I beg to move, in Subsection (l), to leave out the word "written" ["at the written request"].

On the Second Reading of this Bill I was asked from various quarters of the House if I would consider Amendments to improve the Bill, and I very gladly acceded to that wish. I was glad to note that in the Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) said:— I think the hon. Baronet will rind that whether our requests are met favourably or not, there is no intention whatever on our part to offer anything in the form of opposition which will put him in a difficulty. I should at once like to say that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, to whom I have pointed out that some of their Amendments clearly do not improve the Bill, have very kindly undertaken either not to move them or to take them off the Paper. As regards the Amendment which stands in my name, I have given notice of it after full consideration. The object is to prevent any hurt to the tenant by any possible neglect of the county council to approach the landlord with a written request instead of merely verbally asking him to induce his tenant to go to enable them to take possession of the farm or holding. It would, it seems to me, be certainly very unfair that the tenant, or the landlord, by the neglect of the county council to make a written request merely to give notice to the landlord to get the farm for the purposes of small holdings, should thereby be damnified, and should not come under the provisions of this Bill for compensation. I beg to move.

I should like an explanation of this. It is a very important matter. The hon. Baronet tells us that he does not want either the landlord or the tenant to suffer because there has been neglect on the part of the county council or on the part of the landlord. How can the council request the landlord unless they write? How otherwise is the landlord to know that the council has made a request? How, I ask the Solicitor General, in a court of law can you prove that a request has been made if that request has not been written or indicated? We will assume that the County Council of Somerset meets, and requests a certain landlord to give up his farm. No further notice is sent to the landlord, and the tenant gives up his farm. Is that tenant to be compensated? There has been no request made to the landlord, and the farm may be given up for some other reason. I can see a great deal of complication arising from this deletion of the word "written." Supposing the word is left out a request must be made for the land. And supposing a verbal request is made to the landlord, either by the clerk of the county council calling upon him, or someone else, and the landlord says he must have it in writing, the result will be disputes and differences, and the legal profession will have to be called in. Everyone desires that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall not be difficult of interpretation. A written request is a simple thing, and I can see no reason why a written request should not be given.

There is no difficulty in carrying out the Section without the word "written." If you leave the word "written" in it is a condition precedent to the right to compensation of any tenant. The reason it is proposed to leave out the word "written" is because representations have been made to the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill to the effect that the councils might omit on some special occasion to write the request, and because the council had forgotten to write the request the tenant would not get compensation. It seems to me, whenever a council is going to make a request, it will make it in writing, but it is not essential.

Why should you make it so easy for them?

It is not done to protect the council; it is done to protect the tenant, who otherwise will suffer for something for which he is not responsible.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say how he supposes the council would make a request?

There would be no difficulty in the council making a request through some person deputed to make it. A special minute might be made deputing some one to make the request. There is no difficulty in giving authority to some one to make the request. I agree that in most cases it will be made in writing, but for some reason or other the request, instead of being in writing, might be made verbally, and if the word "written" is retained the only effect will be to penalise the tenant. My hon. Friend, in deference to representations made to him, proposes the Amendment to delete the word "written" in order that the tenant may not suffer.

By this Amendment you are inviting the county councils to conduct their business not in a businesslike manner. How should a county council give notice to a landlord or a tenant except by a form of written notice sent by the council or else by word of mouth by one of the small holdings committee or by the agent of the county council? Surely it is not in the interest of local administration that the county council should be allowed to give notice about the taking of farms by word of mouth? Anyone who conducts any estate on ordinary business lines would not act in such a way. He would not give a tenant notice to quit except in writing. I do not see why the county councils should be allowed to adopt a different procedure. I quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Baronet that the tenant should not suffer, but surely these cases would be very rare indeed, and they could only possibly occur when the county council had not conducted its business properly. In such cases the tenants would appreciate the fact, and at the next election they would take good care to impress upon candidates the necessity for conducting their business properly.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who has spoken is himself a member of a county council or a small holdings committee. If he were he would appreciate the difficulties very often these bodies have in such matters. They are anxious to satisfy the demands for small holdings, say in a date close up to Lady Day. They must give notice at once, and I am sure the hon. Member will see the advantage of the chairman of the small holdings committee or a member of the council being able to say to the landlord, "We are anxious to get this land; we give verbal notice now in order to save six months, or perhaps twelve months." I was very much surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say there might be a few hard cases, but that they would be so few it did not matter.

No, I did not say that.

If only one man did not receive compensation because the word "written" was in the Clause, it would be sufficient reason for taking it out.

The hon. Baronet is rather extending the scope of his Amendment. In his original statement he pointed out that this was to make up for any carelessness on the part of the councils. His advisers, not without good reason, I think, put the word "written" into the Bill. The hon. Baronet said, a few minutes ago, that the Amendment was intended to meet any oversight on the part of the local authorities, but now he says things are done in such a hurry that in order to get them through by Lady Day there is no time to give written notice, and therefore verbal notice is to be substituted instead. If a man has time at the meeting of a small holdings committee to give verbal notice to quit a farm surely he has time to give notice in writing. If the committee can find the necessary time to authorise some particular person to give verbal notice to a tenant or to a landlord then the committee ought to find two minutes or one minute to make the official record of that transaction. I wonder who has asked the hon. Baronet to omit this word? I do not think it is any hon. Member on this side of the House.

Yes, it is.

Then I confess I am surprised. By striking out this word you are taking out something which involves a simple business transaction on the part of the county council. I think it h objectionable from many points of view that transactions of this kind should take place without any record.

I think notice should be given in writing. Supposing by any laxity in the proceedings that is not done, I think it would be rather hard that the person to suffer will be the tenant. If you have to punish anyone punish the county council, but under this Bill you cannot do that, and you can only punish the tenant if the word is omitted.

The hon. Baronet says he proposes to remove this word as a protection to the tenant. The only security to the tenant really lies in the minute of the county council unless some written notice is kept. A good deal of the business of a county council must necessarily go through with extraordinary rapidity, and it would be the simplest thing in the world for anything of this kind to be omitted. The tenant has no security at all, and his entire security rests in some written record of the transaction being recorded in the minutes or else that some written notice has been sent. The county council is itself the body that has to find the compensation. The Bill says that the council shall provide the compensation out of some fund administered by the county council. My point is that there is not an extreme interest on the part of the county council to see that the thing is done in absolute order. I do not suggest that any county council would be lax because it did not want to pay compensation, but that difficulty might easily arise, and I hope the hon. Baronet will see his way to let this go through, as in any other Bills of this kind, where proper provision has to be carried out in connection with such undertakings. Otherwise the tenant might find there was no documentary evidence, and, therefore, he would lose his compensation.

I apprehend that these words may give rise to some trouble. I think there is every desire in all quarters to safeguard the tenant. As to what has fallen from the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Carlile) I am not in any way impressed by his statement that the business of a county council is done with such rapidity that matters of this kind are likely to be overlooked. My experience leads me to believe that county councils are business authorities, and in connection with land purchase or land acquisition the giving of proper notice is a matter which is not likely to be lost sight of. I understand that the tenant has to give notice at least three months after the notice to acquire his land has been given in regard to his claim for compensation. If he has no written notice, some question might arise as to whether the three months have elapsed or otherwise. The tenant has to be made aware of the fact that he must give notice of his claim for compensation within three months, and it seems to me it would involve no hardship if he has to make his notice in writing.

I agree that no one wishes to put the tenant in a worse position. All I want is to make quite certain that the tenant should thoroughly understand what is going to happen to him, and that there should be no possibility of any legal quibble as to whether proper notice has been given. The hon. Baronet says the hon. Member for Gloucestershire has probably not been a member of a county council or a member of a small holdings committee, or he would have known that the chairman of a small holdings committee or a county council might in all probability go to some landlord and say, "You have to give your tenant notice." Everyone knows how difficult it is for two people, both desirous of understanding each other, to come to a clear interpretation of what has passed in a conversation. Over and over again two people, absolutely honest and sincere, hold a conversation together, and within three or four days they both put a different interpretation upon that conversation. A small holdings committee may give notice to a landlord that they have considered the taking of a farm. It is not always confirmed by the county council. Supposing a verbal communication is given by the chairman of the small holdings committee, say, to my hon. Friend, he gives notice to his tenant, and the tenant takes another farm. The county

council do not confirm this notice or the chairman of the committee says, "I did not mean we were going to do that. I only told you we were going to consider it." Then there comes a legal suit as to whether or not the tenant is entitled under the terms of this Act to compensation. Take the reverse case. Is there any landlord worth anything at all who would not before giving his tenant notice say to the county council, "You must give me written notice"? I cannot conceive any man giving notice to his tenant unless he has a written communication from the county council. I do not say it is very probable, but it is possible a small landlord might enter into a fraudulent transaction with his tenant. He might say, "If you are going I shall pretend I have had notice from the county council. You will get something, and you can give me a portion of it." Here you open the door to any quantity of litigation. I do not think it is possible for the tenant to suffer, because I cannot conceive it likely any landlord would give notice which was not written or unless he was quite certain the county council had passed the resolution.

Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 73.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Act" ["compensation under this Act"] and to insert instead thereof the word "Section."

The reason for this Amendment is that if the new Clause which I have on the Paper is carried, this alteration will be required, otherwise the Act cannot be made retrospective.

I desire to move, in the same Sub-section, to omit the words "opportunity of making a valuation of such goods, implements, produce and stock as aforesaid, or," and to insert instead thereof the words "information to admit of a proper assessment of the amount of such loss or expense." These are merely drafting Amendments, to ensure that the tenant shall give the council reasonable information.

The hon. and learned Member for Wycombe told me yesterday that he was perfectly satisfied, and did not intend to move his Amendments. I do not know if the hon. Member is aware of that.

I do not want to interfere with any arrangement that has been made.

The hon. and learned Member told me he would not move the Amendment.

My hon. Friend is, of course, quite entitled to move the Amendment.

I did not say he was not entitled. I only informed him of what he had told me.

In the circumstances I will not move the Amendment.

Will it be in Order to move to omit Sub-section (3), of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. Laurence Hardy)?

I think the object of the proposal of the hon. Member for Ashford in moving to omit Sub-section (3) was really to deal with a point which is now to be dealt with in the new Clause of the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. It is clearly consequential on the hon. Member's other Amendment, and I therefore did not call it.

The point is that if certain Amendments are carried, this Amendment may be desirable, and I was only desirous of knowing if the opportunity would be given to omit the Sub-section, as that would be a necessary consequence of adopting the Amendments of the hon. Member for Ashford.

I have a letter from the hon. Member for Ashford asking that all Amendments in his name on the Paper should be withdrawn from the Paper.

Clause 2 added to the Bill.

I beg to move to insert after Clause 1 the following:—

I am sure Members in all portions of the House are grateful to the hon. Baronet for inserting this Clause, and I think everybody agrees that it is one which ought to be adopted. There is only one point to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the proviso which says, "No compensation under this Section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September nineteen hundred and ten." I want to make a suggestion that the Board of Agriculture should ask the various county councils to send out copies of this Act or a copy of this Clause to those tenants who have been dispossessed by the county councils or by landlords, and to whom this Section would apply. I think the hon. Baronet will recognise that Bills are not circulated very freely in the country districts, and it is at present quite possible that certain tenants who may be entitled to this compensation would not know the exact conditions under which they might claim until after 1st September. I hope instructions of that kind will be issued.

There is. I think, one suggestion which might be made to meet this point. As it stands now the tenant has to make his claim before 1st September, whereas if this is intended to be retrospective, and to put the old tenant in exactly the same position as the new tenant, it would be a great deal better if these words were "within three months from the passing of the Act." We do not know when the Bill will receive the Royal Assent, and supposing that takes place in August there will be no time for the tenant to make his claim. If therefore the words "within three months from the passing of the Act" were put in it would be much more convenient. I hope the hon. Baronet will be able to accept that suggestion.

I can assure the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach) that we will certainly do as he asks, and call the attention of the county councils to this Act, so that they may take any opportunity open to them of making it known in their districts, but I think the hon. Gentleman is unduly anxious about the matter. I believe the tenant farmers of this country are watching this Bill in its progress through this House, and will be quite aware when it becomes law. They will know, in fact, quite as soon as the county councils, and therefore do not require notice. As to the point of saying "three months from the passing of this Act," I think it would be rather difficult to put in words of that sort. I think it would be better to have some definite words in the Bill itself, and the reason why we put 1st September is to give the tenant farmers an opportunity of sending in their claims under this Act. They will not have to send in lengthy details; they have only to give the Board of Agriculture notice that they are sending in a claim, and 1st September will not be confused with the other date mentioned in the Bill in connection with the first Clause. I think the hon. Member will see that it is quite unnecessary to extend the time from 1st September, as that will give the tenant an opportunity of making a claim, but he will not, I am sure, be required to make a full detailed claim. If he only gives notice that he is going to make this claim he will be given time to-investigate.

1.0 P.M.

I will not press the matter, but it may be that the tenant may only be given a fortnight or three weeks. The Bill may not receive the Royal Assent until the middle of August, and it is possible that the tenant may have only fifteen days in which to make his claim.

If the Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August, an alteration of the time at which the provision would come into operation might be made in another place.

The hon. Baronet says the tenant will only have to give notice of his claim, and that he can send in the details later, but then I think he should say so in the Bill, because the proposed Clause reads that the claim for compensation should be made before 1st September. I am quite certain of this, knowing farmers pretty well, that the period is too short if the farmer is to formulate his claim. He does not know at the present time that he has to make one, but he will have to formulate it, and it will be a considerable time before he can do so. It would be different if the hon. Baronet only said that merely notice would have to be given of an intended claim. That would be a different thing, but as it stands, the time is really unreasonable, and in order to test the opinion of the Committee I will move to substitute for 1st September the 31st December.

The hon. Member cannot do that until we have read the Clause a second time.

Clause read a second time.

I beg to move, in the new Clause, to leave out the words "first day of September" ["claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September "] and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty-first day of December."

That will give the tenants time to give notice of their intention to apply for compensation, and also to formulate their claims, which the date given in the new Clause manifestly will not.

The difficulty with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member is this, that if you extend the time to December then you will mix up the two sets of claims, and there will be confusion. As to what the hon. Member says about the farmers not having sufficient time, or that there might be danger owing to the shortness of time that they would not be able to give the details, I can assure him that the whole object in carrying out this Clause will be to deal in the most liberal way with the tenant farmers. Any technical point as to the claim not being in sufficient detail will not be taken, and when the claim is brought in we shall not ask the tenant on 1st September to give further details. Still, we must have some date at which to receive notice of the claim, but I should be the last person in the world to debar any single tenant from claiming under this Clause from want of opportunity.

I would point out that with all his good will the hon. Baronet is bound by the Statute and cannot strain it. It is much better to have these things in the Bill, as we have often had assurances from right hon. Gentlemen who are Members of the Cabinet on all sorts of points, and when we have the Act of Parliament we have found that they are not contained in it. I think the date I propose is not unreasonable.

Amendment negatived.

I would suggest that the word "may" should be left out, and "shall" inserted.

The word "may" does not occur after the words which we have just decided shall stop in. The hon. Member cannot go back to words that come before that.

Question proposed, "That the Chairman do Report the Bill, as amended to the House."

I should like to offer a word of explanation as to what happened a few minutes ago. I think hon. Members who are not experienced believe themselves to be precluded from moving Amendments which stand in the name of other people. That is really a mistake, and hon. Members should not be; so to speak, taken advantage of.

I am rather surprised that the Noble Lord should use such an expression as "taken advantage of." Nothing of the sort. What I explained was that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Laurence Hardy) told me he would not move those Amendments, and I very naturally asked whether the hon. Member (Mr. Worthington-Evans) had been asked to move them.

I did not mean that the hon. Baronet intended anything unfair.

May I ask if it is in order on Report for any Member to move an Amendment which is in the name of another?

Of course I am not in charge of the Report stage, but I can assure the hon. Baronet that it is in order.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph ( c ), to leave out the words "and the number of children born of the marriage." The subject, I think, was dealt with when the House was in Committee on Tuesday night, and reference was made by the President of the Local Government Board to a certain form which it is proposed shall be issued under this Sub-section for the purpose of ascertaining this information as to the duration of the marriage and the number of children born of the marriage. The right hon. Gentleman kindly consented to lay the form upon the Table of the House so that hon. Members might consider it and see whether or not it really did ask questions which would be of a useful character, and consequently whether or not that form would be objectionable. That form has not been printed and circulated to Members, and the result is that Members have not been able to have it under their consideration at all. Personally, I went and looked at the form on the Table of the House. The place where it is is a great secret which I will not confide to anyone, but I found the document itself this morning duly upon the Table of the House. It is practically useless to lay the form on the Table of the House unless it is printed and circulated, because hardly any Member has any chance of seeing it unless he takes a certain amount of trouble. I have written out, more or less, a copy of it, but it is certainly desirable that it should be in the hands of Members until the Report stage, and it would be a very much quicker way of dealing with the matter if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to some small Amendment to enable the Bill to have a Report stage. Then Members could consider the form. If they think it is objectionable I should not wish to press the Amendment in any way, having no desire to prevent proper statistics being given. The form appears to me not to be very useful, but rather objectionable.

A person is asked to state first whether he or she is married, a widow or widower, single or divorced. Having done that, the next step is to state the ages of the married couple and the number of completed years of the existing marriage, and then the children born of the marriage, born alive, those who are living, and those who are dead. You have not to say the date when they died. I think upon any form like that you would get very misleading returns. The majority of the people who describe themselves as widows or widowers in the first column would probably look upon themselves as being married people, and would return their children. If they do not do that, and I understand it is not the intention of the Government that they should, considerable confusion is likely to occur, because some people will return those children and others will follow the contention of the Government, and not put them in at all. There is in many parts of the country the strongest possible objection to giving this information. It turns upon the question of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children, who are living with their fathers and mothers, and who are believed to be legitimate, and who, the parents know, were born before the date of the marriage ceremony. They are in England, illegitimate children. To make people make returns of that kind serves no useful object—it is an entire innovation, and I do not think the Government have made out a sufficient case for it.

The reason I move the Amendment more especially is that when Papers are laid on the Table of the House, to be of the slightest use they ought to be printed and circulated before the subject comes up for discussion. I deprecate very strongly the effort made by successive Governments to attempt to get Bills of this importance, which require careful consideration, through Committee without any Amendment of any kind, so that the Government may avoid a Report stage. It is of the utmost importance that Bills of this kind should have not only a Committee stage, but a short interval, during which the public can have an opportunity of expressing their opinion. I have had a quantity of correspondence since Tuesday night. As a rule, whenever I oppose the Government I get letters of an uncomplimentary character from gentlemen, including extracts from the "Daily News." On this occasion I have had one or two cuttings from the "Daily News" from enthusiastic people, describing me as a brave person opposing the tyranny of the President of the Local Government Board. That is the only thing which made me nervous as to whether I was right or wrong. But seriously a Report stage should be allowed.

I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson). He stated, in moving the Amendment, that he wished to ascertain from me whether there is any probability of a Report stage being allowed on the Bill, and to that I must respond. I notice that there is a sensitive desire, the reason for which I do not altogether appreciate, that there should be a Report stage on this Bill. The hon. and learned Member says that there may be something lurking in the forms, schedules, and so forth which, if a Report stage were granted, would be removed. I can easily satisfy him by stating that I will later on accept an Amendment which will enable a Report stage on this Bill to be secured, and I feel sure that hon. Members, between now and the Report stage, will come to the conclusion that their fears and apprehensions are totally unfounded. Our desire is to settle these matters amicably.

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "marriage" ["the duration of marriage"], to insert the words "the number of such children living and the number domiciled in the United Kingdom."

By this Amendment I seek to add some vital items to the volume of information which the Census will supply. For the first time the Census will include the number of children born of a marriage. We had a discussion on this subject on Tuesday and Wednesday, and some hon. Members objected on certain grounds—delicate and inquisitorial grounds—to this information being supplied, and while I sympathise with that view I consider that the value of the information far outweighs the objections raised. It is for that reason that I advocate the inclusion in the Clause of the words of the Amendment. In considering the whole question it seems to me that one point arises—namely, whether the information sought is complete or incomplete. Looking at the Clause as it is, I do not see that any power will be given whereby the Local Government Board will get the information which it is desirable to get. The right hon. Gentleman asks for the number of births in a particular family, but I do not see that that carries him any further, unless we ascertain the number of survivors. That is to say, the Bill should give power not merely that the Census should record the number of births which take place, but also how many of the children survive at the time of enumeration. If you ascertain that information, then I can understand the value of the statistics with respect to the number of births.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but, with a view to keeping the promise I have just made to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rawlinson), I have to say that this is a point where the Government are quite prepared to accept the first half of the hon. Member's Amendment, namely, "the number of such children living." We feel that we cannot possibly accept the latter part of the Amendment. It is impracticable, as I trust the hon. Member will see.

I am exceedingly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made. I should like to emphasise the desirability of getting the information referred to in the second part of the Amendment, although I will not press for a Division on the subject. The whole question of emigration looms very laregly on the public mind at the present moment. We want to know how many really remain in this country and how many go to other countries. We should also like to know who are the people who are leaving the country, and from what classes they are drawn. On this subject we have not complete information. At present we get a certain amount of information from the Emigration Office, but unless we considerably elaborate our system of inquiry, it will not be possible to get the information it is desirable to know.

I beg to move, in Paragraph ( d ), to leave out the words "the number of rooms inhabited," and to insert instead thereof the words, "where the occupier is in occupation of less than three rooms the number of rooms occupied by him."

I wish the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Report stage whether he can accept this Amendment. The word "inhabited" in the Clause is rather a difficult one and has a certain meaning for certain purposes. It would be difficult in filling up a form in the case of a big house with twenty or thirty rooms to say whether you mean the number of rooms inhabited in the sense of sleeping rooms or whether the word "inhabited" means occupied and includes the whole of the twenty or thirty rooms. There is no necessity in the case of the larger houses to get this information. It is only necessary in the case of the smaller houses, and I suggest that the old form of words, as stated in my Amendment, should be adopted. In the present form the Clause might lead to misunderstanding and put a great burden on the occupiers of large houses or houses where there is a caretaker. It would lead to the getting of an immense amount of information which would be of no use to anybody.

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for not pressing the Amendment. As to the question whether the word "inhabited" is or is not more applicable in the case of the Census than it is to other conditions with respect to housing, I will be glad to consider the point between now and the Report stage.

Amendment negatived.

had on the Notice Paper the following Amendment: "After paragraph ( d ) to insert the following new paragraph:— ( e ) As to whether any person who so abode, being in receipt of weekly wages, is— '1. Unemployed. '2. Partially employed. '3. Wholly employed.'"

This Amendment is not in order, the point which it raises having been settled in a previous discussion

On the point of order. May I say that the Amendments dealt with earlier by the Committee were both in a very complicated form? I put this Amendment in a very simple form, so that the President of the Local Government Board may be able to accept it without trouble. I should like, with your permission, to move the Amendment.

No. I consider that that matter was settled by a previous discussion and decision.

I beg to move, in Section (1) paragraph ( e ), to leave out the words "in the case of Wales or the county of Monmouth."

The desire is that, instead of having a Census of Welsh, Gaelic, and Irish-speaking in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, we should have the Census taken of all the Welsh, Gaelic, and Irish-speaking people in England as well as in the other three countries. Accordingly I beg to move the omission of the words which I have read out, and perhaps the President of the Local Government Board will indicate what he proposes doing.

The hon. Member has moved the omission of these words with the object of adding words similar to those put down on the Paper by one of the hon. Members for Wales, who is not here. The hon. Member wants the householder to state whether he can speak English or Welsh only, or both languages, and he wants similar information to be given with regard to Irish and Scottish Gaelic; and he desires that this information should be secured not only in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but also in England. There is no need to do that. I am bound to say I consider it is sufficient that the householder should have an opportunity in the three countries, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, of stating whether he speaks English only or the older language of the country, or both languages. With regard to Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen who are living in parts of the United Kingdom outside the country of their birth their place of birth is recorded, and we think that that is sufficient.

On a point of Order. If this Amendment is disposed of, will the Amendment in my name subsequently come up, or will it be out of order? It raises the same point, only it suggests a new column being inserted in the Census Paper, and in that way it differs from the Amendment now before the House.

The two Amendments can be separated. It is true that they may have a connection with one another, but they seem to me to stand separately, and if the hon. Member wishes to move subsequently I will allow him to do so.

I simply moved the Amendment in order to ascertain the intentions of the President of the Local Government Board. With regard to the point of Scotland having a separate Bill, I was not in the House when the question came up, and it was in view of the expressions that I heard in Scotland that I brought this matter forward. I now beg to withdraw the Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move to add to Sub-section (1) the following new paragraph: "( f ) Whether any person who so abode speaks Welsh, Irish, or Gaelic, respectively."

I was sorry to hear the President of the Local Government Board say just now that the Government were not prepared to accept the proposal which was made. I wish to put one more consideration before him, so that he may accept my Amendment if possible. The expense involved would be a very small matter. When this Bill was under discussion a few days ago the President of the Local Government Board said, as regards one particular suggestion which was made, that it was only a matter of a couple of thousand pounds extra. I would suggest to him that if this is merely a matter of a couple of thousand pounds extra he might see his way to accept the Amendment. As far as I can make out it will be the only addition to the Bill as drafted by the Government which will be made by this House. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that in the United Kingdom there are different nationalities, and he is not one of those who want to see only one nationality in the United Kingdom and have practically no consideration paid to the existence of others. What we wish to bring about is a reform in the linguistic Census by taking the existing nationalities, no matter where they may be living in the United Kingdom at the time of the Census. In addition to being valuable at present, it will be extremely valuable in years to come to find out to what extent the various nationalities in the United Kingdom speaking their own language are distributed at the time that this Census is taken. A few days ago, when the Bill was first under consideration an hon. Member from Wales made a very strong case on the number of Welsh-speaking people in different parts of England, in London, Liverpool, Middlesbrough, and so on. As regards the Gaelic-speaking people from Scotland, possibly their number may not be so great, but there are in England a large number of Irish-speaking people, especially in the North of England. I submit it would be very valuable from the linguistic point of view that we should now be able to find out how many of the different nationalities, speaking their own language, are to be found when the Census is taken. It is not a matter of much expense, but it is of very great value to those who are interested in the survival of the languages of those different nationalities. Further than this I would like to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that if he can cast his mind forward forty years hence he will see Ireland become an Irish-speaking country from sea to sea, English also surviving as a very necessary commercial language in that country. I submit, further, if our national university in Ireland thinks that Irish is of such value that it is now practically by the decision of the Senate of the National University in Dublin, yesterday, to be made a compulsory subject at matriculation in the University, then surely the feelings of the Irish people in this matter, the interest they take in the revival of their language, and the extent to which it is spread in the United Kingdom, should be of sufficient interest to the right hon. Gentleman to induce him to agree to the claim put forward, which, I believe, has the sympathy of every Irish- man interested in the revival of the Irish language, of every Welshman who is proud of the position of the national language of Wales, and every Gael in Scotland who does not wish to see the Gaelic language in Scotland ultimately disappear. I submit that this Bill is practically un-amended by this House, and, considering the small expense which would be involved, I think the Government might at least agree to this proposal. I beg to move.

The hon. Member, not for the first time, has given me credit for being anxious that the United Kingdom should not be composed, either in language or ethnologically, of one race. That, I am sure, is demonstrated by the fact that this Bill recognises most clearly and distinctly the different nationalities which are component parts of the United Kingdom. We have met practically all the reasonable requests of Irishmen, Welshmen, and Gaelic-speaking people. We say that there shall be an opportunity for persons, whether they speak English or Irish, or both. More than that I really do not see any justification for. The Bill recognises clearly that a separate language is spoken, and where that is so we afford an opportunity for its being stated, and we see no reason for going further, especially when the hon. Member asks us to say that it is desirable to have a linguistic Census. We cannot get a linguistic Census merely by adopting this suggestion to add one column. What does it mean? It means that another column—and the schedule of the Census is the largest we ever had—would have to be added to seven million copies. I can assure the hon. Member that it would not only be expensive but confusing. Nor would we be altogether keeping our pledge with the House when we practically agreed upon the increase in the number of columns, and we do not see our way to this addition. We have given all that the three nationalities have a right to claim, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, or if he does we shall be compelled respectfully to resist it. Hon. Members who are interested in the subject of these languages—and I can enter into many of their sentiments and ideals—would better obtain their object of fostering the spirit and sentiment of nationality by teaching the language with the aid of teachers than they would by the mere addition to a Schedule of a cold, statistical column. The addition of the column would give an amount of information which, I think, would be wholly disproportionate to the heavy cost which would be involved. The Government are not inclined to concede what the hon. Gentleman asks, and I urge him not to press his Amendment.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and I will not press the matter to a Division. I would point out that for many years past in the Irish Census we have always had a distinction made between Irish-speaking and English-speaking, and I submit that the Government are making no addition to the Census taken in Ireland, for it has been taken in the way now proposed for a great many years. I do not recognise that the Government has gone any further towards meeting my suggestion, but there are not many Members present, and I do not propose to go to a Division, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words, "every occupier who shall not have received such schedule shall be entitled to obtain one at the nearest post office."

However active the enumerators may be, and however efficient the superintendents may be, there must be cases in which some people will not get the Census paper. In that event, it may be that they will not know to whom to apply, but I think that difficulty would be met if it were known that a paper could be obtained at the nearest post office. I think that would be a most convenient thing. It may be said that they can apply to the overseers, but there are very many who would not know where to apply. I am sure there are many Members of this House who would not know where to find the overseers. If the Census paper could be obtained at the post office. I think there would be greater prospect of obtaining a more accurate and more complete Census.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every step is being taken by the Registrar-General and his staff to secure that every occupier and every householder entitled to receive the Census paper shall receive it, and the Registrar-General has no apprehension that the condition of things which the hon. Member suggests might happen will occur. On the contrary, he believes that if there is anything that would stimulate carelessness in an occupier, after the paper had been delivered at his house, where it possibly might be mislaid, it would be the knowledge that he could easily get another at the post office. We are under the impression that if we accepted the hon. Gentleman's Amendment it would bring about a certain amount of carelessness which possibly he did not contemplate when he put down his Amendment. We think, from past experience, this is not necessary to the Bill, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

I did not put down the Amendment with the idea that schedules might be lost, or anything of that kind, but that the officials themselves might possibly not be able to deliver the schedule at all houses. Persons who have not received the schedule may not be able to get one at the overseers, and, if that be so, I do not know what steps may be taken. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The enumerator will have a large number of additional copies. In the event of such a contingency arising as the mislaying of a paper the enumerator will easily be able to get the person concerned out of the difficulty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 5 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.