asked the Secretary of State for War what was the establishment and strength of officers and also of non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force on the 1st October last?

The numbers are as follows:—

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this deficit in officers and men is decreasing or increasing?

I cannot tell the hon. Member that. The officers have increased since July by 124. There is a decrease in the men of 311.

asked what was the establishment and strength of the officers, and also of the non-commissioned officers and men, of the Special Reserve on 1st October last?

The figures, exclusive of men of Category (b), Militiamen and men of Reserve Division of Militia, are as follows:—

What steps have been taken to make up the alarming deficiency in the lower commissioned ranks in the Special Reserve?

If the hon. Member will put down a question I will answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that at the Coventry Ordnance Works the Fair Wages Clause was not being observed in the polishing department, the rate of wages paid being 7d. per hour, whereas the district rate was 8d. per hour; and whether he would take steps to have the Clause complied with?

My attention has already been drawn to this matter, and inquiries are being made.

asked whether, during the late manœuvres, a trial was made of a new type of travelling kitchen; and, if so, what was the substance of the report furnished to the War Office upon it?

A trial was made, but the report has not yet been received by the War Office.

asked how many times and on what dates the two 9.2-inch guns in the Ravelin Battery at Sheerness had been fired since they were handed over to the Royal Artillery on 11th February, 1908?

These guns have not yet been fired, but they will be at no very distant date. The date of such practice rests with the local Artillery Commanding Officer.

Why, for two whole years, have these guns, which defend this important dockyard, not been fired?

There were other important matters which had to be attended to.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that six months ago he informed us that everything was in a satisfactory state?

The date of practice rests with the local Artillery Commanding Officer, and he has not thought fit to begin practice yet.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had seen the original report and estimate in which Mr. Slessor specially and repeatedly stipulated for rails, rolling-stock, and works, and the general calibre and capacity of the Johore Railway, to be the same precisely as those of the railways of the Federated Malay States in connection with which it was to be worked, basing his estimate upon the specification of Sir Charles Hutton Gregory, consulting engineer to the Straits Government, and of Mr. Watkins, resident engineer of the Selangor Railways, the whole to cost £608,000; whether the offer of British contractors, acceptable to and desired by the Sultan, to construct and equip the line efficiently in that style for that sum was rejected at the instance of the Crown Agents; whether its less efficient construction by the Crown Agents had cost £1,400,000, to be paid, with interest, by the Johore people; and whether he would give his authority for the official statement that the Slessor estimate was for an inferior line?

I have not myself seen Mr. Slessor's report and estimate, but they have been seen by the Consulting Engineers from whom my information is derived. As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 20th July the Crown Agents were not concerned in the matter at all, and I am unable at present to state the total cost of the line.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state by whom and on whose recommendation consulting engineers for Colonial and Protectorate works are appointed; by whom and at what rate are they paid; whether they are themselves responsible to anyone for the subsequent cost of works recommended by them; whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence whereby the Government of Johore was compelled to cancel its contract with a British firm for the construction and equipment of the Johore Railway and submit to its construction departmentally, under the control of the Crown Agents, at more than twice the amount of the contract; whether he is aware of the threat used to enforce cancellation, that if the contract was persisted in the amount of it would be made irrecoverable; if he will say what money passed in consideration of the cancellation, and whether this sum also has been added to the burden imposed upon Johore by the Crown Agents for their own benefit; whether the Colonial Office had any other object in supporting the Crown Agents in this transaction than that of imposing upon Johore a debt she could scarcely repay, as a preliminary to annexation; and whether the Colonial Office recognised the promotion of this purpose, and the acceptance of fees from two rival parties to the same transaction, as within the legitimate work of a consulting engineer?

This question makes imputations of improper conduct, for which there is not a shadow of foundation, against honourable men, who feel deeply the slur publicly cast upon them. Beyond making this statement I, therefore, decline to make any reply.

asked what is the estimated cost of the construction at Hong Kong of the harbour and docks without which the Canton-Kowloon Railway must remain without traffic; and from what source and by what means is it intended to raise that money?

It is not proposed to construct a harbour or docks in connection with the railway.

asked what the status of Johore now is, whether a Free State, a Protectorate, or a British Crown Colony; and, if either of the two latter, whether debt was the principal means employed in depriving Johore of its independence?

The status of Johore is defined in the Agreement of the 11th of December, 1885, a copy of which was presented to Parliament in C. 4627 of 1886.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state the nature of the reply, if any, received to the communication recently addressed to the Argentine Government requesting detailed information as to the steps taken either by the federal or the provincial governments to deal with the suppression of foot-and-mouth disease?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer this question. A communication was received from the Argentine Government on the 11th inst., which affords very valuable information as to some of the matters which the Board are required to take into account in deciding whether or not animals brought from Argentina can be allowed to be landed in this country. But before any decision can be arrived at additional information is required, with regard to which a further communication will at once be addressed by the Board to the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he accepts as correct the estimate of the pension officer of Kilrush who considers £52 per annum as fair value of the cost of maintenance, in a small farmer's home, of the father and mother of the farmer; and whether he is aware that authorities possessing local knowledge give the estimate at about £18 per annum?

The particulars given in the question do not enable me to identify the case or cases which the hon. Member has in mind, and I have therefore no means of forming an opinion on the estimate referred to, nor would any useful purpose be served by my doing so, as the determination of the means of a pensioner or claimant for a pension rests entirely with the local pension committee, or the Local Government Board on appeal.

asked whether instructions have been issued to Mr. Martyn, pension officer, of Kilrush, to disallow as many old age pensions as possible, even of those that had been already granted; and whether, in that case, Mr. Martyn will be directed to produce more substantial evidence as to age than his own personal opinion?

The answer to the first question is in the negative, and the second, therefore, does not arise.

asked what is the cause of the delay in dealing with the application by Mrs. O'Connor, of Knockerra, Killimer, county Clare, for a pension under the Old Age Pensions Act?

No trace can be found of an application for an old age pension having been made by Mrs. O'Connor.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea on 19th June, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Hong E. Choy, whilst serving on the steamer "Shimosa," of Liverpool; whether any inquiry had been held into the matter; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; how many tons of coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?

The Asiatic fireman referred to in the question disappeared from the "Shimosa" on the day after leaving Singapore for Aden. Inquiry was made into the occurrence by the shipping master at Aden. The man had been only four days on board the vessel; it is not known whether he had had previous sea service; he was on duty at the time of his disappearance. The temperature of the engine-room was 120 degrees and of the stokehold 113 degrees. The consumption of coal was 36 tons per day and the number of firemen and trimmers was 13. One case of suicide and one other case of supposed suicide have occurred in this vessel during the last three years. The "Shimosa" trades regularly between New York and Eastern ports and has not been in the United Kingdom since she was built.

Was any complaint made by or on behalf of the deceased Asiatic seaman or any other Asiatic seaman on this vessel against the management?

None, so far as I am aware.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the result of the inquiry into the allegation concerning the violation of the fair wage clause by Messrs. Scott's Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Greenock?

The Admiralty has investigated the matter, and has not found any evidence of violation of the clause.

asked at what date was the order given to the Coventry Ordnance Company for gun-mountings and when do the Government propose to submit a Supplementary Estimate to meet the expenditure incurred by the firm during the current financial year.

Pending the arrangement of certain detail, an order for gun-mountings was placed conditionally with the Coventry Ordnance Works on 20th August last. It cannot be stated at the present date whether any instalment under the scheme of payments will be earned this financial year, so that the consideration of a Supplementary Estimate in respect of this firm's orders is premature.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether he anticipates that a Supplementary Estimate on account of these ships will be required?

Yes, Sir. I think I have already stated that a Supplementary Estimate will be required on account of gun-mountings and other equipment.

This Session?

No, Sir, but this financial year.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many large armoured cruisers comparable to the British "Invincible" class have been launched in Germany, and how many are now laid down or building for the Germany Government; and if he has any information of any further large cruisers to be laid down in Germany at an early date?

Of the "Invincible" type of cruiser building in Germany, one has been launched and two more have been laid down. There is no information at present concerning the laying down of further cruisers of this type.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be able to state which of the four additional armoured ships to be laid down on 1st April will be large armoured cruisers; and whether the delay in determining the class and character of the four additional armoured ships is due to difficulties of design or to questions of policy?

I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 4th October last.

May I ask whether the ships are to be laid down on 1st April or at some earlier date?

There has been no change in the policy of the Admiralty, which has already been expressed. The ships will be completed by 31st March, 1912. They will not be laid down earlier than has already been stated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state when the Jersey Education Bill is listed for hearing by the Privy Council?

As the hon. Member was informed on the 4th instant, the opposing petitions have been forwarded to the Jersey States for observations. Some time must elapse before the Committee of the Privy Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey is furnished with all the information necessary for their consideration of the matter, and for the present no decision can be reached as to the course which will be followed in the case.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the villagers of Inver, Ross-shire, from time immemorial have been in the habit of grazing their ponies on part of Morrich Moor, in the immediate vicinity, and also securing there from dried grass for thatching purposes, as well as turf for covering potato pits; will be explain under what circumstances these ancient rights have been divided between the Town Council of Tain and the Cadboll estate; and will he take such steps as may be necessary to secure to the people of Inver a restoration of their rights?

My hon. Friend is already aware of the facts from the answers which he has received to his earlier questions upon this subject, to which I can add nothing. Any complaint which the people of Inver or my hon. Friend wish to make should be addressed to the Town Council of Tain, the Cadboll estate, and the other parties to the recent agreement. The Government have no right to intervene in the matter.

asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that 3,000 acres of grazing lands in the parish of Kintail, Ross-shire, are about to be converted into deer forest, will he state whether he can take steps to stay the continued conversion of grazing lands into the deer forest area in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

I have no information on the subject of the conversion of grazing land into deer forest referred to by my hon. Friend, and I am not in a position to deal with the matter by way of legislation, which is the only available method.

asked whether the Lord Advocate, in view of the constantly increasing deer forest area in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, would grant the Deer Forest Return on to-day's Paper?

My hon. Friend appears to have forgotten Return No. 220 of 1908, which was moved for by himself and which gives precisely the particulars desired.

asked the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that crofters in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland suffer serious loss through deer from the adjoining deer forests straying on to their lands; and will he consider the expediency of taking such action as may be necessary to require deer forest owners to fence in their forests?

The only action possible would be by way of legislation, which is not at present a practicable course.

May I ask whether the fencing would keep out sheep as well as keep in deer?

asked the Lord Advocate whether the proprietor of the island of Lewis has yet definitely decided to break up the farm of Mangersta, in the parish of Uig; and, if so, will he state whether the Congested Districts Board will be prepared to co-operate with the proprietor in the creation of new holdings?

The proprietor is prepared to subdivide, and the Congested Districts Board are willing to co-operate; further details have still to be arranged.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will ask the Secretary for Scotland to facilitate the matter? It has now been going on for several months.

The matter does not rest altogether with the Secretary for Scotland.

asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill makes no provision for crofters, cottars, fishermen, and others who are without means with which to equip and stock a holding, will he state whether the Congested Districts Board would be prepared to render suitable tenants of this class assistance by way of loan or otherwise?

The Congested Districts Board have been in the habit of advancing money by way of loan to suitable men in order to erect buildings on small farms. But they have no power under the Act to giant loans in order to enable men to stock their holdings.

asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland has repeatedly stated that the congested and insanitary townships in the island of Lewis require special treatment, other than that provided in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, will he state when the Secretary for Scotland proposes to take action in the matter?

This is a matter primarily for the local authority, which is doing all it can to the full extent of its rating powers.

For the last four years the Secretary for Scotland has had this matter under his consideration, and nothing has been done. The local authority has no funds.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the cause of the large increase of £114,879 in the cost of administration of the Inland Revenue Department in 1908–9, making the percentage of the cost of collection to the amount collected the highest in the last ten years; and if he can give any estimate of what the cost of the service will be in the current year?

The increase in 1908–9 was due to two principal causes, namely: (1) the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, and (2) the enlargement of the tax surveying staff under the Finance Act of 1907. The former of these has, of course, no connection with the cost of collection of taxes. For 1909–10, as the hon. Member will see from the current Estimates, the Inland Revenue total (including allied services) is £1,451,714.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that balls, dances, dinners, etc., are held on unlicensed premises in Dublin; that the police do not interfere with the holding of such entertainments; and that intoxicating drink is consumed without restraint on such occasions; whether permission to sell liquor at these dances is granted by the police authorities; and whether he can see his way to have the same permission granted on special occasions to the holders of licences for their houses when applied for?

I am informed by the police authorities that public balls and dinners are sometimes held on unlicensed premises in Dublin, but no intoxicating liquors are sold on such occasions except under the authority of an occasional licence, the conditions of which must be observed. The police do not interfere with such gatherings beyond enforcing the conditions of occasional licences when granted. Permission to sell liquor on such occasions is not granted by the police authorities, but by the Excise authorities on the certificate of a divisional justice. The Licensing Laws do not permit occasional licences to be granted for premises already licensed for the sale of liquor.

Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman states that the licensing laws of Ireland do not allow of an extension of time for part of premises already licensed for the purpose of a public ball or a dinner?

I do not think so. An occasional licence can only be granted outside of the licensed premises, and I do not think there is any power to extend the time during which intoxicating liquor may be sold on licensed premises. I am not perfectly sure about that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for a considerable number of years past it has been the practice in Dublin to grant these licences, and can he state on whose authority these licences have now been stopped? Can he state whether the authorities are acting on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and whether the practice which has been followed in previous years is illegal?

The hon. Member is asking rather too much. I must ask him to put that question on the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in county Kerry the Estates Commissioners have reinstated a man named Walsh in his former holding for having taken which in succession to Walsh a man named Foran was shot dead; whether anyone was made amenable for the murder of Foran; whether Walsh has received a free grant of £150 to buy cattle, etc.; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether it is quite in order to insinuate a criminal charge against a private individual in a question?

The hon. Member has taken me rather by surprise. Of course, speaking generally, it is a most improper thing for any Member to suggest in a question that an individual has been guilty of a criminal act, unless the Member putting the question has some very solid ground for doing so.

The Estates Commissioners have reinstated Thomas Walsh in his former holding, which has been for the past 17 years in the landlord's hands, and have sanctioned a free grant of £120 for the purchase of live stock. The murder referred to took place 21 years ago. Several persons were arrested in connection with it, but were discharged for want of evidence. Walsh was not accused or suspected of the crime. My right hon. Friend does not propose to take any action in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Mrs. Catherine Murphy, of Cahermurphy, Kilmihil, was granted a pension in November, 1908, on the basis of a favourable report as to age and means from the pension officer; that after she had been in receipt of this pension from 1st January to 1st May of this year a question was raised by the pension officer under Regulation 17 (2); that the sole question raised was as to age, and that this question was submitted to the pension committee on 24th May last; that the pension committee decided in favour of the continuance of the pension on the ground of age; that the pension officer appealed against this decision; whether the Local Government Board was satisfied that Mrs. Murphy had attained the necessary age; whether the Board reduced her pension to 3s. weekly on the ground of means; and whether the Local Government Board is entitled to decide on these grounds a case submitted to their consideration for another reason?

I understand that the facts are as stated in the question. The Local Government Board considered that the means of Mrs. Murphy, as calculated for the purposes of the Act, were about 10s. a week; and they accordingly determined that the amount of the pension she was entitled to receive was 3s. a week. The Board hold that when a claim comes before them on appeal they are bound to satisfy themselves that all the statutory conditions have been fulfilled and that they are not confined to the consideration of the particular point upon which the appeal was submitted. The question whether this view is correct is the subject of an appeal now pending in the Court of Appeal.

asked whether any proposal was made at the last meeting of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland to subsidise the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society to the extent of £1,000 per year, or any other sum; and, if so, with what result?

I am informed by the Secretary of the Board that no such proposal was either made or discussed at the meeting of the Congested Districts Board referred to.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that proposal was on the agenda?

I could not say. I have only the information which I have given.

I shall put down another question on the subject.

If the Chief Secretary was here he could answer the question. He was present himself at the meeting.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state how many pupils are in the different training colleges in Ireland at the present time, and how many are called to training annually; and whether those who take the King's Scholarship, first division, are always called for their course of training before those who only passed in the second division?

There are at present 1,194 King's scholars in residence in the different training colleges in Ireland. The number of new students annually called to training in each of the colleges varies, as it is contingent upon the number of students who qualify to return for the second year of their training course. In no case may the total number of students exceed that for which the college is licensed. The total number of King's scholars who entered upon the training course which commenced last September was 619. The selection of King's scholars from among the qualified candidates rests with the authorities of the different colleges. In the case of the Marlborough-street Training College, which is under the direct management of the Commissioners, candidates who pass upon the King's scholarship programme are selected for the two years' course of training strictly in the order that their answering merits.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state what is the amount of the extra police tax for the county Leitrim for the half-years ending March and September, 1909, respectively; and how much of those amounts was paid for the constables who were told off for special service in acting as an escort for men who are at present in occupation of evicted holdings?

The charges against the county Leitrim for the services of extra police in the half-years ended 31st March and 30th September, 1909, are £292 10s. 6d. and £111 18s. 3d. respectively. These sums are in respect of the additional men, appointed under the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1836, who were withdrawn in May last. The charges are not made for the services of individual members of the force engaged on particular duties but for the extra establishment of police, which was considered to be necessary in the county.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state when will the promised contributions from the Treasury towards the heating and upkeep of the national schools in Ireland be forthcoming, particularly as the Catholic clerical managers have agreed to pay half the cost of the same?

The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that any contribution from the Treasury has been promised. All that the Chief Secretary has said is that he is fully prepared to consider and to place before the Treasury for consideration any practical scheme for providing for the heating and cleansing of the schools which the managers and others interested may devise.

Under the circumstances will the Government take off the block of the Bill which I introduced earlier in the Session on this very subject, and assist it in getting through the House?

I am not aware that there is such a block.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consult the whips on this side of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself at a public deputation gave that undertaking so far back as the month of March?

You had better have these questions addressed to the Prime Minister himself.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to proceed with the Assurance Companies Bill during this Session?

If this Bill is regarded, as I hope it is, as a non-controversial measure, and is generally acceptable, we shall proceed with it, and take the second reading at the earliest opportunity convenient to the House. The usual steps are being taken to ascertain the attitude of Members towards the Bill.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill will be sent upstairs or retained here?

I think that this will require consideration, in view of the attitude which hon. Members may take towards the Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea on 7th May, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Abdool Rajack whilst serving on the steamer "Baron Fairlie," of Ardrossan; whether any inquiry has been held into the matter; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether he was on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; how many tons of coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?

The Asiatic fireman referred to in the question disappeared at sea on the voyage from Pamban to Saigon. Inquiry was held by the Vice-Consul at Saigon. It is understood that the whole crew were medically examined before joining. The man had been 24 days on board the "Baron Fairlie," and had had previous sea service. He was on duty at the time of his disappearance. The temperature of the engine-room was 106 degrees, and of the stokehold 108 degrees. The coal consumption was 22 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was 14. One other case of disappearance has occurred in this vessel during the last three years. The "Baron Fairlie" is now in the East.

Are these inquiries always held as a matter of course by the Board of Trade in cases such as these, and is the information on which the questions are based obtained from the return published by the Board of Trade?

These inquiries are made by different authorities in different parts of the world; they are communicated to us.

On these returns being communicated to you was any complaint made by or on behalf of these Asiatic seamen, or of any other Asiatic seamen on our ships, of the conduct of the owners or the management of the vessel?

There was no complaint.

I wish to ask the following question, of which I have given private notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey), whether he can say what action, if any, was taken on behalf of His Majesty's Government to prevent the shooting of Senor Ferrer by the Spanish Government without trial in a civil court?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for such a question as that?

I think that the hon. Member had better wait until he sees whether there is any answer to the question.

Owing to the insufficiency of the notice this question cannot be answered to-day. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs has only received notice about ten minutes ago. If the hon. Member repeats it to-morrow the question will be answered.

I will repeat it to morrow.

I rise to move the recommittal of this Bill for reasons of the sufficiency of which I hope to convince the House. In the Committee upstairs to which this Bill was sent we did not do more than protest against the Bill being taken in Committee in view of the pledge to which I will refer in a few minutes. This recommittal which is now sought for is consistent with the course taken in the Committee upstairs. There must be a large number of hon. Members in the House now who were present in April, 1907, when the new Procedure Rules were under discussion. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. Laurence Hardy) moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of removing any Bills relating to Parliamentary reform or franchise from the possibility of being sent upstairs. The then Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, in the course of his remarks, made on that occasion, said that he was perfectly willing to admit and to accept the spirit of the Amendment, but he was afraid to accept it in view of others coming afterwards, because he held it might be considered as fettering the discretion of this House; and he went further, and said that no Government would think of sending a Franchise Bill such as was sought to be included in the Amendment upstairs, because it would be such a violent reversal of the old practice, and they might trust any Government to abstain from such a course. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion, in criticising the course taken by the Government, said he thought every hon. Member would agree with him that it often was found impossible to resist pressure from various sections of the House to act contrary to the intentions expressed on different occasions—intentions no doubt well meant enough, but which, under pressure, were very likely to be departed from in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion also called attention to the fact of the short memory of this House; but surely the memory of right hon. Gentlemen opposite must be extremely short if they forget what took place when the Procedure Rules were under discussion. It was distinctly promised by the then Prime Minister that no measure which could be called a reform or franchise Bill should be sent upstairs to Committee, but that it should be dealt with by Committee of the whole House. The present Bill, which deals with the constitution of the House, is undoubtedly one which, according to that statement, ought to be discussed in Committee of the whole House instead of in Committee upstairs. I am prevented by the Rules of the House from going into its merits, and I therefore confine myself to pointing out to the Government that the circumstances in connection with this measure are precisely those to which the late Prime Minister referred, and the Government cannot complain if they are accused of a breach of faith in regard to the pledge which was given to this House on the occasion to which I have referred. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill must admit that there is good ground for recommitting it to the whole House. He may have forgotten what took place; if he has, I appeal to him to carry out the intentions expressed on that occasion, by allowing this Bill to be recommitted to Committee of the whole House.

I propose to second the Motion, not only on the ground of the very serious pledge which has been alluded to by the hon. Member who moved it, but also on the ground of the peculiar nature of this Bill, and the conduct of the Government in the management of it so far as it has gone. What is the nature of this Bill? It is a measure which the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced it into this House, himself stated it did not on the face of it show its object. It is quite true it did not. First of all, I should remind the House, it was introduced under the ten minutes' Rule, and the right hon. Gentleman said he thought ten minutes was quite sufficient to secure the general acceptance of the Bill, because it was so simple and so useful in its nature. He stated no grounds for introducing it. The Bill contains practically only one clause, a clause for converting the county of London into a single borough. The right hon. Gentleman stated in his opening speech that it would have four results. One was that successive occupation would be ensured between all parts of Greater London; secondly, there would be simultaniety of polling all over Greater London; thirdly, the area of residential occupation would be enlarged; and last, not least—and this is what is really the main or sole object of the Bill—it would abolish the dual vote. He did not use those words, but I use them because, in plain vernacular, they describe what is intended. The right hon. Gentleman, in mentioning the four points, used the expression, "in London as in Birmingham," and said when the Bill was printed and put before Members they would see very plainly what was the nature of it. The House naturally when it gives a Minister leave to introduce a Bill expects some explanatory memorandums, especially when the Minister himself admits that it does not disclose the object on the face of it. It is a Bill of which it might be said that it disclosed no virtues and no vices. All its virtues were to be found out, and all its vices were to be exposed under discussion. When the Bill came on for second reading the right hon. Gentleman did not condescend to give the House any further speech in explanation of it, although I shall show that it is very different to me from the grounds on which he defended it. He said on each of the four points that it was a Bill "to make London as in Birmingham." He rather prided himself on that expression, but I think I shall be able to show that the Bill will not make "London as in Birmingham."

The hon. Member's opportunity for doing that has passed. His opportunity for showing that it does not do so was on the second reading. The proposition now is that the Bill be recommitted, and the hon. Gentleman must bring some arguments forward in support of the recommittal of the Bill.

I will avoid the merits of the Bill, but on the occasion of the third reading I propose to move its rejection, and I may then be permitted to go into these matters. I am content to say on this point that the Bill is eminently one which ought to have been explained either by a memorandum or by a speech on the second reading, or the right hon. Gentleman, by some means or other—by a Paper placed before the House, in black and white—should have informed the House and the country what was intended to be done with the 59 constituencies with which the Bill deals. I merely say this: That the expression "in London as in Birmingham" is not correct, and that the true contrast would have been—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

The hon. Gentleman is resuming his speech at the point at which I said he was not entitled to go into the matter, yet he still persists in going into it. I must ask him to confine himself to putting forward arguments to show why the Bill should be recommitted to the House.

I shall endeavour strictly to obey your ruling, Sir. I was only going to make one single observation, but I will not make it now. I take up at the point at which I was called to order. As to the Bill, therefore neither before this House nor before the country has there been any statement in black and white from the Government of what it proposed to do. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the second reading, admitted, as he was bound to admit, that the Bill did abolish dual voting in London.

The hon. Member will persist in discussing the merits of the Bill, and I must ask him to discontinue his speech. Will any hon. Member second?

seconded the Motion.

I am really at a loss to know exactly the ground I have to meet in the suggestion that this Bill should be recommitted to the whole House. The only argument, so far as I have been able to discover, put forward is that the Bill as I produced it was naked in form and yet disclosed nothing. It is certainly the most remarkable Bill in that respect that has ever been produced in Parliament. The hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant), who ably led his party upstairs during our short proceedings in Grand Committee, must have forgotten the speech with which he opened the proceedings there. He made no protest whatever against this Bill having been committed to a Grand Committee, and not one word of protest of any sort or kind as to the procedure.

The first thing I said was that I objected to the whole proceeding.

I am within the recollection of any Member who was present, and I have an especial reason for remembering it, because I was expecting that protest from the hon. Member, and was surprised that he did not make it, and I was rather sorry for him, because I felt afterwards that he had forgotten to make it. The words which the hon. Member used were that he disapproved of the whole principle of the Bill, and that he and the party for whom he spoke proposed to move no Amendments, because they regarded the Bill as unamendable.

I am sorry to keep on interrupting, but I had no authority to speak for my party. I could only speak for myself. I certainly was under the impression that I commenced by saying that I objected to the whole procedure.

I have no right to attribute authority to the hon. Member, but he used the regal and editorial "we" with great effect, and was uncontradicted by any of those who crowded round to his support. I am not able to admit that this Bill comes into the category of a franchise Bill at all. It only relates to some inequalities which London suffers, and which no other great town in the country suffers. I should absolutely repudiate any idea of a breach of faith in sending such a Bill as this to Grand Committee, where it might very suitably be discussed, and where I was prepared and anxious to discuss it, and to spend many happy days with the hon. Member even without authority to represent his party. A question was put to the Prime Minister before the second reading of this Bill, reminding him of the words of the late Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. The Prime Minister, after careful consideration, told the House he was quite clear that this Bill did not come within the category or sort of measure which was in the mind of the late Prime Minister or of the Government when he made that promise. I cannot see, when they have missed their opportunity of amending this Bill in Committee, and when they have now mended their hand and occupied the Notice Paper of the House, why we should recommit the Bill. We have plenty of time, and we can have ample discussion of all the points they wish to raise, and to meet them in the most conciliatory spirit, and I hope we may now proceed with the Report stage.

The right hon. Gentleman confined himself, as he usually does, to jests. He says he is at a loss to know why this Motion is made. He bases that absence of knowledge on the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant) did not advance a specific point at proceedings in Grand Committee, and pretends that he did not know what the real ground of objection before the Standing Committee was. It may have been that my hon. Friend did not state in absolutely specific terms what was not only in his own mind but in everybody's mind. There are some things which often get forgotten because they are so well known to everybody that people are apt not to make specific mention of them. The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not know what was the real motive of the Motion made in Standing Committee, and that it is quite inconceivable to him that the procedure was even objected to, and that the contention was that the Bill was not a fit or proper Bill to send to Standing Committee. All I can tell him is that if he did not know, it was perfectly well known to everybody else in this House, not only then but before then and now. That is shown by the fact that this question was put to the Prime Minister.

All I said was that that objection to the procedure was not made in Grand Committee, nor was it given as the reason for putting down no Amendments. The reason given was that from the point of view of the hon. Member for Holborn and his Friends the Bill was unamendable.

To every hon. Member it was perfectly well known that the ground of the Opposition in Standing Committee was that the Bill was improperly sent to the Committee at all. It was on that ground, a perfectly good ground, they chose to abstain and refrain from taking any part in the proceedings of that Committee. Under those circumstances I confess it seems to me to amount to the highest Parliamentary effrontery for the right hon. Gentlemen to constitute themselves the judges of the strict and accurate literal meaning of the pledges that were given to this House, and on the faith of which the Standing Orders of this House were altered. The right hon. Gentleman thinks this is not a franchise Bill, and that he is justified in placing that interpretation on the pledges given by his late Leader. All I can say is, that if he imagines that because it only concerns the representation of 60 seats in this House, that that does not appear to him to be a matter of great importance, it is not very difficult to conceive circumstances, possibly not very distant in date, when the decision of the representation of 60 seats in this House might very easily decide the fate of the Ministry. Upon that ground-alone, if not on the many others that must necessarily suggest themselves, we say, and we shall maintain, that this Bill came well within the measures mentioned by the late Prime Minister, that it is a franchise Bill, and is a question not to be settled in Standing Committee, and we shall remain totally discontented with the procedure taken in respect to this Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will persist in his Motion.

I did not take up the time of the House on the second reading of this Bill, although I probably know as much as most Members about London elections, having taken an active part in them ever since 1868. I was anxious to see the Bill go through. I am not able to discuss its merits at the present stage, but I may say that the Bill does not go far enough for me, as a London Member.

The hon. Member ought to have raised that point in the Standing Committee. It does not arise now.

Honestly speaking, I regret the quarter from which this Motion for recommital has been made. It is true that the hon. Member for Holborn (Mr. Remnant) and I were not in the same school, but we were neighbours; I have worked with him in other places for a good many years, and I am not ashamed to say that as an English gentleman I respect him. Therefore I would rather the opposition had come from another quarter. I can quite understand the opposition of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Kimber). He has a grievance, not only against his own Government when they were in power, but against the present Government. I have said on more than one occasion that I am not a Conservative.

These questions, interesting as they may be, do not arise on this Motion. The only question before the House is whether the Bill shall be recommitted

I will not take up any more of the time of the House. I hope a Division will be taken.

The Clause of the Noble Lord the hon. Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil), and the Clause of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir Philip Magnus), will come as Amendments to Clause 4.

moved to insert the following new Clause:—

I second the Amendment.

The new Clause proposed by the hon. Member would give an elector whose name has accidentally or actually been entered on more than one register the right to select on which he will vote. The hon. Member says it will be an act of common fairness to the electorate. But it is an act which is not allowed in any other divided borough in the United Kingdom. I am extremely anxious to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite that there should be no exceptional treatment for London. I am anxious to treat London only as other large boroughs. But the operation of the ordinary law in any other borough, say Manchester, where a man accidentally appears on more than one register for the divisions is that he is then entitled to vote for his residence, and for his residence only. That has proved, I think, satisfactory to the rest of the country, and should prove satisfactory for London. It is a small, subsidiary point, but I do not feel quite certain that the words of the hon. Member would be sufficient to give the presiding officer the power to take the statutory declaration, unless he happened to be a person already empowered by law to take a statutory declaration. It is possible he might have to be given some statutory powers for this purpose. I cannot accept an Amendment to make the law in London different to any other place.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the conditions in London under this Bill, if it becomes law, will be very different to any other place. The conditions he proposes to establish in London only exists where there is real unity and common life in the area so treated. That is not the least true in London. A man may have a qualification at one end of London and live at another, and, unless he is a lawyer, be absolutely ignorant of the fact that he has to take certain steps in order to secure his vote in the place where he desires to vote. Under the circumstances it does appear to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is required and desirable to meet the special circumstances it is proposed to establish.

I think the proposed Clause is a very fair one. I do not think that the analogy of Manchester, quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, is applicable. In Manchester we have a number of divisions. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that if you have not formally signed a paper and made an absolute choice, you have simply to vote in the division in which you reside. But this new Clause is rather directed against a different state of affairs. It is possible for the electors in London to suddenly find out, much to their surprise, that they are also registered in some other division of London. This very thing happened to myself. I was entirely unaware last year, until a municipal election came in the City of Westminster, that I was registered as a voter in Westminster. Under circumstances such as these, I think a man should have some reasonable facilities for making a selection. I take it that is the intention of the new Clause, and for that reason I think it ought to be adopted.

moved to insert the following Clause:—

I beg to second the Motion.

The Noble Lord will find that the situation which he presupposes in his new Clause cannot arise, because under the existing law as applied now what happens in the case of a duplicate Parliamentary vote of which a possessor is to be dispossessed in a particular constituency is this: He is not left on Division 1 for his Parliamentary vote, but he is transferred to Division 3, which is the parochial register. He keeps his municipal and parochial vote there, but he loses his Parliamentary vote. He, therefore, ceases to be on the Parliamentary register, which is the register the particulars of which have to be taken into consideration in fixing the maximum of the returning officer's costs or the scale of expenses allowed to a candidate. Therefore the Noble Lord will see that the transfer to Division 3, which will occur in the ordinary course, relieves the elector from all the dangers contemplated.

If the right hon. Gentleman says so, I am sure he is right, as he knows the provisions of his Bill, and I admit I have not been able to give the matter as much time as I should have liked to, but can the right hon. Gentleman point out to me the exact provision in his Bill which does not leave a man on the register merely starred, but which transfers him to the other division?

It is not a provision under this Bill, but a provision of the existing law, which comes into operation the moment London becomes a municipal borough. It is precisely what occurs, say, for instance, in the borough of Marylebone. A person, say, has two qualifications, one for East and one for West Marylebone, and is not entitled to exercise the two votes. He selects to vote for East Marylebone, and, therefore, in West Marylebone he is put upon Division 3, where he may keep his parochial vote.

As he is described as a Parliamentary elector there is something in the Noble Lord's contention. I think the Clause in the Bill would want some Amendment.

No; he ceases to be a Parliamentary elector. The parochial list, Division 3, does not contain Parliamentary electors. It contains the names of other electors, including women.

moved to insert the following new Clause:—

I beg to second the Motion.

Again I can relieve hon. Members' minds. This result will not happen under the Bill. The law will be in London precisely as it is in other parts of the country, where, if a man makes a selection, and, in doing so, selects a qualification which subsequently turns out to be invalid, the barrister who is revising the list will have marked his vote for the residence. The loss of one or many qualifications by an individual must occur in the ordinary Revising Barristers' Court, and all these courts will have concluded before the special revising barrister provided for under this Bill sets to work. If Jones has selected a business qualification, and now fails to justify that qualification before the revising barrister, there is no reason why he should have another shot at the selection. He is not going to be disfranchised. He will be registered for his residence and perhaps for other business qualifications. The revving barrister, under the existing law, which applies to other parts of the country, will allot him the vote for his residence. The only hardship will be that he has taken the sporting chance of selecting an obviously doubtful qualification, and, having failed to make it good, he will be compelled, for one year only, to vote for his residence.

Surely that is not a very complete answer. It is recognised that it is a desirable thing to give a man the right to select which qualification he will vote out of. It turns out that the qualification which he has selected is not a good one. Why should he not be allowed, then, to make another selection? I do not understand the objection raised by the Government to this point. They say that, at any rate, the man will be allowed to vote for the place where he lives, and that that ought to be sufficient. I am not quite so sure about that. Supposing the man has more than two qualifications, and does not reside at either of them? Would he be entitled to vote for any of his other qualifications? I do not know how the law stands if the man lives outside London. Suppose he has more than two qualifications inside London and selects one, and it turns out that he is not entitled to vote for that particular qualification—will he be entitled to vote for any of those other qualifications? Under these circumstances, I do not think he would be able to vote in London at all. It does appear to me that the Government has not given any reason whatever why a man should not be allowed to make a fresh selection. The Government utterly refuse to recognise that by extending this provision to London they are creating a very different state of things, and it is not the state of things in any degree which prevails in the borough of Marylebone. A man may have two qualifications, one in East and one in West Marylebone, and he knows all about it. To him it is exceedingly easy to see that he gets the vote he is entitled to, but you may have cases divided by great stretches of country and a greater division of actual interest, and yet you are lumping them together as one Parliamentary entity, and you are introducing a state of things which does not exist in any other part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has given no kind of answer to this Amendment.

In the case of a voter resident outside London having several business qualifications in London, one of which he has selected and failed to prove, he will be able to vote. That case is provided for under the ordinary law, under which he can make a second selection. The revising barrister in that case is bound to allot him a vote, but if he has not made a selection or made it ineffectively, the revising barrister must settle which other qualification he has to exercise for that year by allotment. Under the present law a revising barrister in Manchester, under similar circumstances, has to allot the voter who has gone through that procedure to the list which he first revises. In this respect, under this Bill, we are following the general law in every particular.

The reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given is extremely unsatisfactory. We have been referred to the various lists from which a selection can be made, and a sort of parallel has been drawn between that and the position of the individual voter in the existing county of London. What is there in common between the two cases? The revising barrister has to select from a certain number of lists, and he must proceed to select under some principle. When it is a case of an individual voter who has a number of qualifications, why should he not have the right to decide where he shall exercise the franchise? If a man has two or three residences in this great new county borough of London, which is to be constitute under this Bill, why should the revising barrister have to decide for which of those residences he has to vote? Surely if a man is struck off the list for one qualification on some technicality it is an unreasonable thing to say that the revising barrister should arbitrarily decide in what portion of this great area he is to exercise the franchise.

The right hon. Gentleman seems persistently to ignore the fact that other boroughs where the ordinary law applies are altogether on a different basis. I do not suppose that there are more than a dozen people in Liverpool who have got two residences, and I do not think there are a dozen of these cases in Manchester; but it is a common thing in London. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh!"] There are hon. Members of this House who have got two residences in London. There are a number of people who reside in the outlying portions of London, and who for convenience occupy flats in the neighbourhood of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely ignored the distinctly different state of affairs which are peculiarly applicable to London. One is the case where a voter votes for a place outside London, where he lives, and has two business qualifications in London. That case is not provided for by the ordinary law. The other case is where a man has a business qualification, or, perhaps, two business qualifications, and also happens to have two residences, both in London. In both those cases the ordinary law gives no substantial relief, and the new Clause proposed by my hon. Friend is intended to meet that difficulty by giving a further selection to the man who has been so unfortunate as to be struck off the list for the particular division he has selected. It is not merely a case of taking a sporting chance. There are cases happening every day where a man's property changes hands. A man might turn his business concern into a limited company and lose his vote, and it might not occur to him that by so doing he would lose his qualification. Nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman treats this as a matter of no importance. I invite the hon. Gentleman to seriously look at the difficulties and hardships which this Bill is going to inflict, and I hope he will listen to the suggestion which has been made in good faith to give those men who will be subjected to these hardships a renewed right of selection. Upon those grounds I think the Government ought to give a little more consideration to an important Amendment of this kind.

Much of the discussion so far has pre-supposed that the voter whose name has already appeared on the list, and who has made a selection, has not a second right of selection. As one who has had a good deal of experience in connection with revision courts, I would like to remind the House that the persons whose names have been entered upon the list cannot be removed without an objection. The list is published on 1st August, and the objection must be posted by 20th August. The revision courts do not sit until September, and some of them sit as late as October. Immediately the individual objected to finds that the qualification he has selected is doubtful, as a wise man he would immediately inform his agent that he has been objected to, and unless he was quite convinced that the objection was altogether groundless, he could then put in another selection which the revising barrister has full power to allot. This process obtains to-day all over the country under the existing law. I should have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment if there had not been provision already made whereby the individual objected to can make a second selection and have it considered by the ordinary revising barrister. The point is not a new one, and I venture to say that the agents of all parties are so alert on this point that there is very little danger of any gentleman with more than one qualification losing his vote because a proper selection has not been made.

I am not satisfied with the answer made by the Government, and I have not been relieved by the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. The hon. Member says there is really no hardship in this case, because a man who, having made his selection and afterwards finds that objection is taken, has ample time between 20th August and September or October to amend his claim and make another selection. That would afford a very easy method of wiping out or frightening off a great number of voters. All you would have to do, according to the hon. Gentleman, would be to find a number of persons who have more than one qualification, and enter formal objection to their selection to vote in your area, thereby putting them or their agent to the necessity of selecting another place. That would be an undesirable thing. It would tend to create great uncertainty and difficulty. After ah, this is a matter of principle. The principle of the Bill is quite simple. It is that a man, however many qualifications he may have for votes in different parts of London, so long as they are all in London, can only exercise one vote, and he is to be allowed a free choice among his qualifications as to where he shall vote. That, I understand, is the plain and simple principle underlying the Bill. That is quite clearly destroyed by the machinery proposed by the Government, and we have had no answer given to the Amendment, except that it is the existing machinery in other parts of the country. London, however, is a very different place from Liverpool or Manchester. All the right hon. Gentleman says is that he does not see why this unhappy man who has, upon the invitation and under the scheme of the Bill, made a selection to vote, say, in Marylebone, should, if he is disqualified, have a second shot. If that is the attitude, why should he have a first shot? Why should he have a shot at all? If your principle is that a man is to be allowed to choose among his various qualifications, why should you limit him to one shot, supposing that shot has been made bonâ fide? If he is not to be allowed a second shot, the whole principle of freedom of choice entirely disappears, and you have a perfectly arbitrary and unreasoning method, automatically applied without appeal. If he has a residence in London, you force him, whether he likes it or not—and he may dislike it bitterly, and although he may already have expressed a desire to go somewhere else—to vote for his residence, and, if he has not a residence, then you are to decide where he is to vote, not by his desire, but by tossing up a halfpenny and by drawing lots. That is a machinery which I cannot think wise in itself, and it will clearly invite in many cases very great abuses in the practical administration of the law of electoral qualification. It certainly entirely defeats what I understand to be the whole principle of the Bill, which is that, while a man is only to have one vote in London, he is at any rate to be left the small liberty of choosing in respect of which of his various qualifications he will vote. I do not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy any impartial observer of the Debate, and I shall be inclined to press the matter to a Division.

I was rather astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson). I understood the point of his speech was that, if a person was struck off the register and disqualified for the constituency for which he had selected to vote, then all he would have to do would be to be in the court—

I must correct the hon. Member. I did not say "if he was struck off." I said, "If he received an objection," which is entirely a different thing.

I do not see that it makes any difference at all. I will take a concrete instance. I happen to have a vote in the City of London and also in St. George's, Hanover Square. I select the City of London, and I have to look out for an objection. Having got one, I have to decide whether it is going to be made good. If I think it is, then I am to take off my selection from that particular place and put it on to some other place. I always thought that hon. Members below the Gangway held that the franchise should be conferred upon everybody with as little trouble and difficulty as possible. The whole of their speeches with regard to the franchise have always been that every man should be qualified, and that there should be no difficulty put in the way, but here is an hon. Member desirous of putting difficulties in everybody's way and of making the obtaining of a vote as difficult as possible. Then, he says, it is done in other parts of the country. I should have thought he would have endeavoured to alter the law in other parts of the country, so as to bring it into conformity with the law in London instead of altering the law in London, so as to bring it into conformity with the law in other parts of the country. I presume he alludes to Liverpool, Manchester, and places of that sort. They are quite different from London. Their population, I suppose, is between five and six hundred thousand, or probably seven hundred thousand London has a population of five millions. What is the good of talking of other parts of the country when there is not a single city comparable with London? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works is in charge of this Bill. What has the Franchise to do with the Office of Works? It is a marvel to me, and I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been inclined to take advice from London Members sitting on this side of the House, and would at any rate have allowed the enlightened voter of London the opportunity of choosing where he might vote. This is a striking commentary upon the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to confer the