the gravest anomalies? The Government know perfectly well that the gravest anomaly in the distribution of political power and the gravest inequality does not arise from this class of plural voters, but from the way in which you distribute your seats. It is notorious, it does not admit of argument, that particular localities, particular districts, particular countries, have a far larger share in determining Imperial issues on which the House of Commons is asked to pronounce that they have the slightest right to, judged by population. For instance, if you are going to take the test of population, if you are going to lay down the principle that every man should have one vote and that no man should have more than the value of one vote, are you not beginning at the wrong end when you begin to touch this ancient franchise, and ought you not to begin with that Redistribution Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman only alluded in order that he might repudiate it? He said if you redistribute now you will have to redistribute again in 15 or 20 years. I think it is very likely you may have to do that, but nobody expects finality from redistribution, any more than from anything else. But are we to submit to all these anomalies now simply because if we do away with them now we shall be some day asked to do away with them again? I do not ask for a mechanical and automatic redistribution scheme such as obtains in America. It is not a method I should recommend to the House; but I do sincerely give the House this advice—we can tolerate and have tolerated for many years, and have done, I hope, good work under, a very anomalous system. It is a great waste of Parliamentary time and energy always to be dealing with your Constitution, but if you do resolve that you will deal with your Constitution, if you are driven on by the overmastering difficulties and objections you feel in dealing with the daily course of your work—then, by all means, set about the reform of your Constitution, but do it on some rational system, and do it by beginning with the gravest evils and not with the least. That is my advice to the Government. Considering that our whole electoral system was dealt with not nine years ago, I should say, let us submit to the obvious anomalies under which we labour, and let us go on and do the work the country wants of us without meddling with our whole scheme of representation. But if they will not take my advice upon that point, and insist upon bringing in a Reform Bill, let it be a Reform Bill which will reform what ought to be reformed—let it be a Reform Bill which goes to the root of the inequalities under which we labour, and then. Sir, I think the Government will find that they have behind them, not merely that body of persons who feel they may get some electoral advantage out of the change proposed, but the whole body of that public opinion which desires that this House shall be a faithful reflection of the people of this country.

There are only two points which at this hour I wish to mention, and that almost in a single word. They are two points which ought, perhaps, to be mentioned to-day rather than reserved for the Second Reading. The first is, that it is a somewhat unfortunate fact that owing to the form in which the title of the Bill has been drawn and its contents described, the greatest of all the registration difficulties of the present time in the United Kingdom cannot be remedied in this Bill. I mean those which concern the case of Ireland. As regards England and Wales especially, we have now a reformed system of registration through the indirect effect of the Local Government Act of last wear, but as regards Ireland the state of registration is a disgrace to the United Kingdom, and it prevents the electoral system of Ireland being that of a civilised country. It is a very unfortunate fact that, owing to the way in which this Bill is constructed, it will be impossible for us to remedy it in the provisions of this Bill. The other point I wish to name is one in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. From his speech I am afraid it will go out to his great Party in the State that the plan which is advocated by all—namely, the putting an end to the period of residence, which may be 2½ years, and which is in reality, I believe, always nearly two years, has been put an end to by the substitution of a period of three months. That is not what the Bill proposes. The Bill proposes a period, which is a period of 9 or 10 mouths in the sense in which it is now 1½ years at least. I say that for this reason: If you take the dates which were named by the right hon. Gentleman— namely, the present date of three months up to July, and the Register coming into force on the 1st of January after, that will be a period of nine months. If you take the dates which were in the Bill of last year, the 24th of June and the 24th of March, that will be a period of a little over ten months before a man can get on the Register, and therefore, when the Leader of the Opposition declares his wish to greatly shorten the present far too long period of registration, he must remember that the period proposed by the Bill is not a period of three months in the sense of his remarks, but, on the contrary, is a period of 9 or 10 months, as the case may be. Other remarks I should like to offer on this Bill may be offered on the Second Reading, when, no doubt, the House will have an opportunity of debating the large question raised, but I thought these two remarks were appropriate to the present stage of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when in the year 1892 my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax introduced a Registration Bill, and when last year the Government introduced a similar Bill, there were some—I for one— who were glad enough to be able to give their general support to those Bills. For they were purely Registration Bills; and were apparently framed with the genuine purpose of increasing the number of electors. There was no disenfranchisement in them, and, as far as could be judged, they were genuine attempts to improve our registration system without consideration of any advantage to any Party in the State. I am afraid a marked difference exists between the two former Bills and the one which is now submitted to us. In the first place, this Bill is a great disfranchising Bill, and, as Mr. Disraeli once said, the man who proposes disfranchisement must fully prove his case. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without asking the House to consider the very important propositions which this Bill will place before Parliament and the country. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant spoke of this Bill as if it would only disfranchise the ownership voter, and, as showing what was in his mind, he mentioned a figure approaching some half million of electors. That is an entire mistake. The statement represents but a small portion of those who will be disfranchised under the Bill. It is not the ownership voter we care most about. It is not the non-resident voter whose interests alone we seek to protect. The voter we have to protect forms, I believe, a far greater class, and one of greater importance, than the ownership voter. It is the occupation voter, who exists under a franchise created not of olden time, but by the provisions of the Act of 1832, The Reform Act brought into existence a very large class of voters which year by year has been extending itself, and will, in the future, go on extending itself, You have the men who in large towns carry on their business. They are to be found, of course, in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and all large towns. They are subject to the rating that exists in the towns. They have the greatest interest in those commercial localities, but none of them, or at least few of them, live there. The majority pass away into the neighbouring counties, and they have a vote for those counties, You are about to disfranchise them. My right hon. Friend speaks as if they were of no account, as if he had never even heard of them. But this if the double voter we have to consider. You cannot treat him as nonresident. He does not come to the locality only on the day of an election, Every day of his life he spends half in the place where he carries on his business and half in the county where he has his home; where he is equally subject to taxation, where he has equal local in- terests; and yet you propose to disfranchise him in one of these two localities. This not only applies to men of property, but to some extent to workmen. Through the extension of small holdings, for example, some portion of this class have now two votes. So far as we can gather from the statement of the Minister, we are now asked to cast these men on one side, because, forsooth they only appear "on the day of an election." The Chief Secretary and also the Leader of the Opposition referred to some observations of mine in respect of rating. I did express the view that, if you look at the matter historically, rating is only evidence of property qualification, and not qualification itself. But, having made that statement, I had a large correspondence, in which some arguments were put forward which cannot but be regarded as of great weight. They ought at least to be regarded with great weight when you are altering your Register by disfranchising men of substance and who have interests in the locality. It was pointed out to me that if you enfranchise all men who do not pay rates—I am not speaking of compound householders—who being liable to pay rates do not pay them, you are enfranchising a great class, a class of defaulters. I was asked by my correspondents whether it would be benefiting the State to enfranchise defaulters, oftentimes intentional defaulters. I am bound to say that is a strong question to put to ourselves now. If you are going to take off the Register those men who fulfil every obligation and have interest in the State and in localities, should you at the same time enfranchise those men who are defaulters? One other practical question must be considered. The best collector of rates is the registration officer. There is many a man who never would pay his rates unless he knew he would be struck off the Parliamentary Register, with the consequent result that the fact of non payment would be disclosed and a certain social disgrace would follow. Once tell a man that, whether he pays his rates or whether he does not, he will be treated for political purposes in the same way, you will, as was pointed out to me, add a great incentive to the non-performance of a duty which every citizen ought to discharge. I said of the two previous Bills that they were not intended for the benefit of either political Party. If, now, I approach this Bill with suspicion in my mind it arises from the statements of Members of the Government. The Home Secretary, in dealing with the House of Lords, shook his finger at them and said, "Let us catch them touching a Registration Bill, and we will soon dissolve Parliament." Is this Bill introduced for the purpose of securing the Dissolution of Parliament? Then, Sir, I noted in this morning's journals a, report of a speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. I presume his name will be on the back of the Bill, for the names of Attorneys-General do sometimes appear on the back of Registration Bills. He stated with exultation that the Government would to-day introduce a Bill for the purpose of registration, the result of which would be to secure in the constituency in which he was speaking, now represented by a Conservative, the return of a Liberal Member. Before we accept the introduction of this Bill we should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend what are the clauses of this Bill which will secure the return of a Radical Member for Marylebone, For what will effect such a result in Marylebone will do the same in many other constituencies. Therefore the Government must not say this is a Registration Bill of a patriotic character, introduced merely for the purpose of placing voters on the Register and extending the Register. Nor can the Government expect hon. Gentlemen not to criticise this Bill under the circumstances I have pointed out. At every stage we will be endeavouring to obtain from the Government or from our own investigation what is the clause and what are the provisions that will effect the object indicated by the Attorney General.. Last year's Bill contained a provision which some of us thought to be wise and1 just, and that was to allow greater facility for lodgers being placed on the Register. It was an open secret that supporters of the Government representing county constituencies objected to that provision. It is dropped out now. Why is it dropped out? The Chief Secretary gave as a reason that it was "going deep into franchise" to give greater facilities for the registration of voters. Does not the right hon. Gentleman "go deep" into franchise when he disfranchises some 1,000,000 electors? He goes deep enough into franchise in one direction, but he refuses to touch this question of the registration of voters, which was thought wise when the Government proposed it last year. No; my right hon. Friend must get a better argument than that for seeking to prevent lodgers having greater facilities for registration. It is no use to tell us it is going too deep into franchise, and we cannot have it. There are points in the Bill that will require great practical attention. I note that the ownership voter who travels from county to county is to be disfranchised; but when the Government come to defend that disfranchisement as a matter of principle they will have to explain how it is they can let this double voter vote at bye-elections. That a man, having the requisite property qualification, should be able to go into 10 counties and vote at bye-elections, and not be able to vote at General Elections, I do not at all understand. Again, this question of voting on one day is a most serious question for the convenience of localities, and this will have to be borne in mind when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. To take the vote upon Saturday represents in most counties in England taking it upon market day, and in boroughs it represents taking it on the day when the working man's wife purchases the goods for the following day or week. It represents by far the busiest day of every tradesman, and I would remind the House that members of one persuasion have great objection to recording their votes on a Saturday. There is another matter— the time to be allowed after the Dissolution before the elections take place. We do not want to increase the time in the boroughs in order to meet the case of the counties, and at the same time it may not be well to decrease the time in the counties. Anyway, it should be remembered that increase in the time means increase in expenses and increased injury to business. I will not say more on the First Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill full of objectionable provisions, and they will have to be most fully discussed at a later stage. This measure is a reforming Bill of the gravest importance, and never ought to have been called a mere Registration Bill.

said, that this was one of the measures of the Government brought in under a misnomer. He considered it a gerrymandering Bill rather than a Registration Bill. Everyone agreed that there was a great deal needing change in the present registration system. For instance, 12 months was too long a qualifying period; but when they set about remedying the defects in registration they should not close their eyes to the enormous anomalies in redistribution. He should not have objected to many of the provisions of the Bill if it had been accompanied by a fair redistribution scheme. But this really was a gerrymandering measure. Why should they continue a system under which five men in London had only the same power of voting as one man in Ireland? If the Government were really honest in their profession they would have introduced a fair system of redistribution which would have made all votes, as far as possible, of the same value, and made the House more thoroughly representative of public opinion throughout the country. Of course, it was not possible to make votes absolutely and mathematically alike in value; but there was no conceivable reason why Ireland should continue to send to the House 25 more Members than it was entitled to, while London sent 25 less than its population entitled it to have. With regard to having the elections on one day, he thought it would have some disadvantages, but still he was inclined to look favourably upon it if it were accompanied by a complete change in the present machinery for conducting elections. There must be a returning officer for every place returning a Member. At present the returning officer for Islington and Paddington was the same, though there were six constituencies and six Members; and, of course, unless there was a returning officer for every constituency, it would be difficult to carry out the elections on the same day. He was surprised that the Government had determined that Saturday should be the day on which all elections should take place. He remembered in the Election of 1885 that his opponents got the polling fixed for a Saturday, as they were convinced it would give them a great advantage; but he was glad of it—he thought Saturday on the whole a good day for the elections, though it was inconvenient to the tradesmen class—for the more electors polled the better, he believed, it would be for him and the principles he represented. But what the House was asked to do by the Bill was to perpetuate all the worst anomalies of the present electoral system. The Bill was really, truly, and entirely a Party move; and was so arranged as to give all the advantages to the Government. The whole machinery of elections was to be made subservient to Party purposes. The Bill had many defects. A really extraordinary omission from it was a provision to enable lodgers to get on the Register. He considered that a lodger had as much right to be on the Register as any body else, for he had as much interest as anybody else in the welfare of the country. But the Bill was not a Bill to increase voters, but was a Bill to gerrymander the constituencies. If the Conservative Party allowed the Bill to pass in its present condition they would be digging a pit for themselves; they would be playing into the hands of the Government, and assisting in improving by unfair means the position of the Government in the country.

I only rise to appeal to the House to allow the Bill to be introduced and printed, in order that it may be placed properly before the House and the country for discussion. It is true that when a Bill of large political importance is introduced criticisms are offered on the First Reading, but that is not considered a stage at which full discussion can be taken. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow the Bill to be read a first time.

said that, notwithstanding the appeal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had addressed to the House, he thought it right to say a few words on this Bill. No one could imagine that the Leader of the Opposition would purposely mislead the House, but the right hon. Gentleman in repeating a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, said—and it was only right that he should be contradicted on the point— that the proposal incorporated in the Bill for having all the elections on one day had never been made to the House before. Why, for the last six or seven years Bills had been before the House embodying that very principle. The fact might have escaped the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was due to their humble servant to say that he had had such a Bill before the House for the past seven years, and similar Bills had been introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and the hon. Member for Kilkenny. They also proposed in those Bills that the period of qualification should be three months, and that the Register should be made out twice a year. He was glad, therefore, that the Government had seen their way to introduce into their Bill principles and provisions which earned for those who first promulgated them in the House the sneer of being visionaries. He had not the slightest desire of prolonging the discussion, but he could not help expressing the bitterest disappointment at the disappearance of the registration officers proposed to be created in the Bill of last year. That omission would increase the burden which candidates for Parliament had to bear. Almost every Representative had to put his hand in his pocket to assist the Local Bodies in getting the voters on the Register. He knew Members who had to pay £300 or £400 a year to enable the Local Bodies to discharge the expenses incurred in getting the voters on the Register. Those expenses would, of course, be increased if the Register were made up twice a year, but they would have been rendered unnecessary altogether if the registration officer had been appointed. He thought the Bill of last year was a far better measure. Several of the best proposals of the Bill of last year were dropped out of the present Bill; but, nevertheless, he welcomed this attempt of the Government to settle some of the most glaring of the electoral grievances.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. Morley, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, and Mr. Dyke Acland.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 161.]

said, that as the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty had made no reply in his speeches the previous day, to the request made to him to consider the advisability of opening up further avenues of promotion for warrant officers in the Navy, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would now make some statement on the subject.

It was quite impossible for me in the little time at my disposal when the matter was brought forward to have given any explanation. But I have already told the House that it would be necessary next year for Parliament to add to the number of warrant officers, and that with that view an inquiry was now being held as to the conditions of service of warrant officers. I hope in a short time to be able to announce the result of that inquiry to the House, and in the meantime I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject is receiving our most careful consideration.

^* said, that on the previous night he had called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to some matters connected with his Department affecting the Highlands—

^* : Order, order!

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, was not the Question put, and is not the hon. Member too late?

No; I had only gathered the "Ayes."

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will put down this Motion again to have the House treated in this manner?

I do not think the Government should be dragged through this proceeding in this way. I think the full responsibility of refusing this Committee ought to be placed on hon. Gentlemen opposite.

We would really like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will put the Motion down again?

I will put it down once more.

^* : I beg entirely to disclaim having anything whatever to do with the obstruction of this Committee. I am entirely in favour of it.

The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes before Seven of the clock.

"That, in the opinion of this House, all the facilities for obtaining land now possessed by England should be at once extended to Ireland, and that, while the same machinery or councils used in England are not in use in Ireland, such existing machinery as Poor Law Boards or other public bodies or Government Departments should be used for the purpose,"

said, that there were some people who thought that there were no good things in England. He had no sympathy with that view. He was anxious to obtain for the benefit of the people of Ireland what things in England he knew to be good. Among these were allotments for the benefit of the labourers. At the present moment there were none of these in Ireland, though they were most necessary

^* ex officio members, had obstructed or absolutely refused to put into operation the Labourers' Dwellings Act, which was too costly and full of technical delays in administration to be really effective for the purpose for which it was passed. But, altogether apart and distinct from this objection, there were thousands of labourers living in small towns and villages to whom this Act was scarcely applicable, and, in addition, it might be undesirable in some isolated cases to disturb them from their present homes. Meantime, access should be given to the laud to all labourers willing to work it for their own benefit. They were importing food products from almost every country, whilst millions of acres of their own land were going to waste, and labour was unemployed. In the year 1893 there had been an enormous decrease in the total acreage of land under corn, potatoes, and green crops in Ireland, and, consequently, less employment for agricultural labourers. Frequently, this meant either emigration or the union. Under those circumstances, it was not surprising that there was discontent and poverty amongst the agricultural labourers. Various Labour Societies were being organised—such as the Knights of The Plough and kindred Organisations. Their existence was a strong proof that immediate and practical attention, not mere verbal promises, should be given to this matter. Artizans working in towns were generally protected by Trade Unions, and it was not surprising that agricultural labourers, who had hitherto been the most neglected section of the community, should follow their example and endeavour to better their condition. It appeared to him that it was a legitimate function of this House to afford facilities to the Irish labourer to obtain a plot of ground, which he could rent on reasonable terms, and employ himself upon when work was not to be had or during his leisure hours. He maintained that an opportunity ought to be afforded to every industrious man to earn a living in his own country, and he ventured to submit that no more important question respecting the betterment of the condition of the Irish agricultural labourer could engage the attention of this House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—

"In the opinion of this House, all the facilities for obtaining land now possessed by England should be at once extended to Ireland, and that, while the same machinery or councils used in England are not in use in Ireland, such existing machinery as Poor Law -Boards or other public bodies or Government Departments should be used for the purpose."—( Colonel Nolan. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

^* said, he entirely sympathised with the object of the Motion. Irish Members, perhaps, had neglected the labour interest in Ireland a little too much. There were vast numbers of labourers in Ireland, and hardly anything was more melancholy than the sights to be witnessed in the small towns and in the villages, wherever one went, not only in the South, but in the North. He wished they could compel the owners of the town houses where the labourers lived to improve those houses. There was nothing more miserable than the condition of these labourers. The labourers on the land had been able to get cottages, but he rather thought the hon. and gallant Member was concerned about the labourers who lived in the towns.

Both.

^* said, that the labourers who lived in the towns, after a day's work, when they could get it—and it was not always to be got—returned to these insanitary houses and they had nothing to turn their minds to—no half-acre to work upon. They lived, in fact, in a state of semi-starvation. He was sure they all sympathised with the object of the hon. and gallant Member in moving the Resolution, but it was to be regretted that he called upon the Government to act "at once" in this matter. Having regard to the work of the Session it would be well if the Motion were amended in that respect, because it was obvious that a change of this kind could not be made off-hand and at once. He did not know what the hon. and gallant Member meant by the words in his Motion, "all the facilities for obtaining land" and applying them to" small holders of land."

I want the small holders to get more land.

^* said, he did not know that that would be an advantage to many Irish labourers. It was a good thing to give them land, but a bad thing to give them more than they could work.

^* said, he would give his hearty support to the Motion. A quarter of a century ago he stood up in favour of the Irish farmer, in this House, and he was satisfied that all who desired to see the material prosperity of Ireland could not do better than support the spirit of the Resolution.

said, it was somewhat of a relief to find Members in all parts of the House representing Irish constituencies fully alive and agreed as to the importance of the Resolution, and he had risen before the Chief Secretary to lend what little weight he could in urging upon the Government the importance of the question. He could not agree with the hon. Member for South Tyrone opposite in his objection to the words "at once." On the contrary, they were the words of which he most approved, and he thought it would be much better for the House to employ its time in bettering the condition of the labourers of Ireland than in the proceeding of gerrymandering the constituencies of the country. It would not, therefore, cause him one moment's anxiety if the right hon. Gentleman were to advise the Government to withdraw the Registration Bill and to proceed with a Bill for assisting the labourers of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) had said that the labourers of Ireland had been very much neglected in the past, and he (Mr. Carson) entirely agreed with him. In point of fact, he could not call to mind any Act, except the Labourers' Act, which in certain respects had effected considerable improvements in Ireland, that had in recent years been brought forward in the House of Commons for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of the Irish labourers. Whilst in England there was always a large amount of employment and a considerable sum was annually spent upon the labour market, in Ireland the only market for the labouring classes was that of the land. If some Bill could be framed which would in any way mitigate the condition of the labourers he would do all that was in his power to see that that Bill became law. Why was it that the Irish labourers had been so much neglected? The reason was that the farmers had been thinking too much of themselves. He believed that gentlemen below the Gangway would entirely concur with him in the opinion that if there was one class more than another in Ireland which owed a debt they never could pay to the labourers it was the farmers. Having regard to the land legislation that had been passed by Parliament and to the benefits that had been conferred on the farmers of Ireland, it was really time that Parliament should turn its attention seriously to the question of what could be done for the labourers of Ireland. He read recently with great disappointment that in one part of Ireland—he believed it was on the O'Grady estate—where the farmers had acquired their farms under the Purchase Acts one of their first acts was to turn out every small holder who was in possession of laud under previous Land Acts. This was a poor way of recompensing the labourers for having assisted the farmers in the land agitation. He really thought the farmers ought now, having received the benefits of land legislation themselves, to turn their attention to the accomplishment of something for the labourers. Whilst he was entirely in accord with the principle of the Resolution, there would be in his view considerable difficulties in applying it. In considering the question of procedure it was impossible to lose sight of the differences which existed between the two countries. In the first place there were no County Councils in Ireland, and in the second place there were no Parish or District Councils. Why was this the case? [Mr. J. MORLEY: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cheered ironically. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman see that Ireland was included in the Parish Councils Bill? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would say that Ireland must wait for Parish Councils until she got Home Rule. That meant that she must wait for Parish Councils until the English people had been educated up to Home Rule, and, according to the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton), it would even after that take eight years to pass a Parish Councils Bill. It would not be difficult to find the proper method of carrying out the Allotment Acts in Ireland. The view he would put forward was that the proper way to put the Acts in operation would be through the Land Commission, which could be authorised to afford facilities to labourers to acquire small holdings, and in course of time could enable them to pur- chase such holdings. He must admit that, as far as he knew, he had never seen any disposition on the part of landlords in Ireland to voluntarily grant small allotments of land. He could never understand why landlords either in Ireland or in England should grudge a little land for allotments when in many cases they had land lying idle. No doubt it was necessary to be careful to adopt proper machinery. Though the procedure was somewhat cumbrous under the Labourers' Acts, it was not a bit too cumbrous in times of excitement in Ireland to prevent injuries being done to owners of property. Time after time the Acts had been put into operation against particular farmers or landlords, not in the real interests of the labourers but for what he might call Party purposes. He gave the Resolution every support as regarded principle, and he hoped that some Bill might be introduced to give it practical effect. If the hon. Member went to a Division he regretted to say he could not support the Motion, not from any want of sympathy but because he was paired with a Nationalist Member who, if he were present, he had no doubt would vote in favour of the same Amendment.

expressed his sympathy with the Motion. He pointed out, however, that it would be more applicable to the Provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster than to the North of Ireland, for in Ulster the farmers as a general rule—of course, there were exceptions—had well-housed their labourers. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no.] He said as a general rule. He was speaking of the portion of the North of Ireland he was acquainted with. He knew there were portions of County Monaghan which, although portions of Ulster, were not geographically portions of Ulster. They were not portions of Ulster that they, the Unionist Members, looked upon as Ulster. He thought, therefore, the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was rather too wide, and, personally, he would confine it and limit it to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He considered that if the Government could see their way to pass some Act giving power to the Land Commission to make allotments adjoining towns and villages in Ireland—which, at the present time, was the subject of so much heart-burning in connection with the question of town parks—it would be a move in the right direction. He wished to express his sympathy with the general principles of this Resolution, and his regret that owing to being paired he should not be able to record his vote for the Resolution, which he should otherwise have been happy to do.

should be glad to go into the Lobby in support of this Resolution, but he hoped the Chief Secretary would obviate the necessity for a Division by giving them some assurance on the subject. He believed that the provision of small portions of laud for the Irish labourers would do more to make peace than almost anything else. Whilst he was strongly opposed to what was called Home Rule, he was very anxious that the people of Ireland should have all the advantages the people of England had, and if the Chief Secretary could bring in a Bill to give the labourers what had been suggested, he would find him (General Goldsworthy) an ardent supporter of such Bill.

said, the labourers of Ireland were so long an unfriended class that he, for his part, heartily welcomed the accession of any new friends, and many new friends of the labourers of Ireland had appeared on the scene to-night. He thought, however, that human patience, especially the patience of those who had endeavoured to befriend the labourers of Ireland when others were indifferent, was too severely tried when hon. Members, such as the hon. Members for South Tyrone and Dublin University, rose in this House and suggested that the labourers of Ireland had no friends before their time. He -did not wonder so much at the Member for the University of Dublin—an experienced lawyer but a very juvenile legislator—but he did wonder at the Member for South Tyrone, who had been in the House for years, who knew that at the instance of the Irish Nationalist Members the first of the Labourers' Bills was passed, that they expended much care and labour upon it, that they succeeded in passing two amending Acts, and that from the year 1885 down to the present hour, almost 10 years, not a Session had passed and rarely had a week elapsed but they had endeavoured by Motions and questions in this House to induce the Government of Ireland and the Local Government Board in Ireland to compel the Boards of Guardians to do their duty, and especially the Boards of Guardians, which were dominated by the political friends of the Member for the University of Dublin. He reminded the hon. Member for South Tyrone of these things, and also of the further amending Bills which they had unsuccessfully promoted because of the Rules of this House which hampered the powers of private Members.

I quite acknowledge the work that has been done for the labourers on the land, but my remarks were obviously directed to the labourers in villages and towns who had not got any land.

said, that the Irish Members had also endeavoured to extend to the labourers of the villages and towns the facilities afforded the rural labourers of Ireland by the other Acts, and he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that upon the Order Paper of the present Session Members of the Irish Party had obtained first place of Wednesday, the 30th of May, for a Bill to amend the constitution of the Board of Guardians, that had the administration of the Labourers' Acts, and to make Irish Guardians, as English Guardians would be under the Local Government Act, purely elective bodies. When the Boards of Guardians passed into that condition, and not before, he believed they would be trustworthy administrators of the laws relating to the labourers. Again, on the 6th of June, the Irish Nationalist Party had obtained first place for a Bill to amend the Labourers' Act; and he would, therefore, point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway that the Party to which he (Mr. Sexton) belonged had used the advantages afforded by the ballot to obtain first place on Wednesdays for two Bills of the nature he had indicated. Whatever might be the defects of the hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University, he was not a man deficient in courage, but he certainly had shown more than his usual courage this evening in appearing as the champion of the labourers. The Chief Secretary for Ireland suggested across the Table that the argument of Wednesday evening had not been borne in mind. There was something more than the argument of Wednesday evening; there was the vote. He believed the hon. and learned Gentle- man voted on Wednesday. [Mr. CARSON: Hear, hear!] He believed he voted against the Bill. [Mr. CARSON: Hear, hear!] He was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would not vote against the Bill without reading it. In the Bill of Wednesday there was a provision to pass over immediately £30,000 a year for the benefit of the labourers of Ireland.

There was also a provision basing rents on prairie value.

And yet that clause for the benefit of the labourers did not qualify or mitigate the opposition of the hon. Gentleman to the Bill. He did not differentiate that clause against any other, but voted as heartily against that clause as against the rest; and he was entitled, therefore, to say that when the hon. and learned Gentleman on Wednesday voted against a Bill to allocate £30,000 a year for the purpose of providing labourers' cottages—which would provide 300 cottages and 300 acres of land each year —his position of appearing as the champion of the labourers of Ireland upon the succeeding Friday was one open to moderate comment. If the Labourers' Acts had proved inadequate, as he sorrowfully admitted they had, who was in fault? The learned Gentleman applied himself—acting under political motives which no Member of Parliament could mistake—to endeavour to sow dissension between the farmers and the labourers of Ireland. They knew the object. He had to tell the hon. Gentleman that where the farmers of Ireland controlled the Poor Law Boards, as in the South and West, the Labourers' Acts had been justly and generously worked, considering the grievous burdens of the poor rate upon a necessitous class, 8,000 or 9,000 labourers' cottages having been built; but in the North of Ireland, and where the political friends of the hon. and learned Gentleman controlled the Boards of Guardians, labourers' cottages could be counted by scores—he thought by units— and there were wide stretches of country where not a single labourer's cottage was to be found. In the presence of such a state of facts it argued great audacity or great belief in the ignorance of English Members, or in the forbearance of the Irish Nationalist Members, for any Representative of that class to stand up and talk about the neglect of the labourers of Ireland on the part of the Irish Representatives, in order to put himself forward as the Representative of a class who had been behaving justly and generously to the labourers of Ireland. He sincerely sympathised with the object of the Motion, and he admitted that the initial statement in the Preamble was correct— namely, that the means at present in force in Ireland for obtaining allotments were inadequate or had been inadequately worked. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested in his Motion that all the facilities for obtaining land possessed by England should be at once extended to Ireland. What meaning did he attribute to "at once"? Did he mean that anything could be done except by legislation? Did he mean during the present Session? Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that small holders should be enabled to increase their holdings by means of the rates other small holders had to pay? If that was the principle put forward, he should like to see it put forward in rather more detail before he committed himself to it. The Government had announced for Thursday a Bill to reinstate evicted tenants in Ireland. Was that Bill to be set aside? He said the Evicted Tenants' Bill represented the most urgent needs of Ireland, and was more likely to pass through its several stages if the Government were not asked to add another Irish Bill to their programme extending to Ireland the complicated arrangements with regard to allotments. It was only on Wednesday that they succeeded in getting the Second Reading of a Bill to amend the Land Acts. Were they; to abandon the advantage of the Second Reading of that Bill in order to embark at this stage upon this new and complicated scheme? The Motion suggested that the Poor Law Boards and other Public Bodies should be used for the purposes of the scheme. In Ireland there was no body even partially elected except the Board of Guardians, and to their constitution was due the failure of the Labourers' Act in Ireland. For himself he could not look forward with any confidence to the result of proposals which would place these mighty powers in the hands of Boards of Guardians. There was no other Public Body in Ireland except the Grand Jury, and that body was composed altogether of landlords. His contention was that the Boards of Guardians were not suitable to the work, as they were composed, to the extent of one-half, of landlords, and as to the Government Departments, to which his hon. and gallant Friend would resort as a last resource, they were the curse of Ireland. That was the common opinion of politicians of every shade. He declared positively that he was not prepared, either now or on any other occasion, to give his assent to any Resolution which suggested that the local rates of Ireland—money paid out of the hard labours of the people—should be administered by two or three gentlemen sitting in Dublin, nominated probably by a Tory Government. He, however, heartily sympathised with the object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and, if he would leave out from his Motion all reference to "machinery," he was prepared to support it.

said, he was willing to meet the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and to omit the words "machinery or Councils used in England," as he had suggested.

I often think that it is a striking instance of the irony of fate that I, who am one of those who strongly believe that Ireland is entitled to the conduct of her own affairs, yet on account of the exigencies of the Office which I have the honour to bear, it should fall to my lot day by day and almost hour by hour to interfere in reference to Irish affairs and to decide matters of this kind. To-night we have had a Debate in which a number of gentlemen from Ireland have taken part, and I am bound to say that I think this Debate is not otherwise than a memorable one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved that Motion took a very easy and rather lax view of the terms of his own Motion. He said this was a Motion for conferring facilities upon the labourers in Ireland such as are enjoyed in England in reference to the acquirements of allotments, and that this was to be done through a certain Executive Body. I was amazed to see, as the crown and climax of this proposal, that if no other body could be found the executive work is to proceed from no less a hated place than Dublin Castle. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite desires to see this reform carried out, and it is this important question that has brought us down to the House to-night in order to join issue upon it. We wished to hear what would be said by our Irish friends on the proposal that this great social reform should be administered from Dublin Castle—that dreadful seat of the Government not infrequently called the "Parliamentary Sink," and which was usually held up to public opprobrium. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given up the question of the machinery, and so I will not go into that. I cannot help, however, remarking that it shows how elastic Irish politics are when my hon. and gallant Friend can so easily accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I suppose from what has been said that the same easy arrangements are to be found in the way in which hon. Members paired.

I think it is only fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that has been raised.

I beg to apologise; but I think the combination of the pair I have guessed as the hon. Members alluded to make a very promising assumption for my remark.

I understand that at any rate the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is one of the pair referred to, is absolved?

I only mean that such a combination would have been in accordance with the proceedings of a Parliament on College Green. All such arrangements we know, of course, are "make-believes."

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend has brought forward the Motion merely as a "make-believe"?

I have not made myself well understood. The question is, what view the Government takes of this Motion? As it is now worded, the Motion is an impossible one, because the hon. and gallant Member asks that the facilities should be "at once" extended to Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman means by "at once" this Session, then the House knows that the realisation of such an object is absolutely impossible.

Why do you not bring in a Bill this Session?

I really cannot, at this hour of the evening, and after the day's labours, argue that point at present; but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that it cannot be done unless hon. Members for Ireland are prepared to sacrifice the Evicted Tenants Bill.

Sacrifice one of your English Bills.

The hon. Member for Waterford asks the Government to sacrifice an English Bill. [A VOICE: Yes: the Local Veto Bill.] So far as the Government have gone they have placed the Evicted Tenants Bill down for an early day, and when that Bill is disposed of it will be for me, as Irish Minister, to press upon the attention of my colleagues any other Irish Bills in addition to that and the measure dealing with land in Ireland. Everyone who examines the subject agrees that the Labourers' Acts applying to Ireland are cumbersome, dilatory, and expensive. When, however, I am asked to extend the same facilities to Ireland as exist in England without any provision being made for the machinery which exists in England, then I must say that I am being asked to take what is not a very practicable course. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University asked how it was that the machinery of County Councils and Parish Councils did not exist in Ireland as in England. I am amazed at that question, especially when the House recalls the project brought in by the hon. Gentleman's Leaders in connection with the extension of local government in Ireland. That project was so futile and ridiculous that it literally appeared for one night on the floor of the House and was never heard of more.

The Local Government Bill passed a Second Reading by 95 votes.

The Bill was admittedly an imperfect measure, and there was no serious attempt made by the Leaders of the hon. Member to create in Ireland that local machinery which would have enabled the Government to apply to Ireland the machinery of the Labourers' Acts. I agree with what has been said as to the position of the labourer in Ireland. The Reports made by the Land Sub-Commissioners as to the condition of the Irish labourer were about as disagreeable reading as anyone caring for the reputation of his country and Government could possibly have. I agree, therefore, that the matter deserves early and serious consideration, and undoubtedly it would be the business of any Government, if time allowed, to endeavour to legislate in the direction indicated by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member. But as things are, and looking at the small amount of time at the disposal of the Government, being, as it is, already fairly divided between all those who have competing claims on that time, it is impossible for me to say that the Government could assent to the Motion if the hon. Member really means that the Government are expected to bring in a Bill at once. If the hon. Gentleman will strike out the words "at once," leaving the Motion an expression of an opinion that the condition of the labourers in Ireland urgently demands the attention of the Government, I shall offer no opposition to the Motion. The proceedings of this evening, however, only afford a further illustration of the unfitness of this Parliament to keep within its own hands the power of making laws for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asks how it is that Parliament has not passed a Parish Councils Act for Ireland. The answer is perfectly simple, and the hon. and learned Member knows it very well. This Parliament is already overloaded beyond endurance, and it is absolutely impossible for us to deal with all the other claims that come to us from Ireland. In assenting to this Motion, I am doing no more than assenting to the statement that this is a claim which the responsible Government ought to admit.

I shall not speak for more than one moment. The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to me in confirmation of a statement he made. He intimated to the House that the Local Government Bill introduced by the late Government was not seriously proposed, and that I, amongst other Members who were in the House at the time, was well aware that such was the case.

I beg pardon. If I used the word "proposed" I was wrong. I meant not seriously pressed.

Well, if so, why was it not seriously pressed? I remember well the evening on which that proposal, which had been seriously made, and I believe might have been carried, into a useful Act of Parliament, was met by a well-prepared theatrical exhibition of contempt and ridicule. On what ground was the principle of the Bill resisted? Because the right hon. Gentle- man and his friends had a far better plan to propose. And what was the result of their proposition of that plan? Not only was that plan overthrown; not only has it been now abandoned— [ Ministerial cries of "No!"] I say it has been at present abandoned, and that the utmost desire of the right hon. Gentleman, and his friends, and of hon. Members from Ireland who sit below the Gangway is to put off as far as possible the decision of the people of this country upon the merits of that Bill. And what is the reason that the right hon. Gentleman advances this evening for not holding out any hope of giving effect to the object of the Resolution which is now before us? It is that in this Session, so overloaded as it is with business, it would be a farce for him to say he would introduce any measure, however good, which might be proposed by the Irish Representatives in addition to those already in the programme. And why is this? Because the failure of the measure which his Government introduced with a view of extending local government in Ireland was so much more a complete failure than that which he has this evening tried to treat with ridicule that the whole of the energies of Parliament has been exhausted in the abortive attempt to pass it; the whole of the first Session of this Parliament has been wasted, and what remains now of what is only an electioneering Session is to be occupied with the endeavour to put before the country a series of bogus proposals which no one has the smallest idea will ever be carried into effect, in order to give the people of this country the opportunity of forgetting the utter failure of the measure of local government.

regretted extremely the turn the Debate had taken. He regretted the speech of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and some supporters of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley). It would have been better, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to say so, if he had not used such a phrase as "make-believe." The right hon. Gentleman had said there must be some make-believe in a Motion which concluded with a recommendation that further powers should be given to "the Castle." There was no such recommendation in the Resolution, and he thought it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to an hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan) who through a long life had been connected with Irish national politics and with industrial advancement and the welfare of the labourers in Ireland, had not directed against him that which he (Mr. Redmond) must regard, whether it was so intended or not, as a most offensive phrase. His hon. and gallant Friend, in bringing forward the Motion, had been guilty of no make-believe whatever. His hon. and gallant Friend desired to obtain from the House a declaration of principle and nothing more—a declaration that the same facilities should be given to the Irish labourers for obtaining allotments as had already been given by Statute to the English labourers. The right hon. Gentleman objected to vote in favour of the Resolution, because he said he could not agree to all its details. He had, however, admitted that on Wednesday afternoons it had been his practice to vote in favour of Bills, many of the leading details of which he did not approve.

I never said "leading details."

said, that, of course, he did not know what would be the provisions of the Evicted Tenants' Bill which the right hon. Gentleman was going to introduce next week, but he knew that when Mr. O'Kelly, who was then Member for Roscommon, introduced a Bill which provided not only for the compulsory retaking of land for restoration to the evicted tenants, but for the compulsory expulsion of the "planters" without any compensation whatever, the right hon. Gentleman voted for the Second Reading. He should be anxious to see on Thursday whether the right hon. Gentleman would put that leading provision into his own Bill. He had listened with pain to the speech of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton), because he had been unable to avoid the feeling that if the Motion had proceeded from another quarter of the House it would have received more indulgent treatment at the hon. Gentleman's hands. The hon. Member had appeared more anxious to pick holes in the phraseology of the Motion than to give a cordial assent to its principle, which, in the end, he had to admit was a good principle. The Motion was not to be treated as if it were a Bill. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that he was willing to omit those portions of it which dealt with machinery, and to limit it to a declaration of principle. By a strange combination of circumstances the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) and the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) were sailing in the same boat. They both objected to the retention of the words "at once," because forsooth "at once" must, in their opinion, mean the present Session. The hon. Member for Kerry, in order to show that this must be so, advanced the fact that they were only in the month of April. He (Mr. Redmond) would recall to the recollection of the House the famous Resolution passed on the 24th of March, 1893, declaring that the principle of the payment of Members should be put in force "forthwith." The present Leader of the House (Sir W. Harcourt), in his speech on that Resolution, asked what hon. Members imagined "forthwith" meant, whereupon the hon. Member for Preston interjected, "It means this Session." The right hon. Gentleman then said—

"That is not the legal interpretation of the word. They believe that in accepting this Motion we accept it simply with the intention of carrying it out as soon as we are able to do so. In that sense I support the Motion."

And in that sense the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) and all the Members of the Government voted in favour of the Resolution. He (Mr. Redmond) failed altogether to see the difference between "forthwith" and "at once," and for his part he regarded the Motion, containing as it did the words "at once," simply as a declaration that as soon as possible facilities for acquiring allotments should be extended to Irish labourers. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley) had said it was impossible to introduce a Bill on the subject this Session. Why? It was not impossible for the Government to introduce Bills which they had no intention of carrying. Last Session with a flourish of trumpets the Local Veto Bill, the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and other measures were introduced by the Government as a pledge of the adherence to the great principles contained in them, but to-night the House was told that the mere introduction of an Irish Allotments Bill would prevent the passage of the Evicted Tenants Bill. Surely, the mere introduction of such a Bill, which would only occupy the House for a single night, could not by any possibility militate against the chances of the passage of the other measure. He admitted that it would be impossible to pass an Irish Allotments Bill into law this Session. But was there no value in introducing a Bill, and pledging its promoters to its principle? Had there been no value in such a process a great deal of time would have been saved since the present Government came into Office. If the Government were in favour of the principle of the Motion, there was no reason why they should not adopt it. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) should stand by the words "at once," and should press the Motion to a Division.

^* said, that a question of principle was raised by the Motion, and upon that question the only possible standing ground for the Unionist Party, in his opinion, was the standing ground of equality between the various branches of the United Kingdom. It might be difficult, and in some cases almost impossible to transplant institutions bodily; but the circumstances of the three countries were not so dissimilar that where advantages were conferred on one they could not, as a general rule, be applied to the others. The chief difficulty that had been raised on this particular question was that on the alleged absence of the necessary local machinery. He greatly regretted that no Local Government Bill had been passed for Ireland. It ought to have been otherwise, and was promised. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, however, cast some ridicule upon the idea of such rural institutions as allotments being provided for in the case of towns, he altogether forgot that the best instance of the working of the allotment system in this country and the very example on which it had been founded was that of Nottingham, one of our largest and most populous towns. He had himself frequently observed the miserable conditions under which labourers lived in the towns of Ireland, and he could conceive nothing that would be more useful than to give these men the advantage of being able to obtain allotments in their neighbourhoods. It was near towns that allotments could be made most paying and so most beneficial. To the tenants, allotments were a stimulus and a help: to the landlords they gave, in his opinion, at all events when near towns, one of the very best investments, whilst, in addition, they associated larger numbers with the land and so strengthened the landed interest. There was one special point of view in which allotments would be beneficial to Ireland, and that was in cultivating that collective spirit in connection with modern agriculture which was essential to its success. Some attempt had been made to establish a collective system in Ireland in relation to agriculture, and, happily, there had been some effort to give the benefit of an agricultural education to pupils in the elementary schools. In one national school in Ireland he had seen a better example of this than he had ever witnessed in England. A small farm was attached to the school he spoke of, and the children were instructed in the principles and, to some extent, in the practice of agriculture. The advantages of collectivism in regard to agriculture were apparent in some of the smaller countries of Europe, like Belgium and Denmark, and he had once heard one of the largest exporters of agricultural produce from Denmark to this country say that if agriculture in Ireland were more collectively treated it would become the great rival of Denmark in agricultural matters. He believed in the principle of equality of treatment, and of giving to all parts of the United Kingdom that which had proved beneficial in the others in cases in which similar conditions existed which would make the principle capable of practical application. He supported the Motion. He felt that the difficulty as to machinery had been to a great extent exaggerated. In the towns it already existed in the municipalities and town-commissions, and elsewhere, if necessary, and so great did he believe the value of allotments to be, that he would advocate the creation of machinery ad hoc to meet the necessities of the case.

said, that as one who had consistently in season and out of season endeavoured to do what he could on behalf of the Irish labourers, he would like to take part in this Debate, and to say that he was absolutely in favour of the Motion. If the hon. and gallant Member who introduced the Motion allowed his mind to go back to the year 1888 he would recollect that at that time, when there was an Allot- ments Bill brought forward for the benefit of English labourers, he (Dr. Tanner) did his best to have the Bill extended so that Irish labourers would be benefited by it. He had already succeeded in getting one Bill passed for the Irish labourer, which gave him a half acre of land, but he found there was a lot of trouble experienced in getting the additional acre for him. It had again and again been pointed out that one of the great difficulties the Irish labourer experienced was caused by the intermittent character of his labour, and accordingly if he got an extra grant of land it must be for the benefit of the labourer and the ratepayer as well, inasmuch as it would keep him off the rates and give him an opportunity of cultivating the land. If it was done, they would raise a great weight and incubus off the shoulders of the labourers of Ireland. For his own part he regretted to say that cottages had not been erected in many parts of the country, and he hoped before long that every labourer who needed a cottage would have one.

said, that having regard to the practical unanimity with which this Motion had been received in all quarters of the House, he thought it would be a great pity if that unanimity was not utilised to further account. He thought that might be done by leaving out the words "at once."

No, certainly not.

And substitute for them the words "as soon as possible." He had great pleasure in moving an Amendment to that effect.

That is not possible now.