Commons Sitting of 11 June 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Haslemere and District Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
Hemel Hempsted Gas Bill [Lords],
Lancashire Power Construction Company. Bill [Lords],
Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Colonial Bank Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
Account presented of moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the City of London for the year 1916, also an Account of Extraordinary Works executed, other than General Repairs, for the same period [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FEDERATED MALAY STATES WAR CONTRIBUTION.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 1st June, 1917, as to the application thereof [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FIJI, MAURITIUS, AND STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (LOCAL WAR LOANS).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 1st June, 1917. Guarantee of Principal and Interest by His Majesty's Government [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 8th June, 1917, made by the National Health Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees) Amendment Regulations, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copies presented of Reports for 1916 on the Science Museum and on the Geological Survey and Museum of Practical Geology [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 5th June, 1917, inter alia partially rescinding the Motor Cars (Prohibition on certain Highways) (County of Argyll) (District of Ardnamurchan) Order, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary for Scotland:—
Burgh of Stornoway [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    COAL TRANSPORT (INLAND WATER-WAYS).
    Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade what extent the canals have now been able to take over the transport of coal and other minerals and so to free the railways for the carriage of other goods?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I cannot give figures showing the additional amount of coal and other minerals which is being carried over the canals, but all canal

    571
    boats for which crews can be obtained are working at the present time, and it is hoped that the steps which are being taken by the Canal Control Committee, in conjunction with the Controller of Mines, may still further increase the amount of coal carried on the canals.

    NEW TRANSPORT COMPANY (TRAFFIC PROBLEMS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will consult the chairman of the Road Board as to whether he is in favour of a full and careful inquiry into every aspect of the New Transport Company's scheme for handling goods at railway termini and relieving the traffic on the streets; and, if so, whether he will order such an inquiry to be undertaken at once, with a view to obtaining an authoritative decision on this question before the termination of the War?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the question which he asked on this subject on the 24th April.
    Mr. PETO: May I ask has the right hon. Gentleman any reasons for wishing to postpone an inquiry into this important matter until after the War, and does he not think it would be better to have an inquiry now into what has been proved to be a grave disadvantage during wartime in the handling of traffic?
    Sir A. STANLEY: We have given very careful consideration to that suggestion.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    COLD STORAGE DEPOTS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the principal cold storage depots" for meat and other produce are in the effective control of his Department; and is he in a position to deal with any attempt to raise or manipulating the price of meat by the withholding of it from the wholesale markets with a view to speculation and profiteering?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Board of Trade do not control directly cold stores in the United Kingdom. The Department whose
    572
    function it is to deal with the withholdings of meat from the market and with speculation in meat is that of the Food Controller.

    INTOXICATING LIQUORS (UNITED STATES).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a Report from the United States Ambassador as to the action which has been taken by the United States Government to-prevent the use of grain and other food materials for the manufacture of intoxicants?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord R. Cecil): No information has as yet been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington. A telegram has, however, been addressed to His Excellency asking him to furnish a Report on the subject at an early date.

    INSECT-EATING BIRDS.
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that there are many complaints in various parts of the country in consequence of the damage done to crops and fruit trees by grubs, caterpillars, and other insects; whether such damage has been caused in great part by the wholesale destruction of birds; and, if so, will he now take steps to disccurage the formation of sparrow-clubs and generally to ensure the preservation of insect-eating birds throughout the country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The investigations that have been conducted into the food of birds do not lead the Board to conclude that sparrows do habitually feed upon the caterpillars and similar insect pests now damaging the foliage of fruit trees, oaks, etc. The Board do not in consequence fear that any destruction of sparrows which can be effected by sparrow clubs will so injuriously affect the fruit crops as to counterbalance the unquestionable advantages accruing to gram crops that will follow a reduction in their numbers.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that sparrow clubs have killed other small birds in large numbers?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The President of the Board asks that they should confine their attention to sparrows.

    MEAT (SALES) ORDER.
    Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that meatless days have been abolished and that submarine attacks have decreased during the last month, the Government will take immediate steps to prevent the continued increase in the price of meat?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of FOOD (Captain Bathurst): I have been asked to reply. Part I. of the Meat (Sales) Order, which comes into operation to-day, eliminates all unnecessary intermediate transactions between the farmer and the retailer. A scheme for fixing prices is in preparation, and steps have been taken to increase the market supply of beef and mutton under Government control. The present temporary high price of meat is due not to the abandonment of the meatless day but partly to reduced supplies of meat from abroad, and partly to the relatively small quantity of home grown stock coming upon the market owing to the prolonged winter and their resulting poor condition. It must not be assumed that there is a constant ratio between submarine casualties and the loss of food cargoes.
    Colonel LOWTHER: Will the Leader of the House given an opportunity for this House to discuss at an early moment the high price of food, profiteering, and other causes leading to labour unrest in this country?
    Mr. WARDLE: May I reinforce that, and ask if it is possible to have an opportunity for discussing this very grave question?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It must be obvious that I shall require time to consider that, and I shall do so.

    HARICOT BEANS (PRICES.)
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether haricot beans were taken over at 37s. a cwt. c.i.f., and it was announced that they would be retailed to the public at 6d. a pound; whether these beans are now being offered back, through the Government brokers, to the trade at 59s. a cwt.; if so, who takes the 22s. a cwt. difference; and at what price are the beans to be retailed to the public?
    Captain BATHURST: The Food Controller requisitioned all Burmese haricot
    574
    beans at 37s. per cwt. He subsequently took over similar beans from other countries at considerably higher prices. All the beans thus secured are being offered to the trade at a uniform rate fixed for the present at 58s. per cwt. On some transactions the Government will incur a loss; on others it will derive a profit, but on the whole it is expected that the account will approximately balance. The retail prices for white haricot beans have been fixed, by Order of the Food Controller, at 8d. per lb. up to the end of June, 7d. per lb. in July, and 6d. per lb. on and after 1st August. The present wholesale price of 58s. corresponds to the-retail price of 8d., and will be revised to meet the lower retail prices fixed for subsequent months.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the prospects for the coming crop of potatoes in Ireland; whether considerable stocks of the last crop are still on hand and do not find a ready sale inland; and whether, in view of the danger of such stocks being wasted and destroyed, he will arrange for the purchase of them by the Government or permit their exportation, subject to the safeguarding of the interests of the home population?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): As far as the Department of Agriculture can judge, the prospects for the coming crop of potatoes in Ireland are good. Limited stocks of last year's crop are still on hand. The military authorities continue their purchase of potatoes in Ireland for the purposes of the Army and Navy. Potatoes which have been secured by these authorities through Army potato contractors, and which are not required immediately for Army and Navy purposes, are being exported to Great Britain under licence issued by the Department.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the Department still purchasing available potatoes for shipment?
    Mr. DUKE: No; I do not think the Department is now purchasing any. The Department only purchased for shipment for the purposes of providing seed.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will it be possible to issue licences for the export of such potatoes as do not find a market in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: Certainly there is no desire, if there is no market for the potatoes in Ireland, to prevent the disposition of potatoes for sale, provided, of course, there is no shortage of food.
    Mr. MOONEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who issues the licences and on what basis the licences are granted?
    Mr. DUKE: I believe that common-sense means are taken in ascertaining whether the potatoes can be consumed either in the immediate neighbourhood where they are or in some near neighbourhood to which they can be removed, or whether, on the other hand, if they were kept unconsumed, they would probably be wasted before the new potatoes arrived in the summer.
    Mr. MOONEY: That is not the question I asked. I asked who issued the licences and on what basis they are issued. Is it not a fact that licences at the present time are being issued to firms which only started business during the last six months, and that old-established firms are being refused licences?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not believe that is so. I heard the same complaint some time earlier in the season. I looked into it then and did not find it was warranted by the facts, but if my hon. Friend gives me a case I will have it investigated.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Seeing that under the new conditions the exportation of potatoes from Ireland to Scotland can probably be resumed now, will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to communicate with the Secretary for Scotland on the subject?
    Mr. DUKE: There is no such quantity of potatoes in Ireland available for ordinary consumption as warrants dealing with them by a relaxation of the present rules such as the hon. Member mentions. In certain parts of Ireland there are parcels of potatoes which are relatively small. In other parts of Ireland there is the necessity of taking very great care that there is not a shortage of food. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and everyone interested in the matter that, subject to the first necessity of seeing that the potatoes which are in Ireland shall be available to prevent any shortage of food in Ireland, there is no disposition to stand in the way of the distribution of any surplus food.

  GREECE.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether any steps have been taken to prevent the harvest in Thessaly falling into the possession of King Constantine's Government; whether such an event would make it possible for the King to order the return of his troops from the Peloponnese, thus threatening danger to the Venizelists and to the Allied forces operating from Salonika; whether he can give an assurance that such danger has been effectuality provided against by ordering the occupation of Thessaly by Allied troops or otherwise; (2) whether he has any official information showing that M. Venizelos has stated that it is absurd to think there can be any reconciliation of any kind between the Provisional Government and King Constantine; if so, will he say whether it is still the policy of the Allied Powers to aim at the reconciliation which M. Venizelos declares to be absurd to contemplate; and whether the time has come for the Allies to break decisively with King Constantine in agreement with the policy of M. Venizelos?
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked whether part of the harvest in Thessaly is now ripe; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent it from falling into the hands of enemy sympathisers or to make it available for that portion of the Greek people which is friendly to the Entente Powers?
  Lord R. CECIL: Steps are being taken to secure control of the Thessalian harvest. I do not think it would be desirable to make any further statements as to Greek affairs at present.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when it will be possible to make some disclosure with regard to His Majesty's policy?
  Lord R. CECIL: I should not like to pledge myself to a day or two, but I hope very shortly.

  ALBANIA.
  Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the protectorate declared by the Italian Government over Albania includes the district of Epirus?
  Lord R. CECIL: I have as yet no more detailed information regarding the extent of the Proclamation than that which has appeared in the Press?
  Mr. SMITH: Is it not the fact that this country is inhabited by a civilised population with Hellenistic sympathies who never wished to be handed over to Italy, and before this protectorate is made effective will steps be taken to ascertain their desires?
  Lord R. CECIL: The population is in many parts rather mixed—some Albanian and some Greek. I do not understand that this Proclamation hands over anything or anybody to Italy. I understand that it is a Proclamation of the independence of Albania under the protection of Italy.
  Mr. KING: Was the Proclamation made after the Allies had been consulted as to the terms, date, and so forth?
  Lord R. CECIL: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when the Italians moved their troops into this district the Italian Minister at Athens made a public statement that the international status of Epirus would not be altered, and that the movement of troops was of a purely temporary character?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I do not know the exact wording of the statement to which the hon. Member refers, but I feel sure whatever the Italian Government has said they will stick to it.

  PETROGRAD (PASSPORTS).
  Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that a message was sent from the Leeds Peace Conference to the Russian Committee of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates endorsing Russia's declarations of foreign policy, and announcing that the message was sent from the largest and greatest Convention of labour, Socialists, and democratic bodies held in Great Britain during this generation, he will officially inform the present Russian Government that the Leeds Peace Conference did not represent the opinions of His Majesty's Government or of the great body of trade
  578
  unionists and workmen in this country, and that it was only representative of a small number of persons in Great Britain?
  Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. I have no doubt that the Russian Government are fully informed as to the weight to be attached to the Leeds Conference.
  Major HUNT: If workmen and soldiers' delegates in Russia are not informed, will they not think that this was a great demonstration of labour?
  Lord R. CECIL: I think we must leave to the Russian authorities the duty of enlightening their own people.
  Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the delegates from the Leeds Peace Conference have announced that they have received passports for Russia and that they are working for an inconclusive peace with Germany and represent only a small number of persons, he will have their passports cancelled for Sweden and Russia, especially in view of the refusal of the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union to sail on any ship with them, and of the fact that America and France have refused passports to those of their peoples holding similar views?
  Lord R. CECIL: I have nothing to add to the statement on this subject made on the 8th instant.
  Mr. FABER: May I ask whether, under present circumstances, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald) is going to Russia?
  Lord R. CECIL: I understand that a question is going to be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister if the Government have granted a passport to Russia to Mrs. Pankhurst; and, if so, what is the nature of her mission and what is the organisation she represents?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As far as the Government is concerned, she has no mission. I have no special information beyond that open to my hon. Friend as to the organisation which she represents.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is she to go to Russia to express the well-known views of the Foreign Secretary or of the Noble Lord?
  Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. I would as soon trust my reputation to the hon. Member himself.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of France and the United States have refused to issue passports to Socialist individuals to go to Stockholm; and whether the Government propose to associate this country with the Republican members of the alliance in this policy?
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, before passports are granted to the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Bradford to visit Russia, he will give the House the opportunity of expressing an opinion as to the desirability of such action?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which the Minister of Blockade gave to a question on this subject on Friday last.
  Mr. McNEILL: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the House will be given an opportunity of expressing its approval of the action of the trade union in preventing these gentlemen going away?
  Mr. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he or the Prime Minister received a telegram from the secretary of the British Workers' League asking that these passports should be at least postponed or cancelled in view of the fact that these gentlemen to whom they had been granted do not represent any fraction of opinion of organised labour in this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not received such a telegram, but I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has, because, apparently, that represents their view.
  Mr. TERRELL: In view of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that at the conclusion of questions I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    AGRICULTURE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what action the Board is taking to prevent the calling up for military service of T. Macklin, of Wyre Street, Colchester: why a representative of the Board of Agriculture did not appear at the hearing of the case on the 16th April after a promise had been given that this would be done; and whether the Board of Agriculture consider the national interests are being served in allowing the military to call up a man who has 34 acres of land under potatoes and is the largest fruit and vegetable dealer in the district?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The case of Mr. T. Macklin is at present before the Central Tribunal. As the question of his exemption from military service is therefore sub judice, it is not desirable for the Board to express a definite opinion upon it. In reply to the second part of the question, no such promise as is I referred to appears to have been given by the Board.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In the meantime will some steps be taken to prevent the calling up being made effective, or to obtain a postponement?
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if some action to prevent the calling to the Colours of Martin Wilkinson, of Ickorn-shaw Farm, Cowling, Keighley, who is solely responsible for the work of a farm of over twenty acres and a stock of cattle, poultry, and pigs; and, in view of the approaching hay harvest, will he request the military to withdraw the calling-up notice which matures on 12th June; and, further, will he inquire why the Board's representative at Selby has ignored requests to consider this ease and to protect the interests of agriculture?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board are inquiring into this case and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. YEOasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he is aware that a decision has been given by the Central Appeal Tribunal concerning the proprietors of one-man businesses; can he say if that decision has been published.

    581
    if not, for what reason it has been delayed; and, in view of the fact that a considerable number of businesses are being closed daily by the tribunals in spite of the Local Government Board's Instructions, will he take action to circulate amongst the tribunals this decision immediately?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am informed that particulars of the case to which the hon. Member refers will be shortly issued to tribunals. From the statement which appeared in the Press on the 8th instant, he will see that the Central Tribunal state that, in deciding that case, they did not adopt any new principles, but simply applied those which had already been laid down by them.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he will inquire into the treatment given to J. E. Leaney by the local tribunal at Shoeburyness, who decided at the hearing of the tribunal in favour of the applicant; whether he is aware that this decision was reversed at the request of the military representative after the applicant had left the room; and will he, in the circumstances, give instructions for a rehearing of the case or permission for an appeal to be made to the Appeal Tribunal?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am having inquiries made respecting the case. I may point out, however, that the applicant could have appealed to the Appeal Tribunal.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked by what legal authority the military service tribunals impose the condition that men doing work of national importance shall not be permitted to undertake such work within 50 miles of their homes?
    Mr. FISHER: The tribunals proceed in these cases under the authority of the Military Service Acts, which enable them to impose such conditions as they may think suited to the case.

    RAIDS (EAST LONDON).
    Mr. KILEYasked the Home Secretary if instructions were given to the police engaged in the recent military raids in East London to arrest persons who appeared to be of military age regardless of the production of papers showing them
    582
    to be exempt or discharged from the Army; and, if so, by what Statute or Order in Council were such steps taken to cause the arrest of such persons?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Sir George Cave): The answer to the first question is in the negative, and the second does not arise.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Home Secretary how many men and boys were arrested and detained at Commercial Street police depot and other police stations of the district in the last two raids; how many were boys of the age of sixteen and under; and how many men were charged at the Police Court for offences under the Military Service Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: The number of persons taken to the section-house on 27th April for examination of papers was 216, of whom twenty-five proved to be under sixteen. On 18th May the numbers were 640 and sixty. The numbers of men charged under the Military Service Act were four on the first occasion and nine on the second.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many Boy Scouts were arrested on the occasion?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not believe that any were arrested.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if John Rearder, the hall porter of Toynbee Hall, Whitechapel, who had been rejected on three different occasions, was arrested on Friday, 18th May, 1917, by an Australian soldier and taken to the police depot, Commercial Street, E., and detained with some hundreds of other men and boys despite the production of his medical certificate, and was only released, after several hours' detention, on the application of the warden of Toynbee Hall, who stated that serious consequences might arise if he were not released; if the arrest by Colonial soldiers of citizens of this country was authorised by the Army Council or the Secretary of State for War; and, if not, what action does he propose to take to prevent a repetition of such arrests as described above of citizens who are in possession of exemption and other legal papers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): This man of military age was detained for about an

    583
    hour until his papers were examined and found satisfactory. He was not released on the application of the warden of Toynbee Hall and he was not arrested by an Australian soldier. The military police at the request of the Metropolitan Police rendered assistance on this occasion owing to the somewhat hostile attitude of the crowd. Dominion military police assisted, as there are a number of Dominion deserters and absentees throughout London.
    Mr. KILEY: The hall porter in question must be the greatest liar in London or—!

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any conscientious objectors have been and are now employed in a teaching capacity in State-aided schools or institutions in the East End of London; if so, were these men recommended for these positions by the Home Office Committee appointed to find suitable work for objectors; who are the members of this Committee; and does it include the warden or any governors of the institution known as Toynbee Hall?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware whether any conscientious objectors have been or are employed in a teaching capacity in any State-aided school or institution. Certainly no such person has been recommended by the Home Office Committee for employment in that capacity. As regards the names of the Committee, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on the 30th April last to the hon. Member for Devonport. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Major NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to whether any of these men are employed in schools in the East End?
    Sir G. CAVE: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the name of any State institution I will have inquiries made.

    RE-EXAMINATION.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether if, out of the five to six hundred cases sent back by the Central Tribunal, Westminster, over 60 per cent, have on re-examination been placed in a lower category and 12 per cent.
    584
    altogether refused; and, whether, in view of this experience, any estimate has been formed of the waste of time in re-examining men who have, in the first instance, been definitely rejected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend's question must be based on a misapprehension. No such numbers as he states have been sent back by the Central Tribunal for re-examination.

    MR. BAETLE DALY (PASSPOET).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the grounds upon which the military authorities have prevented the issue of a permit to Mr. Bartle Daly, an Irish resident in the Argentine Republic, to return from Liverpool to that country in purusit of his normal business claiming that he is liable for military service here; whether that claim will now be withdrawn, compensation paid to Mr. Daly for the seven months' prevention of his business, and no further obstacle raised to his return; and whether any explanation has been offered to the Argentine Government of this interference with a business man vouched for by one of its Departments?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiry has been made into the case, and it has been ascertained that Daly applied for a passport to proceed to Buenos Ayres and to return within a period of three months. In his application he did not suggest that he was ordinarily resident in Ireland or in the Argentine Republic, or that he was not ordinarily resident in Great Britain. The military authorities raised objection to the issue of the passport on the ground that Daly was liable to military service. In view of the suggestion now made that Daly is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, inquiry is being made in the area of his present residence. I am not aware that any communication regarding him has been received by the War Office from the Argentine Government.

    VALVULAR HEART DISEASE.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men who have been discharged on account of valvular disease of the heart are entitled to claim to be totally or permanently disabled in accordance with the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative.

    REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that in the case of men called up for re-examination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act that the examining medical board shall be supplied with the man's medical history of his service in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions have already been issued reminding recruiting officers of the necessity of obtaining the previous documents of discharged soldiers.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will my hon. Friend issue instructions that the medical history of the examined men shall be considered because the documents are simply put aside?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will have that inquired into.

  MUNITIONS.

    MOULDERS (BRADFORD).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that thirty moulders left the employ of Messrs. G. Hodgson, Limited, of Bradford, on 1st June, owing to the refusal of the firm to pay the standard rate of wage, and that the workmen offered to submit the matter to arbitration; that the firm refused the offer; that the action of the firm is causing serious discontent in the district; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent an extension of the dispute?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): No complaint has reached me. The firm is not controlled and appears to hold no contracts from the Ministry of Munitions, but I will cause local inquiry to be made and communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    ARMY RESERVE MUNITION WORKERS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions if he will explain the status of the Army Reserve munition workers; whether they are under military authority; and if, by joining the Army Reserve munition workers, they forfeit any of the rights they had under the Military Service Act in regard to claiming exemption?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: An Army Reserve munitions worker upon his allocation to munitions work is employed, not under military authority, but under exactly the same conditions as ordinary civilians, except that he is entitled in special circumstances to receive additional allowances in respect of his rate of payment, subsistence allowance, and children's allowance, and except that if he has been called to the Colours and passed to Army Reserve W. he remains liable to return to military service at any time he ceases to be employed by any firm named by the Ministry of Munitions, or, if he is ordered to report for service with the Colours, by the competent military authority. Any worker who may under the Military Service Acts have any right to claim exemption would not forfeit those rights by reason of his enrolment, nor would they be affected until he had been enlisted to or passed to Army Reserve W.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can my hon. Friend say whether the subsistence allowance is given in the case of a dependent widowed mother?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: If dependent I think it would be so; but I would rather have notice of the question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I will give it to you.

    EXEMPTION CARDS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Minister of Munitions whether the War Office consented to the issue of exemption cards to munition workers; and whether such cards do in fact secure exemption?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: If my hon. Friend refers to the certificates issued under the Schedule of Protected Occupations (M.M. 130), the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Men engaged on Admiralty, War Office, or munitions work in an occupation scheduled as protected are entitled to receive a scheduled occupation certificate (Army Form W. 3476A), which, subject to certain qualifications, protects them from recruitment in accordance with the Schedule. Army Form W. 3476B, which is issued to men engaged on Admiralty, War Office, or munitions work, who are not entitled to protection under the Schedule, is a temporary certificate which protects the holder from any calling up notice not issued by the munitions area recruiting office for the area in which he is employed.

    WOMEN WORKERS' WAGES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will investigate the complaints made by the women munition workers engaged on shell examination at a certain inspection bond; whether he is aware that prior to the granting of an increase in wages to these women as from 7th April they were allowed a quarter of an hour for breakfast, but immediately on the increase taking effect, half an hour's wages at the rate of time and a-half was deducted from their pay; that this action on the part of the employers had largely nullified the increase granted to these women to meet the increased cost of living; and, in view of the resentment caused, what steps his Department proposes to take?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: No such complaint had reached me; but I have caused inquiry to be made, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    ALEXANDER GORDON.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the charges made in respect of the activities in the munition areas of a man calling himself Alexander Gordon, whose evidence as a Government agent was used in a public trial; whether he is aware of the allegations that this man has urged strikes among munition workers, and has suggested the stealing of fuses and the setting up of a secret printing press; whether the man Gordon is still in this country or whether he has recently been sent to America; and whether he will cause public investigation to be made into the activities of this man, and will cause him to be produced at such investigation?
    The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): My attention has been drawn to the allegations contained in the question and previously stated as matters of fact by the hon. Gentleman himself in the House. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion made. The man known as Alexander Gordon has not been employed by the Government since January of the present year. His present whereabouts are unknown, and no investigation is necessary or is proposed.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these grave charges are vouched for by workmen in Manchester, Leicester, Derby, Coventry,
    588
    Sheffield, and Liverpool; and is he also aware that they have been discussed at a labour conference in Birmingham and that a number of men are prepared to come forward and give evidence in regard to the men who are advocating strikes, violence, sabotage—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of the question. It raises a series of allegations.
    Mr. ANDERSON: May I ask if I can have an opportunity in this House of bringing forward evidence in my possession dealing with this matter?
    Sir F. SMITH: The hon. Member has asked whether I am aware of a great number of things of which it is quite evident I could not be aware. Either my hon. Friend or some of his hon. Friends have purported to supply to one of my right hon. colleagues a statement. That statement may have been complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete and requires to be supplemented I should be glad to consider any supplement put before me. I carefully considered the evidence put before my right hon. Friend a fortnight or three weeks ago and I may tell my hon. Friend that I was wholly unimpressed by it, but if he has any further evidence he will find me prepared to consider it.
    Mr. ANDERSON: To what evidence does the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer? Does he refer to my speech in this House?
    Sir F. SMITH: No; that is not evidence. I refer to a statement containing allegations purporting to be made by four or five—I forget the precise number— working men with reference to this man Gordon. I investigated the statement, dates and places, I investigated the records of the men who were purported to have made those statements and on that evidence I was unconvinced; but if the hon. Member has fresh evidence he will find me perfectly ready to consider it with candour and openness.
    Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is in existence a Secret Service Department in connection with the Ministry of Munitions and whether that Department has ever been used for any other purpose except that of detecting bonâ fide enemy influence in the different munition areas?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that now there is no such Department and there has not been for a good many months.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Mr. PR INGLEasked the Prime Minister whether Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, Kynoch, Limited, and Curtiss and Harvey, Limited, are controlled establishments under the Munitions of War Acts; whether these companies have yet paid the munitions levy; whether proposals for the amalgamation of these companies have received the approval of the Government; whether his attention has been drawn to the speculation in the shares of these companies on the basis of the reports of the proposed amalgamation; whether the profits accruing from this speculation will be liable to excess profits duty; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the increase of the price of the materials produced by these companies in consequence of this inflation of the price of the shares?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A certain sum has been paid on account of munitions levy by one of the firms. The answer to the third and fourth parts of the question is in the negative, and as I am unaware of the circumstances of the case, I am not in a position to reply to the fifth part. The prices referred to in the last part of the question are governed by existing contracts for a considerable period.

  LINEN TRADE (ULSTER).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the prohibition of the use of sulphuric acid and muriatic acid for other than Government work will result in the destruction of the bleaching trade of Ulster; and whether, as most of the linen trade is export and if once lost will not be recovered without great difficulty, and having regard also to the unemployment which will inevitably be produced, he will cause the Order to be reconsidered?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): There is no prohibition of the use of sulphuric acid and muriatic acid for other than Government work, nor is such a prohibition contemplated. The purpose of the Order dated 29th May, 1917, is to enable the Ministry
  590
  of Munitions to control by licence the manufacture, use, and supply of sulphuric acid. The intention is to secure the economical use of sulphuric acid and the employment of nitre cake, or some other substitute, wherever practicable.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Will supplies be available for linen purposes?
  Sir W. EVANS: Either sulphuric acid, or a substitute—if of use.

  "KEW BULLETIN."
  Sir WILLIAM BEALEasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) on whose advice the decision of the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office was taken to suspend the printing and publication of the "Kew Bulletin"; whether his attention was called to the importance of that publication for the "spread of valuable information throughout the Empire relating to plant culture and the supply of fibre, timber, and plant products; if he can give the names of any experts concerned in the scientific and commercial development of Colonial industries connected with plant culture who were consulted in the matter; whether the editor was consulted; and whether any estimate was made of the consumption of paper involved in the continuance of the "Kew Bulletin" as compared with the consumption of paper for dramatic, sporting, pictorial, and other fashionable papers which have no practical value for the development of the resources of the Empire either during or after the War?
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, it is understood that, the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Publications were consulted by the Controller of the Stationery Office prior to the suspension of the "Kew Bulletin," and that the Controller's decision was acquiesced in by the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens. The editor of the paper was, I am informed, consulted by the Controller before any action was taken. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and that to the third part in the negative. The consumption of paper for dramatic, sporting, pictorial, and other fashionable papers is not within the jurisdiction of the Controller of the Stationery Office.
  Mr. COWAN: Will the hem. Member say whether in this case acquiescence implies approval?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think I am qualified to answer that question.

  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether, in view of the manner in which the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, have been evaded in certain cases where the tenants were not sufficiently wealthy to enforce their civil rights under that Act, he will consider the desirability of providing that any landlord or mortgagee acting in breach of the provisions of that Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act and to be punishable accordingly?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, makes irrecoverable increases of rent or mortgage interest in respect of small dwellings, above the standard rent or rate of interest fixed by the Act, and no proceedings by tenants or mortgagors are necessary to enforce their rights.
  Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been cases in which a great deal of difficulty has been caused by demands for rent in contravention of the terms of the Act?
  Mr. FISHER: That is quite possible. A Bill to meet this, introduced by the Solicitor-General, has already passed this House, and is now before the House of Lords.

  LABOURERS' WAGES (IRELAND).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that under his Department labourers in many parts of Ireland are receiving wages not exceeding 16s. per week; when these men will be paid a living wage; and is he aware that messenger girls in England receive better wages than Government labourers in Ireland?
  Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on 21st May.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Department continues to employ labourers at 16s. per week, and if I give a number of cases where the Department is sweating the labourers will he see that they get a living wage?
  Mr. DUKE: I will examine any cases which may be sent to me. So far as I am aware, the Department of Agriculture is one of the best, most generous, and most popular employers in Ireland.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is 16s. a week a generous wage for a Government Department to pay married men?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is not the Department mostly generous to its highly paid officials?
  Mr. DUKE: I do not think so. If the hon. Member were acquainted with the pay-sheets, I think he would find that that was not a deserved reflection.

  MALLOW PETTY SESSIONS.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to a recent case at Mallow Petty Sessions in which the Court fined Messrs. Jeremiah Cronin and Timothy Cronin 10s. each for an offence which it was proved by all witnesses, except the police, that they had not committed, and which two independent witnesses voluntarily admitted that they themselves had committed; what reparation is to be made to the young men punished for what they did not do; what action he proposes to take with regard to the magistrates, especially the resident magistrate brought from elsewhere to Mallow specially for this case; (2) the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what report he has read, other than that of the police, of the attack made by specially armed policemen on unarmed and unwarned civilians at Mallow on the 22nd May; seeing that the police report differs in every particular from that of every other available witness, whether an independent inquiry upon oath will be held in Mallow for the convenience of those witnesses; (3) whether he has got a police report of the attack made by armed policemen on unarmed civilians at

  593
  Mallow on the 22nd May; what explanation it gives of the violence inflicted upon Mr. Timothy Riordan whose wounds had to be dressed by Dr. Vaughan; what explanation of Constable Kennedy's conduct, in the presence of available witnesses, in stepping off the footpath to insult this wounded man when being carried away; as the police did not assume that attitude without instructions, whether those instructions will be produced at an independent inquiry; and (4) whether to attack, without preliminary order to disperse, and baton, as they did, unarmed and unoffending men who had just been acquitted of a police charge was the only purpose for which the police at Mallow were armed on the 22nd May, and the only purpose for which the head-constable and Detective Fallon also, for the first time since their arrival at Mallow, carried iron-mounted sticks; what is the official explanation of the special attack made by Fallon, Sergeant M'Gill, and Constables Dwyer and Robinson, junior, on Mr. Daniel Hegarty, ex-prisoner of war, whom they knocked down, deprived of the flag he was carrying, rendered unconscious by kicking on the back and head, and would have killed but for the intervention of two ladies; what is Mr. Hegarty's present condition; what reparation is to be made to him; what apology have the police been required to offer to the girls they struck on the same occasion and to the Reverend Father Sheehan, whom they threatened to strike for attempting to prevent murder by them; whether the policemen named have recently been themselves defendants in a charge of which of them was convicted and fined £2; whether it is in accordance with the regulations for policemen of this type to canvass magistrates in advance with reference to matters about to some before them, and induce publicans, under veiled threats, to act as intermediaries for a like purpose; if a pogrom was not the object of the Government on that occasion, whether, in view of the character of the police, a public inquiry on oath will be held; and whether the movements of Detective Fallon will be restricted pending the result of such inquiry?
  Mr. DUKE: The subject is the same as that about which I answered a question to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork last week. I am informed that the men named were convicted after a full magisterial inquiry, and I have no
  594
  reason to doubt the justice of the sentence. As to the hon. Member's imputations on the police, I am informed that the police were stoned by a mob and used their batons in self-defence, that there is no ground for the allegations of unprovoked attacks on individuals, and that the suggested incident of the Rev. Father Sheehan did not occur. The proper mode of investigation is that by magisterial inquiry, which has been followed.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Chief Secretary has not informed the House how it was that this sentence on these two men was enforced, notwithstanding that two witnesses volunteered to give evidence that they themselves and nobody else committed the offence?
  Mr. DUKE: I suppose the magistrates-did not believe these two witnesses.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Chief Secretary say whether he has received any reports but that of the police, and whether he will give the public sworn inquiry desired by the people of Mallow?
  Mr. DUKE: I have pointed out that there is a remedy open to any person aggrieved by an alleged assault, and that is to take proceedings which produce a sworn inquiry. There are quite enough sworn inquiries in Ireland without me voluntarily setting up another.
  Mr. GINNELL: Really, is not an action against the police in Ireland like bringing an action against Satan in hell?
  Mr. DUKE: I think I must ask the hon. Member to apply his own intelligence to that matter.

  ALIEN ENEMIES IN BRITISH BUSINESSES.
  Sir G. REIDasked the Home Secretary if the Government has fully considered the contrast between the lot of His Majesty's subjects who are compelled to give up their businesses and employments in order to fight alien enemies abroad, and the lot of alien enemies living in this country who are allowed to slip into the shoes of our business men whilst they are away on military service; and if he will explain the justification for such a state of things?
  Sir G. CAVE: As I have explained, in answer to previous questions on this subject and in the statement I made in the Debate on 14th February, every case of

  595
  an alien enemy exempted from internment or repatriation is being reviewed with the object of securing that he shall be employed on some work which is necessary or useful to the country during the War, and I have already made orders for the internment of several exempted aliens who have failed to find such employment. If my right hon. Friend knows of any cases in which alien enemies have supplanted British subjects called up for military service, I shall be glad to have particulars of them.

  IRISH PRISONERS
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to state the date and any other particulars of the impending release of the Irish political prisoners now at Lewes and Aylesbury under sentences of secret court-martial; and whether there will be any exception to the general delivery?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have no statement to make on this subject.
  Mr. BYRNE(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that a number of Irish prisoners have been removed from Lewes Prison, handcuffed and chained in batches of five; if he will state where they have been sent, what are their conditions, and if they are in solitary confinement; if he will state the quality and quantity of food supplied; if his attention has been drawn to a breaking-up of a protest meeting in Dublin yesterday; if he will say who was responsible; and if, to avert further trouble in Ireland, he will order the immediate release of the prisoners?
  Mr. GINNELL: I have a question on the same subject, and perhaps I had better ask it now and let the Home Secretary reply to both questions.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If that relates to the long question which the hon. Member has handed in, I have not had time to consider it.
  Mr. GINNELL: That does not do away with its urgency.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have gone through the ordinary form of letting me see it before the House met.
  Mr. GINNELL: There is no other way—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I was going to call upon the hon. Member to ask the other question he has handed in.
  Mr. GINNELL: I want to ask this one.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better hear the reply first.
  Mr. GINNELL: It is vitally urgent. Will you allow me to read the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is that if any hon. Member has an urgent question which he wishes to ask, he should give it to me, so that I may see it.
  Mr. GINNELL: I have followed that rule.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member placed his question upon my Chair. It is a very long question, and I have not yet had time to read it, because I have been occupied with the other questions.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will read it, and if I consider that it is urgent, I will allow the hon. Member to ask it to-morrow.
  Mr. GINNELL: The Home Secretary has had the question since Saturday. I know of no other means—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is all the more reason why the hon. Member should have sent a copy of it to me.
  Sir G. CAVE: I have only had the shortest possible notice of the question put by the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour Division (Mr. Byrne). As to the last part of it, I can only say that I have no information. The answer to the earlier part of it, which would probably be an answer also to the question of the hon. Member for North-West Meath (Mr. Ginnell), is as follows:
  The Irish prisoners were collected at Lewes and granted special privileges on the clear and definite condition of good conduct and obedience to rules. On the 28th May, on the professed ground that they wished to be treated as if they were prisoners of war, they were guilty of concerted refusal to work and disobedience to rules, and it became necessary to confine them to their cells. All the prisoners admitted the offences, which were committed openly. They were to be allowed to attend chapel on Sunday, 3rd June, but it was discovered that they proposed immediately after Mass and Holy Communion to refuse to enter their cells, and, if forced

  597
  to return, to wreck prison property. The service, therefore, was not held. When this attempt failed they refused to leave their cells for exercise unless all were taken out together. In these circumstances, no course was open to me but to direct that they should go back to the convict prisons (Maidstone, Parkhurst, and Portland), and be subject to the ordinary prison rules. Some of them have already been removed, with such precautions only as were necessary to prevent any violence or attempt to escape. I need hardly say that the suggestion that they were starved is absolutely without foundation.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the early days of the rebellion in Dublin these men were described in official papers as prisoners of war? Why have the Government changed their views now and subjected them to such blackguardly treatment?
  Sir G. CAVE: I know nothing of the statement to which the hon. Member refers. My only duty is to see that order is kept in the prison.

  PKISON STAFF (TRAINING).
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether the period of training provided for prison warders includes a period of cellular confinement and of associated labour in prisons; and whether any of the present higher prison staff or any of the Prison Commissioners have had experimental personal experience of prison discipline and in particular of cellular confinement?
  Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir.
  Mr. HARVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most valuable prison reforms in America have resulted from personal experience voluntarily undertaken by prison officials?
  Sir G. CAVE: If that be so, I do not propose to ask my prison officials to undertake the experience.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

    BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that more than forty hon.
    598
    Members of the House have given notice of Amendments to the Motion standing in his name, Representation of the People Bill (Boundary Commissioners), and that these Amendments raise not less than twelve important points of principle touching the redistribution of seats; whether under such circumstances a single day's discussion on a Motion approving in general terms the Instruction to the Boundary Commissioners will afford opportunity for such control as the House is entitled to exercise over the details as well as the principles of the proposed scheme of redistribution; and whether, in order to provide such opportunity he will now amend his Motion by embodying in it the text of the Instructions, and move that the House do resolve itself into Committee to consider the same?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Amendments on the Paper appear to me to raise very few questions of principle, and I am hopeful that the discussion upon these questions will not be unduly prolonged. The course suggested by my hon. Freind would go beyond the purpose for which the Motion was placed upon the Paper and would not, I think, be for the general convenience of the House.
    Mr. McNEILL: As my right hon. Friend is not willing to give the House an opportunity for discussing details, can he give an assurance that when the Schedules come to be discussed no Amendment will be opposed by the Government on the ground that the work of the Commissioners is completed?
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend will know the value of an argument of that kind.
    Mr. D. WHITEasked the Secretary for Scotland which of the present districts of burghs in Scotland will cease to have separate representation and which will continue to have separate representation if effect is given to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, of the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland?
    Sir J. JARDINEasked for particulars of any forecast made by the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland regarding any changes suggested in Parliamentary constituencies?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am not in a position to anticipate the scheme of redistribution which is being prepared by the Boundary Commissioners for Scotland. My hon. and

    599
    learned Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow will bear in mind that there are other paragraphs, in the Instructions which give the Commissioners a wide discretion in settling burghal representation.
    Mr. GULLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Report of the Boundary Commissioners will be published, as in England, county by county, or for Scotland as a whole?
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: As the subject is of considerable importance, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to meet the Scottish Members so as to discuss the whole question?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think a very full opportunity for discussing the subject will arise this afternoon. If after that discussion my hon. Friend makes his request, I shall be happy to consider it.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that under the Representation of the People Bill, if the redistribution of constituencies is based on population only, many of the rural districts will be so large that it will be impossible for a Member to keep sufficiently in touch with the views of his constituents to be able efficiently to present them to Parliament, and the rights of the rural classes be thereby menaced; and will he instruct the Boundary Commissioners to have regard to area as well as population in fixing the boundaries so as to lessen the danger?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. An opportunity for debating this matter will no doubt arise to-day.

  PENSION APPEALS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. ACLAND ALLENasked the Pensions Minister whether he is now in a position to give to the House the names of the Committee who are to hear appeals in pension cases?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): The appeal Court will consist of the following:
  His Honour Judge Parry.
  Lieutenant-General Sir A. E. Codrington (representing the War Office).
  Admiral Sir Wilmot Fawkes (representing the Admiralty).
  Mr. Bilton Pollard (Royal College of Surgeons).
  Dr. Norman Moore (Royal College of Physicians).
  Mr. A. Bellamy (Railwaymen Union).

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Pensions Minister whether he will advise the local authorities of all committees under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act of 1915 that it is within their powers to appoint to the committees representatives of discharged soldiers' and sailors' associations, old comrades' associations, and similar institutions, where such are in existence, so as to secure direct representation of the interests concerned?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The Minister looks upon it as of importance that local pensions committees should be acquainted with the views of disabled discharged men in matters affecting their interests, especially as regards treatment, training and employment, and he is proposing that a circular should be issued to local committees drawing their attention, to the desirability of including such men in the disablement sub-committees.

  MOULDERS' WAGES (BRADFORD).
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, owing to the firm refusing to pay the standard rate of wage, thirty moulders employed by Messrs. G. Hodgson, Limited, of Bradford, left their employment on 1st June; that the men offered to refer the question to arbitration; that the firm refused this offer; that this action on the part of the firm is likely to cause further trouble; and whether he is taking any steps to settle the matter in dispute?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Hodge): The Chief Industrial Commissioner has been in communication with the Friendly Society of Ironfounders and the firm referred to by my hon. Friend respecting the differences existing between them as to wages, and it appeared the firm were not disposed to accept arbitration. As they are not engaged on work in connection with the War there is no power to require them to submit to arbi-

  601
  tration under the Munitions of War Act. The Chief Industrial Commissioner will make further inquiry in the matter.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether negotiations have been successfully concluded for an extended system of exchange of prisoners of war by which not only prisoners with specific illness or wounds will be exchanged, but also such as have been in captivity for more than eighteen months?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): A proposal was made to the German Government on the 21st April for the transfer to neutral countries of British and German prisoners of war who have been over two years in captivity. An unsatisfactory and only semi-official reply has just been received to our proposal. We are pressing for an official reply of a more satisfactory character.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate the information when the matter is settled?
  Mr. HOPE: I shall be happy to make a communication as soon as a communication can be made, but I am afraid I cannot be very sanguine about the matter in view of what has taken place and the unsatisfactory character of the answer given.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the arrangement already made between Germany and France affects that?
  Mr. HOPE: I am not quite sure to what arrangement my hon. Friend refers, but the two matters are quite distinct.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Has any definite proposal been made to repatriate wounded officers and men—German and British—in Switzerland: men who are unfit for any further military operations?
  Mr. HOPE: Yes, arrangements of that character have just been made, but I am afraid it affects a very small number of officers.
  Mr. HENDERSON: When will it come into operation?
  Mr. HOPE: I think it is already in operation, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question down.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister when the arrangements that are now being made for the distribution of prize money to the Navy will be completed; and by what date it is proposed that the distribution will be made?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I have already explained the fundamental change in the method of awarding Prize Money announced under the Order in Council of 28th August, 1914. My hon. and gallant Friend will know that in previous wars the net proceeds of prize in each case were distributed to the actual captors. He will know that under the Order in Council in reference it was decided to pool the net proceeds of all condemned prizes for distribution amongst the whole of the Fleet engaged in hostilities. Very careful consideration has been given and is being given to the statutory and administrative machinery necessary to carry out this system of general distribution. But obviously that distribution cannot take place until the pool is full at the close of hostilities. We have considered the possibility of an interim payment on account. But I am afraid that is not possible. Of course, all necessary steps will have been completed— and among these I may add is involved consultation with the Oversea Dominions— by the time the conditions of the new method render distribution possible.
  I may perhaps be permitted to add that the adherence to the old method of awarding prize bounty, which is, of course, an entirely different matter, has enabled us to proceed from time to time with the distribution of prize bounty. Already thirty-seven awards have been made by the Court, and a sum of over £51,000 has been or is being distributed, amongst those entitled to receive the same.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is impossible to give a partial distribution at once?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is very difficult indeed to make a payment in view of this alteration of the methods of award. The pool is not complete at the moment you make it. Although I can give no undertaking, I do not entirely shut the door to the suggestion.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: What happens to the money earned by men who have been killed and who have no relatives to whom to leave it?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the men who are killed their executors would get it. But I should like to have notice of the case of a man who has no relatives at all.

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  Sir G. GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister whether, as the result of the appeal made by the representatives of the Dominions at the Imperial Conference, any steps have been taken to protect the overseas troops from venereal disease; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in response to that appeal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The question is surrounded by great difficulties, but the Home Office and the War Office are in consultation as to whether any further administrative action can be taken.

  LABOUR UNREST.

    PERSONNEL OF COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make an announcement as to the personnel of the Commissions that are to investigate the question of labour unrest; and when it is proposed they should begin their work?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The names of the Commissioners are as follow:

    1. North-East Coast—

    Sir Thomas Munro (Chairman).

    Mr. P. Bright (Employers' Representative).

    Mr. H. Davies (Employés Representative).

    2. North-West Coast—

    His Honour Judge Parry.

    Mr. John Smethurst.

    Mr. J. R. Clynes, M.P.

    3. Yorks and East Midlands—

    Sir George Croydon Marks, M.P.

    Sir Maurice Levy, M.P.

    Mr. J. J. Mallon.

    4. West Midlands—

    Major J. W. Hills, M.P.

    Mr. J. W. White.

    Mr. A. G. Cameron.

    604

    5. London and South-East—

    His Honour Judge O'Connor.

    Mr. Allan M. Smith.

    Mr. J. Voce.

    6. South-West—

    W. W. Mackenzie, Esq., K.C.

    Sir Alfred Booth.

    Mr. G. Chambers.

    7. Wales, including Monmouthshire—

    Mr. Lleufer Thomas.

    Mr. Thomas Evans.

    Mr. Vernon Hartshorn.

    8. Scotland—

    Sheriff T. A. Fyfe.

    Mr. Noel E. Peck.

    Mr. J. W. Ogden, J.P.

    It is proposed that the Commission shall begin work immediately.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Have any of the employers' organisations been consulted in regard to the nomination of members of these Commissions to represent the employers' interests?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not myself any personal knowledge of the way in which they were consulted but I am sure the views of the employers were taken into account in their selection.
    Mr. TERRELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will any Irish representatives be put on these Commissions, and will they have power to inquire into the miserable rates of wages paid in Government Departments in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I must have notice of that question.

  IMPERIAL MINERAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is no representative of Ireland on the Interdepartmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Munitions by direction of the War Cabinet to prepare a scheme for an Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau for the development of the mineral resources and metal requirements of the Empire; whether he is aware of the possibilities existing in Ireland for the supply of minerals to meet demands both in wartime and in the national reconstruction

  605
  which will follow upon peace; and whether he will at once take steps to appoint an Irishman on the Committee?
  The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Inter-departmental Committee to which my hon. Friend refers is concerned solely with the form of certain administrative machinery. It is no part of their duty to advise upon any development of Imperial mineral resources. This latter will be the function of the Bureau when set up. My right hon. Friend is already in possession of much information as to the mineral resources of Ireland and has the advantage of the services of an Irish representative on the Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Munitions under Sir Lionel Phillips which advises him as to the development of home supplies. In view of these facts he does not think any useful purpose would be served by adding an Irish representative to Sir James Stevenson's Committee.
  Mr. KEATING: Is it a fact that the Irish representatives were nominated at the suggestion of a committee of the Irish party some months ago and also that Sir Lionel Phillips' Committee was assisted by other men who are not members of the Committee, such as Mr. Daly?
  Dr. ADDISON: I do not know. I know that Sir Lionel Phillips was assisted by a large number of men from different parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: In view of the large number of these Committees, of which the House has no idea, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can issue a little pocket book telling us what are the Committees, of whom they consist, and where are their headquarters; and whether he is aware that the Government are so numerous that a large number of their members do not know one another; and would he include all members of the Government in such publication?

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Major GODFREY COLLINSasked the Prime Minister if he will now give a day for the discussion of the expenditure resolution standing in the names of 190 Members or, if that is considered unnecessary, whether he will take steps to set up the Committee?—"That this House is of
  606
  opinion, in view of the continued growth of Expenditure, Taxation, and Debt, that a Committee be appointed, consisting of Members of this House, with power to review all National Expenditure, examine Ministers and officials, and report to the House."—[Major Godfrey Collins.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am prepared later to give a day for the discussion of this subject, but, in view of the pressure of public business, I cannot at present fix a date.
  Mr. LE1F JONESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the daily average of the total national expenditure on all services for the first ten weeks of the financial year 1917–18?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the returns for last week are not available, I can only give the figures for the first nine weeks of the financial year 1917–18. in these nine weeks (1st April—2nd June inclusive) the total national expenditure on all services was approximately £496,000,000. This works out at a daily average of £7,884,000.
  Mr. G. FABER: Is there any exceptional reason for this large increase in the estimated expenditure?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; there are a number of exceptional reasons for this increase, but it is impossible to give them across the floor of the House by way of question and answer.
  Mr. JONES: Is there any hope of the future expenditure being at a less rate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I have every reason to hope that it will be at a less rate, but I said on the Vote of Credit that I was not very sanguine that the-Estimate would not be exceeded.
  Mr. D. MASON: Does the daily expenditure include advances to the Dominions and Allies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; it includes all expenditure, and not merely expenditure out of the Vote of Credit.

  AMERICA (LORD NORTHCLIFFE'S VISIT).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is able, with due regard to Allied interests, to give further infor-

  607
  mation about Lord Northcliffe's mission to America; and whether it is diplomatic, financial, or economic in its objects?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In order to cooperate fully with the Government of the United States in the conduct of the War, missions representing a number of Government Departments have been for some time in America. It is necessary that there should be someone at the head of these missions to combine and co-ordinate their activities, and Lord Northcliffe has undertaken to do this work, which is not in any sense diplomatic.

  NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the departure from the custom and practice of the Navy to hold courts-martial to inquire into the losses of warships having been made in so many cases; whether he is aware that there have been about thirty such cases of courts-martial and, contrary to the invariable practice of the past, that these were held in secret, and the secrecy has deprived Parliament and the Navy of much guidance and knowledge; and whether the Government will set up a Royal Commission as soon as the War is over to inquire into the whole position and to suggest such a revision of the Navy Discipline Act as will be binding on the Admiralty, and will tend to maintain the high standards of the Navy while safeguarding Parliament's control through the publicity of proceedings of courts-martial?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is clearly impossible for me to say what view the Government which may be in existence immediately after the War will take with regard to the setting up of a Royal Commission.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will my right hon. Friend in any case bear in mind that very intricate questions concerning relations with Dominion Navies arise in applying the Naval Discipline Act, and that their opinion generally coincides with his own opinion that the failure to hold courts-martial was a bad departure?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That does not arise out of the question, which deals with what will be done by the Government after the War.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any idea of how many of the 2,000,000 new Income Tax payers are members of cooperative societies registered under the 1893 Act?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There are no official statistics Which would enable me to give the precise information asked for.
  Mr. WING: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the 2,000,000 extra taxpayers consist practically of the working classes.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I suppose that is so, but I do not wish to express any belief without an accurate knowledge of the facts.

  EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was received during the past year under the heading of Excess Profits Tax from gold-mining companies whose mines are situate abroad but which are domiciled in this country; and the amount received from mines of other metals similarly situate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 10th May to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs. I am sending a copy of this reply.

  POST OFFICE (TEMPORARY WORKERS).
  Sir J. SPEARasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that many young persons who entered the postal service as temporary hands with the intention to sit for competitive examination for permanent employment are disqualified from doing so because they have passed the maximum age of seventeen years; and, seeing the difficulty that has arisen because of the suspension of the examinations on account of the War and to meet such cases, will he temporarily raise the age limit or provide that the difficulty that has arisen should not prejudice such persons, if qualified, in their applications for the post of assistants in salaried post offices?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The maximum age limit for learner competitions is seventeen, but I am not aware that any young persons have entered the postal service for the purpose of sitting for these competitions, as they are open to outside candidates and no knowledge of Post Office work is required. The maximum age limited for the limited competitions amongst persons with a knowledge of telegraphy for positions as sorting clerk and telegraphist is twenty five.

  CEYLON.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the result of tiny inquiry into the case of Edmund Hewavitarne, the Buddhist temperance leader of Colombo, convicted in 1915 by a court-martial of treason and shop-breaking, sentenced to penal servitude for life, died in prison after a few months from ill-treatment, accorded, in spite of the Government, a public funeral in which all the leading citizens of Colombo deemed it an honour to join; what is Sir Kobert Chalmers' explanation of his refusal to transfer this respected citizen from the insanitary prison in which he was dying to a sanitary prison; and whether the Colonial Office still adheres to its appreciation of the administration of martial law in Ceylon in 1915?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir A. D. Steel-Maitland): I have seen a full report on this case. The prisoner was convicted on evidence which appears sufficient, and has not been rebutted. There is no ground for the statement that he was ill-treated, or that the prison in which he was confined was insanitary. I see nothing in this case to support any justifiable criticism of the administration of martial law.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the hon. Gentleman describe the petition presented to the Governor of Ceylon by the most respectable inhabitants as no ground for the allegation that the prison was insanitary I Why was not this prisoner removed before he died from the insanitary condition of the prison?

  HAY AND STRAW ORDERS.
  Colonel BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any modifications have been
  610
  made, or are about to be made, with regard to the Orders relating to the sale or use of hay, oat straw, and wheat straw?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this. Purchasing officers, under Clause 4 of the Army Council Order dated May 9th, 1917, possess wide discretionary powers and have been instructed to authorise the use by farmers of consumable wheat straw wherever they are satisfied that all damaged or otherwise inferior bedding straw has been absorbed; and in the case of straw for strawberry growers I understand that all needs are being met. Any difficulties caused by the Order in question are being promptly and sympathetically dealt with. With regard to hay restrictions, I do not think that any change of policy is called for—at any rate, at present.

  REBELLION IN IRELAND.
  Mr. GINNELL: I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance namely, the prolonged incarceration of 126 Irish political prisoners in England under sentences of secret courts-martial in solitary confinement in unventilated cells in hot weather, the prevention of their attending Mass on Sundays, the brutality of chaining them in groups, and the transfer from place to place, the denial of the right of communicating with their friends, and the refusal to allow independent medical inspection of their condition.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Chippenham has given notice that he was proposing to move the Adjournment. I propose to call him at the conclusion of Supplementary Questions.

  PETROGRAD (PASSPORTS).
  Mr. G. TERRELL,Member for Wiltshire (North-West or Chippenham Division), rose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the granting of passports to the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Bradford to visit Russia," but the pleasure of the House not having been

  611
  signified, Mr. SPEAKEB called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.

  IRISH PRISONERS.
  Mr. GINNELL: I handed in a Motion for a further question. I desire to ask the Chief Secretary whether he is—
  Mr. DUKE: On a point of Order. As I sat on this bench this afternoon I received a note in the handwriting of the hon. Member. I had not time to read it until a few minutes ago, and it is impossible that I could have obtained any information about it.
  Mr. GINNELL: Before you give your ruling will the Chief Secretary be candid enough to inform the House that he received a telegram from me from Richmond at 10 o'clock this morning.
  Mr. DUKE: No, Sir, I did not.
  Mr. GINNELL: Having sent a telegram to the Irish Office, Westminster, am I not entitled to ask a question now?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If this is the question relating to the prevention of a public meeting, the hon. Member sent me a copy of that and I had time to read it. I think he is entitled to ask it, but whether he gets an answer or not is a different thing.
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he has any statement to make on the forcible prevention of public meetings in Ireland, in denunciation of the cruelty to Irish political prisoners in England, and on the possible consequences of such forcible prevention if persisted in?
  Mr. DUKE: No, Sir, I have not.

  Education (Ireland).
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will see that a new Grant for Irish education will be provided by the Government equivalent to that now being provided for education in England and Scotland; that a full portion of -his new equivalent Grant for Irish education be allocated to technical instruction; and that of this portion for technical instruc-
  612
  tion as large a proportion as possible be paid directly to local committees in increase of their endowment for the local development of technical instruction.
  Mr. DUKE: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave last Thursday.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the estate of Lord Barrymore, in the county of Cork, there are evicted farms to which the former tenants have not been restored, notably that of one Maurice Hayes, consisting of about 70 acres upon which no tillage has taken place; and whether he will direct any steps to be taken upon the matter, or endeavour through the Irish Land Commission to have the tenants restored to possession?
  Mr. DUKE: The Estates Commissioners have received applications from eleven persons seeking reinstatement as tenants evicted from holdings on Lord Barrymore's estates in county Cork. In eight cases it was decided not to take any action, and the application of Maurice Hayes, whose eviction was subsequent to the passing of the Act of 1903, and who did not therefore come within the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, has been noted for consideration when the estate to which it relates is being dealt with. The two remaining applications were also outside the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, and they will be inquired into and considered when the estate is being dealt with.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  COMPOSITION OF CONVENTION.

    DEATH OF MAJOR REDMOND, M.P.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can make any statement on the subject of the Irish Convention?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Now that each of the leading political parties in Ireland has had an opportunity of considering our proposal to summon an Irish Convention, I am glad to be able to state that they have

    613
    given their assent to the invitation. I propose to give, therefore, in greater detail than has hitherto been possible, the proposals of the Government as to the constitution of the intended Convention.
    We have been pressed from a good many quarters to make the Convention a small one, but we found it, with regard to the present condition of Irish politics, difficult and almost impracticable to have a small body in which all interests should be represented, and because it is necessary not merely that the Convention should come to an agreement, but that it should be a Convention whose agreement would be likely to secure the adhesion of all interests. Bearing that in mind, before the House adjourned for Whitsuntide, the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has stated, had completed their proposals as to the composition of the Convention. They are the proposals which will be carried into effect in the invitations now about to be issued, the character of which I will briefly state.
    Firstly, we have sought to secure representatives of the every day life of the country, and for that purpose we shall invite each county council and each county borough to send its chairman These gentleman are chosen annually for their offices.
    Mr. GINNELL: They are not.
    4.0 P. M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: And the chairmen of county councils are, I believe, being chosen in the course of the next two or three weeks. A considerable part of the urban population of Ireland is found in the small towns and urban districts, and we propose to invite the chairmen of these areas in each of the four provinces to select two Members to sit in the Convention. The Government thought that the Churches ought to be invited, and we expect the presence of four representatives from among the Roman Catholic Bishops, together with the Primate, Dr. Crozier, and the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Bernard, as representing the Protestant Church of Ireland, and Dr. John Irwin, the Moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Assembly. We shall invite as spokesmen of Commerce the chairmen of the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast and Cork. As spokesmen of Labour we shall invite representatives of the Trade Councils in Dublin and Cork and representatives of
    614
    Trade Unions in Belfast—in all, five representatives of Labour. I come lastly to the direct representation of organised political opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) made it clear, when the subject was before the House, that he did not seek that nominees, from among his friends should outnumber the nominees of the Ulster Party. We propose to invite the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lonsdale) to give us each the names of five members. We shall also ask the hon. Member (Mr. W. O'Brien) to suggest two names. We intend, further, to invite the Irish representative peers to name two of their number and the Irish Unionist Alliance, who speak for the Unionists of Southern Ireland, to name five. There remains the question of representation of Sinn Fein. Certain spokesmen of associations which profess Separatist doctrines have warned us that they will not enter the Convention. We hope that some recognised spokesmen of opinions not voiced by the Irish Parties present in this House will be heard in the Convention, and for this purpose we shall reserve five places. A Convention of selected gentlemen who are put forward to speak for parties and interests would not necessarily comprise all interests or secure the presence of all the Irishmen who their countrymen generally would desire should be heard. The Government will nominate, therefore, from among leading Irishmen of all sections, fifteen members of the Convention, and will endeavour to exercise this power of nomination so as to promote the object which all sober and loyal Irishmen have in view. The total number of the Convention will be 101. We shall proceed to make our nominations when we have seen the names of the representatives chosen by the various interests. With regard to the Chairman, we should infinitely prefer that Irishmen should choose their own chairman, but if they still prefer that we should adhere to the original idea which I set out when I first announced the Convention, we are prepared, on behalf of the Government, to nominate a chairman, and to submit his name to the King for approval.
    Before I sit down, I think it would be appropriate, especially having regard to the statement which I have made with regard to the Irish Convention, if I were to give expression in the best way I can

    615
    to the deep sense of loss which pervades this House at the death of one of its best known, one of its oldest, and certainly one of its best-loved Members. I have known Major Redmond for over twenty-seven years. He was one of my best friends, and there never was a more loyal or more steadfast friend. I feel I cannot adequately express the sorrow which we must all feel at the fall of this lovable and chivalrous figure.
    Both Houses of Parliament have made a noble contribution to the sacrifices imposed upon the people of these islands by this terrible War. I think eight or nine Members of this House—[Mr. Gulland: Eleven.]—have given their lives for the cause of freedom and international right which the nations that constitute this Empire have undertaken to champion in this War. That is not the sum total of the personal loss sustained by Members of this House. Of these Members—if the number be eleven—at least ten of them were young and full of promise. From their gifts the country was entitled to expect great service in the future, but great as the service was which they could have rendered, we feel that the example that they have set in the hour of their country's fate is a greater service than even they could have rendered by their lives here, for it has set its seal upon equality of sacrifice. It was the country's need in that critical hour.
    Among those noble examples of heroism, the heroic sacrifices of Major Redmond stands quite apart. He had arrived at an age when, by the common consent of all beligerent lands, men could not be expected to endure the hardships of war and to face the dangers of war. Of his own free will he stood dangers, perils and privations, and he did it all with that cheerful courage which always radiated from his personality. I have seen officers who served with him in France, and as Irishmen they spoke with pride of his gallantry. He was a fine soldier. We shall miss him very much in this House. On the rare occasions when he came back here on leave, men of all sections and parties were delighted to see him, to greet him, and to hear him. We shall never forget his last appearance amongst us in this House. He had gone through some of the bloodiest battles of this sanguinary conflict. He looked worn arid aged with
    616
    privations that his years unfitted him to bear. He, at any rate, could have claimed, and no one could have challenged him, that he had done his share. There were political tasks awaiting him at home in which his genial presence, his great personal popularity, and his moving powers of speech would have been useful. He elected instead to face death on the battle-field, and he did it. I think I know why he did it—in fact he said so. There was no man who was more convinced of the justice of the Allied cause. There was no man who-was moved to deeper indignation at the wrongs of the small nations which have been trampled by a cruel despotism. But he was above all an Irish patriot, and he felt that this was Ireland's greatest opportunity of winning liberty for herself by fighting side by side with Britain in the great world-struggle for freedom. It is for Ireland that he gave his gallant life. We all remember his last appeal to us here, and I think that now this Convention is being launched on its career, I cannot do better than read his words:
    "Why must it be that, when British soldiers and Irish soldiers are suffering and dying side by side, this eternal old quarrel should go on?…Iri the name of God, we here, who are about to die, perhaps, ask you to do that which largely induced us to leave our homes: to do that which our fathers and mothers taught us to long for; to do that which is all we desire—make our country happy and contented, and enable us when we meet Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders side by side, to say 'Our country, just as yours, has self-government within theEmpire.'"—[OFFICIALREPORT, 6th March, 1917, cols. 442 and 445, Vol. XCI.]
    He was carried tenderly and reverently from the battlefield by Ulster soldiers on an Ulster ambulance. The solemn appeal which I have read comes to us now from an honoured grave on the frontier of the land he gave his life to liberate.
    Mr. ASQUITH: I desire to associate myself, and I think I may say the whole House, with the tribute which my right hon. Friend has paid to Major Redmond. He had already been three years a Member of this House when I first took my seat here thirty-one years ago, and for more than the lifetime of a generation his service in Parliament had been unbroken. I have many delightful recollections of the days when as young Members of Parliament he and I used to find ourselves side by side on English and Scottish platforms pleading for Irish self-government. Few men that I have known who have lived well on into middle life remained from first to last so entirely unchanged in temperament, in character,

    617
    in ideals. He never swerved by a hair's-breadth from the mission to which he had devoted himself from his earliest youth. He was a convinced and an ardent Nationalist, bat he had a certain genius of imagination and of sympathy which enabled him always to understand the scruples and difficulties of honest opponents, whether in Ireland or in Great Britain. His passionate love of liberty—for such it was—was not limited in its range to his own country or his own race, and when he perceived—as he did, and as my right hon. Friend has reminded us—at the very beginning of the War, with quick and penetrating insight, that the principles in which he believed were being translated into universal terms and put in issue on a world-wide theatre, he threw himself heart and soul, with all the energy and contagious enthusiasm of his nature, into the struggle We have never had in our ranks a more brave or more devoted comrade, and we here who were for so long his colleagues, I think, have a special title, now that he has died a hero's death, to a share of our own in the pride and gratitude and mourning of the Empire. The incorporation of all Ireland in that Empire, not formally, but by ties and chains of confidence, of real affection, and of lasting loyalty, will be the best and most enduring tribute and monument that we can raise to his memory.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I desire, on behalf of all my colleagues, to express the profound gratitude which we feel to the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend who has just sat down for the touching and eloquent references which they have made to the death of our beloved colleague. Major Redmond. If the splendid and noble death of our brave and gallant comrade has called forth such eulogies from the English Benches on both sides of the House, Members will understand how deep and heartfelt must be the grief of his bereaved colleagues who sit around us. It would be impossible for me, as one of his closest personal friends, to do justice at this moment to his 'memory, but I do feel that one of the bravest and noblest hearts in Ireland has ceased to beat. He was loved by his colleagues for his peronal loyalty—his boundless, personal loyalty. He was loved for his good faith, for his noble chivalry, for the intensity of his purpose, for his sublime courage, and, above all, for his
    618
    high sense of public duty. For over thirty years in this House, and in Ireland, he laboured with unceasing zeal, and he fought with sublime courage for what he conceived to be the liberty of his nation and his people. He fought for their liberty in Parliament; for it he suffered in prison; for liberty he fought in France; but he always fought for those high ideals which had been the animating and inspiring purpose of his life, and finally he went out to fight for the freedom of the world, and he fought for the freedom of the world that his own nation might share that universal emancipation, and his death was his last contribution to the cause of human liberty. His memory to us on these benches will ever be a deep and precious asset, and all Irishmen will say of him:
    "That he is freedom's now and fame's,
    One of the few immortal names
    That were not born to die."
    I should be glad, after offering that personal tribute and expressing that feeling on behalf of my colleague, that I might be allowed to resume my seat. But I trust that the House will not think it bad taste on my part if I just make one passing reference to the preliminary observations which were made by the Prime Minister when he was announcing the character of the constitution of the Convention. This House at this moment is deeply moved, and we are suffering from the shadow of a great sorrow, and in that melting mood may I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make an immediate announcement to the House of Commons, as a preliminary to the Convention which we all hope in the providence of God will bring peace and liberty and union to Ireland, that the right hon. Gentleman will now boldly and frankly announce that the Sinn Fein prisoners will be released? If he desires the Convention to be a success—and I profoundly believe he does, and that that is one of the great purposes of his life—surely no end can be served by holding these men in prison and embittering still further that ill-feeling that exists in many parts of Ireland. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of Ireland, in the interests of the Empire, in the interests of the success of the Convention, and in response to the generous and sympathetic instincts of all liberty-loving people in every part of the world, will declare that these men shall be released.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir E. Carson): Perhaps the House will allow me to add my small contribution of tribute to the memory of my much lamented, esteemed and lifelong opponent, Major Redmond. I have known him for more years than I can calculate—from the day he was called to the Irish Bar. I have disagreed with him on every subject in politics which has ever arisen in this. House and elsewhere, and we were always on opposite sides; but I feel glad to think that I never had in the course of those long and many years one bitter word with him either in public or in private life. I always respected him. I always knew his sincerity, and there was no man, however he might disagree with him, who could not but believe in the earnestness with which he prosecuted the cause in which he believed.
    I have just come back from Belfast, where I had to preside at a conference of five hundred delegates from Ulster, and where I advised them strongly to enter this Convention. And I am glad to say that they took my advice. You cannot in jour own mind disconnect an incident such as the calling of this Convention, after many years of bitter domestic strife, with the incidents which are taking place, and of which the death of Major Redmond is one. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated that he fell fighting beside the Ulstermen, and that he was taken away and cared for in an Ulster ambulance by Ulstermen. I cannot help recalling the fact that the first Member of this House who made the supreme sacrifice was an Ulsterman. Let us put these facts together. It is not necessary to dwell upon them. They are eloquent.
    And after all, if in the trenches we can fight side by side all for the common cause of liberty, certainly so far as I am concerned, and as I said in Belfast on Friday, I trust that I shall in my time see some solution of that long-continued Irish question that would meet the ideal of liberty of all parties in Ireland. In the grave crisis which confronts us, in the loss of Members of this House to whom we looked across from day to day, there is indeed a great deal of food for reflection. We cannot but think of what shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue.
    Mr. WARDLE: I feel that if I were to remain silent some misunderstanding
    620
    might arise as to the position of myself and the party to which I belong, and though I do not desire to intervene in this Debate at any great length, I feel that I must say one or two words upon this occasion. I cannot boast of the long, acquaintance with Major Redmond which has been referred to by the Prime Minister, the late Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I have now been in the House for eleven years. I have come into close and personal contact with the late Major Redmond, and I should like to add my tribute to the personal qualities, which he always displayed, to his-geniality, his lovability, his courage, and his passionate desire to see the settlement of that long trouble in his own country, and I should like on behalf of the party to which I belong to say that we deplore his loss as greatly and as sincerely as any other party in this House, and we desire to associate ourselves fully to the greatest extent to the tributes which are laid upon his honoured grave. I remember his appeal in this House on the last occasion when he addressed it. He has paid the price of liberty, and I hope that the appeal which he then made and which is still fresh in the minds of Members will result, as the last speech to which we have listened gives us some ground for hoping it may result, in the complete settlement of a difficulty which has baffled us for generations, but which, were it settled, would make the British Empire in my opinion the most complete exponent of liberty that the world has ever seen.
    Mr. GINNELL: I desire to say a few words. The gallant Gentleman, whose loss the whole House without exception deplores, has laid down his life according to his own judgment for a cause which his country has never adopted, and which it never will adopt. He died not far away indeed from the field of Landen, on which Marshal Patrick Sarsfield shed his blood, and Sarsfield, on putting his hand to his breast and finding that his life blood was flowing regretted with his dying breath that that blood had not flowed for Ireland. Unfortunately, precisely the same thing occured on the present occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO. no!"] Men sacrificed their lives for Ireland, while men, who risked their lives for Ireland, after having laid down their arms, have been prisoners of war in your hands—that is, those who entered through accident were

    621
    either led to execution or are to-day in chains, while this House professes to desire the fruition of the cause for which they are enchained. Will the death of a Member of this House facilitate the day when that relation between the two countries will have ceased to exist? I say it will not. The Prime Minister professes to summon what he calls an Irish Convention, an assembly of one hundred, most of them being persons who could not get themselves elected by any body of the people in Ireland to-day.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: On a point of Order, Sir. I would like to ask what is the Question before the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House. I understood the hon. Member was going to pay a tribute to the memory of the late Major Redmond.
    Mr. GINNELL: I have precisely the same purpose for which the Prime Minister and the speakers who followed him rose—to deal with the Convention.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be out of order if he deals with the Convention.
    Mr. GINNELL: On the point of Order, Sir, have not other hon. Members been allowed to deal with the Convention?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question before the House. There have been passing references by one or two speakers to that subject, but it would be quite out of order to discuss it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

    BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House approves of the Instructions appended to the warrants appointing Commissioners to determine, for the purposes of the Representation of the People Bill, the number of members to be assigned to the several counties and boroughs in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively, and the boundaries of such counties and boroughs and divisions thereof."—[Sir George Cave.]
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "Provided that notwithstanding any of the provisions contained in such Instructions, the Commissioners shall be at liberty in determining such boundaries and divisions to have regard to area as well as population."
    My Amendment has for its object the prevention of a serious reduction of Parliamentary influence in the rural areas. I do not think it is necessary for me now to labour the point of the recognition of the importance of the agricultural interest at the present time. I think it is generally admitted on all sides of the House, but I would merely like to say that during the Whitsuntide Recess I tried to find out in the West of England how far the proposal that had been made by the Government for the further ploughing up of land was being received, and in Devonshire I heard and I found that the attitude of the farmers was, "We do not like it"; but I think they all realise that it was for the benefit of the country that it should be done, and their feeling was that they were anxious not to put any difficulty in the way. That, I believe, is the feeling of the farmers, not only in the West of England, but throughout the country, and that being so, I wish to ask the House to agree that it would not only be a wrong thing, but it would also be a foolish thing, to do anything at the present moment which the farmers would undoubtedly regard as an injury to their future political interests in the country. There are three ways in which
    636
    the interests of agriculture may be dealt with by a Bill which has for its object the redistribution of seats: There is grouping, there is segregation, and there is the system of areas. These are dealt with in the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners, and if, in the schemes that are issued, it appears to any of those interested that not sufficient attention has been paid to those matters, I am quite sure that would be one of the matters to which the Commissioners would direct their inquiries to be held in different parts of the country; so that if there should be any grievance on the subject that grievance would be one of the subjects for the inquiry.
    It is with the question of areas that my Amendment deals. I am not sure that the borough members and the London members recognise what a very big thing for country members, and for members representing certain areas, this question of area is. My hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Tavistock, had a question on that subject on the Paper to-day; and there are some who are more affected by this Bill than he is. London members have a good deal of influence on this Committee, and the knowledge of and thorough study of this question of franchise by the right hon. Member for St. Pancas must have been absolutely invaluable to the Conference. The right hon. Gentleman can go to a couple of meetings in the evening and be home in time for supper, or at all events early in the evening. But it is a very different thing in the case of a member for a county constituency, who has to address his constituents when the House is not sitting. He cannot slip out in the course of the evening and come back again; he has to go a long journey by rail, and very often a long journey by road afterwards. It is not only a question of time and trouble, but it is a question of expense as well. I do not think any section of the House wishes to make a law by which a large country constituency can only be represented by a rich man. The various farmers' associations in the country are urging that they ought to have in this House more representatives who are actually tenant farmers, and who would best serve their particular interest. I think the House must be in sympathy with that claim, not only on general grounds, but because of our experience of tenant farmers in the House already. To such members

    637
    entering the House, the tremendous expense which large areas must involve is very serious. It is said that farm profits are pretty good now. I daresay they are, but they do not run to a Rolls-Royce car, and the expense of getting about in a large constituency, and still more so if the Bill were passed as it stands, would make the representation of an agricultural district practically impossible to any tenant farmer. Then there is the question of precedent for this matter. There is a very good precedent, a precedent set by this House in the Act of Parliament which it passed within recent years—the South Africa Act, 1909. In that Act, the method is provided for dividing the provinces into electoral divisions, and in Sub-section (3) of Clause 40, it is provided:
    "The Commissioners shall give due consideration to—

    (a) community or diversity of interests;

    (b) means of communication;

    (c) physical features;

    (d) existing electoral boundaries;

    (e) sparsity or density of population;

    in such manner that, while taking the quota of voters as the basis of division, the Commissioners may, whenever they deem it necessary, depart therefrom, but in no case to any greater extent than fifteen per centum more or fifteen per centum less than the quota."
    That Sub-section in the South Africa Act exactly bears out the point that I wish to raise in this Amendment. Seeing that we have so recently laid it down for South Africa, I do not see how we can very well refuse it in our Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners in this country. I believe that opinion on this point is advancing. When I first ventured to raise it on the Second Reading of this Bill, it was received with sympathy, but I was told that what I was asking was practically impossible. I believe the sympathy still remains, but that the verdict on the impossibility is gradually fading away. If I look at the Order Paper to-day, it would appear that a very considerable number of Members of this House, and at least two members of the Conference itself, no longer think that it is impossible, and I am particularly gratified to see what I have always believed, that members of the Conference,
    638
    like anyone else, are sensible men, that they are quite open to conviction, and that they realise that it is possible that some points may have been overlooked in their Report, and that when those points are brought forward, they will not return a non possumus to them. I noticed that on the Paper there is an Amendment to my Amendment. I want to say one word about that. With the purpose of that Amendment I need not say that I am in absolute and entire sympathy. If we differ at all it is not on the question of principle, but on the question of expediency, and it has been represented to me in various quarters that the House is less likely to accept an Amendment which contains figures than one which only deals with the general principle. If that is so, and if the House or the Government, which is more or less the mouthpiece of the House, says that they prefer the Amendment without the figures being put into it, then I can only say I would rather take my Amendment as it stands than imperil it by accepting any figures to be put in. As the Amendment stands it leaves the matter in the hands of the Commissioners. I am quite content to do that, and, if I may say so without impertinence, I feel sure that agriculture can feel quite confident in leaving its case in the hands of the Commissioners of which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, and Sir Thomas Elliott, are two distinguished members. This Amendment gives the Commissioners what they have not had up till now, a free hand and if there is a strong expression of opinion in this House, as I hope there will be, I feel sure the Commissioners will use that free hand in the way in which I believe the House will wish them to use it. I am content to leave the matter there.
    There is one other thing I want to urge on the Home Secretary, and that is that if this or any similar Amendment is adopted we might have a stay of execution, that is, that the inquiries in the country should not go on until the matter has been reconsidered. I believe that inquiries are taking place to-day, and that notice has been given of inquiries for later in the week. If they are to be fruitless that will cause a great deal of inconvenience, and it would be a great convenience to many of us if the Home Secretary could state to-day, or at an early date, whether it is possible to put these inquiries off. With regard to future inquiries I would like

    639
    to urge that time should be given between the date on which the scheme is published and the date on which the inquiry is held. I am not speaking so much in the interest of political associations, because in a matter of this sort they have to look after themselves as best they can. I do think, however, that the county councils have a right to be heard on this point. "When you are dividing up a county into new-sections it is only right that the county councils should be heard and should be able to give a considered opinion on the subject. In order to do that the county councils have to call their general purposes committee together. Everyone knows that the men who do the active work on the county councils now are very-busy. There are committees and engagements all over the county, and some of these men have practically every day filled up. To call an extraordinary meeting of your general purposes committee, therefore, is a very difficult thing, and I think time ought to be given, either for this subject to be brought before the ordinary-meetings of the general purposes committees or else, at all events, that a longer time should be given between these two dates, the date of the scheme, and the date of the inquiry, in order that the general purposes committee might have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on it. I commend this Amendment to the House. I believe I have a very strong case, and if anyone doubts me all I can say is that the more I look into it the stronger I think the case is. I ask, with great hope that I may meet with success, the House and the Government to accept my Amendment.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On a point of Order. Might I ask with regard to all the Motions on the Paper whether we can have a discussion on most of the points, if not on proportional representation, on the Amendment which has just been proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sanders)? The points appear to be population, area, characteristics, and the question of grouping. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and Kinross (Mr. E. Wason) and I have an Amendment with regard to Scotland, and I think it might save the time of the House if we were allowed—the only new point I think is the question of grouping which would arise both in connection with the boroughs and the counties—to take that discussion.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: On a point of Order In connection with the suggestion that proportional representation would be completely outside the scope of these Amendments, though of course I accept that as a broad principle, I would just call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that proportional representation is one means of giving effective representation to a large class of voters, such as the agricultural voter, and that it is almost impossible to avoid reference to it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no suggestion that proportional representation should be applied to the counties. That is not contained in these Instructions. The question of proportional representation is a separate question, on which the decision of the House can be taken. With regard to the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), the Amendments on the Paper seem to-resolve themselves merely into two, or at most three, points—first, the question of area; secondly, of proportional representation; and, possibly, thirdly, the question of the regrouping of boroughs where certain boroughs are in counties other than those in which the main group is. I think that the most convenient plan would be to discuss the question of area now. Then we can pass on to proportional representation, and afterwards deal perhaps with the third question.
    Mr. J. MASON: I have an Amendment dealing with narrow margins. I should rather like to know whether I can raise that now or whether I ought to wait. It deals also with the question of area.
    Sir E. GOULDING: I have an Amendment which would not be covered by the subject of area. It does not deal with population solely, but also with the character and nature of the constituency. That also has reference to several other Amendments.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Baronet will find that these questions are very closely allied, these questions of area and agricultural population—that is what I suppose he means.
    Sir E. GOULDING: No. My Amendment has reference to the character and nature of a place of industry, of boroughs. It is the second Amendment on the Paper.
    Sir R. ADKINS: May I ask whether in view of the fact that one of the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners is

    641
    the segregating of rural and urban districts, which can obviously only be done on the ground of the respective characters of those districts, you would not allow reference to be made to them on this Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think that when we get a little closer into this discussion it will be found that there is really no difficulty. The points suggested can nearly all be raised on this Amendment. I certainly should not interrupt the hon. Member if he dealt with the question of the character of the areas or of the population. I think that would be relevant, and I should raise no objection to it.
    Mr. E. WASON: May I ask whether it would be possible to discuss the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton) and myself?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is already provided for in the Instructions—that there is to be no substantial difference in the total number of members returned.
    Mr. BRYCE: I do not think the Instruction says that. It says in Great Britain there is to be no substantial difference, but it does not distinguish between the case of Scotland and the case of England.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Members of the Conference over which you, Mr. Speaker presided with such consummate ability, will remember that over and over again I warned them that the unit of 70,000 was bound to produce an unwieldy and unmanageable community in rural districts. I have had before me the clearest possible eivdence, that of my own Constituency, which has 40,000 population, but has eighty-one parishes and is thirty miles broad. In fact, it is triangular in shape and is thirty miles in several directions. If you add sixty parishes, as you would do under this Bill, to that area you would have something like 140 parishes, which I am perfectly certain no man in this House could adequately represent or cover. Let me ask borough members, who have no experience of carrying on a campaign in these rural constituencies, to realise what it means to have a constituency of, say, 140 parishes. If you address two meetings a night it would take you six weeks to cover even half the constituency. It seems to me that to create these large rural areas, to establish a definite unit of 70,000, is to make them quite unworkable and quite im-
    642
    possible. I know lull well that it has been said that those who support the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sanders) wish to represent acres rather than people, but you must take into account the difficulties of the people in the rural districts. Many agricultural labourers have now to walk three to five miles from home. It is a marvel that they do it, and therefore when I am told that if we plead for a little extra indulgence for rural and scattered areas that means that we are unfaithful to the principle of democracy. I rather challenge that. Democracy, so far as I understand it, does not mean entirely counting noses. I cannot help feeling that 70,000 agricultural workers in Devonshire are more important than 70,000 workers in Whitechapel. I base: my case on the great statesman under whose ægis I entered this House—Mr. Gladstone. When he introduced the Representation of the People Bill on the 28th February, 1884, he stated very clearly his considered opinion:
    "I do not think we ought to have any absolute population scale. I would respect, within moderate limits, the individuality of constituencies. I am certainly disposed to admit that very large and closely concentrated populations need not have quite so high a proportional share of representation in the country as rural and dispersed populations."
    That was Mr. Gladstone's considered opinion when he made his great speech in introducing the Bill which enfranchised the agricultural labourer. I fancy that no democrat could challenge Mr. Gladstone's authority in this matter, but I associate myself with the hon. and gallant Member for Somerset when he says that if you make these constituencies so large they can only be represented by a rich plutocrat or a very large owner of land, a man who can keep an agent in every village and subscribe largely to all the local charities but cannot get in touch with the electorate over such a large area. We agriculturists are told that we are back ward and unprogressive. Well, I have found more shrewd philosophy in an agricultural labourer than I have in almost any other member of the community. I know there are gentlemen coming down from urban districts who profess to be able to teach us our business. They are always endeavouring to teach us our business. I know a gentleman, a friend of mine, who was a very large grocer, and he came down and started a farm. He made a fortune out of grocery, but he found that cultivating the land was far more difficult than putting sand in sugar. We were told by my right

    643
    hon. Friend opposite that the urban areas were awakening to the importance of agriculture. That may be all very well, but we would like something more definite put into the Regulations which will guide the Commissioners. If these urban areas are to be awakened to the importance of agriculture, they must have knowledge. I have heard as much nonsense talked in this House about agriculture as almost any other subject. We had a speech from an hon. Member on the Labour benches, a very earnest speech, condemning the price of milk. I think he was obviously astonished when it was pointed out to him that a cow had to be milked fourteen times a week, and even a member of the War Cabinet can make a mistake in these matters. It is the greatest possible mistake, I can assure my hon. Friend, to think that a farmer's life consists in scratching the soil, scattering the seed, and then smoking his pipe.
    Agriculture has been very largely neglected in this country for very many years. We are suffering from it to-day. Germany has not neglected her agriculture, France has not neglected her agriculture. It seems to me that the town magnet will always be sufficiently pliable to draw people from the country district into the town, therefore, if anything can be done to strengthen the agricultural representation, and I do not put this forward as a class measure at all, I am perfectly certain it would be to the benefit of the nation. With reference to the high price of food, no one regrets that such prices prevail more than I do, but I say it is largely due to the policy which has been pursued. I wish very sincerely, very warmly, and very earnestly that these prices could be largely reduced, but after this War is over we must go in for large constructive schemes. We are told that we ought to increase the importance of our agricultural industry. On Wednesday next the financial resolution of the Corn Production Bill comes on. The farmers of the country are asked to increase the cultivation by 3,000,000 acres and prices are to be guaranteed. What sort of a prelude would it be to the intelligent working classes to be told that the agriculturists of the country must lop off twenty or thirty seats in this House. It grows "curiouser and curiouser," as Alice says in Wonderland, and it will be strange to me if the Government do not make some
    644
    concession to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sanders). If this principle of 70,000 is adhered to, Wapping will be developed at the expense of Wiltshire. We shall have the cry, "Up Limehouse, down Lincolnshire." That does not seem to be the first great act of agricultural reconstruction which should be supported by a Government. We are told that democracy means equality. I agree in equality of number, and in one of the most democratic countries in the world, New Zealand, a rural constituency, is, I understand, allowed to put 28 per cent, extra on the population to balance the inconveniences compared with other localities. If these Instructions are carried out many constituencies which are now almost purely agricultural will be swamped by the boroughs that will be merged in them. If you have a constituency of 70,000, and a borough of 40,000 is put into it, naturally the dominating interest in that constituency will be that of the borough; therefore it will stamp out the rural district. I do ask the House most earnestly, while supporting heartily, as I am bound to do and as I wish to do, the decision of the Speaker's Conference, come to as the result of immense labour, to think once, twice, and thrice before they adopt these principles which are laid down in the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners. I would ask them not in any spirit of class prejudice, but solely and simply in the interests of the Nation, not to withdraw some twenty or thirty representatives who are serving agricultural interests in this House.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The point of view which the Mover and Seconder of the proviso have taken up is bound up, I think, with a proviso which a little later I shall move specifically dealing with Scotland with regard to area and population. This might be dealt with now, I should have thought, rather than later on along with a group of other questions which have been postponed. The objections we have in Scotland to the Instructions given to the Boundary Commissioners are equally strong, and I think, very valid. We object to a scheme being based wholly on population. No consideration of any other kind is imported into those Instructions, and if you rigidly adhere to the Instructions as they appear on the Paper Scotland would lose a very large part of its representation in this House. Such part as is left to it would

    645
    be wholly and differently distributed. These proposals do away with the fundamental principles of representation which have hitherto guided the House, and I maintain that something more ought to be taken into consideration. We ought to deal with areas with their characteristics, and we ought to deal with historical and separate interests, and so on. I say that, because the House knows that the Speaker's Conference has not adopted the principle of one vote one value. Not a bit of it. They have taken two population bases—one of 70,000 and one of 50,000—and they have discarded the other principle, and under the circumstances we are perfectly entitled, as I believe the Scotch Members will say we are entitled, to urge that other considerations shall be brought to bear in this matter, and that the Commissioners shall have an opportunity to deal with other questions which I hope will be advantageous to Scotland and to its representation in this House. I do not suggest any alteration on the figures. I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Sanders) wisely agreed that it would be better to leave them as they stand. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lambert) say that in New Zealand 28 per cent, was added to the agricultural figures in order to bring out the proper representation. I was told the other day by Lord Selborne that in the South African Constitution they have a figure lower, but they have a margin of 15 per cent, on either side, so that it is practically 30 per cent, one way or the other. That is the principle that guides the Commission, or whoever do that sort of work there. We in Scotland feel that if these Instructions are rigidly carried out the effect would be that twenty-two consitituencies would lose their individual representation, the preponderating interest going to Lanarkshire and Glasgow, reducing the representation of the North of Scotland. No one can say that I have any party object in view in pleading for the representation of the North of Scotland because it is, on the whole, Radical. If we are to have such a thing as party— personally I hope that in future we shall have a national party—it cannot be said that I am actuated by considerations of that kind. I do say that these remote areas should be considered and the remoteness of the area ought to be taken into account. I am not certain whether, under the existing Instructions to the
    646
    Boundary Commissioners, there is any power to regroup portions of counties. I am not sure that the Commissioners have power to deal with that, but I do not think they should be lumped together, which will be the case if the Boundary Commissioners stick to the figures in the Instructions they have received. We do not want our present numbers reduced in Scotland. We do not think it fair that they should be reduced, but if the Instructions are not altered they will be.
    That is our first objection. Our second is that, while asking that the members should not be reduced, there ought to be regard to the varied character of the constituencies, area, remoteness, and also antiquity. Certainly old constituencies which have existed for years would lose their individual representation and they would, in some cases, be joined with contiguous counties or burghs not altogether with the same characteristics, and which might also be antagonistic. I know what it means to have a constituency in which one part can be antagonistic to the other. My present constituency is divided by the Atlantic. I have three burghs in Argyllshire and two in Ayrshire. I have found that the fishing question is a cause of antagonism between the two. As that Constituency is to be aboloshed, I do not mind saying that the fishermen usually get the support of the candidate or member who are the biggest lot. The Ayr burghs have continued for a long time; I am sorry they should be broken up now. I do plead for more elastic Instructions to-the Commissioners with regard to Scotland, and I think that something like a Highland enclave ought to be formed for these northern counties and Highlands, and that they ought to have a much more generous representation than they would have under any scheme of which population alone is the basis, and that they are really entitled to it. This House has imposed a very expensive scheme of local government on those districts, precisely similar to that imposed on the very rich districts. It has been admitted that the people there are not able to afford to pay for that scheme of local government, but very little has been done to relieve them of the appalling burden of taxation caused in that way. That alone is a reason why they should be afforded opportunity to plead their own cause and to point out to the House how unfair it is to impose on them burdens which they are really not able to perform. It would be

    647
    possible also to avoid the difficulty raised by the right hon. Gentleman if some scheme were adopted in England of grouping urban areas, where a town or a large urban area was likely to have too great an influence in a county constituency. We have found that system to work very satisfactorily in Scotland. I content myself by asking that this elasticity should be imported into the Instructions so far as Scotland is concerned. I am quite sure that the Commissioners are able to deal with all these considerations. They would add to their difficulties, and the matter would not be so easy as a mere counting of noses, but they are all men in whom we have the most perfect confidence, and are full of common sense, and I am certain that Scotland would be perfectly safe in their hands, and that the representation would be enormously improved over anything that can be conceived under the rigid and inelastic scheme as it stands.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I find myself in complete disagreement with the views put forward by the last few speakers. I was envious of the Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders) when he said that his constituency was, I think, forty miles across. I represent one of the largest agricultural constituencies in the country, and I have not had one single request from that constituency to support any preferential treatment for agriculture. I believe that to be an absolutely false position, and I desire to take this early opportunity of giving a few reasons why I think it is so. My hon. Friend who spoke last about the woes of Scotland gave us some excellent illustrations as to what we shall come to if we seriously give way to some of the requests which are suggested in the Order Paper of to-day. I absolutely differ from him in the view that you want to have homogeneous constituencies. I think it would be disastrous if we were to be reduced in this House to the level of the position of dockyard members. I am also very much against small constituencies, because we want to be protected from what I may call pocket boroughs. When I see people putting down Amendments to save constituencies described as of historical interest, whose main efforts during the last half century perhaps have been to achieve an unenviable distinction in the election petition reports, I begin to think the Government would be very wise if they stand firm upon the recommendations of Mr.
    648
    Speaker's Conference, which represents what both parties have been fighting for, more or less, during the last twenty years, namely, that we should have as far as possible one man one vote, and as far as possible one vote one value. I was surprised to find that my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) seems to think that there was no elasticity in the Bill at all.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not say that.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Personally, I dislike altogether the fact that any borough or county with only 50,000 inhabitants is to keep its representation. I think we ought to get much nearer to the 70,000 mark. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) gave us a lurid picture of the impossibility of a tenant farmer fighting an agricultural constituency with a population of 70,000. How many tenant farmers have been put up for agricultural constituencies during the past twenty years? It is not the fact that agriculure has been unrepresented during the last few years by the numbers of people from agricultural seats. Agriculture has had about thirty members more than its proper quota, and much good they have done it. It is not the numbers we want to change, but the quality of the representation. When agricultural divisions chose tenant farmers and agricultural labourers, we may consider the question then as to alterations in the method of election to make it possible for these estimable people to get about. But as a matter of fact, it is just as easy to fight a constituency with 140 parishes as with 110. I have got a constituency with 122 parishes, and I do not care twopence if the number is increased to 150, or reduced to 100. It means a great deal of time, but if you are a fairly active man you can get round your constituency once in two years. I have always managed to do so in the four years which I have represented my present constituency. I do not think it is a fair criticism to say that we ought to give up the recommendations, because it is impossible for any tenant farmer, or agricultural labourer, or a man with a limited purse to fight an agricultural constituency. My constituency is very large, and I am bound to say it is very cheap. I do not find it is expensive, or that it is expensive to get about. I think that as a matter of fact that argument is put forward by people who absolutely forget the fact that they themselves have never moved a finger during the last

    649
    twenty or thirty years to see that those men of small means could have an opportunity of representing agricultural constituencies. I should be much more impressed by their arguments if I thought they had done so.
    If we are going to reduce the quota for agricultural constituencies and also to take on proportional representation, we should have a pretty state of things. It will be nice for the boroughs, because proportional representation will reduce the majority there, whereas to reduce the quota of population in the counties, will mean that the counties will get full majorities by single-member constituencies, while the towns will have their majorities largely cut down. Further than that, the towns will be in this position, that they will have constituencies of 70,000 or more, and if you are going to reduce the agricultural quota you will probably have to put up the figure in the towns, and you will have them hit in two ways and, I think, most unfairly. I cannot see how you can possibly at this time of day enter on any scheme of preferential representation for the counties. I do not believe there is any genuine demand for it. I have no doubt Chambers of Agriculture will pass resolutions in favour of it. People will always argue for what suits them. Scotland wants to get representation which under this Bill it apparently is not entitled to. I do not blame Scotland for asking for it, but, not being a Scotsman, I should certainly blame the Government if they gave way to the request. I do not want to disfranchise the North of Scotland, because I find myself in complete agreement with the views put forward from there, but I do not want to see the whole of this Bill mutilated for the purpose of keeping, let us say, the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire in the House I do not know with what Sutherlandshire would be grouped, but I do know that this is a question that ought not to be a question of any one Member, or any one country, or any one interest.
    I stand here to speak as a representative of an agricultural constituency, absolutely protesting against this demand that the agricultural industry is to be overburdened with members in this way. When we are told that it is the only way in which we can mark our sense of the new interest in agriculture, I ask, whose new interest? For the last thirty years agriculture has been over-represented according to members as against population, and what
    650
    movement has there been during that time by agricultural Members on behalf of agriculture? It would be very interesting to be told to-day of some great movement that there has been in agriculture during the last thirty years that had the support and sympathy of agricultural constituencies. I remember the record of the agricultural Members on the Workmen's Compensation Act. Hon. Members will remember that in that Act, brought in in 1897, the agricultural labourers were actually left out. So far were agricultural Members looking after the interests of the agricultural labourers that I remember it required a by-election in Norfolk to wake up the Government to the fact that agricultural labourers should be included, and a new Bill was passed the year after to bring them in. I am perfectly aware of the fact that agriculture has often got things done in this House while it spoke through the constituencies. But I have never realised that agriculture has ever got anything done in this House by any combination of agricultural Members, and I do not believe you will get it in the future. I believe that the whole idea that you are going to help agriculture by anything like this is entirely fallacious. I think you will irritate the towns and set them very much against the agricultural districts.
    We are told we are going to have in some agricultural districts cases in which a particular borough will be the determining voice in that constituency. I do not know whether that is going to be lad for the agricultural districts, but I am sure it is going to be very good for the town. I have seen a certain amount of electioneering in what are called historic boroughs, places that, fortunately, cease when this Bill has been passed. Nothing could be better for some of those boroughs, like Chester, Shrewsbury, Winchester, Worcester, and a number of places famous in history and equally infamous in the election petition reports. Nothing could be better for them than to have a little fresh air of the country, because the larger the constituency the less chance there is of corruption and making pocket boroughs to the members, and all the other discreditable episodes that disfigure electioneering in these boroughs. Let us have the constituencies as large as possible. If that means a little less getting about and a little less electioneering I doubt whether that will do much harm. If having a constituency a little unwieldy reduces the number of meetings

    651
    and the amount of political spade-work, I doubt whether you are going to do any very serious harm. If the Government once give way to this demand of the agricultural interest, based on no argument except that agriculture has got to be cherished and nurtured as it has never been before, then it will have to give way all along the line. You will have people from Scotland protesting. I have not yet heard of anyone protesting from Wales, though, as a matter of fact, I do not believe that Wales is going to lose anything under the scheme; we shall, therefore, probably get no protest from there. But we shall have one protest after another made on behalf of other constituencies. There are already rumours that London wants to conserve its divisions that have a population of 50,000. I cannot see why. I do not see any reason whatsoever why they should do so. I see no more reason why they should put forward that demand than that it should be granted. I want strongly to urge the Government to stand as firm as they possibly can upon this question. I do not want to be unreasonable in the matter.
    There is an Amendment down here on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason) that seems to me to cover the ground in dealing with cases just on the line. Personally I shall not have any objection in supporting any scheme of that sort. The point of proportional representation is not one we are discussing at the present moment; but on the other question, whether it be to protect historic boroughs, whether it be to protect towns from being mixed up with the country or the country mixed up with the towns, I absolutely am in opposition, for I believe that the more equal we get our constituencies the better, and the more general interest we get into our constituencies the better. I do not want to carve out special agricultural constituencies. I do not want to carve out special mining constituencies, any more than I want to carve the constituency of the hon. Member who spoke last into two different aspects of the fisheries question. We do not want it. We want to have less of the local appeal. We want to realise, and the House needs to realise, what has been said again and again, that when our constituencies have returned us we do not represent our constituencies; we represent the country. I protest against trying to divert the Government from the real pur-
    652
    pose of the Speaker's Conference, and I particularly protest against giving way to these demands based upon no real case, so far as I can see. Agriculturists have always been perfectly able to look after themselves. They will be better able to look after themselves if, after the War, they return people who have made a study of agriculture rather than people who happen to be the son or nephew of the local landowner.
    Mr. J. MASON: I have no criticism at all to make on the figures which are contained in these Instructions, but the Instructions altogether seem to me to be more imperative and mandatory than is necessary. It is quite obvious that too great a rigidity will not only produce a considerable amount of friction, but will certainly in many cases lead to considerable unfairness. It seems to me that if we want this scheme as a whole to work well we must endeavour to make these Instructions as elastic as possible, so that one very difficult part of the Bill may have its course very considerably modified in practice. As regards the question of agricultural areas, everybody knows now that the agricultural interest is assuming an importance in the eyes of the whole country which it has not had for some time. It may fairly be argued that an industry which we see every day from the speeches of the President of the Board of Agriculture is being pushed for all it is worth ought, at least, to have fair representation. There is, however, no doubt that the argument as to the enormous size of some of these constituencies is a very real argument. There are many of these constituencies, not only of a huge area, but in the case, for instance, of one of the constituencies in the county of which I hold a seat—that is, the constituency of North Berkshire—there is not only an enormous area, but it is separated by a ridge of hills which are sparsely occupied and inhabited, and it puts a huge burden upon the Member who represents that constituency, and who has to get over it during the long winter months. I have heard the whole question of agricultural values very fairly put forward from both points of view. But there is another question affecting these Instructions which, to my mind, is of equal importance—that is, the extraordinary way in which these very definite Instructions will affect eases with a very narrow margin. For instance, no constituency has to have a member unless it has 50,000 inhabitants. There is cer-

    653
    tainly one constituency in Worcestershire where, I am told, the inhabitants are over 49,000. Surely that is such a narrow margin, a matter of a few hundreds, that it seems ridiculous that, owing to that falling short by only a few hundreds, that county should lose the constituency. No doubt there are other cases. Several have been brought to my notice.
    There is another class that ought to be taken into consideration. The County of Herefordshire has a population, I think, of 115,000. It is now represented by two county Members and a borough Member. It loses its borough Member in any case. Owing, however, to the fact that it has under 120,000 inhabitants it will lose one of its county Members as well. Therefore, instead of three Members, it will be reduced to one. In a case of that kind where a district falls short of the necessary number for the two Members by only five thousand—and I have put my Amendment on the Paper in view of cases of the sort—it seems to me that the proper course would be to allow the Commissioners to do what is clearly the fair thing. In putting my Amendment on the Paper I wish most sincerely to disclaim any hostility to the proposals of the Government as a whole. Still more do I wish to disclaim any personal advantage which I might gain from it. Much as I regret that my constituency will have no separate representation in the future and that I shall have no seat, notwithstanding I know that my particular case of the borough of Windsor is beyond praying for, and that I must go, under the existing proposals of the Government we are all of us called upon to accept a great deal that we dislike. Why? We are doing it because we regard these proposals as necessary to get rid of controversy which we all dread in the future if we do not face it now. We want to clear the deck for the future. What is more we all know that at this moment if we do not adopt these proposals something has got to be done. Everyone knows that a register must be formed. Everyone knows that if a register is formed the question of the franchise must arise. If these things are to be done, if we are to face the question now with a view to putting this controversy behind us, as the Home Secretary said on the Second Reading, let us face the position in the easiest manner that we can, and that is by as closely as possible following the recommendations of the Conference over which Mr. Speaker
    654
    presided. I do not think that it shows any kind of opposition to the recommendations of that Conference to propose an Amendment of these Instructions which will allow a considerable amount of elasticity to the work of the Boundary Commissioners. I believe that way will very much help forward the proposals.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am inclined to think that there is a good deal of force in what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor has just said; but it is really a question of degree. I should be disposed to welcome some amount of latitude to the Commissioners which would grant a retention of separate representation to a constituency where the defect was not more than about 500, which was one of the cases quoted by the hon. Member. But when he goes further and suggests that a county should continue to have, its present representation, though defective to the extent, I think, of 5,000, as in the case of Herefordshire, it appears to me that is pushing the thing much too far. There is a great deal to be said for adhering to rigidity in the Instructions which we give the Boundary Commissioners. If the elasticity is considerable we shall increase the difficulties of the Commissioners in arriving at decisions. It would appear to me that the object of the Amendment is to secure such a degree of elasticity that special interests will get representation to which they are not entitled if the proper view is taken of the proposals as a whole. We, therefore, are getting in this discussion what, in my view, is the reasonable suggestion of the hon. Member for Windsor linked up with proposals which go much too far. In this matter I am in hearty concord with the hon. Member for Norfolk, and I am bound to say that I regard him as the spokesman of the agricultural labourer, and as being, shall I say, a truer spokesman of the agricultural labourer than many of the Members of this House who sit for agricultural constituencies?
    He tells us that he has not had any protest from any one of his constituents in this matter of the differentiation between the unit for the agricultural constituency and the unit for the town. I am bound to say that if this differentiation be accorded it can only be granted at the expense of the urban areas. If these proposals be accepted by the Government they may take it that they will have considerable opposition, and reasonable opposition, and strong protest from the

    655
    urban centres of this country. In boroughs you have units which may go so far as 90,000, whilst agricultural constituencies—so it is suggested—should be represented by members if they have a population of 50,000. What is actually suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Devonshire, and the hon. and gallant Member who moved this is that we will get a love for agriculture and agricultural interests in the urban centres if the agricultural interest is to get other and particular representation out of proportion to its rightful numbers. It seems to me that is the wrong way to begin our new scheme of agricultural development. It will create hostility in the urban centres. It will increase it. I would suggest to hon. Members who are now bringing forward their special pleas for particular representation, and their special pleas for the retention of individual seats that that is not the way to deal with the question, when we are, as it were, throwing the whole question of franchise and registration into the melting pot. The right thing to do it appears to me, is to take the decisions of the Conference, which was thoroughly representative, and to give Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners in as clearly definite terms as can be set down. One of the difficulties of the Commissioners will be to get out a Report in time to allow an election to be held at the end of the period for which this Parliament has determined to prolong its life. If the number of difficulties is increased, if the elasticity is increased which the Commissioners are allowed to exercise, so will the difficulties of the Commissioners also be increased.
    It would be far better to adhere strictly to the proposals which are laid down in the Boundary Commissioners' Instructions than to go outside. The result of this would be much longer inquiries in the local areas, a far longer period before we can get a Report; of the Commissioners, and it will inevitably lead to hostility in the urban centres, who will find that their representation is disproportionately reduced in order to give special representation, to which they are not entitled, to some other places. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonshire spoke about the shrewdness of the agricultural labourer. We can also speak about the shrewdness of those who sometimes speak on his behalf. If the agricultural labourer is so
    656
    shrewd, it seems to me his political instinct will suggest to him immediately that he has no right to ask for representation out of proportion to his numbers. If I understand the agricultural labourer aright, he wants fair play, not a weighting of the scales in his favour. I should think that if he takes the long view he will see that if there is a settlement of this question in his interests, it cannot be a final settlement, and it will keep up the hostility between the urban centres and the rural areas, a thing to which it is very desirable we should bring an end as soon as possible. Then another point was made, I think by the right hon. Member for Devonshire, of the difficulty which would arise if small boroughs were merged in rural areas, but I put it to the House that the small borough which is to be merged will be certainly under 50,000 population, and that kind of centre has usually its main interests concerned with agriculture. As a rule it is the market town. As a rule it supplies the farming interests round about, and its whole interests are centred in the agricultural industry, which, as it were, is worked round it with a small market town as its centre. Therefore, in an area like that, you will get, it appears to me, a community of interests as between the small town, which will give its name to the constituency, and the area which is around it. The case made out does not seem to me at all a strong one, and, inasmuch as it lacks in strength, and would increase the difficulties of the Commissioners, I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): We are discussing, I am quite aware, a question of very great interest. In dealing with it, of course, my duty is to remember that we are in charge, not of a Government Bill in the ordinary sense, but a Bill which is the Bill of the House, on which I desire, so far as I possibly can, to obtain general agreement. Therefore, I should certainly be the last to meet the criticism or the suggestions of hon. Members who support this Amendment with any kind of antagonism. My desire is very reasonably and fairly to meet, if I can, with the general consent of the House, the grievance put forward. I think we are all conscious that we cannot have franchise reform without redistribution. That is impossible. In the second place, the moment you come to-redistribution you must meet certain

    657
    difficulties. We must adhere to some extent to territorial limits, and the moment you do that, of course, you raise inequalities, and possibly anomalies. Therefore, I am not at all surprised that the Instruction given to the Commissioners has raised a certain amount of doubt and difficulty, and has given hon. Members a certain amount of anxiety. Let me deal with the point that has been put. May I say about the agricultural case, if it is right to call it so, that I feel a great deal of sympathy with it. I think it is extremely convenient that the case should be put, as indeed it has been put to-day, upon the right footing. I do not think anybody makes the claim that agriculture as an industry ought to have a special amount of representation, because if that were put forward, it would be said at once by other industries. "Well, agriculture is an important industry, and perhaps the most essential to this country, but, at all events, our industry is also of great importance." The mining industry, the cotton industry, and the iron industry might say at once that those industries are essential to this country, and ought also to have special representation if agriculture is entitled to it. Therefore, I do not think it would be wise to put the claim upon that ground, and I do not think upon that ground it has been put to-day.
    The real point is this: In the country districts the population is sparse, and the area of representation very large. It is difficult, if you make it too large, to obtain that community of local feeling, which is of importance in obtaining representation, and if you make the Constituency too large and scattered, it is impossible for Members to ascertain the views of their Constituents. Those were the grounds upon which hon. Members were entitled to put the case for rural and sparsely populated districts. That applies, of course, with very great force, I agree, to certain constituencies in the Highlands, and certain other parts of the country. I do not want to name them, because hon. Members are conscious of the facts. Therefore, that is a case, I think, to be met; but the point is, how is it possible to do so without doing injustice to other divisions and other interests? Simply to reduce the quota, the normal figure, for rural constituencies without making a change in the urban areas, would be to bring about such an increase in the Members of the House that I am sure the
    658
    House would not permit that course to-be taken. On the other hand, if you reduce the country figure, and put up the town figure as one Amendment suggests —if you make the standard figure for-rural constituencies 60,000, and that for urban constituencies 80,000 you infringe the principle of giving, as far as may be, one vote one value, which has been so often asserted by many of us in this House, certainly by myself, which principle is at the basis of representation. Therefore, to make so wide a difference would be not only against the principle of the Bill, but might lead to serious conflict in this House. Having said that, might I just correct a certain misunderstanding or omission? There is provided in the scheme which is before the House, a certain margin for differences or for hardships. For instance, someone mentioned the South African rule, going, above and below the normal figure. We do that here, and therefore it is a mistake to say that we do not in our scheme do what has been done in the scheme to which reference has been made.
    I do not feel I could recommend to the House the acceptance of any one of the-numerous Amendments which seek to alter the figure which is to be the standard of representation. Indeed, having very carefully listened to all the speeches made to-day, I have not heard one Member who has recommended that course. Everybody sees what the great difficulties are in the way of it. How, then, are we to deal with this question, which, of course, is a very difficult one? I think it is right to fix our attention upon the real argument which is at the bottom of the complaint that is made, and I think what is really at the bottom of k is the question to which I have referred, namely, that of the very large areas of inconvenient size and inconvenient character. I think it is quite right that the Commissioners should be empowered, if not empowered already, to give special attention and special treatment, and to take special steps, so that a constituency of inconvenient size and inconvenient character should not be created under the Bill. I do not think anyone, if I asked the question outright, would say that it would be wise to create a constituency of that kind. Therefore, I am quite willing, if I can find the words, as I think I can that the House should add to the Instructions a supplementary Instruction giving the Commie-

    659
    sioners greater power—greater elbow room, if I may call it so—to enable them to deal with cases of this kind. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, and other Members, pointed out, there are also other difficulties in working out the scheme as a hard and fast rule. I am fully aware that in many cases a certain amount of real hardship is produced in that way. I do not mean, of course, that constituencies which otherwise would have increased their memberships do not reach that result because their figures are just below the number fixed, but they do in other places lose members they have to-day, because it happens that their figure is just below the number that would give them either the one member or the two members. I think it is rather hard on a county or borough which has one or two members to-day that this 50,000 rule should be treated as absolute and one which cannot be infringed. I shall be very careful not to mention any particular place because it might Be felt to be pledging the Boundary Commissioners, which, of course, I have no right to do.
    All I want to lay down is that I think there ought to be in their instructions some elasticity to enable them to deal with a case of that kind as well as the others to which I have referred. I am, of course, very anxious to carry the whole House with me because without the assent of the whole House it is very difficult, indeed to deal with almost any change in the scheme. Because I felt that I was very glad to have an opportunity of bringing before the House the Instructions given to the Commissioners and to ask for the observation of hon. Members upon them, I do strongly hope to-day, if we arrive at something like general agreement, that the difficulties in the way of the Bill, especially the difficulties which might arise when the Schedules come before the House, will be greatly diminished, and I shall feel my task is very much lightened. What I shall propose to-day is this: I think the Amendment now before the House is a little vague and a little difficult to give effect to. It does not give the Boundary Commissioners quite enough guidance to act upon it. I have said already that, so far as figures go, I do not think we could accept any of the Amendments, but there ! is an Amendment on the Paper by my hon.
    660
    Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason) which runs in this way:
    "Provided that the Commissioners may depart from the strict application of these Instructions in any case where it would result in the formation of constituencies unduly large in area, or where the narrowness of margin between the figure representing the estimated I population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these Instructions seem to them to justify such a departure."
    I have mentioned that there may be difficulty, not only as to the area but as to the character of the constituency—for instance, a ridge of hills dividing it into two. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that instead of using the words "unduly large in area" he should use the words "inconvenient in size and character," which, of course, would cover a somewhat larger category of cases. I really think that does meet the main points which have been raised. I agree that it does not go the whole way, but I think it ensures that the Bill will meet the grievance of unworkable divisions, and other cases of hardship will also receive consideration.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Will notice be taken of any immediate increase of population which might alter the whole character of the constituency?
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of confining the Amendment to the case of counties, and not to small boroughs which have already been reduced to 5,000 from 7,000.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think the rule ought to apply to boroughs and counties alike. I believe that the cases of hardship are fewer in boroughs, but I do not think we can make a distinction in these cases.
    Mr. MORTON: Will the case of Sutherlandshire be considered?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think we all feel that. in the case of the constituency which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland-shire has represented for so many years it would be very hard to put upon him the duty of representing the still larger division. I think my hon. Friend's case is just the kind the Commissioners will have to consider if this Amendment passes. With regard to future population I think it is very difficult to put upon the Commissioners the burden of estimating

    661
    the present population and going beyond 1914. There are certain cases of an increase in population, but I think it is purely temporary, and the cases which have been referred to will right themselves very shortly.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no !
    Sir G. YOUNGER: What about Rosyth?
    Sir G. CAVE: As to all these points, if words can be suggested which will cover them and give the Commissioners greater authority to deal with special cases, they will be considered. I have taken the words suggested by the hon. Member for Windsor because they seem to be words which come nearer to meeting the points that have been raised. May I just add that I think many of us, and I think also the Boundary Commissioners themselves, might be disposed to treat these rules too much as hard and fast rules. They are not intended to be like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, but they are general rules for the guidance of the Commissioners; and, indeed, in that respect we have adopted the language of the Speaker's Conference, which only directs that these rules are to be followed as far as possible. If the Boundary Commissioners take upon themselves the authority which I believe they have, and which is in all our minds, of treating these Instructions as general guiding instructions which do not prevent them from dealing with special cases in a special way, I am sure when their Report comes before the House as a whole the House will think they have done rightly and have carried out the desires of all parts of the House. We do not want to tie the Commissioners down too closely, but I think they already have the right to deal with special cases in a special way.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: In the case of some counties, if you take the whole county, you will not get the same number of representatives.
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension, because that is not the effect of the Amendment; it is intended to redistribute counties so that the county as a whole will have the benefit of the population of the county, and in the case which the hon. Member put a member would not be lost. I will not argue the next Amendment, because I do not think it is a workable one, and it could not be accepted. I
    662
    have now said all that I wish to say, and I hope that after this discussion we shall endeavour to arrange a common basis amongst ourselves. I think the best way of doing this would be for the Amendment to be withdrawn. We should then have before us the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor, and if any valuable words can be added to that they may be suggested.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the possibility of the Commissioners regarding their Instructions as elastic, I would like to ask how that can be reconciled with the paragraph in the Warrant of Appointment in which the Commissioners are instructed to execute their duties in accordance with the Instructions appended thereto. Will it not be necessary to add some words, such as "as far as possible," in regard to the carrying out their Instructions.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Commissioners will be instructed to proceed in a general way.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The Home Secretary, in the early part of his speech, said he was anxious to carry the whole House with him, and everybody who has heard his speech will not fail to appreciate the moderate tone and the conciliatory attitude in which he has approached this very difficult question. For my part, I confess that I think that the hard cases which have been the topic of some speeches are sure to arise in the nature of things -whenever you lay down an arithmetical limit. You will not get rid of the hard cases by substituting some other arithmetical limit, either higher or lower. I imagine that all of us are of the view that the decision to issue a general direction to the Commissioners is a sound one that the number of Members of the House of Commons of Great Britain shall remain substantially as at present, or, at any rate, shall not be greatly increased. It is, however, quite certain if hard cases are met by concessions because there are instances where the minimum number is not quite reached, you will thereby add to the total number of the members for Great Britain unless you are prepared at the other end of the scale to tell some constituency or other which is entitled to two members that it shall have only one. There is no other arithmetical methods by which you can add one and at the same time keep the same total and adjust hard cases unless

    663
    you can deal with an easy case at one end with the same latitude as you deal with a hard case at the other.
    There is the area consideration which has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton). I do not know that I am very much in favour of drawing the distinction between county districts and town districts in any case, because that sets two parts of the population against one another, when for many purposes their interests are one. But be that as it may, we must remember that every concession made at one end of the scale has this effect—that it counts two on a Division, because just in proportion as you allow a larger number than ought to be allowed for one kind of constituency, if you are going to keep the total number the same, it means you allow a similar number for another constituency. All these considerations make me feel that while it may be desirable to give the Commissioners slightly more elbow-room, there ought to be something rather more restrictive about the Instructions than is contained in the Amendment before the House. When I look at the hon. Member for Bridgwater's proposal, I ask myself if I were a Commissioner whether it would add to the ease with which I should discharge my functions to be given directions so general, and I confess that I do not think it would. It is quite a different matter, however, to indicate on the face of the Instructions that it is intended, if there be a case where a technicality would carry you too far, that something should be conceded, even if it did not satisfy the arithmetical test. That is what the Home Secretary now suggests, and, although I am sorry to see this scheme invaded in this way, though not to a serious extent, I think it is the general desire of the House that this should be so.
    May I be allowed to say that, while, in common with other hon. Members of the House, and other citizens of the country, I trust I realise fully the claim which agriculture has for great consideration. Is there not a fallacy lurking in the idea that because everybody in the country realises the importance of agriculture that therefore it should have a disproportionate representation? It is just the people whose claims are not regarded as they ought to be, who, if justice is to be done, ought to have special representation. If it be the case that public opinion throughout the country, now and for many
    664
    years to come, will realise more than it does now the importance of agriculture, I think there is a certain amount of confusion of thought in the idea that, therefore, the only way to get the balance through is to send an unusually large number of agricultural Members to this House, because one man, standing up here, speaking with authority and knowledge on agriculture, will command a much more attentive audience, and is more likely to get his views adopted. [HON. MEMBEBS: "No, no !"] Although I think the argument is a far better one if it is put on the ground of the difficulty of area and the necessity of seeing that there is an effective representation of what may be a scattered population, I do not, for my own part, see the force of the argument that, since we all realise how very important agriculture is, there ought to be a very large disproportionate number of agricultural Members.
    On those grounds, so far as some of my hon. Friends and I are concerned, we shall be prepared to acquiesce and to do what we can to secure for the Home Secretary that which he desires, namely, a general assent to this qualification of the regulations which have already been laid down. When all is said and done, you cannot, and I hope you never will be able to, draw a mathematical line between agricultural constituencies and all other constituencies. There is an immense difference between a purely agricultural constituency, scattered and very difficult to work, with opinion perhaps difficult to focus on the most pressing problems put forward, and a concentrated urban constituency, but the division between boroughs and counties has long ago been found to be a rather artificial division. There are all sorts of gradations between a purely agricultural constituency and a purely urban constituency, and the right thing is to give the Commission a certain amount of additional latitude.
    Colonel WEIGALL: On the principle of accepting half a loaf, however small, I, for one, am prepared to accept the proposal made by the Home Secretary. I am afraid the other day, in my simple bucolic mind, I could not understand his economic facts, but I hope to-day that I have been more successful. I gather that the view he put forward is that under no circumstances can any industry or sectional interest in the country claim ex-

    665
    ceptional representation. I agree in the main. He, however, goes one step further, and says that owing to the conditions under which it has to be carried out, he is prepared to say that the Boundary Commissioners shall be instructed to give exceptional treatment to agriculture. Agriculture as an industry is to have no exceptional treatment, but, owing to the conditions under which the industry inevitably has to be carried out, he is prepared to give the Boundary Commissioners instructions to allow exceptional treatment. I do not want to add anything to this discussion which is liable to create heat or partisanship. I could have shown that, although possibly agriculture cannot claim to have any additional representation in this House compared with other industries, yet owing to the risks which it runs from climatic reasons, it is on a different plane, but I do not wish to pursue that aspect of the question at all, nor do I desire to answer my hon. Friend from the North who has announced that he has had no representations from his constituents. All I can say is that his local chamber of agriculture gave a unanimous vote in favour of area being regarded as well as population, and I can only offer sincere sympathy to the agriculturists of his constituency, because obviously he is not in such community with them as no doubt they require and desire. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) let fall an observation as to the shrewd philosophy of the agricultural labourer. I will give an instance not only of what I consider to be shrewd philosophy but also of extremely illuminating wit. I remember when I first stood in the wilds of Lincolnshire addressing an agricultural gathering in an out of the way village, I heard that my political opponent had advanced the theory that I was inexperienced, and therefore wholly unable to represent such a vast agricultural constituency. I never had very much hair on my head from the earliest days of my youth, and I therefore doffed my hat to my audience and showed my broad brow as a sign of wealth, wit, and benevolence. A voice from the back of the hall was immediately heard, "An empty barn requires no thatch."
    I do not say that the House is anti-agriculturist, but it is certainly almost wholly urban, and that is the answer to
    666
    the hon. Member for Norfolk when he said, "What of the agricultural Members hero in the past?" Whatever we have tried to do, we have always had the haze of the urban element over us, and in the end it has come down in a thick fog. But now the agricultural community do lock forward, not without hope, to the Mother of Parliaments taking a rather keener interest in the future of agriculture than has been usual in the past. In other countries the agriculturist has been able to appeal to this interest sure of a ready response. I want to read an observation made by Bismarck in 1879, and which seems to me to be peculiarly applicable to this country to-day. He said:
    "The position of the farmer of the country depends upon the revenue he obtains from the sale of his produce. The better the position of the agriculturist, the more prosperous the whole economic life of the Empire. If the time should ever come when the agriculturist cannot possibly carry on his industry, not only agriculture but the whole German Empire must go to ruin."
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: There is an Amendment to this Amendment down in the name of myself and the last speaker and several others, in which this question of numbers in county constituencies is raised. I do not want to press that Amendment, and I only want to say a word or two as to the reason for putting it down. I fully realise the strength of the argument that you cannot give to one particular industry, as such, a numerical representation which you deny to other industries. I was very much impressed by the force of the observations that fell from the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone), but the Amendment was put down for a totally different reason. It was put down in order that we might ascertain from the Government what was their view in regard to a question of practical difficulty, which I think has been sufficiently realised now, and which the Government, in effect, say that they recognise. We approach it solely from the national point of view. It is quite true, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) said, that in this House during this War the importance of agriculture has been keenly appreciated, but I believe it is the first occasion in the history of this country for nearly fifty years, and at any rate for forty years, when that observation could have been made. It is only during this War, and through what we have learned in this House during the War,

    667
    that the national interest in agriculture as an industry has been really appreciated, but one of the results of these redistribution proposals is that on their being carried into law something like thirty-three representatives of purely or predominatingly agricultural constituencies will disappear—that is what I am told; I will not vouch for it—either because of mere county redistribution in accordance with the figure of 70,000 population or because of regrouping, under which a small county borough will be amalgamated with a portion of the county in order to make up the minimum of 70,000, in which, of course, the preponderating majority will be urban in character. For these reasons, we have got to face the inevitable result of this House having far fewer representatives of agriculture.
    I, for one, am not going to admit that it is only the representatives of agricultural constituencies who take any interest in agriculture, but at the same time, from the national point of view, we have to realise that in the next Parliament there will be far fewer men with a knowledge of agricultural conditions to tell this House the needs of the industry and the bearing of the measures that are brought up in this House. I cannot help thinking that the appreciation which this House has shown of the needs of agriculture during the War is very largely owing to the great knowledge and experience of so many agricultural Members whom we have had in the House during the War. That advantage will go. It is from that point of view, judging agriculture from the national standpoint only, that this Amendment was put down.
    Agriculture has been spoken of during this discussion as having claims. I almost resent that mode of discussing the question. It is not a question of the claims of persons engaged in earning money in particular industries with which this House is concerned. It is because the nation must have a prosperous agriculture—as it seems to me, for three big reasons—that we want agriculture adequately represented in this House for the purpose of being adequately explained to the House. Is it not a selfish reason; it is a national reason. The three reasons are obvious: The greater production of food in this country as a measure of defence; a larger agricultural population as a means of what I may call racial reconstruction
    668
    after the War, in order that we may have a large, healthy community to reinforce the towns and make up to some extent for the wastage of the War; and lastly, and I attach the greatest importance to this from the national point of view, that we may have, year after year, a steady stream of suitable emigrants with which to people the Dominions. The Dominions want young men and young women from agriculture. Those are good reasons why the nation must have a prosperous agriculture. I hope and trust that the discussion to-day may not give rise to anything in the nature of antagonism between the towns and the country. It would be the worst catastrophe which could happen to the nation. I trust that one result of this Bill in the future will be that a general sense of fair representation on the part of all members of the community may make everybody realise that it is not a question of individual industries sending delegates to this House to answer their commands in the interest of that industry and not in the national interest. I want to wind up with one irrelevant remark, if Mr. Speaker will permit it. It is that in order that different points of view should be properly represented in this House, I am profoundly convinced that the one certain and simple method of securing it is that of proportional representation. I know that it is not proposed to extend it to agriculture, but the reason I do not propose that any, so to speak, particular over-representation should be given to agriculture under this Bill is because I trust and pray that the House may accept, if not entirely, at any rate the principle of proportional representation. I am perfectly satisfied that if this country once accepts proportional representation for any purpose, it will not be many years before it has accepted it for all purposes with regard to representation in this House. Then we shall get an absolutely adequate representation of the agricultural community in this House. For these reasons I shall not move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Colonel SANDERS: I bog leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. MASON: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "Provided that the Commissioners may depart' from the strict application of these Instructions in any case where it.

    669
    would result in the formation of constituencies inconvenient in size or character or where the narrowness of margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these Instructions seem to them to justify such a departure."
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I agree thoroughly with everything said by the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), especially because he appeared to me to supply, in the course of his speech, a very complete answer to what struck me as being a most fallacious argument on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon). The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued a short time ago, with reference to the representation of agriculture in this House, that-because the importance of agriculture is now very widely acknowledged and recognised, therefore there was less reason than ever why agriculture should have what he called over-representation, or what I should call adequate representation.
    Sir J. SIMON: I was only pointing out that of the various arguments that argument did not seem to me to be the soundest. I did not intend to convey that I had any objection to the proper representation of agriculture, or anything else. I was only pointing out that other and better arguments might be used.
    Mr. McNEILL: Of course there are many good arguments that might be used, but that is the particular argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to regard as having no force, and it appears to me to be somewhat the same as if he were to argue that because everybody recognises the importance of modern science in education, there would be no need to have professors in science at any university. What you want to-day is to get knowledge of agriculture, and to have it brought before this House. It has been one of the boasts and glories of this House for generations that it brings together a large number of gentlemen with expert knowledge on all sorts of subjects of interest and importance to the nation. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool said, it is not to satisfy any particular claim that agriculture should have repre-
    670
    sentation, in the sense that we say a certain interest claims representation on a Committee, but it is in order that the actual needs and requirements of agriculture should be properly presented and that the methods dealing with agriculture in the national interest should have sufficient weight among the Members of this House. Therefore I feel strongly in agreement with-those hon. Members—and they are many —and with the still larger number of people out of doors, who look with the gravest possible apprehension to the effect the Bill will have from the point of view of agriculture as a national industry. I am not quite certain that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason), as amended by the Home Secretary, really removes the danger. I am not sure that it does not bring in a danger of its own, because we are told by this. Amendment that the Boundary Commissioners are to be informed that they are to have regard to inconvenience in size or character in redistributing- the various constituencies. It appears pretty evident that if you are going to have a large representation of the rural districts where the population is, comparatively speaking, sparse, you can only get that representation by having a member representing a very large area, and if in order to make a constituency less inconvenient in size you are going to cut up the rural districts into comparatively small constituencies and get the requisite population by throwing into them large urban and mining districts, or small boroughs which will lose their separate representation—if that is the way this Amendment is to be carried out, the effect from the point of view of rural representation may not be improved at all.
    I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board if he will explain, now that the Government have accepted this Amendment, exactly what is meant and what he thinks will be the effect of the concluding portion, where the narrowness of the margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these Instructions seem to them to justify such a departure? That contemplates that in certain cases the Boundary Commissioners are to be allowed to depart from the strict arithmetic laid down in the Instructions, where it seems to them that the margin is so small as to justify departure. What sort of considerations

    671
    are the Boundary Commissioners to have in their minds to justify the departure? I especially want to ask—I hope I shall get an affirmative answer—whether, for example, the antiquity of a borough or its historical associations can be taken into account? I am not sure that, comparatively speaking, sentimental considerations of that sort will meet with any great sympathy in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I think that is very likely true. I do not myself by any means wish to press them. It would be very wrong to give any very large consideration to them. I should be very sorry if, for any reason of that sort, an obviously rotten borough were to be kept in existence with separate representation. But there may be cases where the margin is very small, where the population of an existing borough may be very nearly but not quite up to the limit entitling it to keep separate representation, and I want to know whether the words of the concluding portion of this Amendment would justify, in such a case, regard being had to the historical association or antiquity? The Instructions themselves, although in minor particular it is true, do recognise the existence of sentimental considerations, and take them into account, because it is laid down that where an ancient borough is merged in a county division, it is, at all events, to have the satisfaction of giving its name to that county division, which is a purely sentimental consideration with which I entirely agree.
    Let me give an example of what I mean to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a case with which I am very familiar and which, to some extent, may affect my own position. Take the borough of Dover. That borough has had continuous representation in this House since de Montfort's Parliament of 1265. That would be no justification for keeping its representation at the present day if it had entirely lost its population and importance, but at the present moment its population, on the estimated figures contained in these Instructions, approaches within a very small margin—I do not know what it is exactly, but I believe it is within about 5,000 of the 50,000. If it had added Home 5,000 on the estimated population, it would be entitled to continue that very ancient and uninterrupted separate representation. The case does not end there, because this is one of those boroughs which has enormously increased in population during the War, and,
    672
    for reasons which I need not go into, my information is that, unlike some to which the Home Secretary has referred as having increased only temporarily, there are reasons to believe that in the case of Dover the permanent population is now practically up to and probably over the limit of 50,000, which would entitle it to keep separate representation. Therefore, on its merits, apart altogether from the Amendment now under discussion, the people of Dover might very well have pressed for special treatment, but now that the elasticity of the Instructions has been recognised, I should like my right hon. Friend to tell me whether in such a case as that the elasticity allowed to the Boundary Commissioners would justify them in treating such a borough as that in the way I have indicated? I wish my right hon. Friend would tell me what is contemplated —many beside myself do not know exactly —by the twelfth Instruction to the Boundary Commissioners. What is the intention when the Commissioners are told to segregate as far as possible adjacent industrial and rural areas'! If that Instruction is to be interpreted in a literal sense and carried out completely, it is one with which I entirely agree; but when one tries to imagine concrete examples of rural areas and urban areas which might possibly be segregated, there are such inconveniences with regard to the boundaries of administrative areas and other matters which have to be taken into consideration that it becomes very doubtful how it will work out; and I should be very glad if some representative of the Government could give us some information upon that point. I want also to ask my right hon. Friend with regard to Instruction No. 13. A very-large number of people are feeling a great deal of interest and a great deal of curiosity as to how it is going to be carried out. Why, for example, is it necessary that boroughs which are to be grouped together into a single borough should be all lying within the bounds of the same county? I believe in some instances in Scotland boroughs have been grouped together which are not all lying in one county.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a separate matter. I told the hon. Baronet who has an Amendment on that subject on the Paper that that should be treated as a separate question.
    Mr. McNEILL: I will not pursue it then, but the question which is involved in

    673
    Instruction 13 has got a bearing upon the total representation of agriculture throughout the country. I hope the idea in the minds of the Government is that, so far as possible, when boroughs have to lose their separate representation, they shall be grouped, and shall not be merged unnecessarily in the adjoining rural districts, because it is quite clear that wherever that it done, especially in cases where the boroughs have a population not far below the limit of 50,000, they will have the effect to a great extent of swamping the separate representation of the rural district, and therefore I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will tell us in that respect also how the thirteenth Instruction is intended to be construed, because all these matters of differences of treatment very largely affect the question in which many of us have such great interest; and it is because they are open to so many differences of treatment that I deplore very much the course which the Government has thought it right to take with regard to the discussion of these Instructions. I have asked more than once that we should have an opportunity of discussing them more in detail, in the same way that we should have done if they had been before us in Committee of the Whole House, and I must continue to protest against any such an opportunity not having been given to the House. But at all events, if the right hon. Gentleman will, so far as he can, inform us how these very doubtful points in the Instructions are intended to be dealt with, we should be in a better position than we are now to understand what is the policy of the Government in that respect.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "may," to insert the words "in the case of counties."
    I do this for two reasons. Firstly, because I do not think it is fair to agriculture that you should increase the number of small boroughs which have been retained under this Bill. There is going to be an attempt to bring into this Bill boroughs which are under the 50,000 mark. The proper quota is not 50,000, but 70,000, and there is really going to be a serious attempt to bring boroughs in which are 21,000 and 32.000 under the proper quota. You cannot bring them in without sacrificing a certain number of county seats. If you are going to keep the representation of the House as it is, if you are going to
    674
    give seats to these small boroughs, you are going to take a certain number of seats away which might possibly be given to counties. It is utterly unfair to talk about it being a hard case when a borough just comes under the 50,000 when the quota that we are all working for is-70,000. Now, I want to say a word about the sort of boroughs that we are asked to-save for separate representation. It is not the least good mincing matters in a question of this sort. The case which has been brought to our notice as a hard case I particularly ask the independent judgment of the House to consider, and I am perfectly prepared to divide the House upon this question. I moved some years ago against the two Front Benches, and carried a Motion to disfranchise the borough of Worcester for bribery as gross and scandalous as has ever disfigured any constituency in this House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is very undesirable-to raise specific cases. We are now dealing with the general Instructions.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: The case was as a matter of fact put forward as being a hard case, and I only wanted to point out that it was a borough with which the House has specifically dealt hardly within the last few years. Therefore, if we are to come to this, that we are to be asked to treat as hard cases certain small boroughs just under the 50,000 mark, surely we ought to be allowed to consider for a moment what has been the record of those boroughs during the last few years. I will not mention their names, but if I did it would very quickly convey to the House what I mean. We are asked to save three or four seats whose record is not worthy of this House. The hon. Members who represent them, who know that I have no possible animus because they are friends of mine, could easily get seats elsewhere. They will become part of a, county, and the fresh air of 'the county will be very good indeed for them. If you are going to leave the discretion to-the Commissioners, there is going to be an attempt to keep small boroughs just under the 50,000 mark. I cannot see in whose interest. Certainly not in that of agriculture, nor of free institutions. If we are going to begin keeping these seats of historic interest, we are going to do less than justice to our duties as Members of Parliament. They have not shown themselves worthy of their historic interest. They may have great traditions

    675
    but they do not always remember them on election day. As one who represents a clean, hard fighting, agricultural division, I protest against any attempt to bolster up these divisions or to give any Commissioners power to keep, as separate bodies for representation, these towns which have shown during the last 100 years that they are utterly unworthy of this House.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: May I ask whether I am allowed to speak on the main Amendment or must it be limited to the particular point of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better dispose of that first, as to whether the Amendment is to be limited to counties or not.
    Captain Sir OWEN PHILLIPS: My hon. Friend (Mr. Hemmerde) has made a bitter attack on a number of historically interesting cities in this country, but I cannot help thinking that his attack was somewhat discounted by the fact that earlier in the afternoon he made some very sarcastic remarks about dockyard constituencies. I have a sort of recollection that he put up a very fine fight in a dockyard constituency, and I was wondering whether he made those remarks when fighting that constituency. I hope the Home Secretary in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Mason) will decline to limit it to counties. There are certain hard cases which it is only fair that the Boundary Commissioners should have an opportunity of considering on their merits, and if the Amendment is accepted without any further alteration it will give that discretion to the Boundary Commissioners which will enable them to deal with the various cases which come before them on their merits, and I believe that will not only enable them to deal out fairer justice between the various constituencies but will enable them, without departing for more than a very slight extent from the limits set down in the Instructions, to maintain certain very interesting historical cities which have returned Members to this House for an enormous number of years, and therefore I hope the Home Secretary will refuse the proposed Amendment to the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid we could not accept the Amendment. The object of the Motion is to enable the Commissioners to do justice all round, and if there is a case of real hardship, to deal with it.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I simply wanted 1o ventilate the question, and after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I at once withdraw.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir E. GOULDING: I have risen some ten times without having had the good fortune to catch your eye. The hon. Member (Mr. Hemmerde) has had the good fortune to catch the Chair's eye twice. In his last speech he has adopted his usual tone of introducing that personal element which is distasteful to the House as a whole and which he has become an adept in adopting, and he has shown that inaccuracy which is known to us all. In his previous speech he thought well to make an attack upon agricultural Members and to say more especially that agricultural Members on the Unionist side of the House have done nothing whatsoever to represent the agricultural labourers in the constituencies. He was, as usual, unfortunate in his example. He took the Workmen's Compensation Act, which he said was passed owing to some extraordinary exception dealing with his own constituency and as the result of his election.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I never said anything of the sort.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir E. GOULDING: The hon. Member must remember that that Bill was introduced after an Amendment which I had moved to an agricultural Bill dealing with agricultural labourers. I was sitting then as the agricultural Member for East Wiltshire. That was not carried, and we then brought in a private Bill, mainly supported by Members sitting for agricultural constituencies on the Unionist side.
    Mr. SPEAKER: What do these old stories really signify?
    Sir E. GOULDING: In your absence, Mr. Speaker, they were introduced by the hon. Member (Mr. Hemmerde).
    Mr. SPEAKER: I heard what the hon. Member said.
    Sir E. GOULDING: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but it was said in your absence. This is the second speech we have had the pleasure of hearing from the hon. Member. In his last exhibition he has alluded to the city of Worcester, and I have the honour to sit for that city. No doubt he was a paid advocate in the Court in appearing before the Commission, but I do not think the House of Commons is the right place to advertise your qualifications for appearing on election petitions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Really, I must stop this. It would be ridiculous to bring up these old stories and trot them out on these occasions. Do let us get to close quarters with the subject before the Committee.
    Sir E. GOULDING: They were introduced by the hon. Member.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These old recriminations are absolutely futile.
    Sir E. GOULDING: I quite agree, and I would not have referred to them if they had not been made by the hon. Member. I accept your ruling, and I apologise for referring to these matters. I am obliged to the Home Secretary for having indicated that he is prepared to accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason). With regard to those cities and constituencies which were only a few hundred below the requisite number, when the Commissioners go to inquire into the facts connected with those constituencies they should have sufficient latitude to inquire into the nature and character of the constituencies and see whether there was justification for the continuation of the representation they had at the time. I put into the Amendment that I placed on the Paper the word "character," so as to cover the nature and character of the area. When the Commissioners go to make their inquiries they will find that some boroughs are dwindling boroughs, without trade and without industry, and that some places had had an extraordinary revival of trade activity during the last few years. We all know that since the War broke out there has been an extraordinary development in connection with men concerned with great industries in the country going up and down giving their advice and cooperation in order to restart industries with the hope of maintaining them when the War is over. That has been the case
    678
    in several constituencies, and it is the case in the constituency I have the honour to represent. Although, according to the figures, the population there is only a couple of hundred below 50,000 at the present time, I believe the actual population of the City of Worcester now is over 52,000. That is mainly due to the fact that there has been a revival of some of the industries, and individuals have come forward, more especially in the electrical world, to give their advice and their assistance in the creation of industries which we hope to develop and mature in the future. Therefore, I hope that in all these districts, when the Commissioners have this extra latitude, they will consider these particular places, and particularly these points of view: "Is the place a growing and developing place? Is it likely to increase its population, or, on the contrary, is it a constituency that is dwindling in population?" I am extremely obliged to the Home Secretary for expressing his willingness to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Windsor, and I should be obliged if he could see his way to introduce such a word as "character" into the area, so that the Commissioners could take into consideration the industrial side of these districts.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The word "character'' is inserted.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I want to deal with one point which arises on this Amendment and on this general discussion, and that is, I think, that the twelfth Instruction to the Commissioners directs them to segregate adjacent, rural and urban areas. I think the arguments the Committee heard this afternoon, although they had special reference to agriculture, are really arguments which turn on the great and permanent differences between rural and urban life. I think if the Commissioners realise that that instruction to them is one on which the House attaches great importance, many of the fears which have been expressed will be allayed, and that the real argument for dealing differently with areas in which the populations are dense, and areas in which the population is scattered, will have full weight given to them. I do not think in the long run that it is very desirable that you should have constituencies which consist of one or two towns, of 10,000, 20,000, or 30.000 people, and a fringe of villages as well, because where any constituency is

    679
    predominantly urban I think the rural parts of the in are at a disadvantage, and where a constituency is overwhelmingly rural it is very hard on the urban part which is put into it and lost in the rural area. Therefore, now that the House is asked to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Windsor, which is to give to the Commissioners even greater freedom and flexibility of action, I hope that it may be used, and that the House will be glad, if it is used, to make this segregation of urban and rural areas as marked and as thorough as possible. If that is done, it is not the rural areas which will have any cause to criticise. I am glad that the Home Secretary did not accept an Amendment moved earlier in the afternoon. There are so many boroughs of England whose population is between 70,000 and 120,000, and if you are to follow administrative areas as boundaries you will have a great many urban constituencies with more than 70,000 population, and if these are multiplied too far there is a real grievance on the part of those who in that way have less electoral power than those with smaller constituencies. Surely the true division is between rural and urban, as far as that can be ascertained, and I hope that this Amendment will be interpreted as authorising the Commissioners to take that into consideration, and not as an encouragement to the Commissioners to go down and make separate constituencies of boroughs which are substantially under 50,000. My hon. Friend opposite spoke of boroughs of 20,000 or 25,000.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Twenty thousand under the limit.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Twenty thousand under 50,000 is 30,000.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Twenty thousand under 70,000.
    Sir R. ADKINS: If there are 20,000 below 70,000 they will have a chance as it is, and I maintain to go substantially below that would be to vitiate the general character of the Bill. There is one other Instruction to which I would like to draw attention, and that is the Instruction that the Com missioners are to follow Local Government boundaries. There is a great deal to be said for that when you are distinguishing between urban and rural, but the boundaries of rural districts are of all boundaries the most irregular and the
    680
    least helpful or significant, and I hope that when the Commissioners are dealing with the dividing of counties—though they would naturally not divide a parish save in some particular exceptional case— they will not consider themselves bound to follow all the wandering irregularities of the boundaries of a rural district which very likely has had three or four urban districts taken out of it, and which has-no figure like anything in the heaven above or the earth beneath. Parishes must have due regard paid to them, but I hope it will be understood in the light of this Amendment, which gives greater freedom to the Commissioners, that while the division between urban and rural is and must be the guiding one, that once that is adhered to there will be no attempt to follow the outlines of rural districts, but that other and more convenient boundaries for the purpose of election may be taken where it is proved to the Commissioners that they are in the public interests generally. I hope this Amendment will mark the extreme point to which the Government go in varying from the Report and recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. Those who were members of that Conference know how much time was given to this part of the Report. Like all the Report, it is a compromise; and I think if this is departed from too much you may impair the feeling of confidence on one side and the other as between town and country which we all want to preserve.
    Mr. SALTER: I shall not discuss the question of agriculture, which, as it well deserves, has occupied so large a share of attention this afternoon, because this Amendment has been framed in very much wider terms than that, and raises the general question as to the circumstances under which the Commissioners are to be allowed to depart and are to be instructed to depart from the population basis. In connection with that, I desire to call the attention of the Committee and of the Home Secretary to certain districts which I think will be more vitally affected by these Instructions than any other. Those are the districts in which are situated great permanent camps in which His Majesty's soldiers are quartered on duty in normal peace times in this country. Certainly they are entitled to, and all I ask for them is, fair treatment, and I think I shall have no difficulty in showing that this Instruction in this Amendment will not give them that fair

    681
    treatment. The Commissioners are instructed to delimit the areas upon the basis of population and upon no other basis. The object of all delimination is to give equal value to every man's vote, and, therefore, there is an implied assumption that equality of population means equality of electorate. Unless an equal population gives you an equal electorate, it is quite obvious that the population basis is an entirely fallacious one. In the vast majority of cases, no doubt, equal population gives equal electorate. The ordinary constituency which will be created by the Commissioners will be a constituency, roughly, with about 70,000 persons; that is to say, the ordinary mixed civilian population of men, women, children, and young people. With the average civilian population of 70,000 persons or thereabouts, what electorate will you get? You will get a male electorate of roughly about 14,000 or 15,000, and I am told by those more familiar with this subject than I am that, assuming you have female suffrage, you would get female voters of half that number. Therefore, while the normal constituency will have a population of 70,000 with an electorate of about 20,000 or 21,000, these districts, where there is a great military camp, not merely a temporary camp for war purposes, will be in a very different position.
    I have represented for eleven years the Constituency in which Aldershot is situated, so that I can speak with some knowledge of this matter. The Commissioners are proposing to create a new constituency, which may be called the Aidershot Constituency, which is to include the urban district of Aldershot and Farnborough, which is a purely military area—that is to say, consisting of the soldiers and the civilians who live by them—and a large agricultural district. They propose to create a constituency which will contain about 37,000 soldiers and about 36,000 civilians. Those 36,000 civilians will give an electorate of about 11,000, but when you come to the 37,000 soldiers how many electors will you get from them? There is no class of His Majesty's subjects who will be more profoundly affected by this Bill than soldiers. Soldiers have been practically disfranchised, and, representing a great many of them, I would say that probably not 1 per cent, of soldiers have got the vote. In the old days they were not occupiers. But when you change occupation into residence you enfranchise every soldier who is over twenty-one, and
    682
    I am certainly within the mark in saying that 90 per cent, of the soldiers in camp at Aldershot will have the vote. Therefore, out of that population of 37,000 soldiers you will get about 33,000 electors, and the electorate of this constituency will be from 43,000 to 44,000. At the present time they return one member. Is it fair to these soldiers that that should continue? If so it is cutting down their votes by 100 per cent. Unless these Instructions are altered this will take place not only in Aldershot, but in every other place where soldiers are quartered, where the proportion of adult men to the entire population is completely upset. Suppose that you had a camp with 70,000 soldiers, every one of them a registered elector, the Commissioners would, according to the Instructors of my right hon. Friend, come along and say, "Here is a population of 70,000. We must allow them one Member." That is not fair. When this Bill has passed the registered electorate of my present Constituency, on the next register, will I probably be about 110,000 electors. I j think that I have said enough to satisfy I my right hon. Friend that the Instructions i must be further amended. I have handed in a manuscript Amendment providing that the Commissioners will be instructed to have regard to the electorate and not to population in cases where it is proved to them that the ordinary ratio between electorate and population does not obtain. I look to my right hon. Friend with confidence to accept this Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Would it not be. better to dispose of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor, and then the Amendment of the hon. Member can be taken as a separate issue?
    Mr. SALTER: I should be glad to adopt that course.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SALTER: I beg to move, after the words last added, to add the words, "Provided that it be an Instruction to the Boundaries Commissioners to have regard to electorate rather than to population where it appears to them that the proportion of the electorate to the population is abnormal."
    Colonel YATE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have been much impressed with the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. I do not

    683
    want to anticipate what will be done, but it may be that the case to which he refers will not be nearly so strong as it is under the Bill as it stands. It is possible that a great many of those soldiers at Aldershot and other places will be entitled to votes in other districts where they are in ordinary residence. In that event the point will lose very much of its importance. Still, as things stand, my right hon. Friend's contention appears to have great force, and, therefore, I am willing to accept his Amendment instructing the Commissioners to deal with the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to accept this Amendment. It may affect the position of the City of York, which is a great military centre. Up to the present soldiers resident in York, as is the case in Aldershot, have not had the vote, or, at any rate, not one in ten of them. Under the new Bill I hope arid believe that something like 90 per cent, or more will have the vote as residents, and I should like to have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that this Instruction will apply not only in cases of single-member constituencies like Aldershot, but will also apply to all those constituencies such as the City of York, which at present have two Members?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am very glad of that assurance. I have an Amendment lower down on the Paper for preserving the double representation of York, where there is a case with special reasons, which I hope I shall be allowed some time or other to explain to the House. Therefore, I do not say anything more about it at present, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his concession, which I conceive will affect the position of soldiers in large military centres, and go far to rectify imperfections in the Instructions, and to rectify the great injustices which have hitherto fallen upon the soldiers of the country.
    Mr. RENDALL: A large number of these soldiers to which the hon. Members have referred have homes in various parts of England, and therefore they will be on the register in all probability for these districts in which their homes are situated. The legal definition of residence is the place which a man returns as his home. Therefore all these soldiers who
    684
    have got homes have certainly got residences and they will be on the register in respect of these places where their wives live in these homes. Will they also be on for Aldershot, York, and so on! What have the Commissioners got to do? Have they got to decide whether a man should be on the register for one place or both places?
    Sir G. CAVE: This applies to soldiers who are resident in Aldershot and not elsewhere, but in these other cases they have got a statutory residence elsewhere.
    Mr. RENDALL: There are three or four million soldiers.
    Sir G. CAVE: The Commissioners will seek expert advice as to the probabilities of the anticipations which have been referred to being fulfilled, and they will simply have regard to the circumstances.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: In this particular Amendment which the Government are prepared to accept would the words be wide enough to cover the case of a constituency where there is a very large number of aliens in proportion to the population? We are told of one constitu-cency—for instance, in London—in which there would be an enormous number of aliens on a population basis and a very small electorate. It seems to me that this would cover not only the case which has been referred to, but also that point.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think it would cover that case, and therefore would be more valuable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Colonel Sir HERBERT JESSEL: I beg to move, at the end of the words last added, to add the words:
    "Provided that in carrying out these Instructions the Commissioners shall act on the assumption that proportional representation is not adopted."
    Mr. BUTCHER: There is an Amendment on the Paper which deals with the city of York, in the names of the hon. Member for the Thirsk and Malton Division, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree), and myself:
    "Provided that the city of York, as well as the City of London, shall continue to return two members."
    Is that Amendment passed over, or is it your intention, Sir, to call it later on?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I called upon the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras, who was fortunate enough to catch my eye.
    Colonel Sir H. JESSEL: This is the first time since the commencement of the War that I have been fortunate enough, Sir, to catch your eye, and I hope I may be as lucky in the future, after the Amendment which I have moved, and which is in opposition to a proposal of the Conference. It may be asked in regard to this Amendment, why this question which it raises is not deferred until Clause 15 is reached, but I think that it should be moved at once, otherwise the Boundary Commissioners would be unable to act, and the constituencies affected by this proposal would be hung up for a long time awaiting the decision of this House. I therefore resolved to put this matter to the test at the earliest possible opportunity. There are two very important questions which the Government have resolved to leave to the unfettered discretion of the House of Commons. The first is the question of female suffrage, which has been before the House and before the constituencies for a great many years. It has been very prominently before the country, and also has been very lately and very considerably discussed by this House. The second question on which the House has to express its opinion is that of proportional representation. Can it be claimed by the advocates of proportional representation that it has been discussed either in this House or in the country to anything like the same extent as female suffrage. It was brought forward in 1884 by Sir John Lubbock in the Franchise Bill of that date, and it was thrown out by a largo majority. I believe, on that occasion, both Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Gladstone spoke with considerable effect against the proposal. I believe that I am right in saying that the House has not had an opportunity of discussing this question until seven years ago, when, I believe, a resolution was passed in respect of municipalities, which were to adopt proportional representation in respect of councils of a certain size. It seems to me that what was not good enough for the House of Commons was considered to be good enough for the members of municipal bodies, though I do not believe that either in London or in the country it has been adopted. In a pamphlet of the Proportional Representation Society reference is made to an election in one of the wards of St. Pancras,
    686
    where it was pointed out that the minority had no representation, and that the nine Members were all on one side. On these grounds a tremendous attack was made upon the present system of municipal elections; but in these cases a little learning is a dangerous thing, because the position has already been safeguarded by the fact that the aldermen of municipal bodies are elected not for two years but for six years, and therefore you do get a somewhat continued representation.
    Further, if some prominent man fails to get on the council, he is very often appointed an alderman. My objections to this proposal of proportional representation are threefold. In the first place, in a single-Member constituency the representative knows the opinion of all the leaders not only on his own side but on both sides, and he knows also that the constituency have some hold over his action, but if a constituency which has enjoyed the position of having a Member to itself is to have one-fifth, or one-seventh of a member, that is not a position which it would be prepared to accept. My second objection is on the ground of the interests of Members themselves. First, I will take the ground of expense. In this Bill there are certain proposals for limiting the expenses of election, and it limits what is allowed to the returning officer, who is to be paid by the State. But there are other expenses, as many hon. Members know. In the large towns there are various directions in which Members arc called upon to respond to requests for contributions, and in the agricultural districts, also, there are many occasions, such as agricultural shows, and so forth, to which Members are called upon to contribute. The Member of Parliament has now to defend his own position by saying, "I will look after my own division first, and it is impossible for me to gratify the requests-which are made over the whole of the borough"—it may be a borough with three or four members. If you are going; to adopt proportional representation, the unfortunate members of Parliament will be shot at over a very large area, and it will make it very hard upon the man with moderate means. In a letter to the "Times" this morning, that respected Member of this House, Lord Claude Hamilton, states that in his own case he represents a very large constituency, and he points out how very difficult it is for a member representing a large constituency to go over the whole ground. He pointed

    687
    out, in reference to this proposal, that the physical strain put upon a Member of Parliament would be enormous. It is well known what a strain is put upon members for agricultural constituencies, owing to the large amount of ground they have to cover. If you take some of the big constituencies which the Bill will create, and if you have a system of proportional representation, the physical fatigue and hardship put upon the member would be immense. My third objection is that of the Prime Minister, who said:
    "I express no personal opinion upon it. I have not got any. I have never made up my mind. I have really had no time to make up my mind. Until I am really forced to do so, I do not propose even to consider it during the War. It is an entirely novel step."
    The Prime Minister has a very acute and able mind, and if he cannot understand this question, how can you expect not only the old voters but the new voters, of whom a great number are to be added to the register, to understand a complicated system like this. I have only to ask the House to look at the Amendment Paper and at an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, who speaks about "black, brown, green, grey and white," and "Table 1," "Table 2," and "Table 3," and so on, to illustrate how very difficult it is to understand, but I assume that the hon. Member, who is an expert, will tell the House the whole thing in detail. We already get a good many spoilt papers, and what would happen in the various areas under proportional representation I really do not know. The proposal of the Conference is that this proportional representation should be applied to large towns and to London. If the proposal is adopted at all it should be adopted universally, and not in London only. The hon. Member for Liverpool spoke of the good a system of this kind would do to agricultural districts. It has nothing to do with agricultural constituencies in the Bill. We are merely to have this new-fangled system forced upon us, that it may perhaps benefit the agricultural constituencies. All I can say is that if the hon. Member is so keen about this, why did he not put down an Amendment that it should be applied to agricultural constituencies as well? I know, of course, that one of the chief arguments in support of this proposal is the argument about minorities not being represented. We know
    688
    that in large portions of Wales, and I think of Scotland and portions of Ireland, the minorities have no representatives at all.
    This proposal, however, really only affects the large towns. I do not wish to weary the House with a discussion about London, but there is one point that I think should be considered. After a great deal of trouble and thought and expenditure of much time, you have at last succeeded in getting some sort of local life in London, yet you are going to mix up Marylebone and Paddington, and Westminster and Chelsea, and do all sorts of things, making the confusion which existed before worse and more confounded than ever. It would be some sort of argument if you were to apply it to the whole country, but the present system works out pretty well if you take the whole country together. Where you get a large majority in one way, as in Birmingham, in Leeds you get a large majority the other way, and so, taking the representation of the country as a whole, what you gain on the swing-boats you lose on the roundabouts. I think that is a very fair way of looking at the matter. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald)—I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, and, in view of recent affairs, I do not know whether he is going to be here to-night or not—pointed out very forcibly that, after all, the majority must rule. One of my objections against this system is that you do not seem to get a proper majority, and you do not get a majority dependent on any person. You collect a heterogeneous assembly of groups, whose allegiance is divided on one question and who may coalesce on another. That system appeals to the sort of mind which wishes there were going to be three Lobbies. Here a man has to make up his mind one way or another, for there are only two Lobbies. This other system affords an opportunity for a man not to make up his mind, because some sectional candidate has some particular theory or some particular hare to run. I think you will get a great many freak candidatures with proportional representation.
    Again, it is said that if you introduce proportional representation you are going to get rid of the party machine, and that certainly is an allurement to a great many people. I agree to a certain extent that you ought not to look at every question

    689
    from a party point of view. Perhaps in recent years there has been a great deal too much of party appeal about matters that were not really of very great importance to party, but if you introduce proportional representation, far from doing away with the party machine, you are going to increase its power. What is the ordinary man likely to do? He sees a list containing a lot of names. In a big constituency it is impossible for him to know all about the candidates. What is the first thing he does? He goes to a party agent and says, "I want to have a list," and so far from minimising the power of party you are absolutely increasing its power. I do happen to know a little about elections in London. For the London borough councils we have a tremendous lot of candidates, and a great many of the candidates on the one side or the other very naturally are not known to the constituencies. They are all tabulated for the benefit of the voter, who does not know them. You will have that sort of thing exemplified tenfold when you get proportional representation in the large constituencies. It is said that under the. present system of constituencies you cannot get any individual opinion. Surely that is not true. I think this House is extremely representative. You get here representatives of every kind and shade of opinion—railway interests, both directors and representatives of the men, agricultural Interest, business interest, postal interest, and trade union interest. You have every sort and kind of interest represented. I believe, personally, that the single-member system is far the best in this respect.
    I notice that by far the strongest advocates of proportional representation are members of the Second Chamber. I am very glad to find the Government has promised—and I have no reason to doubt it will not keep its promise, but I hope it will remember it has made the promise—to have a second important conference with regard to the remodelling of the Second Chamber in this country. If the Noble Lords are so keen about the matter of proportional representation, I hope they will advocate that system for the new House of Lords, or for the new system of the House of Lords, and leave Members of the House of Commons to their own devices. I am afraid I have detained the House rather long, and I hope hon. Members will excuse me going into details. I agree there is a great deal to be said
    690
    for the alternative vote, but for the transferable vote I can see no points at all. It is a curious thing that only a few years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into electoral systems. The chairman was Lord Richard Cavendish and the other members the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, Sir Francis Hopwood, our respected Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir Charles Elliott, the Agent-General for New South Wales, and the hon. Member for Durham. That is a fairly strong body. I omitted one name, that of Lord Lochie. What was their Report? It was:
    "Our present system of single-member constituencies was deliberately adopted in 1805 because it was simple, economical, and went far to secure variety of representation. The systems of minority representation were at the same time deliberately rejected."
    Yet in spite of all this we are asked— primarily, I believe, because some of the members of the Conference, like the Prime Minister, did not know much about it—I will not say that, but they had not studied it sufficiently—to sanction a great change like this at a moment's notice. And it. is a great change, one that is going to revolutionise a great many of the most important constituencies in the country. I have been reading most carefully about the system, and it always comes back to one. two, three. That is the thing that keeps sounding in one's ears when one takes up a book on proportional representation. It is not one, two, but it is one, two. three, and you go on eliminating. It reminds me of an old nursery rhyme:
    "One, two, three, mother caught a Flea,
    Put it in the teapot to make a cup of tea.
    First she put the milk in, and the flea began to hop,
    Then she poured the water in, and the flea went pop."
    I hope that that will be the result of this proposal of proportional representation.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not like to do so without saying a word about it, although I must confess I am somewhat bewildered as to the position into which the course of the Government has led us. It appears now that we are discussing—I did not in the least anticipate that it would be discussed on these Instructions— the whole question of the principle of proportional representation. I am bound to say I thought that was a matter for discussion on the Bill in Committee. I thought it would come in Clause 15, and I am very curious to know, if this Amendment is carried—it apparently destroys proportional representation—what position we shall be in when we come to Clause 15 in Committee. Are we to dis-

    691
    cuss it again then, and are we going possibly to reverse the decision come to on this Amendment? I confess I am quite at a loss as to the position in which we are. In any case I would not attempt to detain the House on the general question of proportional representation, but I propose to say a few words upon the limited aspect of the case in its application to London. Upon that point I feel very strongly opposed to the proposal of the Conference. I think I can state my view very briefly. It has always appeared to me that the sole claim of proportional representation lies in the grievance that it sets out to remedy, namely, the non-representation during the whole life of a Parliament, and in many places during a far longer period, of large minorities. I will not stop to discuss whether that grievance is not subject to a prior law of democratic government, that the majority must govern, or to what may be called its corollary, that it is better that a Government should be strong and definite than that it should be weak and compromising. I will not stop to point out the many other grievances which proportional representation, in seeking to remedy one grievance, creates. But the point I want now to make is with regard to the application of proportional representation to London. I can quite understand the advocates of proportional representation finding a strong argument in districts like Wales, where the minority has very inadequate representation on one side, and in districts like the Home Counties, where the minority has inadequate representation on the other side. But the one place where the grievance, on which proportional representation is based, does not exist is London, and to my mind it is illogical and almost monstrous to attempt to make London the corpus vile of this great experiment.
    8.0 P.M.
    To illustrate what I say, we have had many valuable contributions upon this subject in the public Press, which appears now to be almost the only guide for the politician. There was a very valuable contribution from a former much respected Member of this House, Lord George Hamilton. In order to give effect to the information that is given in the columns of the Press I must put together with this letter of Lord George Hamilton certain communications from a great student of this question who is still an active-
    692
    minded politician, that is Lord Eversley. I put these two communications together. What do they come to? They come to this, that after 1832 the Conservative cause was under-represented to an extraordinary degree in London, until in 1868 there was only one Conservative representative for the whole of London. That was under the system of great constituencies which will be re-created and restored by proportional representation. And that was the result of those great constituencies, that you had the Metropolis of this country represented by only one Conservative, the rest. being Radicals. What took place when the system was reversed and single-member constituencies were introduced in the year 1885? Slowly but surely this extraordinary inequality was reversed. I will not trouble the House by giving the steps, leading up to the elections of 1906 and 1910, which really brings us to the present time. At any rate from that state of things, that extraordinary inequality in 1868, which Lord George Hamilton brought out, we have come now under the single-member system to the present state of things, when the representation of London is almost equally divided between both parties. I say that after that it is absurd to suppose that this single-member system, certainly in a great city like London, leads to the under-representation of minorities. There are other points which appear to me to be of great importance in the application of the principle of proportional representation, but I am confining; myself to London. I entirely agree with what the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment (Sir H. Jessel) said, that one of the great features of London life has been the increase in what you might call the solidarity of local life in the administrative areas that have been created in London, and I think that is due entirely to the growing importance of local government embodied in the borough councils.
    Now we have a proposal in the Bill to take those administrative areas as the foundation of your Parliamentary borough. That is an admirable proposal, but what does this proportional representation as applied to London, amount to 1 It will absolutely destroy the whole of that structure of local life, which is defined by the boundaries of the administrative area. I think that would be a great and unpardonable error for any Government to commit because it is

    693
    this vitality in the local life of London constituencies which lies at the basis of the true principle of representation. It is the closeness of the representative to the people he represents, it is the intimate responsibility between the two which, to my mind, is by far the healthiest element in our Parliamentary system, and that you will entirely destroy by these great constituencies. Moreover, there is the strain placed upon each Member because each Member is supposed to represent, under proportional representation, a constituency of 350,000. Each Member is supposed to represent the whole of that great population. If he does not—and I see my hon. Friend, who is a great supporter of proportional representation (Mr. A. Williams) shakes his head, where does proportional representation come in? How-do the five Members split up the constituency? Does one say, "I will represent this part," and another that part, and so on? That is against the principle of proportional representation. It strikes at the basis of it. Therefore, I revert to the proposition that each of the five Members is bound to represent, and will be responsible, to the whole of this 350,000 population. It is an impossible strain to put upon any Member, and it strikes at the fundamental principle of representative government in that it must, and will necessarily, destroy the close relation between a Member and his constituents. I have confined myself to the application of proportional representation to London, and it is mainly in order to protest against that part of the measure that I beg to second the Amendment.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add the words,
    "except in boroughs entitled on a basis of population to return three or more Members."
    I would like first to deal shortly with a couple of arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). He told us that we did not want proportional representation, at any rate, in London, but, as a matter of fact, London is fairly divided between the two great parties. I quite admit that it is very fairly divided at the moment between the two great parties, but are there only two great parties now? Surely in London and Greater London, with a population of something over 6,000,000, there is a certain percentage of what are
    694
    known as the working classes. I take it they have a right to their own representation, to return members to join the Labour party in this House. How many Labour Members are returned for London?
    An HON. MEMBER: Three or four.
    Major NEWMAN: I do not think there are. I see one opposite, the right hon. Member for Woolwich. But in the East End of London, Stepney and Tower Hamlets, how many Labour Members are returned? What is the reason?
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: Because they do not put up.
    Major NEWMAN: Precisely, because if they put up they would have no chance with the other great parties; but under proportional representation they would have their chance. If they could get their quota they would return representatives to the House, as they ought to be able to do. The hon. Member for Westminster alluded to the letter by Lord George Hamilton, who said that in the time of the big constituencies in London and elsewhere—that is, before 1885—Conservatism had no representation in London, that they could not get a representative in this House for many of those great London constituencies. It is a curious thing, but, as a matter of fact, in 1868 there were two members returned to this House for Greenwich. One was Mr. Solomons, who was put down as a Radical, and the other was Mr. Gladstone, who was returned as a Liberal. At the election in 1874 it might be said that obviously the Radical and the Liberal were again returned. Not at all. Even. Mr. Gladstone, with the eloquence and power that he possessed, could not get in at the top. He was beaten on the total of votes by Mr. Board, a Conservative, so that in Greenwich we had in 1874 a Conservative and a Liberal, the Liberal being Mr. Gladstone, the junior member. Here is another instance. In 1868 Chelsea, a big division, returned two members, two Radicals, or Liberals as they were then called. In 1874 there was one Conservative and one Liberal. Then take again a better known division, the City of London. In those far away days the City of London used to return four Members to the House of Commons. In 1868; it returned three Liberals and a Conservative, the Conservative being at the bottom of the poll. In 1874 it returned, not three Liberals with one Conservative at the bottom of the poll, but three Conservatives at the top of the poll and one Liberal

    695
    at the bottom. I could mention other instances, but I will not detain the House by doing so. As far as my Amendment goes, and speaking in a very humble way, to my mind the Conference over which Mr. Speaker presided presented to this House and the country a very carefully drawn, a painstakingly, carefully drawn sketch of a very difficult subject. It was an accurate sketch, but in a great many aspects and to a great many people the sketch presented was not a likeness of the, subject. It is obvious where you have a sketch that a great many people do not like certain parts of the picture. There are parts certain people will not agree with. They will criticise severely a great many people in the picture. When they look at it one person may like the shape of the foot, another the shape of the nose, and another may say it is unwieldy. I am told that this House has too large a corporation for its work. But, after all, what have we to do? In this House all we have to do is to finish off and make a regular picture of the sketch, and if we are going to do that we must finish off our work fairly and without prejudice. It is obvious that if we dislike the nose we must paint it out, and if we dislike the foot we must paint it out, and if we dislike the paunch we must paint it out, and we shall not have a picture at all. All we have to do is, as far as we can, to shade off discrepancies and harshnesses. We can do no more; we ought to do no more.
    I submit to the House that as regards proportional representation, if you strike it out at once you have turned against you certain interests and certain individuals both in the country and, more important perhaps, individuals and interests in this House, who are in favour of the Bill as a whole, but who, if proportional representation is taken away, will be turned from favour to hostility, active or passive. The gallant Member for St. Pancras (Colonel Jessel) said very fairly that proportional representation had not been properly explained either to this House, or, what is more important still, to the country, before it was put into the present Bill. I quite agree, but after all we have to remember this, that we are in the middle of a great War, and that politics, as we knew them, have been suspended.
    Question proposed, "that those words be there added."

PETROGRAD (PASSPORTS).
It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.
Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn." I do so in order to call attention to the question of the passports which have been granted to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) and the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) to visit Russia. Fortunately, owing to circumstances not under the control of the Government, these two hon. Members have not been able to leave the country. I am very glad of it, because possibly after the Debate tonight the Government may consider it necessary to alter the view they have taken in this matter and cancel these passports. I raise this question because I venture to think it is most undesirable in times like the present that gentlemen like the two hon. Members should be allowed to leave the country at all. We have to consider their record in the past in connection with the defence of the country, and the attitude which they have thought fit to adopt in connection with the prosecution of the War. In pre-War days they took a very active part in opposing everything in the nature of armaments that were necessary for the protection of the country. I think it is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that they hardly missed an opportunity of recording their votes in favour of the reduction of armaments for the Navy and the reduction of the Army. Since the War, I think, it is also within the knowledge of Members in the House they have by every possible means in their power harassed the Government in the vigorous prosecution of the War. There are, of course, many others who opposed armaments before the War, but I am glad to say that the great majority acknowledged the mistake they had made, and since the War have done their best to make amends by helping the Government by every means in their power. It is quite the opposite with the hon. Members for Leicester and West Bradford. In season and out of season they have shown bitter opposition to the Government. We all remem-

697
ber how eloquently and with what truth and justice the late Prime Minister in the early days of the War justified the part which our country was taking in the War. The hon. Member for Leicester, if I may quote from a newspaper, took the very opposite view. He is reported to have stated:
"There is no doubt whatever that when all is over and when we turn to it in cold blood and read Sir Edward Grey's speech carefully so as to ascertain why England has practically declared war on Germany, we shall find that the only reason from beginning to end in it is that our foreign Office is anti-German and the Admiralty was anxious to seize any opportunity of using the Navy in battle practice. Never did we arm our people or ask them to give their lives for a less good cause than this"
That was on the 7th of August, a few days after the declaration of War. I do not want to trouble the House with quotations from the speeches and letters of the hon. Member for Leicester, but I think it is necessary on an occasion like this just to bring all these circumstances to the attention of the House. That hon. Member made a speech at Merthyr on the 25th of October, 1914, and is reported to have stated at a meeting which he addressed:
"I ask you honestly between man and man fairly, did you have hand, act or part in creating the situation which has brought War about?"
Omitting some sentences which are not necessary for the purpose of my argument, the hon. Member for Leicester goes on:
"Is there one single reason why you are sending your sons to kill Germans and Austrians in the North of France at the present time?"
That marks his bitter opposition to the War then. That was not enough. At that time, or nearly after that, Australia made preparations to help us, and again the same hon. Member contributes a letter to an Australian paper, in which he states, by way of discouraging the Australians in the help which they were rendering to the Mother Country:
"I believe that the War could have been avoided, I believe that it was the creation of diplomats. I believe that far and away the greater part of the stuff that is being hawked and published about its origin is mere balderdash."
He says it is absolutely untrue to say that we are fighting because Belgium was invaded. That is his contribution towards helping the country in Australia.
Mr. SNOWDEN: So the "Times" says, too.
Mr. TERRELL: We all remember how splendidly the Labour party came forward, and with what vigour they, and particularly my right hon. Friend whom I see
698
opposite (Mr. Crooks) helped the recruiting movement which the country was undertaking. These two hon. Members did their best, their level best, to discredit recruiting throughout the country. I refer to the annual meeting of the Independent Labour party which was held at Norwich on the 6th of April, 1915. The hon. Member for West Bradford was in the chair, the hon. Member for Leicester was. present, and other hon. Members were also present. At that meeting a resolution was passed in these terms:
"This Conference expresses its strong disapproval of the Labour party in taking part in the recruiting campaign, and of the Independent Labour Members of Parliament speaking upon platforms on which attempts were made to justify the War and the foreign policy of the Liberal Government which led to the War. Further, this Conference instructs the Independent Labour delegates to the Labour party Conference to-call attention to the attitude of the Labour Members on the War."
That Resolution was put, and carried by 243 votes to 9. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leicester took part in the division, but the hon. Member for West Bradford, as we remember, was in. the chair. Here was a Resolution condemning their colleagues and other members of the Labour party for having helped their country in obtaining recruits for our forces at the front. Let me carry matters on just a year. At the next annual meeting of the Independent Labour Party the hon. Member for West Bradford, who was again in the chair, delivered a speech in which he made this statement:
"Had the British Government been trying to keep out of the War it would almost certainly have prevented the violation of Belgium."
We all know, or I think we all know, that that was a most reckless and inaccurate statement. It was a statement which, I think, was not made for the purpose of in any way helping, but rather for the purpose of creating mischief and trouble. A few months later, when the question of military service was under consideration, the same hon. Member, in another speech, said:
"I am dead against conscription. I would not touch the unclean thing alike on moral and on practical grounds. I say there is no case to be made out for it."
Those are the views expressed by these two hon. Members. The House is with me, I think, in the opinion that these are not the views shared by anything even approaching a respectable minority in the country. They are the views of two extremists who are hampering and thwarting the Government by every means in their power. They are certainly not the

699
views of two hon. Members whom we should like to see going to visit an Ally. There is a strong feeling in the minds of most hon. Members that if they do go to Russia they will only go there with the object and purpose of creating more trouble and mischief. The hon. Member for Leicester has issued a pamphlet with no date on it, but I believe it is a comparatively recent date. The whole object of the pamphlet is to add to the labour unrest and trouble which exist to-day. I will read to the House a few lines. After dealing with various labour questions, the hon. Member says:
"Moreover, the relaxation in the rules of employment forced upon the Unions by the War is not to end with the War. It is responsible for raising these questions which are causing a great deal of trouble at the present time. For instance, the engineers have been fighting for years against the employment of unskilled labour upon machines. If this were permitted every engineer knows quite well how much harder his struggle for life is to be."
As I said before, it is a very serious matter. The attitude and object of the hon. Members is apparently to make mischief. At every step and stage of the Military Service Bills, when they were passing through this House, we find the two hon. Members opposing the Government. Even the other day, when it came to an amendment of the Munitions Act the same hon. Members were again in the Lobby against the Government.
Mr. PRINGLE: The Government are going to accept their view.
Mr. TERRELL: It seems to me that this opposition is not the opposition of men who are trying to help on the War. Perhaps, when the War is over, the question may be put to them: "What did you -do to help on the great War?" What will their answer be? The only answer they will be able to give is: "Oh! we helped the conscientious objectors." We know very little as to what is going on in Russia. There has been a Revolution. We were told that there was a bad Government. Apparently the bad Government is now succeeded by no Government. We are told that the Russian Government has asked for representatives of the Independent Labour Party to attend a conference which is to be held in Petrograd.
An HON. MEMBER: No !
Mr. TERRELL: I rather gathered from an answer to a question given to me as I entered the House—and with which I will not weary the House—that the position
700
was that the Russian Government had asked that representatives from the Independent Labour party should be allowed to visit Petrograd.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil)was understood to assent.
Mr. TERRELL: My Noble Friend agrees. The answer the Government should have given is this: That the Independent Labour party as a party is an absolutely insignificant party in this country. Numerically it is very, very small compared with the great trade unions represented in this House. The Government should have frankly told the Russian Government that these Members who so loudly voice what they call the views of the Independent Labour party in reality represent no substantial body of opinion in the country. They are simply representatives of themselves. If the Russian Government had asked that representatives should be sent from Holloway Gaol or Bedlam—
Mr. PRINGLE: Mrs. Pankhurst represents Holloway.
Mr. TERRELL: The answer should have been the same, that these are not representative people at all, and they are not in any way authorised to voice public opinion or any shade of public opinion in this country. The action which the Seamen's Union have taken in connection with the stopping of these two hon. Members seems to me to be the right one, but very unfortunately—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I ought to point out that that matter does not arise on the Motion of which notice has been given. It is confined solely to the action of the Government in granting certain passports.
Mr. TERRELL: Certainly I do not mean to dwell upon it at any length. I merely wish to point out that the action of this Union in forestalling the Government really makes the Government look a little ridiculous, and it would have been very much better for the Government to have told Russia what the real position was, and not to have granted passports to these hon. Members. In granting these passports it seems to me that the Government are taking a very grave risk indeed. They have no guarantees that these two hon. Members, once they are out of the

701
country, will not make speeches in Russia of the kind which they have delivered in this country. I cannot help thinking that if they take that attitude the very greatest possible harm will be done to the cause which we all have at heart, and, as no good can possibly come from the actions of these two hon. Members, the proper course, as I have already urged, was that the Government should have told the Russian Government that these two hon. Members were not representatives of any section of responsible opinion in this country, and that they regretted they could not agree to the granting of passports. In these circumstances I think that our Government have made a great mistake. Fortunately, it is not to late to remedy that mistake, and. I hope and trust that, as the result of the Debate which is now being raised, steps will be taken to cancel these passports.
Mr. R. McNElLL: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend, but in doing so I am very much alive to the very great difficulty in which the Government have found themselves placed by the position of these two hon. Members whose passports are now in question. My hon. Friend has told the House—and I think the House and the country are fairly familiar with the facts—of the way in which these two hon. Members, since the beginning of the War, have devoted all their energies and their abilities to frustrating the action of this country and making it difficult to carry on the War. I will make no attack whatever upon the bona fides, or the sincerity or the honesty, of those hon. Members. It is just one of those difficulties with which a democratic country must almost inevitably be confronted in time of war, because, in the first place, it is one of our most cherished traditions, which none of us wish to see "violated, that people of all kinds of opinion, no matter how extreme, no matter how strongly we may differ from them, are entitled to express those opinions freely in the ears of their own countrymen and of the world.
Mr. PRINGLE: No, they are suppressed.
Mr. McNElLL: But there is another side to the question, and the difficulty is to know when the danger to the State in time of war may become so pressing and so great, if that freedom of expression is allowed to continue unfettered, that
702
we have to abandon the tradition of free expression of opinion in the interest of self-preservation. When the question of allowing these two gentlemen to go to Petrograd came before the Government they no doubt felt themselves rather in a dilemma. They may very well have said to themselves, "These two gentlemen will certainly, unintentionally or otherwise, misrepresent in Petrograd what is the true sentiment of the British nation. They may do very considerable damage to our cause by what they may say and do among the Russian revolutionaries and the Russian Government. Therefore policy would seem to dictate to us that we should not allow them to go." On the other hand, the Government may have have said to themselves, ''Is it not possible that we may do more harm by preventing these Gentlemen going than by giving them permission to go? It will, of course, be known everywhere that they were prevented from going. That in itself may give an importance to their personalities and to their opinions which they otherwise would not possess, and If we do not allow them to go and be found out by our Russian friends for themselves, we shall give them a spurious reputation, and, in the ordinary phrase, we shall confer upon them the dignity of martyrdom." Those are the two opposing lines between which the Government had to choose, and I should like to give very shortly the reasons why, in my judgment, at all events, the Government have taken a mistaken course in allowing these two hon. Members to go, making full allowance for the difficulties which I quite realise would have confronted them by refusing.
Now, I think that these two Gentlemen should have been kept at home mainly for two reasons—first of all, in the interests of the Russian revolutionary people and the Russian Government. There seems to be a very widespread tendency at the present time to depreciate British liberty and British tradition as compared with other free nations of the world. I have seen it in all sorts of ways. We have seen it in too much deference to the opinions of one or other of our Allies, we have seen it in too little disposition to take our own straight line of policy in reference to the United States, and we have seen it more than ever in relation to Russia since the Revolution. We have seen a desire on

703
the part of many people in this country to stand well in the eyes of our revolutionary friends, and that is quite right, but I think we carry that too far when we think it necessary to form our ideas of what is democratic freedom and policy from what may for the moment commend itself to any group of opinions in Russia. After all, we owe a great deal to our Russian friends. We are a nation which for generations has boasted that we were the type of liberty loving and liberty enjoying races with a government more free than any other nation, and therefore we ought to regard ourselves as a guide and example to our Russian friends. They are for the moment in the throes of a revolution in many curious respects following the course which France went through more than 100 years ago, and from the very nature of the case in a chaotic state of opinion and organisation. They are a people with none of our traditions of self-government, without any idea either of administration or of policy, a nation very much behind ourselves in general education, and therefore it is the most natural thing in the world when we find a welter of different groups of political opinion, a counterpart of the Jacobin Club, when there was no definite seat of authority acknowledged anywhere, and all these various bodies and committees are spending their time in providing innumerable resolutions of a high-sounding character, giving expression to general principles, and upon those resolutions founding a specific policy.
It is also quite natural that those resolutions and policies should be constantly shifted and constantly conflicting one with another. Under these circumstances, surely it is the duty of this country to offer that guidance which might be given by a nation long governed by democratic institutions and experienced in the administration of self-government. It appears to me that we are neglecting that duty by the course the Government are pursuing with reference to these two hon. Members. It is all very well to say they are entitled to their views, that they represent an influential minority and that nevertheless they are entitled to be heard. I can imagine that argument having great force if it was a question of their going to the United States, the Republic of France,
704
or to the Kingdom of Italy, where the importance or unimportance of their views might properly be gauged with a certain amount of accuracy. In that case no great harm would be done if they put forward opinions which those Allies would very well know represented a small minority of our people. But a totally different sort of case arises in Russia, owing to the circumstances which I. have endeavoured to describe, because the Russian people have no knowledge of the comparative value of political groups and their representatives in this country.
Mr. SNOWDEN: That is just where you make a mistake.
Mr. MCNEILL: The hon. Member fox-Blackburn is not so omniscient as he> thinks he is, and I do not think he has any more knowledge than I have of Russia. I have a great deal of information on this-subject, and I can tell the hon. Member for Blackburn that I am not going to accept reproof from him. It is a fact that the views of these two hon. Members will inevitably be misunderstood, for those views will probably go forward amongst a very large illiterate population in Russia. They will conclude that these two hon. Members come with the permission of the British Government, and that will be construed as carrying with it some measure of authority from the Government. After all, the Resolution has not eradicated, and could not eradicate, all the traditions and prejudices of the Russian people. They probably look upon us—and I dare say they do, because they are encouraged to j do so by our enemies—as a nation still I left in the fetters of monarchical tyranny. The Russian people will say that these hon. Members under such a Government as we have in Great Britain would never have been allowed to come here unless the Government, avowedly or otherwise, had a desire that their views should be made known in Russia. Having regard to the undoubted intrigues which are being carried on by the German Government and the unquestioned fact that the German Socialists are being used by the German Government for their own ends, all the more natural is it that our Russian friends, bemused as they are by their idea of liberty, what more natural than that they should conclude that, just as-the German Government are using the German Socialists for their own end, that our Government are using our Socialists for their own ends. It is not fair to the

705
Russian people that we should subject them to the misguidance which I am afraid would be the result of those hon. Members going to Russia.
My second reason is in the interests of the Allies. Does any hon. Member doubt that, whatever their intentions may be, the aim and object of these hon. Members will be to spread a doctrine among the Russian people which will not be for the furtherance of the Allied cause, and not for pressing on the War? Those hon. Members themselves would not be sincere if they did so, because their whole avowed opinion, expressed often enough in this House, is that we might obtain all the things for which we are fighting by negotiations at the present time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] There may be some hon. Members who share that view, but at any rate it is not the view which represents the opinion of the country, and therefore I say that the Government have no right to allow two prominent and able emissaries to go to Russia at the present time and spread the opinion among the Russian people in the very critical stage at which the War is on the Eastern front, that they could obtain all the objects they desire if they would only negotiate with the German Kaiser to-day. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Allies and of this country as well that these two gentlemen should be kept here.
When we are told that this country should show itself alive to the desires of the Republican nations with which we are in alliance, and that we should have regard to the wishes of the two chief Republics with whom we are now lighting, does any hon. Member question that the attitude of the Government in permitting these gentlemen to go has caused the gravest dissatisfaction and disappointment, both in France and the United States. I only wish that our Government had had the decision and the courage to act in this matter as the French Government has acted. I only wish that they would even now give the House of Commons an opportunity of passing such a vote as was passed the other day in the French Chamber of Deputies, because then, without any fear of a misunderstanding arising, there would be the opportunity of showing to the world, to our Allies, whether in the West or in the East, as well as to our enemies, that the overwhelming opinion of this country, as shown in the House of Commons, and as felt out of doors, was for carrying on this War,
706
not as these hon. Members would wish, by negotiations, but carrying it on until the object for which we started to fight have been attained by victory in the field, which is the only method by which they can be obtained.
Mr. LEES SMITH: The hon. Member who has just spoken said that the Government of France refused passports to the representatives of the minority Socialists there. I think that was a mistake on the part of the Government of France, but I would point out that the effect in France of what I regard as a mistake is far less serious than would be the effect of similar action by this country. A refusal of this sort in this country would come as the climax of a series of very unfortunate episodes which have already done a good deal to weaken the relations and to undermine the confidence between the Russian Democratic Government and ourselves. Before the Russian Revolution broke out I believe the leaders of progressive opinion in Russia looked to this country with more admiration and affection than any other country in the world.
Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHS: They do now.
Mr. SMITH: I do not think they do so now.
Sir N. GRIFFITHS: I am speaking about that which I know.
Mr. SMITH: I doubt whether the hon. Member is the best authority on the Russian revolutionary movement. There have occurred a series of unfortunate events, some of which have been mentioned in this House. The speech of the Leader of the House in welcoming the Russian Revolution was an unfortunate event which created very much resentment over there, and there have been other events. If you were to read the comments in the Russian papers you would see that they notice that during the first two years of the War, when they were living under what they regarded as the most hideous tyranny, there was scarcely one criticism in this country upon the Russian Government of that time, and they also noticed that no sooner did the Revolution break out and the new Government come into existence than from the organs of our Press, from papers like the "Times," which, I believe, they regard as in some way officially connected with this country, and others, there was not only criticism,

707
but there was a continual stream of abuse and vituperation which has done the greatest mischief and already imperilled the whole of our relations with that Russia with whom we have now to deal. If hon. Member's question that I cannot say that I have the actual quotations here, but, speaking from memory—I only looked at it two days ago, and I read the "Times" for five days to see what it was saying about the Russian revolution— there were references to the Council of Soldiers' and Workmen's Delegates and to the leaders of the Russian revolution, which at any rate called them ignoramuses, fanatics and dreamers, and said that they were playing the German game. As my reference to these papers has been questioned, may I tell the House something of the contents of a document which I hold in my hand, and which has been published in this country? It is a resolution passed by the Council of the Journalists of Petrograd, signed by the president and their committee.
Sir N. GRIFFITHS: It has nothing to do with the Committee of the Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates.
Mr. SMITH: The hon. Member has stated that I do not know anything about Russia.
Sir N. GRIFFITHS: I do not think you do.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. SMITH: I claim that what I am stating does not rest on my own authority. The Council of the Journalists of Petrograd know more about Russia than the hon. Member.
Mr. TERRELL: How many of them?
Mr. SMITH: The entire committee, with the secretary and president. This document accuses the correspondent of the "Times" of certain lying telegrams to this country. It accuses the correspondent of the "Times" of working for a counter revolutionary movement. It accuses the correspondent of the "Times" of representing the only journal which now in Russia is trying to revive the pograms against the Jews. I regard that as a series of unfortunate episodes, and the action of the Government with regard to these passports has to be viewed in the light of what has already occurred. In my view, if the Government had refused these passports, they would have done what this
708
Debate and such disparaging remarks as have been made with regard to the revolution by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion—
Mr. McNEILL: I myself warmly welcome the revolution in Russia. I think it did untold good, and I take exactly the same attitude as I believe the "Times" has taken. The hon. Member may find occasional phrases such as he has mentioned, but I have read the "Times" regularly since the revolution began, and, speaking from recollection, I say that from the first the "Times" has warmly welcomed the revolution.
Mr. SMITH: I must contest my hon. Friend's facts. The "Times" has made a very rapid change of attitude since these representations arrived from the Council of the Journalists of Petrograd, and I believe their correspondent now lives in lonely isolation out there. If the hon. Member will read the "Times" before then, he will see that the protests of that Council were justified up to the hilt. The Mover described the revolution as substituting no Government for bad Government. That is not a remark which will do any good when it is telegraphed out to Russia. The Seconder says he has made no remark of that sort. But the Government of Russia is now largely in the hands of the Council of Soldiers and Workmen's Delegates. We may not care for that fact, but, as a matter of fact, the Government of Russia is now a kind of dual Government; it is a Provisional Government and the Council of Soldiers and Workmen's Delegates are acting in co-operation with it For the Seconder of the Motion to describe the Council of Soldiers and Workmen's Delegates as a "Jacobin Club" is exactly the kind of thing which creates ill-feeling between this country and Russia. We on this Bench are supposed to represent rather extreme views. We ourselves initiated a Debate on the Russian Revolution only three weeks ago, and anyone who reads the two Debates will agree that the language used by hon. Members who spoke from these Benches during that Debate did nothing like the amount of damage to the relations between this country and Russia as the language already used by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion said that if you sent the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for

709
Bradford (Mr. Jowett) out to Russia, they would do nothing but mischief. I do not believe they will do any mischief. On the contrary, for reasons which I will give, I believe that you will find that when they get out there they will do more good not only to the cause of peace but to the cause of the Allies than any other representatives who have yet been sent. Take the hon. Member for Leicester. Everybody who knows him and who has had experience of him in past years knows that when it comes to matters of conference and negotiations, he is one of the most moderate and cautious leaders of labour in the country, so much so, that although I was not in his party, I do know that he was imperilling his whole position for years before the War began by his actual or apparent timidity when it came to great practical issues. The advice which the hon. Member for Leicester will give in Russia is perfectly clear to all who know him and have discussed his views with him. His advice will be this: He will tell the revolutionists that he wishes Russia to take the lead in a movement for securing peace in Europe. He will tell them that, but he will also tell them that if they wish to do that they will find that their influence in the councils of the Allies will be proportionate to their effective strength. From conversation I have had with him, I know he will tell them that if they wish to bring about not only peace for themselves but healing and salvation for Europe as a whole, that then they must make themselves an effective force, able to pull their weight in the Allied combination.
After all, that is the practical advice that this country wants any representative to give. The special advantage of having him over there is that he can give them this advice with ten times the weight of any representative that has ever been sent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question !"] He can give them this advice because they will know it comes from a man whose war views are the same as their war views and were the same before the Revolution. As a matter of fact, the views of the hon. Member for Leicester are very similar to, although not quite so extreme as the views of one whom I believe to be the most representative man in Russia to-day—M. Kerensky—who, only a few days before the Revolution, was ejected from the Duma by force for protesting against the Imperialistic ambitions of the Russian Government. For that reason, because
710
the Russian democracy knows both these men, I believe that as it listens to M. Kerensky now as being first in Russia, so it will listen to the hon. Member for Leicester more than it would to any other living Englishman. I hope that the Government will not withdraw these passports. The action which has led to this Debate and the very reason of this Debate is full of peril to the relationships between this country and Russia. If the Government were to withdraw these passports, I believe they would be playing straight into the hands of men against whom M. Kerensky is contending at this moment, straight into the hands of those extremists who are arguing that this country has something to hide, and straight into the hands of that section in Russia which is working for a separate peace.
Mr. WHYTE: I wish, first of all, to say that I regard the raising of this question as a serious mistake. I take that view from a totally different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) and those who act with him in this House. I take it from the point of view not only of the prosecution of the War but of the achievement of the aims towards which both we and the Russian democracy are striving. The two hon. Members who opened this discussion took it both on too narrow a ground and on too insular a ground. I am quite sure we shall not be able to treat the subject matter of to-night's Debate with the fulness which it deserves unless we can get rid of the idea that all our propositions necessarily find an echo in Russia. When I say that, no one will dispute that at bottom the aims in this War of the Western democracies are identical with those of the Russian democracy, I do not mean thereby, for instance, to challenge what the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) said, that whereas we have had many generations of political education and of practice in self-government, the Russians have not enjoyed the same privileges; but I do think it is singularly unfortunate that the hon. Member for St. Augustine's should have put his thought just in the way in which he did. It was not exactly an essay in the tactful handling of the Russian democracy to tell them, in. somewhat harsh terms, that they were politically uneducated and unable to step abreast with us in modern political practice. That is perfectly true, but it is quite unnecessary to say it at this moment.

711
Not only is it unnecessary, but it is positively harmful. My reason for hoping that the Government will stick to their guns in the matter of issue of passports to these two hon. Members rests on the broad ground that I believe they will succeed, as the hon. Member for Northampton has said, in interpreting the British will in this War more accurately than any other messenger whom we can send.
Perhaps that seems an extraordinary thing to say when you remember that the hon. Member has been throughout the War one of the most stalwart of pacifists. He is, but being a co-national of my own, he has an eye for facts, and I believe that the rough account which my hon. Friend (Mr. Lees Smith) has given of the way in which he will try to influence the Russian revolution is a true and accurate account, and if I did not believe so I should be found alongside the other two hon. Members attacking the Government for the issue of the passports. I do not think we should pay too much attention to the argument from the action of the French Government or the American Government. In this matter we have to decide for ourselves, and we have to remember that neither the French Government nor the Government of the United States has such a deep stain to wipe out in Russia as we have. The lion. Member (Mr. McNeill) said that we cannot possibly be held up in Russia as still groaning under a monarchical tyranny, and that they, having emancipated themselves from autocracy, might possibly regard us as lingering far behind. But surely he has forgotten that every Liberal Russian and every revolutionary for generations past has looked to Great Britain as the home of domestic freedom, and does he imagine that, because probably many Russians believe that there is a taint of Imperialism in the War aims of the British and French Governments, therefore the ancient memory of this country as the home of freedom will disappear? Surely not, and, if not, then how are we to explain to the Russians the behaviour of certain official emissaries whom we have previously sent, and also the behaviour and the words used by many British journals?
I will not use the same terms in criticism of the "Times," for instance, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Lees Smith) has. I think he grossly overstated his case
712
against the "Times." If he had confined his argument to the misrepresentation of the Russian revolution by the dispatch sent by the Petrograd correspondent of the "Times" he would have been on firm ground, but when he says the "Times," as a great organ of British opinion, has persistently misrepresented it in its leading articles and in its home comments on the revolution, I think he is mistaken, and has overstated his case. But in this matter of our endeavour to persuade the Russians on what we think of the War and what we think of the revolution, there is a much more serious case than the "Times." It is a case which has hardly been mentioned in this House, but which, to my mind, justifies up to the hilt the Government's straining every point in order to send those to Russia who can properly interpret our feelings. Was the last official mission sent to Russia just before the revolution such a triumphant success that the Government can rest upon the laurels won by its chief emissary? Newspapers friendly to this country published articles upon speeches delivered by at least one member of that mission which were so violent in their terms that not even the domestic enemies of the Government in this country dared to publish them; and if that is the case, I think the Government will realise that there is a distinct stain to wipe out in our recent record of dealings with Russia.
There is a further point that arises. Those who attack the Government for having issued the passports seem to forget that the presence of the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) in Petrograd was deliberately invited' by the official representative of Great Britain, and not only by Sir George Buchanan, but by M. Albert Thomas and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henderson) in conjunction; and if it rested on no other ground, I am sure the Government would be able to carry their point with ease in simply placing those facts before the House of Commons. Indeed, we must judge a question of this kind in relation to the facts. The hon. Members who have raised this Debate judge it in relation to the particular political feeling which the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald) happens to arouse in their breasts. But he is not being sent as an emissary to the St. Augustine's Division. He is being permitted to proceed—though I am not sure the Government will not find they have yet to send him if they are to carry out their undertaking—on a mission to a

713
country which is peculiarly difficult to understand, and which those are best able to understand who have adopted the kind of attitude which the hon. Member has adopted throughout this War, and the attitude I refer to is not only his attitude to the War itself but to the kind of new Europe which we hope will arise out of this War. These are two entirely distinct points, because I believe there will hardly be any difference in any quarter of the House as to the ultimate ends which we wish to see established in Europe, whereas the crucial difference which there has been between lion. Members opposite and us has been "whether those aims can be established in Europe by war or not. If you remove from the hon. Member's record what he has said and done about the carrying on of the War and about the means by which Great Britain should carry it on, and fix your gaze solely on his interpretation of those principles which ought to govern the reconstruction of Europe, I think everyone must admit that he is a proper emissary to send to Russia at this moment.
Mr. WARDLE: I join with the last two speakers in regretting very strongly that it has been thought wise to raise this matter on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. In so far as it is a domestic policy with regard to the Labour party, I should like to say one or two words about it. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to the point. I should think it is not necessary for me to say that the hon. Members (Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Jowett) are not going to Petrograd, if ever they get there, as the representatives of the Labour movement in this country. They go quite openly and quite fairly as the representatives of the Independent Labour party, or, if you like, of some new body which is called the United Socialist Council, and, therefore, having made it clear that they speak for the United Socialist Council and not for the Labour party as a whole, I hope there will be no further misunderstanding on that point. On the wider point I do not accept all that has been said on this side so far with regard to the opinions of the hon. Member for Leicester or the kind of statement that ho would make when he got to Russia. With regard to that I would only like to say that the hon. Member for Leicester has evidently confided much more in his new friends than he has in his old friends. The hon. Member (Mr. F. Whyte) who has
714
just sat down put the thing very clearly. It h certainly critical. The representative of the Labour party in the Cabinet, who was sent over to Russia, has asked that the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Bradford should be allowed to proceed there. We believe that even if it is only the balancing of evil—and for my part I am perhaps a little inclined to take it that way—it is far better that the two hon. Members should be allowed to proceed than that any action on the part of the British Government at the present tine should prevent them from proceeding to Russia. The party with which I am associated differs from the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Bradford as to the means by which the new Europe can be brought about, but I will do the hon. Member for Leicester the credit of saying that he wishes, as I do, to see a new Europe in which peace would be established on right, definite, lines—the lines of nationality, and on lines which would prevent, if possible, the recurrence of the grave and troublous times through which we are passing; but I profoundly differ from him as to the means, and, therefore, I have taken the view that I have previously stated in this House.
I am not so sure about Russia as some people seem to be in this House. I do not know what is going to happen there, but if any action on the part of our Government, or if the sending of the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Bradford will help this country at all, by all means let us not put any obstacles in the way. For the life of me I cannot see that the hon. Members who have raised this matter have made out any case how it is going to injure this country in any shape or form, and that is what they must do. If it does not injure the country, it may help, and the Government is wise in seizing any instrument or taking any steps whatever in its power in order to bring order out of chaos and in order to succeed. This, at any rate is pretty sure, that there will be no advice given for a separate peace. If we can keep Russia away from a separate peace, and if we can keep them allied to us for some time, I believe that eventually order will come out of chaos, and we shall have, as a result of not putting obstacles in the way of these hon. Members, a rebound in Russia, and the Workmen's and Soldiers' Council there, and the Provisional Government will remain on the side of liberty and justice and

715
seek to bring about by resumed offensive that alliance and that power to help which we hope will succeed.
Mr. PETO: The Leader of the Labour party has said that those who have raised this Debate must show in what way the granting of these passports intended to facilitate the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for West Bradford going to consult with the leaders of the Revolutionary party in Russia will injure this country. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) just now told the House that he has confidence as to what the hon. Member for Leicester would say when he arrived there, and the House particularly noticed that the hon. Member (Mr. Wardle), commenting on that, said it was quite clear that the hon. Member for Leicester had taken much more into his counsels his new friends than his old friends. I want, before I can answer that question of the Leader of the Labour party, to look at the rosy picture of the stalwart Member for Leicester advising the Russian Government that they must pull their weight with the Allied cause, and that their influence will be only in proportion to their military efficiency, and that if they wanted to secure freedom that is the only way to obtain it. Those are views which are indistinguishable from the views of the vast majority of the people of this country, who believe that if we want to save civilisation and Europe we have to fight for it. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Wardle) was agreed on that. Let us compare that picture with the telegram prepared by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) at the Leeds Conference ten days ago, which was sent over to Russia as the forerunner of this mission from the Independent Labour Party which, I am assured by those who really represent labour, is not independent and does not represent labour. This was the telegram which declared the aims and objects of this mission, as defined by the Conference which ordered them to go:
"The largest and greatest convention of Labour Socialist and democratic bodies held in Great Britain during this generation has to-day endorsed Russian declaration of foreign policy and war aims and has pledged itself to work through the newly constituted Workmen's and Soldiers' Council for an immediate democratic peace."
Where does the fighting come in? Where is the argument which the hon. Member
716
for Leicester is going to put before the Workmen's and Soldiers' Council? They are pledged to work through that Council and to try to permeate it with the poison they will take from this country and which is in themselves, and to urge them as far as they possibly can to go straight for an immediate peace. When that telegram is their credential, what are we to think of the story which the hon. Member for Northampton has told us about the splendid representation which will be made of the views of the democracy in this country by these two delegates, who are not owned to by the Government, who are disowned by the Labour party, and who are utterly disowned and discredited throughout the country. Permission has been granted by the Government for them to go if they can find their way there, which is quite another thing, because the granting of the passport does not involve the Government in any obligation to get them to their destination. The whole country is united in the view that the Government have made a very grave mistake in allowing the feelings of the country to be misrepresented by anybody whom the Russian authorities may think represent this country because they arc permitted, or at any rate are allowed and encouraged by the Government to go to represent us. The hon. Member for Northampton said that if these passports were withdrawn very grave effects would follow, and he said that he wished the Government to weigh the effect of the refusal of these passports in this country. I want to deal with this country and not with Russia, about which I do not pretend to know anything at all.
Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear.
Mr. PETO: I am going to talk about the passports granted to these gentlemen, for that is the subject upon which the Adjournment of the House has been moved, and I am not going to be put off by any jeers from the hon. Member for Lanark. Let us consider the grave results in this country of the withdrawal of these passports. Two communications have been made to the Prime Minister to-day, one by the Secretary of the British Workers' Union and one by Captain Tupper, the organiser of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union. Mr. Tupper, in communicating with the Prime Minister, says that if the Government take any steps

717
by putting a naval crew on board a vessel or giving a destroyer or other vessel of His Majesty's Government to convey these peace delegates to Russia, the seamen and firemen throughout the country will refuse to work the ships.
Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Does this arise on the Adjournment Motion?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. I indicated earlier, when perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) was not in his place— [Mr. PETO: "I was."]—that the discussion must be kept strictly to the definite question on which leave to move the Adjournment was granted, and that is, the granting by the Government of certain passports.
Mr. THOMAS: Would it also be in order to point out the dangerous consequences that are likely to arise from preventing both hon. Members from going away?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That again is raising a further point which is quite separate and distinct.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I think it would be quite in order to point out what consequences might result if the Government were to withdraw the passports.
Mr. PETO: If it is in order, as it was for the hon. Member for Northampton, to point out what grave consequences would result in this country if the Government do withdraw the passports, why is it not in order to point out what results would happen if the Government do not withdraw the passports?
Mr. L. SMITH: No arguments can be derived from what I said, because I made no reference to what would happen in this country but only to what would happen in Russia.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All I want to make clear is that the Debate must not diverge from the specific point which was raised on the leave granted by the House, and if the hon. Member will confine himself to consequential results I think that he is entitled to refer to them.
Mr. PETO: I do not want to say anything more than refer to these two objections: To one I have referred sufficiently. On the other I may point out that the granting of these passports was stated to be contrary to the overwhelming mass of British
718
opinion. The secretary of the British Workers' Union, which includes such an important member of the Labour party as the Minister for Labour himself who 13 its president, ought to know quite as much as, if not more than, any other hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate so far as to what is the view of British democracy as a whole. Quite apart from its effect in Russia, with which I do not want to deal, I think that it is a very dangerous thing for the Government to have pursued the course of giving permission to proceed to two hon. Members of this House whose record in this War they know, whose ends and objects in going to Russia are set forth clearly by the hon. Member for Blackburn in the telegram which I have read. What has already happened has aroused a storm of protest throughout the country, which is absolutely nothing to what will happen in the course of the next week or two if the Government do not recede from the unfortunate course which they have taken. We are told that they think that the withdrawal of these passports will be misunderstood in Petrograd. Is it quite certain that the going of these Gentlemen to Petrograd will not produce a much more grave misunderstanding? One hon. Member—I think the hon. Member for Northampton—said that democracy in Russia had followed the career of the hon. Member for Leicester, and would regard any advice which lie might give as far more important than any that could be given from any other source. Supposing that is so, is it possible that the Government do not see that that is a two-edged sword? It must be either true or untrue. If it is true, then the Government are allowing them to proceed, though their opinion has such immense weight with the democracy in Russia, and that opinion is diametrically opposed to the opinions of 99 per cent., or even a larger percentage than that, of the working classes of this country; or, on the other hand, if it is not true that the hon. Members for Leicester and West Bradford are so unimportant in this country that it does not very much matter whether they are allowed to proceed, if that view is true, then you are going to allow them to upset the military as well as the political policy of the newly-constituted Russian Government.
Our Government, with their 500 years experience of how democratic Government should be carried on, rapidly developing as it is, might say in their

719
wisdom that they think it is wiser that delegates should go at this moment from this country who represent the views of the vast mass of people in this country. I think they should consider that aspect of the question. I do feel confident that not only will the effect of what they have done—unless the, as I think, patriotic influence of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union has the effect of preventing this great mistake being made—be most unfortunate, because I am quite sure that not only should we be misrepresented in Russia, but that an absolute storm of opposition to the Government's action will be aroused throughout the country. I believe they have struck an absolutely false note. I do not believe that in granting these passports they have interpreted the wishes of even a minute fraction of the people of this country. I believe that if they persist in not cancelling these passports, and, above all, if they give facilities to these men for travelling to their destination in one of His Majesty's ships, they will find that they have done more damage to the strength of the Government of this country, which is so essential to the conduct of the War, than by any other action which they could have taken. I do not say it because of the importance of the action itself. What gives it its importance is that it strikes an utterly false note. The Seamen's and Firemen s Union represent the opinion of the country in the action which they have taken. The Government have utterly misunderstood the opinion of the people of this country, or they would never have allowed the feeling to get abroad that with the connivance and consent of the Government two Members who have opposed them in everything which is necessary for our strong concerted action against the enemy since the intiation of the War should have been allowed to proceed to Russia. Therefore, even although the matter may be small, the result is of the utmost importance, because no Government can afford utterly to misrepresent and misinterpret a great mass of opinion of the people whom it is supposed to govern.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The speeches to which we have just listened have shown that the point under review is within a small compass, and important though it is, I do not intend to occupy much of the time of the House in stating
720
the reasons for the action which has been taken by the Government, So far as this House and the country are concerned, I do not think any harm has been done by the discussion which has taken place tonight. It is well that the view of those who are opposed to the action which we have taken—and which I believe taken by itself, and without hearing the other side, would represent the feelings of the majority of the people—should be taken in conjunction with the motives which have induced the Government to permit passports to be given to those Gentlemen. But I am not quite so sure that it is equally good from the point of view of its effect upon Russia. Before I deal very briefly with their action, and the cause of that action, I should like to refer to one or two points which have been raised in Debate, and in regard to which I think there has been some misconception. It has been assumed, for instance, that in what we are doing we are acting against the interests of our two republican and democratic Allies, the United States and France. That is not the case. The issue, so far as the United States is concerned, has never, in my belief, been presented to them. The point that was discussed by them was the question of sending delegates to an international conference at which the enemy would be represented — an entirely different case—and so far as I am aware no invitation has been sent to the Russian Government to representatives of the United States asking them to be allowed to come. As regards France, the position is precisely the same. The Prime Minister, the President of the Council, in France, opposed permission to these minority Socialists, or any Socialists to have intercourse with enemies. But at the same time he stated that as soon as that danger was removed he would take precisely the same course as was taken by this Government, and would allow their representatives to proceed to Petrograd to meet the Socialists in the Russian capital.
There is another misconception which I should like to correct, and that is in the speech of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill). He says that the German Government used the Socialists to serve their own ends. I am sure they try to do it, but I am not quite sure that they are always successful. At all events, this is the fact, that all the German newspapers which represent, if I may say so, the same clear-

721
cut determination in regard to the War which is represented by my hon. Friend, take the view that the German Government, in permitting these Socialists to meet their Socialist enemies, is playing into their hands, and destroying the German game, which is to carry the War to an end. But in one respect there is no difference between my two hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Motion and myself, or the Government of which I am the representative. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's presented the dilemma in which the Government was placed in, as I think, a perfectly fair way. He did see both sides of the question, and I think I am not transgressing the bounds of truth in stating that, so far as I am concerned, at least I looked upon it, as the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Wardle) has said, as a choice of evils, and the reason we had was simply this: What is the best course, from the point of view of the prosecution of the War? That we considered, and that alone. I do think there is a little absence of a realising of what the actual situation is in the speeches of my two hon. Friends. They talked about the views of these Gentlemen, they gave us extracts from their speeches, they showed us how far these hon. Gentlemen are from representing either the opinion of this House or of the country, but they hardly touched at all upon what is the real question— that is, the position in Russia, and the effect which the action of Russia will have on the success or failure of the War in which we are engaged.
I do wish the House, and especially my lion. Friends, who hold views with which I have a good deal of sympathy, to try to keep themselves in the real atmosphere of the War. What is the position? A revolutionary Government has sprung up in Russia. I think the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Lees Smith) indicated that in some speech made by me I was not sufficiently sympathetic with the new Government. I am, perhaps, naturally rather cautious, but I do wish him and everyone else to understand that no one brought up in the atmosphere of this country, who has read from his childhood, perhaps, the accounts of the horrors of Siberia, has ever had any other feeling than that of relief that a system of that kind has come to an end. There is no doubt about that. But we are in the middle of a war on which our existence
722
as a nation and, as I believe, the future of civilisation and freedom for the world depends, and in my belief on nothing does the final issue of the War so much depend as upon the attitude which is taken by Russia in the new circumstances which have arisen. I wish the House to throw themselves into the atmosphere of Petrograd. Let them remember that, as the result of the dislocation which has taken place, enemy views are spread everywhere throughout Russia, and what is the line they are all taking? It is this, "This War is being continued by you poor Russians for the benefit of England. It is her interest alone which is making you. fight; it is far England you are all dying." That is the attitude in Russia. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's said, "Why do you not say to the Russian Government, when they have invited us to allow these Gentlemen to go, 'They represent no one, and we cannot allow them to go.'" Does the hon. Gentleman really think that that would be believed in Russia, or that the use which would be made of that would not be that what the Germans are saying is true, that we would not allow the minority to go because we were afraid to allow them to express their views?
I was interested to hear the account given by the hon. Member for Northampton as to the views of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). I was glad to hear it. if they really represent his views, and I hope they do, they show this, that the one danger which is to be feared from Russia to-day is, not the part that may be played by the Russian Government in trying to get a general peace, but the one danger is that Russia should be induced to go for a separate peace; and if we can rely on the hon. Member for Leicester to do what the hon. Member for Northampton said he would do, to point out to Russia that her own freedom in the future depends on the strength with which she fights the battle of freedom now—if that is the case he will not do harm to the Allied cause in going to Petrograd. But it is not on that ground that we have agreed to allow him to have his passport. Not at all. I disagree as much as my hon. Friend with all the views of those who are called Pacifists that have been expressed since this War. I do not question their sincerity, but, in my opinion, they are entirely wrong, and it is not as the representative of any

723
shade of British opinion that I would allow passports to be given to the Gentlemen to whom they have been given. Why, then, are they given? Remember this. A revolution such as has taken place in Russia is a very difficult thing to guide, and the result of it nobody can foresee. But this we do know, that there is a possibility of the new Russia playing in this War a part as effective, or more so, than was ever played by Russia under the Czar. That is possible. I do not say that it is likely to happen, but anyone who remembers the history of the French Revolution, who remembers what a terrible force these men became when they believed they were fighting for their liberties, has some reason to hope that under proper guidance the new Russia may be a real help for us in the struggle for freedom in which we are engaged.
What is the position? There is a Government in Russia which is trying to bear up against all these conflicting waves of revolutionary feeling. What is the aim of it? From our point of view this stands out clearly, that that Government does realise that the freedom for which it exists has got to be fought for, and that that Government does intend to use Russia in the fight on behalf of the cause for which we are all fighting. Under these circumstances is it not clearly our duty to try if we can to make the path easier for the Government which has this aim, and which is our Ally, and which we hope may help us in this War? Let me tell the House exactly what has happened. Though I am not as a rule fond of reading extracts, I think perhaps it will enable the House to understand more completely the motives by which the Government were actuated if I do read the exact words of some of the telegrams. What is the position? Here is this Government in Russia which deliberately sends an invitation not to the majority Socialists alone, not to those who represent the vast mass of the working class of this country, but to the minority Socialists as "well. It invites them to come to Petrograd. When that position is put to any Government at home what would they naturally do?-They would, I think, in the first place ask for the advice of the men on the spot in whom they had confidence, and request them to help them in coming to a decision as to whether this step should be taken
724
or not. They took that course. I ask the House to remember these three things: First, this Russian Government, which, with all its difficulties, at all events wishes to help us in this fight—not to help us, but to help the common cause —desire that these men should come. We have, in the second place, an Ambassador at Petrograd, who has been accused, very unjustly, of being too much on the side of the old regime, one of the ablest of our diplomats, and when this, question was first raised he, like my hon. Friends, was against it, but when it was pressed upon him, and the reasons for it were given by the Russian Government, he took strongly the opposite view and urged upon us that we would do great harm if we refused passports to these Gentlemen.
10.0 P.M.
Finally, we have in Petrograd a member of the present Cabinet. Everyone in this-House knows that his relationship and the relationship of the party which he represents is not very favourable to the party-represented by these minority Socialists, and at first in this country, when we discussed it, he was against giving the passports, but when he gets to Russia he sends us in the strongest possible way the advice that, in the interests of the War, we ought to allow these men to go. That is our case. This is important, for I agree with those who have spoken on the other side, that no Government which is charged with the duty of carrying on a War such as that in which we are engaged can safely do anything which arouses the hostility of those who are bent on the some purpose. We cannot safely do that, if we can help it. For that reason I will read some of the telegrams, so that the House may have before them a picture such as we had of the motives which induced us to take this course. I will take first the one of 28th May. This is from Sir George Buchanan, our representative:
"I have just received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs a note to the effect that an invitation has been dispatched by telegram from the Executive Committee of the Workmen's Council in which the four parties in England mentioned below are a.4.ed to visit the Council. It is hoped by His Excellency that the proposed visit will he agreed to by His Majesty's Government"
On the 27th May Sir George Buchanan was. calling upon the Russian Foreign Minister. That Minister said to him, "Some of ray-colleagues here with me now would like to interview you." He gives us this account of what took place between him and these members of the Government:

725
"After discussing the question of our agreements, Mr. Tereshtchenko referred to the necessity of maintaining close contact between the British and Russian democracies. He expressed satisfaction when I assured him that this wish was cordially shared by His Majesty's Government. When I told him Mr. Henderson was leaving for Petrograd immediately he expressed satisfaction, but at the same time he said that it was feared here that His Majesty's Government did not wish representatives of other Socialist groups, such as Mr. Macdonald, to come. He wanted me to authorise him to tell the Council that this was not the case, and that His Majesty's Government would give them all facilities. I replied that my personal conviction was that they would do so, and that I would not fail to repeat and support the views which had been just expressed. I then told him I was not in favour of Mr. Macdonald coming to Petrograd when the question was first raised by the Council, as I feared that his visit might encourage the pacifist movement, but, from what I have since been told by Mr. Vanderveldt and Mr. O'Grady, I had changed my opinion and thought his visit would do good."
There have been many telegrams, but I will only read two more. Here is one sent by the War Cabinet in order to have clearly and definitely the views of our representatives:
"The War Cabinet are anxious to know immediately the opinion of Mr. Henderson and yourself as to the matter of Mr. Macdonald's visit to Petrograd, as a strong feeling has grown up here against allowing him to proceed on the ground that his pacifist opinions entirely misrepresent the opinions of the working class here."
That is the 5th of June, and on the following day we received this telegram from Sir George Buchanan:
"With reference to your telegram No. 1154 of 5th June. Mr. Henderson and I are strongly of opinion that it would be a great mistake to refuse permission. Not much harm need be anticipated from his visit, the danger of seriously indisposing the Workmen's Council at a moment when its relations to the Government show a distiuct. sign of improvement is far greater than any expression of pacifist views at the present juncture."
That is the position. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. Ronald McNeill) said there was something to be said on both sides. The only difference is that His Majesty's Government having weighed the conditions on both sides, came to the conclusion that, in the interests of the prosecution of the War, it would not be wise to refuse the permisson that was asked for by our Allies the Russian Government, and in my belief to have taken any other course would have been to accept a great responsibility, which, in our place, I do not think my hon. Friend himself would have exercised.
Mr. MACKINDER: I want, if the House will allow me, to ask its attention to another point of view which has not been referred to by previous speakers, and which before this Debate ends it seems to me ought to be mentioned. I listened, I need hardly say, with very great respect and with agreement to the words which have fallen from the Chancellor of the
726
Exchequer, but there was one point of view to which he did not refer which it would be valuable that the House should have the opinion of the Government upon. A great many reasonable people in this country, I am sure, object to the issue of these passports, not so much because they are issued to these two Gentlemen as because the Government have not secured, as a part of their policy, that passports should be issued at the same time to other shades of free opinion in this country. The feeling is that you have sent majority Socialists and minority Socialists to-Russia, and that it is open to pro-German intrigue to suggest that only Socialists in this country, whether majority or minority, are in real sympathy with the Russian revolution. It appears to me that that position, which I am perfectly certain obtains to some extent from what I hear from Petrograd, is a position containing; within itself a very considerable amount of danger. The majority Socialists, I say it without offence, in all countries are to some extent suspect on the part of certain people in Petrograd. The majority Socialists in Germany are notoriously considered to be the weapons of the Government. The majority Socialists and the minority Socialists-have strong differences in Italy, in France and in this country. The Government by sending these two groups of people, and these only to Russia, have practically intervened in a Socialist squabble that is European. I recognise to the full the position in which the Government were placed by the telegrams which have been read from our Ambassador in Petrograd.
I recognise also that these passports are issued for Petrograd and not for Stockholm. But it is essential if the older democracies of the West are to be able to lend the hand that they might to the new democracy of Russia that our democracies as a whole should be thought of in Russia as loving freedom and as having pursued it through the centuries. I venture to think that hon. Members opposite who say that the situation in this country is known in Petrograd judged from travelled Russians who have come to this country. What have most of them been? Men who have been persecuted, men who were threatened with Siberia by the old regime, men who necessarily were thrown into an extreme position and who, when they came to this country, concerted with those who held extreme views amongst us. These are the men who have returned to Russia

727
these are the men who represent the opinions of this country in Russia at the present moment. They came in contact with a particular element in this country, not with fair samples of society of the country as a whole. I feel that our Western notions were wrong from the very beginning in sending to the Russian Revolution representatives of particular parties, and not a fair delegation of the free parties of our free country. Think of the position in which these delegates have been placed. It has been my good fortune of late to have to do with the organisation of delegations of semi-official representatives from this country in the neighbouring Republic of France. We have taken them from Members of the two Houses of this country, representative of all the chief opinion within this country, Conservative, Liberal, Nationalist, and Labour representatives of whatever shade of opinion, and those delegations when they found themselves in a foreign country talked together and presented a united front in a foreign country. They represented different shades of opinion, and they came in contact with different shades of opinion in the other country steadied one another and were not swept away by particular party views in the foreign country. If that was the condition in a country under the stable and historic condition like our neighbour Prance, how much more would it not have been an advantage in a country in the condition Russia finds itself to-day?
Instead of that you send over representatives of a particular shade of opinion, and you send them into a great revolution. You send them as the steadying help of others from their own country, with different ideas of freedom in their minds, because it was essential if Russia is to understand the sympathy with which we regard her at the present moment she should know and realise—and those who have not travelled here should realise— that in this country, as compared with the tyranny which lately existed in Russia, our whole people are lovers of freedom and know how to maintain it. Our object is to help the Russian revolution in the days of reaction. Reaction is vital to us. Reaction means that the old German influence which was formerly dominant in Petrograd is opposed to every interest of this country and our Allies. Our object should have been to prevent that being done. My feeling is very strong, but what is really resented in this
728
case is not so much that these passports i should be issued to these particular men, but that the Government aid not look at the position as a whole and secure that when they issued these they should also issue other passports so that there might be a fair representation of the free thought of this country in Petrograd face to face with the elements of that country. The harm you do by it is that you weaken those elements of stability which are present in Russia. Let us not forget that there was a great revolutionary movement in Russia in 1905, that there were men then who won terrible experience in the cause of revolution. You sent no one from here who would meet these men, coming from a similar class with a similar experience. You sent from this country only one or two particular types of thought and experience, and what is the result? That the people of Petrograd naturally say, "Those who have come, those who would have given us a constitutional revolution, these people from France and Britain are not in sympathy with our revolution. Only those are in sympathy with our revolution who believe as we believe, in the extreme." I believe that this Government, and the Governments of some of the Allies, had a tremendous responsibility in the matter, that they should have looked at it in a broader spirit, and the objection in the minds of many of our people is not that they are using these passports, but that they have not had a larger and more constructive policy. I believe that frequently when two great democracies come against one another, if the Government of one attempts to stifle and hold back even a streamlet of opinion you cause suspicion in the other democracy. Repression in democracy is open to cause suspicion. Therefore I am not with those who would have refused these passports, but I do say the Government is to blame, because people are afraid to express their opinion lest they should do harm. The real attack on the Government in this matter is not because they have attempted to suppress opinion, but because they have not taken a larger view of their duty and secured a just and broad representation of opinion in Petrograd. That is a view which it seems to me has not been expressed, and a view which I hold, and others hold, strongly.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think, after the powerful and convincing speech of the Leader of the House, that it is necessary

729
for those who approve of the action of the Government to say any words in support of that action. I rise to deal with one statement which has been repeatedly made in the speeches of those who have opposed the granting of these passports, and a statement which has come even into one of the telegrams read by the Leader of the House. It was to the effect that the two hon. Members to whom passports have been granted had no considerable following in this country, and that they represented, to use the words of the Mover of this Motion, not even a respectable minority. I would like to explain a point which, I think, has not been made quite clear in the course of this Debate, and that is that the two hon. Members do not go to Russia and passports have not been granted to them in their personal capacity. The request was made by the Russian Workmen's Council for representatives of the Independent Labour Party to be sent to Petrograd. The Independent Labour Party, I may explain, is an integral part of the International Socialist movement. It was a part of the International Socialist movement before the Labour Party came into existence, and the two hon. Members were selected by the Council of the Independent Labour Party to represent that party on this mission. In regard to the statement which I heard just now that these two hon. Members carried with them no representative authority, I would like to read to the House an answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, and which was placed in my hands the very moment that he sat down. That hon. Gentleman warned the Government in the gravest tones of the terrible consequences which may follow if these passports were withdrawn. But if the passports were not withdrawn equally grave consequences may result. A very amusing incident of this Debate to one Like myself, who knows something of the attitude of the members of the Tory party to trade unionism in the past has been the way in which hon. Members who have supported this Motion have cited trade union opinion in their support. In supporting syndicalist methods the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion and the hon. Member for Wiltshire, are raising a dragon which it may be very difficult for them to slay in the years to come. The War has brought many changes, but surely it has brought no change so remarkable as to find the old enemies of trade unionism—[HON. MEMBERS: "No,
730
no!]—quoting it to-day in support of their policy. The evidence which was placed in my hands at the moment the hon. Member sat down comes from Glasgow. I venture to give it to the House and the Government, because it is an indication of what may happen should they think, under the pressure being brought to bear on them, of reconsidering their present decision. This is a telegram from the Glasgow Trades Council, which represents 120,000 organised workmen of Glasgow. It protests against the action of the Seamen's Union, and it demands that the Government shall grant facilities for the Labour deputation to proceed to Petrograd; further, the Seafarers' Union offer to supply crews; the feeling in the West of Scotland is very strong in this matter, and say that Macdonald and Jowett must go to Russia.
There is just one further matter that I should like to mention in support of one point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He justified the action of the Government by the representations which have been made by our Minister in Petrograd and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle. It is important that the Government realises that they should conciliate the opinion of the Workmen's Council in Petrograd; but it is of equal importance that the Government should take no action which is likely to alienate sympathy with us in this War in neutral countries. I should like to remind the House that a very remarkable manifesto was issued two days ago by the Danish and Scandinavian Committee now sitting in Stockholm. Amongst many wise things! said in that manifesto, it was pointed out that a very bad feeling would have been created in neutral countries if the Governments of the Allied Powers refused passports to representatives of the minority sections in the various Allied countries. The first signatory of that manifesto was Mr. Branting, who was described only recently by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs as a distinguished Swedish statesman not unfriendly to the Allies. I should like to point out Further that that manifesto was also signed by a friend of my own, the secretary of the International Socialists' Conference, a Belgian, and one who therefore cannot be expected to have much sympathy with pro-Germanism. I need add no more than this, that I thank the Government not only for having

731
granted passports to my two hon. Friends, but I thank them for the stand they have taken in the course of this Debate. In the interests of Russian democracy, in the interests of liberty, in that interest which we all have in common, whatever may be -our difference of opinion upon the causes of the War, namely, the interest of civilisation and human liberty, I believe the Government have taken a wise stand in the course they have followed.
Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUX: What will be thought of all this in France, in Mesopotamia, and other places? What will be thought in the Navy? In the Army? What will be thought in the Merchant Service? What about Captain Fryatt? What happened in the Leeds Conference the other day when someone—I do not know who—got up, and proposed that these Gentlemen should not go out unless they promised to vote for indemnity and reparation for the seamen who had lost their lives? Were those who got up not received with jeers?
Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member—:[HON. MEMBERS: ''Order, order!"]—the hon. and gallant Member asked me a question and I am entitled to answer it. If the hon. and gallant Member means that the Conference jeered at the suggestion that compensation should be given to the men of the merchant service who have lost their lives, then the statement is utterly without foundation.
Admiral Sir H. MEUX: Well, I only go by the newspaper account. All I know is that the Seamen and Firemen's Union have my thorough respect in the action they have taken, and I believe they have the respect of nine-tenths of the people of this country. It is not the first time, and it will not be the last time, that you get from Naval men, even although only common seamen or firemen, action of this sort. Of course, I know the difficulty of the Government—we can all see that—but surely they might do that which they have not done. Have the Government instructed our Ambassador to tell the Russian Government that these two Gentlemen going out have no following of any sort or kind in the Army or Navy, and do not represent a single soldier or sailor? The Army and Navy are winning the War—not the politicians. I do not say more—you understand what I mean.
Mr. TERRELL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] In view of the statement and the telegrams which have been read by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which throw quite a different light on the whole matter, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion— [HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "]
Question put, and negatived.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question: "That this House approves of the Instructions appended to the Warrants appointing Commissioners to determine, for the purposes of the Representation of the People Bill, the number of members to be assigned to the several counties and boroughs in England and Wales and in Scotland, respectively, and the boundaries of such counties and boroughs and divisions thereof.
  Provided that the Commissioners may depart from the strict application of these Instructions in any case where it would result in the formation of constituencies inconvenient in size or character, or where the narrowness of margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these Instructions seem to them to justify such a departure.
  Provided also that it be an Instruction to the Boundary Commissioners to have regard to electorate rather than population where it appears that the proportion of electorate to population is normal."
  Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "Provided that in carrying out these Instructions the Commissioners shall act on the assumption that proportional representation is not adopted."—[Colonel Sir H. Jessel.]
  Major NEWMAN: When the hon. Member for Chippenham moved the Adjournment of the House, moving, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "except in boroughs entitled on a basis of population to return three or more members," I was pointing out that those of us who have been advocating proportional representation have lately been somewhat at a loss to put our views at all fairly or even at all generally before the country. The country

  733
  at the present moment is engaged in the crisis of its fate, and it is impossible for Any mere political movement or argument to attract the average elector. I know that our case for proportional representation is one that does need explaining to the electorate, and I admit in the ordinary way we would gladly have gone on a pilgrimage up and down the country to explain the merits of proportional representation. But, supposing I had gone out on an expedition of that character, could I, should I, ought I to have had an audience? I think not. The best of our electorate at the present time are abroad fighting for the nation. Others at home are mourning their dear ones or are anxious for their dear ones. Most minds at this moment cannot be attuned to a mere phase of politics, no matter how important it may be. Therefore, I admit, so far we have not been able to make our case known as we would have made it known in other times. But be that as it may, all those who are working for proportional representation take the opportunity of making their case known whenever possible. We have in this Debate, of course, an opportunity of putting our case fully before the House in a more extended way than we have been able to do up to now. We want to meet and refute criticism, and I gladly admit that the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Westminster were fair criticisms levelled against the scheme of proportional representation, even the partial scheme embodied in the Bill. I am glad to think both the speakers recognise that the time has gone by for speaking or arguing against proportional representation as if it were a fad of high-browed intellectuals. Those arguments are things of the past. After all, we have to look abroad, and what do we find? After all, in the small democratic countries of Europe, proportional representation is a thing they have either adopted a good many years ago, or a few years ago, or they have adopted it at the moment or are about to adopt it. Such countries as Sweden, Switzerland and Belgium have had proportional representation for a good many years. Holland and Denmark have just adopted, and Finland knows well what it is. If we turn to the greater democracies we find the same thing. Before the War, in 1914, proportional representation had been passed by an
  734
  enormous majority in the French. Chamber, but it was hung up by the Senate, and if war had not intervened, proportional representation would have been the law of the land with our French Allies. Take the newest of our democracies, Russia. The other day I read that the leaders of the Russian Government have publicly made the statement that in the future organisation of the nation proportional representation would find a place.
  We can also turn to what our enemies are doing—the two autocracies of Germany and Austria. If imitation is the since rest form of flattery, then our Conference has been paid that compliment by our German opponents. During the last couple of months the German Government as a sop to German public opinion has set up a Commission to report to the Reichstag somewhat on the lines of our Conference. That Conference met under the chairmanship of Herr Scheidemann, the well-known German Socialist leader, and the last representation made by that Commission was that proportional representation should be introduced at future elections for the Reichstag. I notice that some months ago the Austrian Emperor, speaking of possible reforms for the Empire, made the suggestion that in future there should be a measure of proportional representation, in order to make the Austian Chamber more representative of the feeling in every part of the Austrian Empire.
  Then I turn to our own Dominions. We know that proportional representation was part of the electoral methods of Tasmania, and that it has been adopted in parts of South Africa. Only the other day Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, the well-known Unionist leader in South Africa, admitted that proportional representation was inevitable when the Union was formed some years ago. What is said now is that, granted that all the great empires I have mentioned bad adopted it, after all they are not the United Kingdom, and what may be good for those countries may not be good for the United Kingdom. After all, Ireland at one time was part of the United Kingdom, and we did once impose upon the Irish Senate and partly upon the Irish House of Commons proportional representation. We did that by vast and crushing majorities. The proposal that a limited scheme of proportional representation should be imposed on the Irish Lower

  735
  Chamber was eventually carried by something like 250 votes to 60. The House will further recollect, when the Bill to amend the Home Rule Act of 1912 was before the Upper House, that an Amendment was inserted that proportional representation should be applied not in a limited form to the Irish House of Commons and to the Senate, but at every election for every single Member of the Irish Lower House. The Amendment was carried without a Division; as a matter of fact, two could not be found to tell against it. Of course, we know perfectly well that the War intervened, that the Amending Bill was dropped, and that the Amendment was never brought down here. If it had been, I suggest that it would probably have been incorporated in the Amending Bill. I have heard hon. Members say, "We do not mind the experiment being tried on the Irish dog, but we do not want it tried on us." That is the sort of remark which almost makes me a Home Ruler. You ought not to experiment on the Irish dog. We thought that proportional representation would be the best thing for the Irish Senate and in a limited way for the Irish House of Commons, and we did so not blindly, not selfishly, but after deliberation.
  The hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras (Sir H. Jessel) advanced one or two arguments against proportional representation with which I should like to deal. First of all, he told us that in a single-Member constituency a Member knew what the leaders on both sides wanted, and would play up to what they wanted, and they had some hold over his actions. The division he represented must be a wonderful division. If I were to say that I know what those who opposed my return want, it would be absolutely false. I should like to know, but I do not pretend to do so. All I know is that when I come to stand again they will oppose me, and in the meantime they are endeavouring to do their best to show that I am not a fit, and proper man to represent them. He then went on to speak of the expenses in these multiple-Member constituencies. What would happen to the unfortunate football secretary who wanted to get a subscription, and what would happen to a Member shot at, not from the present limited number of football secretaries, but from five times that number? I, like many other Members, occasionally indulge in shooting, and it is very hard to hit a single
  736
  partridge, but when a number fly together you very often bring one down. So it will be under proportional representation. The football club secretary and the cricket club secretary will be able to fire, not at one, but at five Members, and if he cannot hit one out of five he must be a bad shot.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman adduced as an argument against proportional representation the difficulty of a Member in getting over the great extent of ground in one of these great divisions which is a multi-member constituency, and he said that it was very hard to get round one London borough. Again, there would not be only one partridge. There would be five partridges, probably six, going round covering the division, and putting forward their politics. It would not be possible for one candidate to go round 80,000, or 90,000, or 100,000 electors. Of course if he were on his own, so to speak, as a minority candidate for some minor cause, then he would have to do his best. He would not have to secure a majority of the electors, but merely his quota, and he would not go to those particular nests of voters where he thought he would get it in the easiest way. Ho would not try to cover all the ground. The hon. and gallant Member also told us that he had had no time to make up his mind on this novel suggestion. There he adduced what the Prime Minister said. That was also an argument put forward by the hon. Member for the Tamworth Division (Mr. Wilson Fox). Let me say to him that he is one of those very lucky people who have got into this House without a contest. In years to come he will have to fight, successfully, I hope, many hardly contested elections, and he will have to make up his mind upon a great many novel points during the course of those elections and answer them in such a way as will secure the votes of those whose suffrages he seeks. At present he is not called upon to give his opinion upon such questions as electoral reform or proportional representation. That argument is also a short-sighted and an unfair one. If we have had no time to give our minds to the subject, we ought not to impose proportional representation blindly on Ireland.
  Another argument which has been advanced is that, if this scheme is to be adopted at all, it should be applied to the whole of the country. That is what we who are in favour of proportional

  737
  representation say. We wish it could be done. But there is the scheme of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which recommends its partial application. We accept that partial application, although we would rather have it applied to the whole country. Hon. Members who oppose us say, and we admit it, that we are greatly weakening our case by this very partial application. It ought to be applied to Wales, to Scotland, and to the Home Counties, such as Kent and Sussex, where Liberal representation is practically unknown and the Labour man is hardly dreamed of. But we loyally accept the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference as embodied in the Instructions given to the Boundary Commissioners. Then again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said under proportional representation you do not get an accurate majority. It is certainly true that under our present system you get nothing like an accurate majority. Supposing we had had proportional representation in either of the 1910 elections you would not to-day be fighting a European War. The Liberal, Labour, and Irish parties got a majority of something like 120 or 130. The majority under proportional representation would have been something like thirty-eight, and with a majority of thirty-eight instead of 120 or 130 politics in Great Britain might have taken a very different course, and things not only in this country but in the world at large might have shaped themselves very differently. An hon. Member who earlier in the Debate said that though he did not believe in proportional representation, there was something to be said for the alternative vote, and he said proportional representation meant the elector writing one, two, three against certain names, which he could not do. After all,' what is the alternative vote? It is right on one, two, and perhaps right in one, two, three. It is really a very minor and very lopsided form of the transferable vote.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the alternative vote. It arises on no part of this Motion.
  Major NEWMAN: Then there is one final argument which the hon. and gallant Gentleman used. He alluded to the Commission which last reported on proportional representation and other electoral systems of the country, and reported, though not unanimously,
  738
  against proportional representation for the election of members of this House. I wish he had quoted a little further from that Report. He would have seen that the condemnation of the Commission was very luke-warm, and after all a very great deal of water has flowed under Westminster Bridge since the Report of that Commission. We shall have to elect another House of Commons. The country is agreed that we want a fair House of Commons, a tolerant House of Commons, and a large-minded House of Commons to deal with the tremendous problems we shall have to solve, and under proportional representation we shall give universities that fair representation, which will give them a chance of making their voice heard fairly for a settlement of these great problems. My proposal is merely that what I may call the corporate life of London shall, to a certain extent, be unchanged where it wishes it under proportional representation. For instance, it has been put before the House as an argument that it is unfair to compel Chelsea, which has its own, corporate life, to join, say, with Westminster or with Fulham, which have their own corporate life, and if you treat London as one entity, as one borough, and divide it into a number of constituencies returning three, five, or seven Members, of course you will take away its corporate life, which it has only won in the course of the last few years. My Amendment is put down to avoid that. I put it down on my own, without really consulting my Friends very much. For instance, Chelsea would be left as it is. Hammersmith would be left as it is. Kensington and Fulham would be left as they are. These would not come under proportional representation. But Islington, which is a borough returning four Members, would come under this scheme.
  HON. MEMBERS: Why?
  Major NEWMAN: There is a Mayor of Islington, but there is not a Mayor of West, North or South Islington. Four Members are returned by Islington; therefore, it would come under our scheme of proportional representation as returning more than three Members. The same might be said of Camberwell, which returns three Members, and Southwark, which returns three Members. The sum of the result would be, so far as London is concerned, that there would be eight of these multiple-Member constituencies

  739
  returning Members under proportional representation. The remaining seats in London, whether they be boroughs or parts of boroughs, would be single-Member constituencies. The same thing would apply outside London. Such cities as Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Leeds, would return Members under the system of proportional representation, but the majority of constituencies in the country would not be touched. I freely admit that for proportional representation advocates this is a compromise. It is not a very satisfactory compromise. The Bill itself is a compromise, and I put this compromise of mine down as a watering down of what the Conference recommended in order that it may perhaps remove the objection of certain London Members and certain Members outside. I trust it will be seconded and that the Committee will give it favourable consideration.
  Mr. CAREW: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am not a member of the Proportional Representation Society, and I cannot say that hitherto I have had any very fixed or convinced views in favour of that particular scheme. I think that I may be perhaps taken as an illustration of those Members who when they are brought face to face with the problem in a practical form and are compelled to look into it find their opinions hardening more in favour of this recommendation for the Conference. The more I consider it the more anxious I am to see the experiment tried in one shape or another. The hon. Member (Major Newman) has put forward an Amendment which does not make it more easy to discuss the whole question. I suppose it is an effort of sweet reasonableness on his part. I imagine it is an attempt to adopt a suggestion thrown out by the Home Secretary in recent Debate, where he suggested that the advocates of proportional representation should,- if possible, come to terms with their opponents on the understanding that the experiment should be tried with the great boroughs, but not in the London boroughs. If the opposition to proportional representation would be modified or pacified by the acceptance of the Home Secretary's suggestion then I think there might be something to be said for it. But what if it is not going to be accepted? I notice
  740
  that one of the hon. Members identified with the opposition shakes his head, and therefore I presume he does not agree with the suggestion. Under those circumstances I am not quite certain that this is a very wise Amendment to put forward in this form. Perhaps on a night's consideration hon. Members may find more advantage in it than occurs to them at a moment's investigation. Hon. Members for London seem to me to be extremely easily satisfied with the working of the present system. It is quite true that the single-member system which prevails in London worked in 1910 as it happens by chance, in a manner which was not unfair as compared with the votes which have been cast, but under our present system of single-member constituencies a General Election is merely an agreeable mingling of skill and chance. It may be that the result of the election corresponds to the real balance of opinion. On other occasions it does not. In 1910, by some means which I cannot understand, the result in majority corresponded with the votes polled in London constituencies. You may get a result in one area which is right when the result over the whole country is quite wrong. That is part of the caprices which beset the system. But if you go back to the elections of 1895 and 1900 you will find that the Liberal Members in London suffered badly. In 1895 they ought to have had 25 members on votes polled and they only got eight. In 1900 they ought to have had twenty-four and they only got eight. On the next trial of strength it may easily happen that you will not get the results which you got in 1910, results in proportion to the votes polled. You may easily by a mere chance revert to the unfortunate experience of 1895 and 1892.
  It being Eleven of the clock the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [EXPENSES]
Considered in Committee.
[Sir GEORGE YOTTNGEB in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money to be provided by Parliament of the Expenses of Returning

741
Officers and of part of the Expenses connected with Registration under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to Parliamentary and Local Government Franchises and the Registration of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors and the conduct of Elections; and of the remuneration and travelling allowances of Assistant Judges appointed in pursuance of such Act."
Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. KING: Are the Government really going to take this business? Not only they do not know their own minds, but they had not a chairman ready apparently, nor can they answer questions.
Sir G. CAVE: We are quite ready. As my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) has moved to report Progress, we offer no opposition.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. CLOUGH: Is it intended to resume to-day's discussion on the question of the Instructions to the Boundary Commissioners to-morrow, and in that event will the right hon. Gentleman take Committee on the Representation of the People Bill on Wednesday?
Sir G. CAVE: The Debate on the Motion will be taken to-morrow, I hope it will be concluded as soon as possible, and we will then proceed with Committee upon the Representation of the People Bill.
Mr. KING: It is evident that the business of the Government has been changed, because the Order to-day, No. 5—Corn Production Bill Committee—was, I think, to have been taken on Wednesday, or is it only the Committee of expenses?
Sir G. CAVE: It is the Resolution.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.