Commons Sitting of 5 February 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Order [29th January] for Committal read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 25th January, 1918, entitled the Heavy Motor Car (Amendment) (Scotland) Order, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act I; to lie upon the Table.
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Raw Cocoa (Returns) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th January, 1918, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th January, 1918, further post-
2056
poning the operation of the Merchant Shipping (Convention) Act, 1914, to 1st January, 1919 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
Appropriation Accounts presented for the year ending 31st March, 1917, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and certain Reports upon Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 186.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911 TO 1914 (PART II., UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE) (UNEMPLOYMENT FUND ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of Account of the Unemployment Fund established pursuant to Section 92 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, Part II., showing the Receipts and Payments during the period 18th July, 1915 to 15th July, 191(1, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 187.]
ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
Copy presented of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1917, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 777 and 1201 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    RUSSIA.

      SIR GEORGE BUCHANAN.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir George Buchanan received information that on his journey home from Petrograd a German agent in Scandinavia plotted his murder; and whether the Press Bureau will issue a full statement on this incident?
      The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Information of the kind alluded to was received. I see no reason for taking the course proposed in the last part of the question.
      Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord aware of the sort of statement which appeared in one of the evening papers on this matter?
      Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I am not aware of it.

      UKRAINE.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ukraine has concluded a separate peace with the Central Powers; if so, on what terms; and what is the attitude of the British Government to the action of the Ukraine?
      Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have received no information to the effect that the Ukraine has concluded a separate peace with the Central Powers. The second and third parts of the question do not, therefore, arise.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government has subsidised the setting up of a Republic in Ukraine to the extent of over £11,000,000, and that a French military mission has left for Ukraine to salute the new Republic; can he state whether the British Government is co-operating; and, if so, will he explain why such action is being,taken, in view of the fact that the Government of the Republic has defied the Russian Government for the purpose of making a separate peace with the Central Powers?
      Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government are not in a position to make any statement regarding the action of the French Government in the Ukraine.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Ukraine Government of the new Republic is endeavouring at the present moment to make a separate peace with the Central Powers and is being opposed by the Russian Government?
      Lord R. CECIL: I do not think that that arises out of the question.
      Mr. KING: Is the Noble Lord not aware that the recent Supreme War
      2058
      Council states that complete unity has been reached on all points, and does not that cover this matter?
      Lord R. CECIL: I think that is a very irrelevant question.

      BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT (WIRELESS MESSAGES).
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the number of wireless messages issued by the Bolshevik Government in Russia during December and January which have been picked up by our wireless stations, by installations under Admiralty control, or by other agencies which have communicated them to Government authorities; how many such messages have been issued through the Press Bureau; how many have been allowed publication without excisions or alteration; how many have been entirely suppressed; and whether in future Bolshevik wireless messages, unless menacing military interests, will be allowed uncensored publication?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. It is undesirable in the public interest to give the figures asked for. Wireless messages from Russia are and will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the general principle governing the censorship of Press messages.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any Russian Government, and, if so, how it was elected?
      Sir G. CAVE: I think I might be excused from answering that question.

  TURKISH EMPIRE.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the various agreements and undertakings entered into during the War for the partition of the Turkish Empire, in which Russia, France, Italy, and Great Britain were to share, still hold good, or whether the acceptance of the formula of no annexation and national self-determination of nationalities and the repudiation of secret diplomacy by President Wilson have been definitely adopted by the Allies?
  Lord R. CECIL: I have nothing to add to the replies already returned to questions on this subject.

  ARCHBISHOP OF YORK (UNITED STATES VISIT).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received inquiries as to a proposed visit of the Archbishop of York to the United States; whether a passport will be granted; and whether the Archbishop will go with official introductions, recommendations, or instructions, or as a private individual?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part of the question, the Archbishop has certainly no official instructions. The visit is, I understand, made on the invitation of the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

  FRANCE (OFFICE ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say what additional accommodation has been provided in Paris by the French Government since the outbreak of war for the housing of French Government Departments, whether by the erection of new or by the commandeering of existing buildings?
  Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I have no information on the subject, and doubt whether any would be easily obtainable.
  Mr. LAW: Will the Noble Lord endeavour to see if the information which has reached him is substantially correct, namely, that no new buildings have been built in Paris, and only three or four buildings have been commandeered, and, if that is so, it seems to have some bearing on our policy?
  Lord R. CECIL: If my hon. Friend will Communicate with me, I will see what can be done.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: Could the right hon. Gentleman not get the desired information from the Embassy?
  Lord R. CECIL: I will consider that.

  ITALY.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the annexationist
  2060
  claims of Italy to territory in the possession of Austria at the outbreak of hostilities is the main obstacle to the making of peace with Austria and tends to the indefinite prolongation of the War to the detriment of British interests, he will propose to the Italian Government that some abatement of these claims should be made?
  Lord R. CECIL: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement of fact, and am of opinion that the subject of his inquiry cannot properly be dealt with by way of question and answer.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has seen the text of the secret treaty in regard to Italian claims, and whether those claims are still being supported or demanded?
  Lord R. CECIL: My right hon. Friend, and I think I also, said more than once that we do not think it possible to discuss the terms of a treaty which the hon. Member himself describes as secret.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is there any reason why—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that we have a record number of questions on the Paper, and I hope the House will exercise forbearance in the number of supplementary questions.

  GENERAL ELLIOT.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce that General Elliot has been reinstated in his former command or in some other command of the same nature?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Owing to the small number of vacancies and to the large number of officers at present unemployed. I regret that it has riot yet been possible to employ Brigadier-General Elliot.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that General Elliot is a very efficient and fearless officer, and can he explain why he has been treated in such a harsh manner by the War Office?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope the House will not regard the treatment of General Elliot by the War Office as harsh—
  Mr. HOUSTONUnjust!
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We have done our level best, but there are a great many unemployed officers at the present moment. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question I do regard him as a very excellent officer.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has now any official information to the effect that hundreds of British and French officer prisoners of war have been sent to Stuttgart and other places in order to be subject to the risks of air raids; and whether he will take steps to inform the German Government that, if and so long as they indulge in such practices, German prisoners of war will be brought from Donington Hall and elsewhere to London and other places where they will share with women and children and other noncombatants the dangers of attacks from the air by Germans?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Information has been received which leaves no doubt that the German authorities have placed officer prisoners of war in localities which are specially subject to air raids.
    Similar action is contemplated in this country.
    Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are any and, if so, how many hospitals in the London district where patients suffering from shell shock are treated; if so, whether steps will be taken to remove all such patients to the West country or some other area in which they will be free from air raids?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As many cases as possible are being moved out of the London district, and 450 have just left. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the difficulty of finding other suitable accommodation is considerable.

  SPECIAL RESERVE BATTALIONS.

    COMMANDING OFFICERS' SERVICES.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the services rendered by officers commanding Special
    2062
    Reserve battalions in this country during the War in training troops and sending drafts for service abroad; whether any adequate recognition of the work and services of these officers has yet been given; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the work and services of these officers shall be suitably recognised by promotion or otherwise?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Army Council is filly aware of the good services rendered by these officers, some of whom have already been rewarded. Further recommendations recently submitted by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief are now under consideration.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I rest assured that the services of these distinguished officers are not being lost sight of?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can give that assurance to my hon. and learned Friend.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (FURLOUGH).
  Sir WILLIAM H. DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Army authorities are prepared to allow reasonable furlough to wounded soldiers who have been in military hospitals for more than six months in cases where such furlough is recommended by the medical officer in charge of the patient?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; it is not proposed to extend facilities for furlough in hospital, as it is found that furlough generally retards recovery in the case of both officers and men.
  Sir W. H. DAVIES: Is the tendency to force men out of hospital before they are completely recovered the policy which he is now supporting?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have just stated the exact opposite.

  OFFICERS' PAY (DEDUCTIONS).
  Colonel FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether half-pay and retired officers are subject to a 10 per cent. deduction as well as Income Tax reduction under 50 Vic., Superannuation Act, 1887, meaning a loss of £70. a year on a salary of £400; whether page 314, Royal Warrant, paragraphs 5 and 102, allow of the Treasury exempting civil

  2063
  salary; and whether officers are now being asked to refund money as far back as 1916 owing to the Regulations not having been known or acted upon?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Officers in receipt of half-pay and retired pay who accept a civil employment of profit under a public Department within the meaning of No. 4 of the rules under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, are subject to a deduction of not less than 10 per cent. from the profits of such employment if the effective and non-effective pay together exceed £400 per annum. For the exact conditions of the deduction I must refer my lion. and gallant Friend to the rules, which are printed as an appendix to the Royal Warrant. The deduction is made from the profits of the civil employment only, not from the non-effective pay. The Treasury have power under Rule 5 to exempt certain kinds of employment from the operation of Rule 4. The deduction is made under statutory authority. If, therefore, in any case not falling under Rule 5 the deduction should have been omitted by oversight for a time it would be necessary, as soon as the mistake was found out, to recover retrospectively the amount over-issued.

  NEW ZEALAND FLYING CORPS.
  Colonel FABERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state why ten probationer certificated officers of the New Zealand Flying Corps, who left Now Zealand in October and arrived in England early in December viâ the Panama Canal, were sent to Blackdown Camp, Surrey; whether five of them are now ordered to Egypt without any flying trial whatever; and whether it will be arranged for such officers to go in future by a shorter route than by the Panama Canal and Halifax to arrive in Egypt?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The probationer officers referred to were candidates for admission to a cadet wing, and passed through Blackdown to the cadet wing in the course of ordinary routine. While in the cadet wing five of them volunteered to join a draft of cadets for training in Egypt, where they will complete their cadet training and instruction in aviation.

  ARMY OFFICERS.

    PROMOTION.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why second-lieutenants with more than eighteen months' commissioned service and recommended by their commanding officers have not yet received promotion in accordance with Army Council Instructions; whether it is the intention of the Army Council to penalise officers in the matter of promotion in cases where they have transferred from one unit to another; and, if not, will promotion in such cases be dated back to the time when the period of eighteen months' commissioned service was completed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my lion. and gallant Friend to the answers given on 26th November and 17th January to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Lewisham and St. Pancras West, when I stated that up to the end of November 20,000 promotions were announced. A considerable addition has now been made to that number. The out standing cases are dealt with as soon as the recommendations are received. Officers are riot penalised when transferred to another unit solely in the interests of the Service, but are treated precisely as they would have been had they not been so transferred.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers of the Regular Army during the year 1917 were appointed to command Territorial battalions, and how many Territorial officers during the same period were appointed to command battalions of the Regular Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: During the year 1917, 121 Regular officers have been appointed to command Territorial Force battalions, and two Territorial Force officers have been appointed to command Regular battalions. During the same period:30 Territorial Force officers have been appointed to command New Army battalions.

  UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT.
  Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardship imposed on young officers who, on obtaining a commission, are obliged to expend a substantial sum of money in purchasing uniform and

  2065
  equipment suitable for this country or France, and are subsequently sent on draft to one of the Eastern Fronts and are obliged to again purchase the uniform and equipment suitable for Eastern campaigning; and whether any action is to be taken in the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): An extra outfit grant is given towards the cost of semi-tropical kit needed on certain Eastern Fronts.
  Major NEWMAN: How much is the grant?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think, so far as my memory serves me, it is £5 10s,
  Major NEWMAN: Does it not amount to £6 10s.?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have just said that, so far as my memory serves me, it is £5 10s.
  Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to consider a second grant to officers after serving three years?
  Mr. FORSTER: That was considered by the Cabinet Committee who dealt with the officers' pay, and it was decided that the increase given in the pay should cover the cost of uniform.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the refusal of the military authorities to keep the agreement arrived at between them and the Pensions Minister that discharged soldiers should have the right of re-entry into military orthopædic hospitals has caused great shortage of the accommodation necessary for the treatment of cases needing further care and operations and consequently serious hardship to many disabled soldiers; what was the reason for taking this step; (2) the Pensions Minister whether the War Office still refuses to allow discharged soldiers to enter military hospitals; whether the War Office has ceased to retain accommodation for serving soldiers in civil hospitals; and how many beds have been released thereby for discharged soldiers?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The War Office has been obliged to discontinue the assist-
  2066
  ance which it was giving to the Ministry of Pensions, as there would not have been sufficient accommodation for the oversea soldier. Accommodation occupied by the War Office in civil hospitals will be released as soon as possible, when an increased number of beds for serving soldiers can be made available elsewhere. The War Office is in close consultation with the Ministry of Pensions upon this point.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not a fact that a very large number of disabled soldiers cannot obtain further treatment in hospital, in consequence of the refusal of the War Office to take them in?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have just said, the War Office is in constant consultation with the Ministry of Pensions.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: That does not prevent this.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Under - Secretary of State for War whether the Report in connection with the inquiry into the Army Medical Services. in France has been forwarded to the Ministry of National Service in order to assist the Ministry in its function of co - ordinating military demands and civilian needs upon the medical manpower of the country?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: A copy has been supplied to the Ministry of National Service.
  Major DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman give the date?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say off-hand.
  Major DAVIESasked the Under - Secretary of State for War (1) whether the War Office has been requested by the Air Council to transfer Royal Army Medical Corps officers at present attached to Royal Flying Corps units to the medical services of the new Air Force; how soon this transfer will be carried out; (2) whether the Medical Advisory Committee has reported to the Air Council; and whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations contained in this Report?
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked Whether it is proposed to appoint a Director-General of Medical Services or a medical directorate for the new Air Force; and whether it is proposed to appoint a representative of the medical directorate on the Air Council?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR COUNCIL (Major Baird): The arrangements for the medical care of the Air Force are still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the points raised in these questions. I anticipate that the matter will be settled at a very early date.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the consideration towards a separate status?
  Major BAIRD: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
  Major DAVIES: How long has the matter been under consideration?
  Major BAIRD: Since the question was first raised.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will it be signed before peace?

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  Mr. ROCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Sir Alfred Keogh is still performing the duties of Director-General of Medical Services; and whether he can state when the new Director-General, whose appointment was recently announced, will assume full responsibility for the direction of the Royal Army Medical Corps?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The new Director-General will assume full responsibility on 1st March next.

  2ND LONDON (RESERVE) COMPANY, ROYAL ENGINEERS.
  Captain CARR - GOMMasked whether the 2nd London (Reserve) Company, Royal Engineers, is being moved from its present station in order that a race meeting may be held there?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the negative. This unit is being broken up consequently on a change in organisation.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the race meeting to take place?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no idea.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that conscientious objectors in Wandsworth Prison are not allowed to see a copy of Regulation 243A, which affects them, and that the Regulation is not properly carried out; whether clear instructions to the commandant or governor will be issued; the Secretary of State for the Home Department (2) whether lie has received from certain prisoners in Wandsworth a petition requesting a statement as to their status under Regulation 243A; whether he replied that he sees no reason to take any action; and whether it is in accordance with recognised principles of prison treatment to refuse to prisoners information as to their status, restrictions, and privileges; and (3) whether he is aware that governors of prisons have declined to show prisoners affected by it a copy of Regulation 243A or to inform them of its contents; that Regulation 243A is unobserved in some prisons and partially observed in others; that prisoners have been punished for alleged offences contrary to it; and whether he will allow a solicitor to visit prisoners affected by Regulation 243A and take their statements, or whether an independent inquiry by Members of this House or other persons will be undertaken?
    Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to Question 24. The Prison Commissioners have not thought it necessary to place these. instructions in every cell, but they propose to have copies available in each prison for the information of all the prisoners concerned. I understand that the privileges are now being given in all prisons, and uniformly, so far as the circumstances of the different prisons allow. If prisoners have any complaints to make, they should be made to the prison inspectors or to the visiting committees of the prisons in which they are confined.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of men who have been placed on the land under this Regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: This has nothing to do with placing anyone on the land.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received the resolution passed unanimously by the Labour Congress at Nottingham, which included members of the Government, asking for the immediate release of imprisoned conscientious objectors; and what reply he has sent or intends to send?
    Sir G. CAVE: This resolution has not yet reached me.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Home Secretary whether he has caused any inquiry to be made into the Report presented to the Labour Congress at Nottingham stating that a considerable number of imprisoned conscientious objectors had become insane through their sufferings; and what steps he proposes to take?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not seen the Report referred to, but the matter has been carefully examined by the Medical Commissioner of Prisons. There have been twelve cases in which conscientious objectors have developed symptoms of insanity in prison, and it is clear that in all of them the insanity was due to causes and conditions existing before their conviction, and was not caused by the imprisonment, though the imprisonment gave opportunities of observing their mental condition which did not exist while they were at liberty. This is indicated by the fact that in each case symptoms of insanity were observed shortly after their reception in prison. I see no ground for taking any further action.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what action he has taken with regard to those cases in which insanity has occurred or developed?
    Sir G. CAVE: I asked for full particulars and for a full report, and my answer is based upon the result of my inquiries.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Are there any prisoners who have developed insanity and who are still in prison?
    Sir G. CAVE: I should think that it is very unlikely. No doubt they are being looked after in the proper place.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: It is a matter of great public concern.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary whether John Taylor, a conscientious objector, has recently died in Wakefield Work Centre; whether an inquest was held; if so, what verdict was returned; and whether lie will have an independent inquiry by persons other than officials concerned into the circumstances of the deaths of the various conscientious objectors who have died during the last twelve months?
    Sir G. CAVE: This man died on the 20th January at the West Riding Asylum, of which he had been an inmate for over two months. His death was the result of wounds which he inflicted upon himself on 2nd November while he was an inmate of the Wakefield Work Centre. As regards the causes leading up to the suicide, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 13th November, from which it appears that at the time when he committed the act he was in great anxiety as to the effect of the air-raids upon his home in London. An inquest was held on 25th January, and a verdict of felo de se was returned. I see no ground for any further inquiry.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

      INFANTRY (TRANSFERS).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if action is being taken by the War Office to transfer Royal Army Medical Corps men to the Infantry; if this is being done in the case of men who volunteered for the Royal Army Medical Corps; and whether, in view of the pledges previously given that these men should not be transferred to combatant units without their consent, the attempts to carry out such transfers will be stopped at once?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Fit men are being transferred from the Royal Army Medical Corps to combatant units, but the following two classes are exempted: Firstly, men who enlisted into the Royal Army Medical Corps, whether before or after the passing of the Military Service Acts, from the Home Hospitals Reserve or St. John Ambulance; secondly, men enlisted into the Royal Army Medical Corps since the passing of the Military Service Acts who entertain conscientious objection against taking life, and who hold an exemption from combatant service on these grounds issued by a civil

      2071
      tribunal. So far as possible, Royal Army Medical Corps men enlisted prior to the Military Service Acts, who now claim exemption from transfer, and whose application to be posted to the Royal Army. Medical Corps on these grounds is recorded in their documents, are not transferred compulsorily. The cases of men who can produce evidence that their claim is such as would be recognised by a civil tribunal receive careful and sympathetic consideration, even if there is no previous notification on their documents.

      ROYAL ENGINEERS (LEAVE OVERSTAYED).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will make inquiry into the circumstances in which Sapper Frederick George Ball, No. 476056, Royal Engineers, was punished for overstaying his leave; whether he is aware that this soldier, stationed in this country, on returning home found his wife in the pains of childbirth, and was asked by the doctor to stay and look after his wife, and was given a certificate by the doctor; that on returning to Redmires Camp, Sheffield, a day late, the soldier was brought before the commanding officer, and, despite the production of Dr. Skinner's certificate, was sentenced to seven days' confinement to barracks and to have three days' Royal Warrant pay stopped; and what action it is proposed to take in this matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am inquiring, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

      PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether John Montgomerie, a regular minister of the Plymouth or Christian Brethren, was on 7th January convicted in the Sheriff Court, Glasgow, as an absentee under the Military Service Acts, and was thereupon posted to the Royal Flying Corps; whether ministers of this denomination in England have been exempted from service; and whether, in view of the arrangement made in England, he will give instructions that John Montgomerie be discharged from the Army on the ground that he is a regular minister of a religious denomination?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. This case had already been brought to my notice, and I understand that after a full hearing, at which Montgomerie was represented by counsel. at the Sheriff Court, Glasgow, on the 5th January, 1918, the sheriff decided that Montgomerie was not a regular minister of religion within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of the First Schedule to the Military Service Act, 1916, and fined him the sum of £2 and ordered him to be handed over to the military authorities. I understand that the sheriff has agreed to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, and the War Office was on the 2nd February requested to release Montgomerie on furlough pending the hearing of the case stated
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why ministers of the Church of England are exempt and Christians are not?
      Mr. BECK: My answer was on a matter of fact and not on a matter of doctrine.

      DISABLEMENT PENSIONS.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if all the men to whom Army Form 3529 was sent prior to July last signed that form; if not, whether the men who signed it have been or will be at any disadvantage as compared with those who did not sign it or whether the effect was in all respects the same whether men signed it or refused to do so; and will he say if Army Form 3529 is in accordance with Army Council Instructions I and 2 of 1917, and was it sent out with the approval of the Pensions Minister?
      Mr. FORSTER: The Army Council Instruction referred to announced the fact that men in receipt of disablement pension would continue to draw it if they resumed service with the Colours. Consequently, it makes no difference whether the men signed Army Form 3529 or not:
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is my hon. Friend aware that the letter in question simply asked the men whether they would agree to renounce their claims to pensions?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend, I think, is under a misapprehension. What the

      2073
      Army Form did was to call the attention of the men to the Regulations then in force, that if Class P men were recalled to the Colours they would not draw their pension on resumption of military service. There was no breach of contract; it was merely to make sure that the men understood the Regulations.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to send him a copy of the letter issued by the military authorities to these men?
      Mr. FORSTER: Certainly!

      PROPAGANDA WORK.
      Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for manpower in connection with the non-combatant as well as the combatant sections of the Navy and Army, he will see that no male of military age available for service under any Section of the Military Service Acts is engaged in any capacity in propaganda work or in any Government Department as a Press agent, or in any journalistic capacity; whether he will see that no journalists or writers are granted commissions in any of His Majesty's Forces which will enable them to escape the ordinary obligations of service so as to be employed in any of the before-mentioned work; and whether he will take steps to comb out of the Propaganda and other Government Departments men engaged on journalistic work who have obtained commissions in His Majesty's Forces, or exempt from military service to enable them to undertake such employment?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): With the exception of one or two men possessing exceptional expert knowledge, I am informed by the various Depart-merits concerned that no officer of military age, who could be made available for service, is engaged upon propaganda of the nature indicated in the hon. Member's question. The Ministry of National Service periodically passes in review the personnel of the various Departments of State, with a view to releasing for military service persons who can be replaced without detriment to the public service.
      Mr. HOGGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the return or will he issue one?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: What return does he mean?
      Mr. HOGGE: Of the men whom he sends. The right hon. Gentleman says he has been informed that there are only one or two men, but has he seen the return, and, if not, will he call for it and see if his statement is true?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I will certainly look into the evidence on which this reply was given.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman riot aware that there are several men in the. Department of the Live Stock Commissioners in Scotland who are known to be of military age and want combing out?

    CAMBRIA.
    Major DAVIESasked whether the promised dispatch from the Commander-in-Chief dealing with the military operations at Cambria has yet been considered by the Army Council; and the approximate date when it will he ready for publication?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir. The last dispatch received from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in France is that which was published in the Press on Wednesday, 9th January last.

    EX-KING MANOEL.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether soldiers are required to salute the wife of ex-Ring Manoel; if so, whether any soldiers have protested against this compulsion on the ground that the lady in question is a relative of the Kaiser and not a British subject; and whether, in these circumstances, the War Office proposes still to enforce the order?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether ex-King Manoel is a director of any military orthopædic institution, and in that capacity signs cheques as Manoel Rex; and whether, if so, considering that Portugal is our Ally and that the Republic has taken the place of the Royal regime in that country, the War Office will refuse to countenance any acts likely to give

    2075
    umbrage to the Government of Portugal, and will therefore put a stop to the cause of complaint indicated?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: King Manoel is not a director of any military orthopædic hospital.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask whether it is with the sanction of the Cabinet that the lion. Gentleman speaks of this gentleman as King Manoel?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; but that is a question which the hon. Member can put to the Cabinet.

    ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (LATE LANCECORPORAL QUINN).
    Mr. LINDSAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to make public the result of the inquiry into the death of Lance-Corporal Quinn, Royal Irish Rifles; and if the claim made by his two sisters, whom he supported, is receiving proper consideration?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As I stated on the 23rd November, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland directed, as the result of the Court of Inquiry, that the officer who appeared to be blameworthy should be tried by court-martial. This has been done, and the officer was acquitted. As regards the last part of the question, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the hon. Gentle. man aware that the sad death of Lance-Corporal Quinn took place last October, and ought not the matter to have been settled by now?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. and gallant Member may remember that there was first of all a Court of Inquiry—and he knows, from military experience, how long that takes—and then subsequently there was a court-martial.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Sir ERNEST LAMBasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, whereas a non-commissioned officer with fifteen years' service in the ranks at the time of being commissioned is allowed to
    2076
    count all such service in the ranks and to retire at the termination of hostilities on the scale as laid down for officers after fifteen years' service, nevertheless a noncommissioned officer with less than fifteen years' service in the ranks at the time of being commissioned is allowed to count only half of such previous service towards pension; and, if so, whether, seeing that many of these officers will materially suffer through being compelled to retire with a gratuity instead of the pension which they might reasonably have expected to secure had they not aceepted commissions, he will reconsider' their position?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member has not read the Regulations aright. An officer who had fifteen years' service or more in the ranks does not count that service in full for pension, but may, on retiring at the end of the War, choose between a gratuity of £1,000 or the minimum officer's service pension of £80 in respect of the whole of his service in the ranks and as an officer, which may well amount to as much as twenty-five years. He is not obliged to retire at the end of the War, whether he had fifteen years' rank service or less, and if he elects to serve on his service in the ranks counts under the ordinary rules. Officers with less than fifteen years' rank service may, if they so choose, retire at the end of the War with substantial gratuities from £900 downwards, according to length of service.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the dependancy allowance in the case of Private Fish, No. 26739, East Lancashire Regiment, has been reduced from 12s. 6d. to 9s. 5d. on the death of the soldier's father and the transfer of the allotment to the mother; and whether the sum will be restored to the former amount?
    Mr. FORSTER: When a dependant in receipt of separation allowance dies, an allowance may be granted to another member of the household, but the share of the deceased payee naturally lapses. I regret that in the case to which the hon. Member calls attention the paymaster reassessed the claim incorrectly. The correct rate of allowance under the Regulations is 11s. 1d. a week and payment will be adjusted accordingly.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether the pension to widows and children is to be increased?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen): I cannot, I regret, yet make the statement which the hon. Member desires.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say definitely when either the Ministry or the Treasury is going to pay a pension to the widows and dependants of soldiers and prevent them from starving, as they are doing at the rate at which they are being paid now?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have told the hon. Member that I am not in a position to make a definite statement. The matter is under consideration, and I hope to be able to do so shortly.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the matter has been under consideration now for nearly six months, and when is the Ministry of Pensions going to get a move on?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend is not correct. The proposals of the Ministry of Pensions were sent to the Treasury, I think, only about a month ago.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that I put a question on this subject over a month ago, and I got the same answer as I have received to-day?
    Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Pensions Minister whether Mrs. Annie Downes, widow of Sergeant W. J. Downes, No. 2034, late 16th Middlesex Regiment, who was killed on the Somme on 1st July, 1916, has not yet received the allowance of £5 granted to dependants of men killed in action; whether he is aware that Mrs. Downes has made several applications to the Pension Office, has been informed that there were hundreds of cases to be dealt with before hers, and that she would receive notice in due course; that on making a subsequent appeal shortly before Christmas she was informed that the matter would be looked into and she would be written to; that, notwithstanding this, she has received no communication whatever; and will he have this matter looked into at once in order that the allowance may be paid without further delay?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The allowance of £5 in cases similar to that of
    2078
    Mrs. Downes was conceded in July, 1917, with retrospective effect, with the result that many thousands of cases required investigation at the same time. There was in Mrs. Downe's case the added difficulty that her husband was originally reported "missing." The matter has, however, now been settled, and authority to pay the gratuity was issued a few days ago.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if he will consider extending the period of three months allowed for appeal in regard to pensions of men discharged for medical unfitness to twelve months in cases where men can prove sickness or other good reasons for not having appealed within the ordinary period?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The period of three months to which the hon. Member refers is not the period within which an appeal must be made to be effective, but the period within which it must be made to carry arrears as from the date of discharge. I am, however, open to consider representations in any particular case where it appears that the application of the rule would cause injustice.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my hon. and gallant Friend tell the House whether the Ministry of Pensions have any authority at all to limit the period of the payment?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have undoubted authority in the Warrant.
    Mr. HOGGE: Where is it?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If my lion. Friend wants the exact Clause, he must give me notice.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is not there.
    Colonel HERBERTasked the Pensions Minister whether Private W. Newberry, late No 1753, Royal West Kent Regiment, was notified on the 17th November, 1917, by the Ministry of Pensions that a temporary pension of 30d. a day had been granted to him from the 24th August, 1917, until the 27th August, 1919, his permanent pension of 24d. a day being in abeyance from the 24th August, 1917; and whether he will explain why Private Newberry has received no pension. since the 1st October, 1917?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am having some difficulty in ascertaining the

    2079
    facts in this case. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have put it right.

    REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS ACT.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if the new Army Regulation granting discharged soldiers who have not been overseas exemption from the Review of Exceptions Act on condition that they engage in work of national importance applies to soldiers exempted from the Act who have served overseas, or if the latter also are required to take up work of national importance as a condition of exemption?
    Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Men who were free under the Review of Exceptions Act itself as having been discharged on account of wounds, and men who were already the subject of the previous arrangement relieving from the operation of the Act men who had been discharged on grounds of disablement or ill-health after service overseas in the Armed Forces, are not under any obligation to take up work of national importance under the new arrangement, which applies to discharged soldiers who have not served overseas.

    VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS (UNIFORM).
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the difficulty in many Volunteer Battalions of obtaining reasonably large daylight drills on Saturdays and Sundays, when a very considerable amount of important work is carried out; whether he is aware that this is attributable in a good many instances to the fact that men, although provided with arms and equipment, are not supplied with uniform; and whether, taking into consideration the stock of uniforms, both new and renovated, in hand in the Clothing Department -of the Army at the present time, he will, in the national interest, take steps to provide, where necessary, uniforms free of charge for Volunteer Battalions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of the difficulty referred to in the earlier part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. As regards the latter part, I. am afraid that I can add nothing at
    2080
    present to the answer given on the 30th January to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether when a man joins the Volunteers he has to provide out of his own pocket uniform and boots?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, he has not.

    AEROPLANES (DISTRIBUTION OF LEAFLETS).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will give the name of the Member of this House who in his private capacity suggested the scattering of leaflets from Government aeroplanes over Coventry during the recent industrial trouble; whether he is aware that the use of aeroplanes for this purpose, together with the character of the leaflets, has been much resented; and whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the sanction of the use of aeroplanes for purposes of this kind?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that resentment has been aroused, as my hon. Friend suggests, but. as such a case is not likely to recur, I hope that the incident may now be regarded as closed.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly; the hon. Member for Harwich.

    VENEREAL DISEASE.
    No. 38. The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. PETO:
    38. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of men who passed through Army hospitals suffering from venereal disease in the' year 1917; whether he can state the number of men on the sick list in France and in this country at any one day in the four quarters of the year 1917; and whether the Army Council intend to substitute for the War Office letter dated 18th March, 1916, instructions to medical officers to use every measure to prevent this waste of manpower in the Army?
    Mr. PETO: I have been asked to postpone this question, but before doing so I should like to ask, in view of the

    2081
    urgency of this matter: firstly, is it true that there are between 40,000 and 50,000 men always in our hospitals from this cause; and, secondly, can the hon. Gentleman give me the actual figures between now and the beginning of next Session?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I cannot; I cannot trust my memory at the present moment.. I have promised to give my hon. Friend such information as I can get officially as soon as I can.

    WHEELWRIGHT'S ACCOUNT.
    Colonel JACKSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has yet been able to ascertain the facts of the case of an Essex wheelwright who is said to have received two cheques for £05 each in payment of an account for Os. 5d.?
    Major DAVIESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now say whether the military authorities paid two cheques of £95 each to a wheelwright in Essex in payment of an account of Os. 5d.; and whether he can now state the result of the inquiries which were to be made in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am much obliged to my hon. Friends for giving me the opportunity of dealing with the matter. We have been trying to get to the bottom of this story ever since it was first published several months ago, but so far we have been able to discover absolutely no foundation in fact. It seems to be one of those silly stories, starting no one knows how, or where, or when, which people apparently love to believe and pass from mouth to mouth till at length they are published. As far as we have been able to discover, the story is wholly untrue; but if the incident did indeed occur, I hope that I may be furnished with the name and address of the person to whom the payment was made. According to the story, he was moved by a sense of honesty and fair dealing in trying to return the overpayment, and in these circumstances I cannot understand why he should hesitate to reveal his name, if indeed he exists.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that
    2082
    this House is responsible for raising the sums of money entailed by the carrying on of the present War, he will consider the desirability of arranging for the Secretary of State for War to sit in this House and have an opportunity of replying to criticisms made in the House of Commons?
    Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that the Secretary of State for War should also be a Member of the House of Commons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomeryshire on the 20th of December last.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it consistent with the dignity of the High Court of Parliament that criticism should be replied to in a social club?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think there are bigger questions than that involved. I am convinced that the Government would be put into many unnecessary difficulties if the holders of high office were confined entirely to this House.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the holders of high office do not use the luncheon table of a club devoted to advertising canvassers in London as a means for discussing high policy?

  U-BOAT AND AIRCRAFT WARFARE.

    NON-COMBATANTS KILLED.
    Colonel SANDERSasked the Prime Minister if he can state in round numbers how many British non-combatants (including men, women, and children, and merchant seamen) have been done to death by German U-boats and aircraft; and how many German non-combatants have, according to German reports, been done to death in a similar manner by the British?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is, in round figures, 14,120 men, women, and children. As regards the second part of the question, no official reports are published by Germany regarding casualties to noncombatants as a result of enemy action.

  TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the delays that have already occurred in regard to the Titles Deprivation Act, 1917, he will give the House an assurance that the objects of the Act will be carried out with as little delay as possible; and whether he can name any limit of time, or whether he can give an assurance that the matter will be dealt with before the termination of the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to previous replies, except to say that the proceedings under the Act are being carried out without any unnecessary delay.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay upon the Table of the House a list of the persons concerned?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In answer to a question I gave such a list.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the Government really in earnest about this matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It has now become an Act of Parliament.

  IRISH CONVENTION.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether any statement can be made about the Irish question; and, if so, whether he can give an assurance that in any settlement contemplated the right of self-determination will be respected?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can make no statement at present.
  Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman go so far as to reaffirm the principle of self-determination in regard to Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite willing to reaffirm the principle, but I should not like to define it.

  DOWAGER DUCHESS OF COBURG.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of public feeling with regard to the pension of £5,000 a year which has been paid to the Dowager Duchess of Coburg since 1874, he will now, in view of her relations with the enemy and the fact that she has
  2084
  resided in Germany since the War and encouraged the forces of the Kaiser, bring to the attention of the War Cabinet the dictum of international law that the obligations of treaties between States expire when the internal constitution of one of them is so changed as to render the treaty inapplicable to the new condition of things; and whether, in accordance with this view, the Government will consider the treaty null and void?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the reply which was given to the hon. Member on this subject on the 5th June last.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that the policy of the Government is to wobble over the point in respect of paying enemy princes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: One of the reasons why the Government have not wobbled on that point is that there is an Act of Parliament which compels the payment.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Law Officers of the Crown, and reassure himself that the conditions have been so changed that the Act is null and void?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I think the hon. Gentleman refers to treaties. No question of law arises.

  LORD JELLICOE.
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Prime Minister if he will now state whether Lord Jellicoe is to remain in retirement; and whether it is intended to use Lord Jellicoe's ability and experience in some manner so that they are of the greatest advantage to the State?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No definite pronouncement can be made at present, but, as officially stated in the Admiralty announcement of 27th December last, it is hoped to make use of this distinguished officer's services and experience in another important appointment.
  Mr. FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us this—in view of the very considerable public anxiety on the matter—why was Lord Jellicoe retired?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is quite obvious that I cannot answer a question of that kind.
  Mr. FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, say this: whether it was in consequence of any Press agitation, and, if so. whether he—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table the correspondence between Lord Jellicoe and the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should think that a very unusual and a very improper procedure. Such decisions as are taken, whatever their merits, must be taken by the Government of the day.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention was drawn to the offer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to a deputation of Manchester trade unionists headed by Mr. Albert Purcell, chairman of the Manchester and Salford Trades Council, to place the control and distribution of the national food supply in the bands of organised Labour representatives if willing to undertake the task; that committees of workers in the meat and refrigerated produce trades have already expressed their willingness to undertake the work if the proposition is intended as practical business; and whether, in the event of the National Union of Journeymen Butchers and the Agricultural Labourers' Union for the home-killed meat trades, the Dockers' Union, the National Union of General Workers, and the Notional Union of Dock Labourers for the refrigerated industries, being willing to undertake the work, he is prepared to hand over the control of the home-grown meat supply, the imported meat supply, cold stores and cold storage arrangements, refrigerated transport, and distribution to a committee of the bodies in question?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The statement referred to was first made by me at the Labour Conference at Nottingham and repeated at Manchester. It was made for the purpose of enabling the responsible authorities to formulate an
    2086
    alternative food policy to that now being followed by the Government and to act on the statement, if it is so desired.

    PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the unsatisfactory inquiry into food supply and food prices by a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade in 1916, he will appoint a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject, with full power to inquire into the mismanagement of refrigerated shipping, neglect to provide proper cold-storage accommodation, neglect to provide adequate refrigerated railroad cars, neglect to acquire when possible a proper supply of cattle-feeding stuffs, neglect to act on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of 1916, neglect to act on the advice of Lord Milner's Committee of 1915, neglect to fulfil the Board of Trade undertaking given in 1915 to utilise Western ports for discharge of refrigerated produce, and any steps to remedy the present deplorable situation, and to take evidence in public
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman endorse the statement at the beginning of the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. I do not express any opinion upon it.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister if he has received a resolution from the Derbyshire War Agricultural Executive Committee deploring a recent utterance of the Food Controller, expressing the opinions that if cheapness to the consumer is to be the sole policy of that Minister without regard to the cost of production the effect on home production must be disastrous, that the dual control of home production of food is detrimental, and urging that the stimulation of production and fixing of prices for produce to the producer should be left to the Board of Agriculture, and that on the basis of the prices so fixed the distribution of all produce and control of wholesalers' and retailers' prices should alone be left to the Food Controller; whether he is aware that this resolution was unanimously passed by the Federation of War Agricultural Committees on Wednesday, 30th January, 1918; that these Committees so

    2087
    passed it after an opportunity of consideration prior to the meeting of the Federation; that they are sparing no effort to carry into effect the Government's scheme for increased production; whether he has taken, or will take, any and what action; and if he will give an early day for discussion of this matter by this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The resolution referred to was received by the Prime Minister, who immediately brought it to the attention of the Food Controller. As this question can be raised during the Debate on the Address, I do not think that the House would wish the Government to give special facilities for its discussion.

    BREAD (FRANCE).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a national system of bread rationing is not at present in operation in France, and that where rationing has been adopted, as in Paris, the ration advised is 4½ lb. a week, as corn- pared with the British ration of 3½ lb.; and whether these facts were taken into consideration when on a recent occasion British ships sent to the Argentine to bring margarine to this country were diverted to take wheat to France?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): I do not think that any comparison of the quantities allowed in the compulsory Paris rationing scheme with the quantities indicated in the voluntary British scheme for a single class of persons is of such value without consideration both of the quantities allowed for other classes and of the consumption of alternative foodstuffs in both countries. Allocations of tonnage as between the two countries are made after very careful consideration of their respective necessities. It is not the case that a ship has been sent to the Argentine to bring margarine and then diverted to take wheat to France.

    RATIONING SYSTEM.
    Mr. MORRELL (by Private Notice)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the increasing discontent which has arisen on account of the unequal system of food distribution, and if he can yet say definitely when the proposed national system of food rationing will be brought into operation?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have only received notice of this question since entering the House. At the moment I can only say there is no evidence of increasing discontent, but there is every indication of an increasing appreciation of the difficulties. The local schemes, as they are termed, built up upon the model scheme which was sent out by the Ministry of Food on 22nd December, are being extensively adopted and cover now the greater part of the country. These schemes provide for the more equitable distribution of meat, margarine, tea, and. butter, and one or two other main articles of food of which there is a shortage. The experience thereby gained is going to be of considerable value, and the local authorities are assured that the steps which they are now taking will not be materially upset nor will their efforts be wasted when the national scheme has to be applied. The Food Controller has recently announced that it will probably be imposed about April or May.

    COST OF LIVING.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked whether the inquiry into the cost of living has been instituted; and, if so, if he will state the names of the persons conducting the inquiry?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended to set up an expert inquiry into this question at an early date, but I am not yet in a position to give the names
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does he expect to be in a position soon to be able to announce the names?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, quite soon.

    INTERNED ENEMY ALIENS (MEAT RATIONS).
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the Home Secretary what is the present meat ration of interned enemy aliens under the control of his Department; and whether any revision of that ration is being contemplated in view of the shortage of the nation's supplies?
    Sir G. CAVE: The dietary of the internment camps for civilians, like that of the-camps under military control, allows at present 6 ozs. of meat on five days in the week. This dietary has been revised from time to time so as to conform with the rations recommended or ordered by the Ministry of Food, and is at present under reconsideration in consultation with the Ministry.
    Mr. G. FABER: Does that include food from friends outside?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, I do not think so. Food is sent by friends from outside.

  AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that this House has as yet heard only the official view of the dispute between the Controller of National Service and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, he will appoint a Committee of Members to inquire into the validity of the claim that the pledges given by the Government were given at a separate conference with the society?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would be useful.

  GERMAN COLONIES.
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether the opinions with regard to the future of the German colonies expressed by General Smuts in his address on Monday last, 28th January, at the Central Hall, were made with the authority of the Government?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: General Smuts did not make any declaration as to the future disposal of the German colonies, and referred to the declarations already made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the War Cabinet. He simply laid down certain broad principles of policy which should be observed in respect of Central Africa, and which he stated as his personal views.
  Mr. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principles laid down by General Smuts were entirely out of conformity with the policy laid down a few weeks earlier in the speech of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I was aware of the speech of the Prime Minister and the speech of General Smuts, and I do not see any want of conformity.

  SECRET TREATIES.
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to
  2090
  President Wilson's recent declaration against secret diplomacy, he will assure the House that no secret treaties, undertakings, and/or agreements exist by which the war aims of this country are in conflict with the principles laid down by him?
  Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 30th January. I do not propose to discuss in public the terms of the secret treaties.

  PRIVY COUNCIL.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are seventy-nine Members of this House who are members of His Majesty's Privy Council; and whether he will give the reason why, in appointing a Committee under Section 1 of the Titles Deprivation Act, L917, twelve peers were appointed and not one Member of the House of Commons?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The persons incriminated being either the holders of peerages or entitled to their succession, the inquisition into the matter is properly confined to members of the Privy Council who are peers.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it was a demand made in this House and not in the other House which led to the Bill being passed at all?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As a general question of law, if peers are to be deprived of their titles it is by their peers.

  CHINESE LABOURERS.
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the employment of Chinese labourers for mending roads in Berkshire; whether they are so employed in other counties; and if he can say whether it is the policy of the Government to allow the employment of Chinese labourers in this country for unskilled work?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgman): I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that, with the consent of the union concerned, a small number of Chinese seamen who are temporarily unable to follow their usual vocation are employed on this work, and

  2091
  that they are paid the full trade union rates. It is not the policy of the Government to introduce Chinese labour into this country, but in the present case the men were here already, and unemployed, and British labour was not available.
  Major HUNT: Why cannot German prisoners be employed?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was under the impression that they were.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any Government Department acted as agent in the introduction of these Chinese labourers?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said these Chinese labourers were not introduced; they were here already.
  Mr. MORRELL: How did the authority in question get their services?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice, but the point is that they were not introduced by the Government; they were here already, and being unemployed and there being no British labour available, they were employed.
  Mr. MORRELL: Did the Government have any hand in this transaction?

  EX-SERVICE MEN (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  Major HUNTasked what measures have been taken by the Government for settling ex-Service men on the lands of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions, as recommended in the Report of the Empire Settlement Committee presided over by Lord Tennyson and published in August, 1917?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the replies which I have already made on this subject.
  Major HUNT: In view of the hundreds of thousands of men who have expressed their wish to go on to the land, can he say approximately how many acres of land the Government have yet acquired for these men in this country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly cannot say without notice.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce a Bill to deal
  2092
  with the whole question of land settlement for soldiers in England and in the Colonies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Gentleman had followed the subject, he would have known that the Committee has made recommendations.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reply rather show that-the main energies of the Government are being devoted to sending men out of the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member expresses the absolute truth at the moment. The main energies of the Government are being devoted to the winning of the War.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce a Bill dealing with the settlement of these soldiers on the park lands of the landowners of this country?

  INTERNATIONAL WORKERS' CONFERENCE.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Director of National Service stated at a meeting of Trade Unionists held at Glasgow on the 28th ultimo that personally he would vote for the convening of an international workers' conference if first assured that the German delegates were truly representative of German workers; and will the Government take such action as will enable this pledge to be fulfilled?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The statement in the question does not represent what was said by my right hon. Friend, and no pledge of any kind was given.

  MINISTRIES OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE.
  Sir C. HENRYasked the Prime Minister if he will take immediate measures to ensure the closest co-operation between the Ministry of National Service and the Ministry of Labour; and if he will consider the desirability of merging the Ministry of National Service with the Ministry of Labour?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Every effort is made to ensure the close co-operation between

  2093
  Government Departments and the necessary readjustment of functions is made from time to time in the light of experience. It is not considered possible to merge the Ministry of National Service with the Ministry of Labour.
  Sir C. HENRY: What are the present relations between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of National Service?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe they are distinctly friendly.

  NATIONAL WAR BONDS.
  Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was by his authority, express or implied, that the printed invitation to the public to purchase National War Bonds contained and contains the statement that both the principal sum subscribed and the interest arising therefrom were absolutely safe, being guaranteed by the State?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. FABER: Had the right hon. Gentleman his promise, publicly given, in mind when he made his two recent speeches on the conscription of capital?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; my hon. Friend has evidently not agreed with me as to the meaning of what I said. I have nothing to add.
  Mr. FABER: Was not one an absolute promise and the other a statement in which the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had an open mind?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. The hon. Member has not followed the question. I made no declaration or statement which in any way indicated in the remotest degree the possibility of repudiation.

  BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER ACT, 1844.
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will next Session introduce legislation to repeal the Bank Charter Act of 1844?
  Sir E. LAMBasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the chairman of the London City and Midland Bank, Limited, at the general
  2094
  meeting of the bank on the 29th ult., in which he urged the appointment of a Committee, consisting of six of the most experienced bankers in the United Kingdom, to take into consideration the question of repealing the Bank of England Charter Act of 1844; and, if so, whether he is prepared to appoint such a Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The suggestion referred to in these questions has been anticipated by the Government by the appointment of the Committee on Currency and the Foreign Exchanges announced on the 10th ultimo. The great majority of the members of this Committee are bankers of very wide experience. The conditions governing the note issue of the Bank of England will necessarily be one of the most important matters which they will have to consider.

  LAND VALUES.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as the aggregate total value of land in Great Britain included in provisional valuations made under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to 31st March, 1916, amounted to £5,267,784,055, and as the total values are arrived at by making certain deductions from the gross values, he will say what was the aggregate gross value of land in Great Britain included in the provisional valuations under that Act to 31st March, 1916; and if he will also say what was the aggregate full-site value of land in Great Britain included in these provisional valuations to that date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available and, in view of the labour involved in the preparation of detailed statistics, I cannot in existing conditions undertake to furnish figures of the aggregate gross value and full-site value of land in Great Britain shown in the provisional valuations referred to.
  Mr. WHITE: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain how, as the total values are arrived at by making certain deductions from the gross values, the total values have been ascertained and published and the gross values have not?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is rather a puzzler to me. I am unable to answer it.
  Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it arises out of the terms of the Section of the Finance Act?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL STAFF).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet decided to remedy the injustice that, whereas the majority of persons employed in Government Departments are of the female sex, no woman has been appointed to sit on the Committee to inquire into the numbers and organisation of the clerical staffs employed in Government Departments?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Miss Hermia Durham, C.B.E., Chief Woman Officer, Employment Department, Ministry of Labour: has been appointed a member of the Committee.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a legal decision from which it appears that the large number of children who are illegally employed do not enjoy the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and, if so, what steps, by legislation or otherwise, he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir G. CAVE: My attention has been called to the decision to which the hon. Member refers. The judges said that they arrived at their decision with great regret. I share their regret, and I will consider whether it is possible to deal with the matter by legislation at an early date.

  ARTHUR HORTON.
  Mr. WHITE HOUSEasked the Home Secretary if he has made any inquiry into the circumstances of the death of Arthur Horton in prison; and, if so, with what result?
  Sir G. CAVE: An inquest was held in this case, and all the circumstances were fully investigated by the coroner and jury, who found that this man died of pneumonia. Allegations had been made that the prisoner had not been properly treated in prison, but the jury, after having heard the evidence and seen the
  2096
  diet, found that these allegations were not founded on fact. I can see no reason for any further inquiry.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after this man caught pneumonia he lay a month in his cell without any nurse and without any fire, which is a sentence of death upon the strongest man; and that it 'was only after the Home Office Inspector, Dr. Dyer, came that nurses were suddenly summoned when it was too late; and will he have inquiries made into the conduct of the prison doctor?
  Sir G. CAVE: That was the allegation which was made before and at the inquest. It was contradicted by reliable evidence at the inquest, and was disbelieved by the jury. I regret very much that it should be repeated here.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only that, but many other shocking allegations have been made regarding the treatment of this unfortunate man in prison, and has his attention been called to the fact that the doctor who gave evidence and whose evidence had weight., is reported in the "Manchester Guardian" as having made a very great attack in public upon these prisoners who are in gaol?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware of any such facts. I know that many extraordinary allegations have been made, but we must rely upon the verdict of the coroner's jury.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is there not a case for special inquiries?

  SOLDIERS' ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
  Major DAVIESasked the Minister of Pensions what arrangements have been made for establishing centres for the repair and renewal of artificial limbs; and what arrangements are now in operation for dealing with these eases in the counties of North Wales, especially in the county of Carnarvon?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The centres for the repair and renewal of artificial limbs are the fitting hospitals at which the limbs are supplied. There are at present six of these hospitals open—one in Wales, one in England, two in Scotland, and two in Ireland, and five more will shortly be opened in England, includ-

  2097
  ing a second one in London. The centre for the whole of Wales is the Prince of Wales's Hospital, Cardiff.
  Mr. BILLING: Is any charge made to soldiers or officers for repairing these limbs?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: There is no charge.
  Major DAVIES: Are the travelling expenses paid of those who have to get their crutches repaired?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes, travelling expenses are paid.

  REFRIGERATOR SHIPS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether, at the outbreak of War, the refrigerated fleet consisted of about 230 vessels, and that, despite submarine sinkings, it now consists of between 280 and 290 vessels; whether the greater portion of our food difficulties have arisen through the mishandling of our refrigerated fleet arrangements and disregard by the War Office, Admiralty, and Board of Trade of civilian requirements; that when evidence was submitted to the Departmental Committee on Food Prices by Mr. J. Terrett, of the Workers' Committee at Smithfield, fixing the responsibility for the neglect on the Board of Trade, the chairman of the Committee ruled the matter out of order; and whether he is prepared to institute a departmental inquiry into the mismanagement of the refrigerated fleet and any suggestions which can be advanced for improvement?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I am sorry to be unable to publish the figures asked for, but those given by my hon. Friend are not accurate, and I am sending him the true figures privately. He will bear in mind that the vessels available have, of course, to meet not only civilian meat consumption, but a military consumption, which is necessarily greater per head. I know of no grounds for the suggestion made in the second part of the question, and do not consider that a departmental inquiry would serve any useful purpose. My hon. Friend will be aware that the present difficulties with regard to the meat supply do not mainly arise from deficiencies in imported meat.

  CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
  Mr. CLANCYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping why leave is not given tot the lodgment of the specifications for the construction of the steam packet "Connaught" proposed to be built by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company; and whether, unless leave is given without further delay, the company will be seriously crippled in its efforts to maintain the mail service or to compete for a renewal of its contract?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA.MONEY: The question of the replacement of the "Connaught" is still under consideration. I may point out that even if specifications for a new vessel were lodged, the matter would not be forwarded, since the vessel would not be of a type to which priority could be given at this time, when the urgent need of the nation is for cargo tonnage of the simplest type.

  TONNAGE (BEER OUTPUT).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping the tonnage which would be saved if the output of beer were reduced to 10 per cent. of the pre-war standard, as was done some time ago in Germany, or to 6 per cent. of the pre-war standard, as in the case of Austria; and the tonnage which would be saved if the further manufacture of beer and spirits in this country were prohibited during the War?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I will first answer the question by reference to the pre-war beer output of 36,000,000 barrels. A reduction of this output to 10 per cent. means a saving of about 1,250,000 tons, dead weight, per annum; a reduction to 6 per cent. means a saving of about 1,305,000 tons; complete prohibition means a saving of about 1,385,000 tons. I will next take the saving upon the present reduced barrelage of 15,000,000. A reduction to 10 per cent. of the pre-war output would save about 440,000 tons; a reduction of 6 per cent., about 495,000 tons; complete prohibition, about 575,000 tons. As to the last figure, I may add that the economy in tonnage may be roundly expressed as the saving in employment of twenty-nine ships, each of 5,000 tons cargo capacity, making four voyages a year.
  Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Gentleman see that those figures are brought before the War Cabinet, as we are asked to save tonnage in every possible way?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I can only say that they have been repeatedly brought to the notice of the War Cabinet.

  BRITISH COAL (FRANCE AND ITALY).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the- Shipping Controller whether his attention has been called to the price of coal ruling in French and Italian cities; and the price at which British coal is landed in British ships at French and Italian ports and the price paid for it by consumers in Paris and Rome?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As regards the question of prices of coal in Italy, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Toxteth on November 26th, to which I have nothing to add. The cost of carrying coal to France by British ships not requisitioned varies according to the ports of shipment and discharge and the different classes of vessels. For a steamer of 1,500 tons dead-weight the maximum voyage freight from Cardiff to Rouen is 24s. 6d. and from the Tyne to Rouen 27s. 6d., so that the cost of coal delivered at Rouen from these centres may be taken as being between 53s. and 60s. a ton. A great proportion of the coal carried to France, however, is transported by means of neutral ships under time charter, and the cost is necessarily much higher. I have no information as to the current prices of coal in Paris or in other French cities.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the constant statements about the high prices of coal in Paris and other parts of France, which are generally attributed to the profits made by either British shippers or coal-owners, and is that the case?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The prices of coal in France are determined partly by the home output of coal in France and partly by the cost of shipping to France.
  Sir C. HENRY: Is not that understood by the French authorities?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes; the French authorities fully understand it.

  SHIPPING LOSSES (MARINE RISKS).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he can, consistent with the public interest, state the number of vessels and the gross register tonnage of the same which have been lost or rendered useless by marine risks, as apart from war risks, during the twelve months ending 31st December last?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: British vessels of 1,600 tons gross and over regarded as losses by marine risk and reported during the twelve months ended 31st December last, number sixty-nine, with total tonnage of 245,559 gross register.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

    "HERALD" NEWSPAPER.
    Mr. ANDERSON (by Private Notice)asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the police entered two shops of newsagents in Richmond, Yorks, and demanded the names arid addresses of all customers purchasing the "Herald" newspaper, and that this information was supplied to them by the newsagents; and will he state for what purpose this action was taken, and at whose instigation?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no knowledge of this matter, but I will make inquiries and inform the hon. Member of the result.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would the right hon. Gentleman like the names of the Members of this House who buy that paper?
    Mr. BILLING: Have the police any right to demand this information, and have shopkeepers and newsagents the right to refuse it?
    Sir G. CAVE: It would be absurd for me to answer that question until I have made inquiries.

  AMALGAMATION OF BANKS.

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Mr. PETO (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the numerous

    2101
    amalgamations which have recently taken place between various joint stock banks and to the possible dangers to the commercial community of the concentration of banking business in the hands of a small number of powerful monopolies?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Without expressing any opinion in regard to the suggestion in the latter part, I recognise that the scale on which these combinations have recently been taking place makes the matter one of considerable importance, and, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I propose to appoint a. Committee of Bankers, Merchants, and Manufacturers to consider and report to what extent, if at all, it may be desirable in the public interest to interfere with such arrangements. I venture to hope that, pending the Report of this Committee, any further schemes of amalgamation which may be in contemplation will not be Proceeded with.
    Mr. G. FABER: Would it not be useful to learn a lesson, at any rate, from our enemies the Germans that big banks have a much wider and stronger force than little ones?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I expressly said that. I expressed no opinion on the general question, but I think it is obvious that it is one that should be examined.
    Sir C. HENRY: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps in regard to the suggested amalgamation between the London and Westminster Bank and Parr's Bank?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather not express any opinion with regard to one bank.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any similar steps with regard to the amalgamation of shipping companies?
    Mr. WING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of extending the scope of the inquiry to a national bank run by the nation in the interest of the nation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is an entirely different question, and I should not be at all prepared to deal with it just now.
    Mr. BRADY: Will there be any Irish representation on the Committee referred to?
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that anyhow enemy banks will not be allowed to amalgamate?
    Mr. BRADY: As there has been an Irish amalgamation, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be Irish representation on the Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee has not been appointed. I shall certainly consider the suggestion made by the lion Member.

    AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION (DUBLIN).
    Mr. REDMOND (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Munitions can he now state whether definite steps have been taken to begin the construction of aircraft in Dublin; and, if so, when the work will be put in hand?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): Instructions have been given for a certain amount of work on aircraft to be carried out in Dublin, and an officer of the Ministry is making the preliminary arrangements.

    TROOPSHIP TORPEDOED (ALEXANDRIA).
    Commander BELLAIRS (by Private Notice)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty with reference to the recent torpedoing of a troopship off Alexandria, whether he can state at what time the vessel arrived off the port, at what time she was torpedoed; whether the escort had proceeded into harbour; why she was kept in danger outside the harbour in broad daylight for so long an interval; and what action has been taken on the inquiry into the loss?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably here referring to the loss of the steamship "Aragon," concerning which I stated the loss of life approximately to the House on the 23rd January, and an official communication giving closer detail was issued on the 30th January. As regards the points raised in the question, an inquiry has been held in the usual way, one of His Majesty's destroyers having, as already announced, been lost on the occasion under reference. The report of the inquiry has not yet reached us from the Commander-in-Chief.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman after this interval inform us what time the vessel arrived off the port and what time she was torpedoed, because this is not the first case of vessels being kept waiting outside Alexandria, which is a non-tidal port, and there is no excuse
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in the usual course when one of His Majesty's ships is lost a full inquiry is held by naval officers. A Report will be sent to the Admiralty, and then I shall be in a position to answer questions.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give answers to those questions, because there are a great many people who are very anxious to put a stop to this practice of ships being kept waiting outside harbours?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sure it will be the wish of the First Lord to give all possible information on the subject.

    SUPREME WAR COUNCIL.
    Mr. ASQUITH (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister, in reference to the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the recent proceedings of the War Council at Versailles that the "functions of the Council itself were enlarged," whether he will inform the House in what respects, and to what extent, such enlargement has been sanctioned by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of the nature of the public announcement to be made was carefully considered at the last meeting of the Supreme War Council at Versailles, and, in view of the important military considerations involved, it was not considered possible at present, without giving valuable information to the enemy, to publish further details or explanations in regard to the enlargement of the functions of the Supreme War Council. In these circumstances, I cannot at present make any further statement on the subject.
    Mr. ASQUITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication how soon such a statement can be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman will understand the difficulty when I say the Conference dealt almost
    2104
    exclusively with the plan of campaign, and it must be obvious that it is very difficult to give any information.
    Mr. ROCH: Have the functions of the Council been extended since its creation was first announced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have given, admitting the accuracy of my right hon. Friend's quotation, shows that there has been an enlargement.
    Mr. BILLING: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to address this House before Parliament prorogues?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I have discussed this fully with him. He can add nothing to what I have already said. The House will meet next week. There will be ample opportunity, and that will be the most suitable opportunity.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has any appointment been made to the supreme command?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Member means has a generalissimo been appointed, the answer is no.

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 188.]
    Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 188.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) Bill,
Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill,
Military Service Bill, with Amendments.
That they do not insist on Certain of their Amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, and they agree to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords without Amendment, and they make a consequential Amendment to an Amendment made by the Lords; they agree to certain other Amendments made by the Commons to Amendments made by the Lords with Amendments to which they desire the concurrence of the Commons; they disagree to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the

2105
Amendments made by the Lords for which disagreement they assign their Reasons; they insist on certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for which insistence they assign their Reasons.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, Lords Amendments proposed in lieu of certain Lords Amendments disagreed to by the Commons, and Lords Reasons for insisting on certain other of their Amendments disagreed to by the Commons; to be printed [Bill 129.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this day under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
    PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

      CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS.
      The SECRETARI of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."
      I propose to ask the House to agree to the Amendments before us, possibly with some slight modifications, with two exceptions, those relating to proportional representation and to the alternative vote. As regards those, the Government feel bound to follow the course they have hitherto pursued and leave the actual decision to the House, though I shall, of course, offer some advice to the House.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I appear to you, Sir, on a point of Order in regard to the treatment of these Amendments, and the course we should follow in respect of them? If this House decided to disagree with the Lords Amendments on the subject of proportional representation, as far as I am concerned, no further question would arise; but if the House should not disagree with that Amendment in toto, I desire to move Amendments to it. The object of the first—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The proper time to consider those Amendments will be when the Clerk at the Table reads out that portion of the Lords message which relates to the proportional representation Amendment. Then the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of moving any Amendment he wishes before I put the Question that the House agree or disagree.
      Sir R. ADKINS: I hope the House will forgive me if I comment on the very grave position in which this House now
      2162
      finds itself in relation to this Bill. We have now received back from the other place Amendments to our Amendments of great importance, which, in two matters, that of proportional representation and the alternative vote, deal with questions which have aroused the widest public interest, which sharply divide public opinion, which took up a large portion of the time of the Speaker's Conference, which affect, for good or evil, the electoral system of this country, and which, however they are decided by Parliament in the form in which the Bill will become law, must have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, I am sure the House will agree that they deserve the most careful consideration.
      4.0 P.M.
      This Bill, unlike every other Reform Bill, leas had a non-partisan origin. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not the alternative vote!''] Not even excepting the alternative vote My hon. Friend is either misinformed or he has misinterpreted his information. Hitherto every Reform Bill has been carried by the public support of one school of political thought, with more or less acquiescence, and more or less consideration of another school of political thought which was in principle opposed to it. This Reform Bill had its origin in the work of a Conference over which Mr. Speaker presided, and it was only made possible in a time of war because it was felt in all parts of the House, and in the ether House, that if possible this question should be settled by consent and agreement. It will he remembered that that Conference, whatever its defects, and to whatever errors it gave adherence, was a Conference instinct from first to last with a desire to go not on the point of view of old-time opponents, but to arrive, if possible, at the greatest common measure of agreement, and, if possible, to produce a Report on which an Act of Parliament could be founded which would meet not with universal approval, but almost universal acquiescence. That having been the peculiar and unique origin of this Bill, we are faced to-day with the responsibility of taking a decision which may Nell become the final decision on two matters of great and acute interest and of far-reaching consequence. The position, as I understand it now, is that the Lords, although a large majority in this House voted against proportional representation, are seeking to have it

      2163
      restored in the Bill in a large, though limited, form, and the Lords, in face of three decisions by this House in favour of the alternative vote, are anxious to eliminate that entirely from the Bill. If this House accepted the Lords Amendments as they stand, or rejected them as they stand, you do not really help to settle this controversy, but you would get an Act of Parliament which would give occasion for public dissatisfaction for many years to come. If we repudiate the Lords Amendment on proportional representation, and say that there shall be no proportional representation of any kind, the effect would be that that form of vote to which the Speaker's Conference gave unanimous adherence, and without which the Speaker's Conference could never have reported in the complete form that it did, and a form of vote to which the House of Lords apparently attaches the greatest importance, would be struck out of the Bill, and there would be left in the country a large body of opinion, including in this House ex-Prime Ministers and other persons of great influence—
      Sir S. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. Is the House now discussing the whole question, or shall we be able to deal with the matter in separate Amendments?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If we have the discussion now, we shall have to have the same discussion again where the issue can be decided. The present discussion cannot be on any issue. It is only on the question whether we should consider the Lords Amendments now or reject them in toto
      Sir R. ADKINS: I am not going to be long on this point. I hope in a few minutes, if I may have the courtesy of being allowed to proceed. to make one or two suggestions which are intended to help a friendly settlement and not to postpone it. I merely say that if proportional representation is entirely taken out of the Bill you will leave in this House and in the other House, and in the country, a body of opinion, which I believe to be large, which would be concerned to modify the Act of Parliament by introducing that principle. If, on the other hand, the principle of the alternative vote which this House passed, and which was passed in the Speaker's Conference, is left out, you would certainly have a large body of
      2164
      opinion in this House and in the country which would feel that the Act of Parliament was incomplete and unfair, and which would be concerned, if and when the opportunity came to them, to make that alteration as soon as possible. Is it in the public interest, if it can be avoided, that a Bill of this importance should become law leaving either of these important matters untouched, unassuaged, unhelped, with the absolute certainty that the great problem of Parliamentary representation would be left in a position in which there would be many parts of the country anxious to modify and change it? On the other hand, one can well understand that it would be impossible and improper at this stage to ignore entirely what has been done in another place, and to attempt here and now to get a widespread system of proportional representation and a universal system of the alternative vote placed in the Bill.
      Therefore, with profound respect I submit that there is an intermediate course which, while it has neither the merits nor the defects of logic, may have the saving quality of making this Act easier for a larger proportion of His Majesty's subjects to acquiesce in than if you leave these two questions with a ragged end decided by acute differences of persona! opinion. The Lords now propose that proportional representation should apply to those boroughs which, under the scheme of the Boundary Commissioners. have more than three representatives. Similarly they propose that there shall be no alternative vote. If this House decided to agree with the Amendments. concerning proportional representation leaving out London—as to which there would appear to be that unanimity which distinguiushed the Greeks in their attack upon Troy—that Amendment would apply-to 112 seats out of 670. In other words, it would be applied on a scale large enough to give a fair trial to a great and important experiment, but not large enough to dominate the electoral position at any election. If, on the other hand, with regard to the alternative vote, instead of reinserting the alternative vote to apply universally, we were to apply it in a number of constituencies not larger but a little less than those covered by proportional representation, if the House were prepared to consider that application of the alternative vote— [HON. MEMBERS "No!"]
      Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: Apply it to yours.
      Sir R. ADKINS: I would like it in my Constituency. If you apply the alternative vote in this limited form, you would have another great and important experiment tried on a scale large enough to test it, but not on a scale large enough to dominate the electoral fortunes at any election, because outside London and outside those boroughs which have three or more representatives, arid apart from those few boroughs in England and Scotland which will be left with two representatives to be voted for jointly, the single-member constituencies amount in totality of representation to 103 members. If this House were willing to deal with this matter by such a compromise as I have suggested on proportional representation and the alternative vote, the result would be that none of those schools of thought and of political feeling which are divided on these questions could claim absolute victory, while two great principles would be tried in fair experiment. There would be less probability of the settlement being disturbed for years to come, and the opinions of the other House, validly expressed, and invited as they were by Mr. Speaker in the original constitution of the Conference, would receive adequate weight, and no party or school of thought could claim that they had had their own way to the exclusion of others. The result would be that none of those matters which the Speaker's Conference thought ought to be dealt with would be left undealt with. If these suggestions commend themselves to the House there will be every prospect of matters being amicably settled on a basis upon which we could agree for probably the next generation.
      Mr. PETO: I wish to say a few words in support of the plea put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, and I do so because, like him, I was a member of the Speaker's Conference. The outstanding fact is that it was with the universal consent of the Government and members of the previous Government that such a Bill as this would have been impossible during this time of war if it had not been for the preliminary work of conciliation and compromise which involved every member of the Conference giving up a good deal of his preconceived notions, and accepting a good deal of what he did not wholly like. Of all the unanimous recommendations of the Conference propor-
      2166
      tional representation was the only one which was not supported as a part of that compromise by the Government. I think that events have proved that that decision was an unfortunate one. By leaving it to the decision of the House it meant the application of all sorts of pressure from outside, particularly from those interested in the working of the party machine on one side or the other, and it has landed us in this difficulty which may, if it is not carefully handled, imperil the prospects of the Bill. Let the House consider the recommendations of the Conference over which you 'presided, which would provide experimental proportional representation for 211 seats, which would leave outside the operation of this scheme of minority representation two-member constituencies, and certain other constituencies which come to only a small total, which would apply both systems experimentally and leave it open, after experience of their working, to continue them, enlarge or repeal them. That is a view of the case that is left too much out of our consideration.
      We must remember that it is impossible to arrive at any settlement which will allay all controversy on these questions if either side thinks that it can have the whole of its own way. There are Members of this House who are in favour of neither of these measures; other Members who are in favour of both; and other Members who are in favour of one, but not of the other. The House of Lards has decided by an almost equally large majority in favour of one and against the other. As this has been a matter of controversy for at least twenty-five years, as expert and weighty opinion, including the Front Bench: opposite, is very evenly divided, among people by whom on most subjects we would almost equally be prepared to be guided, it is obviously the course of wisdom that there should be a somewhat equal trial of both those systems, as to which nobody can say in advance exactly how they will work, and both of which are advocated as a method of giving more compete representation to the people in the very difficult times which lie ahead of us. The only alternative settlement that I can conceive is that which decides to try neither of them, to leave our existing system exactly as it is, to go back behind what. was even settled in the 1867 Reform Bill, when, at least, accord-

      2167
      ing to the light of those days and according to the controversy of that time, an attempt was made to give minority representation—to say that in fifty years' time we have arrived at a position in which we can conceive of nothing better than that we shall have an almost universal application of what is not applied in any other constitutionally governed country, 'to allow any number of candidates to stand for a single-member seat and be perfectly certain that, whatever else the result is, the person elected will not represent the views of the majority of the voters. Surely we need not go back fifty years. Having had the Conference to settle these questions, surely we can realise that if we make no attempt whatever to deal with the views of those who are in favour of one or the other of these methods, to make no trial, to have no experiment whatever to see whether these are better methods than the present, we can see that that will settle nothing, that the controversy will be left exactly where it is, that the whole purpose of the Conference over which you presided, which was to settle that acute question of electoral controversy, leaving the country free to deal with other and far wider questions, will be left exactly where it was, and that the arguments, the agitation, the pressure of all sorts for electoral reform will go on exactly as before.
      I do hope that even at this eleventh hour, whatever other decision is arrived at, we shall not only consider the Lords Amendments, but consider what is the path by which we can arrive at a fair trial of both these methods, of one of which I am in favour, while I am strongly opposed to the other; but, though I am in favour of one and opposed to the other, I should not for a moment, nor would those who agree with me in favouring proportional representation, and in being opposed to the alternative vote, say, "We insist on having our plan carried out and refuse to carry out the other," and the same should apply to Members who do not agree with us, but who are in favour of the alternative vote but are opposed to proportional representation. It would be equally unreasonable if they were to say, "We will have the one and refuse the other." You cannot arrive at it by those methods, and the whole question is thrown back to
      2168
      what, I think, was the wise decision arrived at by the members of the Conference over which you presided—to make a reasonable trial of both these systems, recognising that either or both of them could be extended, repealed or left as it was without the slightest disturbance to the whole electoral system of registration, franchise reform, and every other part of the recommendations; and I say further that the boundaries of single-member constituencies having been eliminated if it was found, after one or two elections, that either or both of these systems were not satisfactory, they could be dropped out of our electoral system without the slightest disturbance of the arrangement arrived at by the Conference as a whole.
      Lord H. CECIL: I do not intend to intervene in this Debate, especially after the conciliatory sentiments which have been expressed on both sides of the House, but I desire to ask a question. Is it the intention to send this Bill back to the House to-night and ask the other House to consider the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It may be for the convenience of the House to state that I have been in consultation with Mr. Speaker with regard to this matter, and what we propose to do is that this House should go on with the discussion and, when we come to our conclusions, that the Bill should be sent to the other Chamber, and that Mr. Speaker should suspend the Sitting until the Amendments come back from another place. I may point out that it is really essential that we should not lose time, and as, after all, the issues are very plain, I hope that hon. Members will not be long in coming to a decison.
      Sir H. JESSEL: We are all very anxious to come to an issue on this matter, as the question before the House is to consider the Lords Amendments in reference to proportional representation and the alternative vote, and we shall be glad to deal with the matter without delay.
      Sir G. CAVE: The best way to do that is to dispose of the Motion.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Consideration of Lords Amendments to Ammons Amendments to Lords Amendments; Lords Amendments proposed in lieu of certain Lords Amendments disagreed to by the Commons, and Lords Reasons for insisting on certain other of their Amendments disagreed to by the Commons.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in Clause 5, Sub-section (3), at the end of paragraph (ii.) (a), to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose at the end of the paragraph to insert the following words in lieu thereof, "or (where the person serving was at the commencement of his service resident in the United Kingdom) out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions; or in service as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat."
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      The change has been made to meet a point raised by my right hon. Friend.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords, after Clause 6 to insert new Clause A, with the following consequential Amendment to the new Subsections inserted by the Lords at the end of Sub-section (4) of Clause 38: "At the end of first Sub-section insert the words, 'and Sub-section (4) of the said Section shall not apply.'"
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      This matter arises out of the way in which the House dealt with the Lords Amendment to insert after Clause 6 a new Clause. The Clause has two Subsections, the second of which deals with local government. As local government is dealt with in the Scottish Application Clause, and as the code in that Clause is complete, it is not desired that that Subsection should apply to Scotland.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords do not insist on their Amendment to insert a new Sub-section at the beginning of Clause 18, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof: At the beginning of Clause 18 to insert, as a new Sub-section,

      (a) Any Parliamentary borough entitled according to the Fifth Schedule of this Act to return three or more members shall be a single constituency:

      Provided that a Parliamentary borough entitled to return more than five members shall be divided by the Boundary Commissioners into two or more constituencies, each returning not less than three nor more than five members: Provided also that any contested election for the full number of members for Parliament in any constituency to which this Sub-section applies shall be held on the principle of proportional representation, and each elector shall have one transferable vote.

      (b) The Commissioners shall present their Report to Parliament as soon as practicable, showing the constituencies which are to be formed in pursuance of this Sub-section, the names of, and the numbers of, members to be returned for each constituency.

      (c) The Report of the Commissioners so presented to Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:

      Provided that if within the next twenty-one days on which the Commons House of Parliament has sat after the Report is so presented, that House presents an address to His Majesty praying that any modifications should be made in the Report, the Report shall have effect as if enacted in this Act with these modifications.

      (d) The registration of electors under this Act shall be proceeded with on the passing thereof as if the constituencies were those contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provisions as appear necessary or expedient to adapt the provisions of this Act as to registration to the arrangement of constituencies effected under this

      2171
      Sub-section, and to make any registration work done before such arrangement takes effect available under any new conditions resulting therefrom.

      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like your ruling on a point of Order. If the House is prepared to reject this Amendment in toto, I do not want to move any Amendment to it, or to waste the time of the House in discussing alternatives. That would then be out of the question. But, if the House should not be prepared to reject the principle, can I reserve my right to move Amendments in detail, if the House accept the principle? My object is not to move an Amendment, which may be a pure waste of time, because the House may be unwilling to accept the proposition in any form.
      Mr. SPEAKER: There is a difficulty, but I am afraid that there is difficulty whichever way you look at it. If the Motion be now made—as I understand it is about to be made—that the House doth disagree with this Amendment, then, if the. House accept the Motion, there is an end of the matter; but if the Motion he negatived by the House, is not the corollary of that, that the House agrees? Before the House agrees it is open to an hon. Member to move an Amendment or Amendments, but there might be a number of Amendments which would entirely transform the Amendment that has come from the Lords, and eventually I should have to put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Amendment as amended," and there would be no security then that the House might not negative it. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move his Amendment, he must do it now. If he does not, I propose to accept the Motion, "That this House doth disagree."
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand, in a ease of this kind, on the consideration of the Lords Amendment, that there is no procedure similar to that which we have in the Commons, when it is moved to leave out a Sub-section, of putting the Question in such a form as would preserve the rights of Members to move Amendments to the Sub-section, if the Motion to leave it out is not carried?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The procedure hitherto adopted has not been of that kind. It has been, as I have indicated, that the Rouse is asked either to agree or dis-
      2172
      agree; or if there is any hon. Member who desires to move an Amendment, he must move that Amendment before the Question is put whether the House agrees or disagrees.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am placed in a great difficulty. I did propose to move an Amendment directed towards excluding particular constituencies, or a particular constituency, for which I think I can make out a special case, and include others which I think ought to be included if any experiment of the kind were made. I do not think I ought to do that after the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should economise time, but in the event of the Motion being rejected, I will take the chances of that.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: On the point of Order, Sir. If the Question put from the Chair, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," is negatived, should there not be a substantive Motion following on that, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," and on that Motion could not Amendments be moved?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, I agree with him; but the rule has always been that the House either accepts or negatives the Motion. Otherwise, it would be practically reopening the same question that has already been considered and decided.
      Mr. JONES: The proposition is not a simple proposition, but a composite proposition, which contains more than one issue, and Members may agree with some and disagree with others. Yet they might be compelled to agree or disagree with the Amendment as it is.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is why I said that Amendments must be first proposed.
      Colonel Sir HERBERT JESSEL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after the word "borough" ["Any Parliamentary borough entitled"], to insert the words "exclusive of the administrative county of London."
      We have just heard, in the speech of the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Lancashire, that he and his Friends in this House are urging a compromise, and from what we have heard in this Rouge they do not propose to include London. I do not want to go ad nauseam over the

      2173
      whole arguments again. We have had fourteen Debates in the House and four Divisions, with an increasing majority in every one of the Divisions, while in the Debates it has been recognised that London did not want to have proportional representation.
      Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
      As the hon. Member has stated, this matter has been before the House on more than one occasion, and I think it was understood on the second occasion when it was before us that the Metropolitan constituencies were to be excluded, even if this concession was to be applied to other parts of the country. I would like to point out to the House that the Amendment put down on the Order Paper last Friday distinctly had words which excluded the Metropolitan constituencies, and I think it has always been understood by the hon. Members for London that if this scheme was to be put forward in other parts of the country, it should not apply to London.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I greatly regret that anything should be proposed that would reduce the already narrow limit of this Amendment. I have a strong belief that proportional representation is a real safeguard against the dangers of great political landslides, and the smaller you make the ambit of the Amendment the less will be the protection. If I rightly gauge the sense of the House, Members are opposed to the introduction of London—I cannot say the people of London are against this proposal, but the London Members are opposed to it—and in the circumstances I do not know that it is worth while to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the end, to add the words, "and the city of Birmingham."
      In view of the course which has been taken, it now becomes rather necessary for me to take the action which, in the interest of saving the time of the House, I proposed to forego. I do not presume to speak for other cities on this question, but I think I have a right to speak for Birmingham. Nobody in Birmingham has asked for this: nobody in Birmingham has ever paid any attention to it. They have regarded it as a discredited
      2174
      fad of a few crochet-mongers, which the general good sense of this House has never permitted to appear in legislation, and is never likely to allow to appear. Other cities may take a different line, though I think it is quite likely that they also may be desirous of presenting their special cases to the House. There was a point that fell from my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford which would seem to show that the case for all of us would receive his sympathetic consideration. He admits that he wants the experiment upon the largest possible scale, but that if there be opposition, for the sake of avoiding that opposition, he is ready to come to terms with London. My Noble Friend would not concede to sixty people what justice would also require him to concede to six people. My Noble Friend will not refuse to this small voice of Birmingham what he grants to the louder outery of London. I will not argue the whole question, but let me put the case of Birmingham. What is in store for us may, I. suppose, be judged from the Schedule which their Lordships attached to the Bill on the occasion when it last came before us. It was to divide the representatives of Birmingham into three and four-member constituencies. There is not a single representative, or authorised exponent of proportional representation, who has ever contended that a four-member constituency can give any chance of its successful operation.
      The city of Birmingham has been for a century and more one of the most active centres of our political life. Its people have taken an active and a keen interest in public life; and I ask any man who has ever addressed a Birmingham audience whether they do not also show an intelligent interest in the affairs of our country? Our life has been enriched, our outlook has been broadened by the active, interest of the numerous men concerned with municipal and political affairs. What are you going to do? We are faced with this four-member constituency, where a contest would be rendered impossible and ineffectual for either side. That is to reduce the political life of this great community—one of the most active, most enterprising, and most intelligent that you can find anywhere—to sterility and impotence. Why is it to be done? Why are these great borough communities to be subjected to this experiment? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said the

      2175
      other day that he had a sheaf of protests from persons in London against a similar proposal, and there was not one in favour. Has the right hon. Gentleman had any representations from Birmingham in favour of it? I think not—not from anybody who is known. But why are we chosen for this experiment? Because the experiment has to be made somewhere. Is it because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) has a merely philosophic interest in seeing this experiment tried? What did my right hon. Friend say the other day? He said that he was in favour of proportional representation upon an experimental scale, and he thought a case had been made out, but speaking on the manner in which it was proposed to be applied, he said:
      "I tied that the whole of Fife, the county divisions and the boroughs are converted into one constituency. Nobody in Fife wants that. Nobody in Fife has asked for it Speaking as by a long way the oldest of the members of that ancient and famous constituency, I look with horror and more than horror at the experiences—"
      I thought the word was "expenses," but I am not quite certain, but at any rate whether it was "experiences" or "expenses," the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say:
      "at the experiences and difficulties which I myself and 'ay fellow members—or fellow adventurers, who no doubt will come along—would have to encounter if the whole thing were thrown into one gigantic area."
      Is it too much to ask my right hon. Friend, if he wants this experiment tried, that he should try it in his own constituency? There is my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). He was warmly in favour of trying this experiment on the largest possible scale, but not in the City of London. Why not in the City of London? it happens that it is a two membered constituency. That is the very place to show you minority representation in perfection. You would always have one member representing each party, and the voice of the City of London would cease to count in the councils of the House. There is another reason for selecting the City of London rather than the City of Birmingham. It is also another reason for selecting the county of Fife rather than the City of Birmingham. I believe the City of London is unique in the fact that the whole of its representatives have declared themselves in this House in favour of the experiment, and we are fortunate to have a constituency both of whose representatives demand to have the
      2176
      experiment tried. If it is to be tried at all, then let it be tried in the City of London, where it cart be tried under favourable circumstances. But either my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or my right hon. Friend the other Member for the City of London would as a result, I am afraid, cease to appear in this House. I should regret it, but at any rate it would not prevent the minority having an equal voice in the representation of the City of London. More than that, the City of London is, I suppose one must assume, just the place where in consequence of the higher level of intelligence, and the more widely spread activity in dealing with complicated mathematical calculation, the electors would be best able to understand the application of the principle.
      Why should this question be raised again? We had disposed of it three times before it came down front the House of Lords on this extended scale. What was the one new argument. which was discovered by their Lordships in favour of the change? It was that without it agriculture would never be properly represented, and so their Lordships as a reasonable compromise and as a settlement of the question proposed to apply it to boroughs only and not to a single agricultural area. Let us have at least. one county, one agricultural area included in the experiment. Let us take the county of Fife I observe that the Noble Lords in another place echoing the opinion of my Noble Friend the Minister for Blockade, recommended this scheme to the country as our sole protection against revolution. I do not doubt. any more than my Noble Friend that we have grave and difficult times in front of us, but I am not myself much afraid of violent revolution, and I would trust for its defeat not to electoral devices intended to prevent the majority from making their views effective but to the good sense, the sense of fairness and of justice, which are characteristic of our people. If the party leaders of this great Assembly wish to try and mop up the Atlantic with a mop, let them do it. But why should we be the mop? Why should we be used as the instruments of their ineffectual campaign? It is an outrage to present such a scheme which when it was before this House on an earlier occasion, got the support of but twelve of the constituencies affected by it. The experiment is to be made on us against our will and without any mandate from any part of the country. It is to be made against the will of our constituents;

      2177
      it is to destroy the active political life of the great communities that we represent, which in past times has been and in future times under any fair and reasonable system will be a rich source of political interest, and I hope of political wisdom in the midst of our deliberations.
      Sir F. LOWE: I wish to second the Amendment. I cannot see myself how the case of Birmingham differs very much from the case of London. The populations are very similar and their interests are practically identical. It is only a question of degree in the size of the two places. I most strongly object to the experiment being made at our cost at the bidding either of this House or of the other House. No one has the right to try this experiment on any constituency without the consent of its electorate and of those who represent the electorate in this House. It seems to me that every representative of a county borough whose seat is included in this experiment should rise in his place in this House and move the exclusion of the borough which he represents, and if any representative of any county borough moves that it be included in the exceptions I shall certainly support him.
      Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I wish to know at what stage I can move the addition of the City of Liverpool to this Amendment?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The House must dispose of the Amendment first.
      Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the fact that there are 670 seats represented in this House, is it open to move 670 Amendments?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That would not apply, because the Amendment does not apply to all seats.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I desire to move an Amendment with regard to Portsmouth.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out that the Amendment now before the House must be disposed of first.
      Mr. ASQUITH: What has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) amounts almost to a challenge to me to say a word or two. He asks, Why not include the county of Fife? My objection in the speech to which he has referred to the inclusion of the county of Fife applies with equal force to any other county similarly circumstanced, and it arose entirely from the extent of the area
      2178
      and the nature of the population to which the principle was proposed to be applied. One could go from one end of Birmingham to the other in a taxi-cab with very little additional labour and not much additional expense. But when you come to subject an agricultural area to the experiment the conditions are totally changed. When I said that nobody in Fife wanted to be included, I was referring to the question of area, and the inconvenience which would attend the application of proportional representation to geographical units of that character.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then my right hon. Friend's objection to Fife being included extends to all agricultural areas, and the more agricultural the more sparse the population, the greater the area, the greater my right lion. Friend's objection?
      Mr. ASQUITH: I do not care to accept that as an absolutely logical deduction of what I. said: However, the inconvenience is the greater the larger and more sparsely populated the area. But I do not want to go into all these minor and local matters. What I want to suggest to the House, anxious as I think we all are that this Bill should be carried into law, is that we should not now embark on an immeasurable ocean of possible Amendments for the exclusion or inclusion of this or that constituency. According to our procedure, so far as I can discover, there is no reason why everyone of the representatives of the 112 seats should not move to exclude that particular scat, while those not now included might claim to be brought in. There is no reason why the matter should be debated in that way. My only object in rising was to appeal to the House to come to a decision as early as possible on the point whether or not we will accept, in some limited form, the principle of proportional representation. If the House is not prepared to do so, let it say so plainly, but do not let us allow ourselves to be immersed in a perfect bog of detail. Let us rather say plainly and emphatically what we desire.
      5.0 P.M.
      Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I hope the House will give me a few minutes, in order that I may put before it a few facts which I really think are bound to be brought to its attention as a result of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—that

      2179
      no one in Birmingham had asked for this system. He must have forgotten that one of his own colleagues in the representation of Birmingham is a strong supporter of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I would also remind him and the House that the Liberal Association of Birmingham has expressed itself strongly in favour of this system, that the Labour party of Birmingham has also expressed itself in favour of the system, and that therefore when the right hon. Gentleman said that no one in Birmingham had expressed a desire for its application he was under a very serious misapprehension. It has been constantly said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]. I appeal to the House for fair play in this matter. I am not going to detain it many minutes, but it is a very serious question, and the facts ought to be before the House. I have shown—
      Sir H. CRAIKrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the' Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put. that Question.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I have shown that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in saying that no one in Birmingham has asked for this system. It has been constantly stated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I really think this is very unfair of hon. Members. I have shown that the statement that no representatives of the boroughs are in favour of this system is entirely wrong. Both the hon. Members for Newcastle are in favour of it, three of the hon. Members for Leeds, a majority of the hon. Members for Hull, three of the hon. Members for Liverpool, four of the Dublin Members, and six out of seven of the Glasgow Members are in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] I do put it to the House that it is really a very unfair representation to say either that nobody from Birmingham has asked for the system or that nobody from the boroughs proposed to be affected is in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I do ask the House to consider what the next General Election will be if we go to the country either without the alternative vote or without any form of proportional representation. We have tried during this War to maintain national unity, but we shall be plunged into the most bitter and confused internecine struggle to snatch seats in the different parts of the country, whereas if
      2180
      we apply this system in a limited number of boroughs, the alternative vote in a limited number of boroughs and the old system in the great majority of boroughs, everybody will feel that at any rate an attempt has been made to treat the matter fairly. I believe it will have a very great effect upon the national feeling, and will enable us to maintain that national unity upon which so much will depend after the War, as it has depended during the War.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: I wish to say only a few words.[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am not in the least hurry, and if we are not to be allowed to debate this question for a few minutes—and I only want to speak for a few minutes—at any rate I intend to try. I want to suggest one small point in reply to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) said, because I think there is real substance in it. I think the point he makes about Birmingham is very real, the absurdity of having four-member constituencies, and I suggest that that might be put right, and that we might vote on the whole of this with a considerably lighter heart if, instead of putting five members in the last words of the Lords Amendment, we put seven. As a matter of fact all the well-known supporters of proportional representation say that seven is a better figure, and if you had Birmingham divided into five and seven that particular objection would at once fall to the ground. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not want it at all!"] Neither do I, but as I believe we are going to try and reach some rational settlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I am perfectly prepared to support some measure of what I do not particularly like, as I have done all through the discussions on this Bill. if we are not going to come to some sort of agreement upon proportional representation, then I think we are going to have very considerable difficulties before we have finished with this controversy.
      All I want to point out before we go on to these wider questions is that half the difficulties arising from proportional representation are due to the fact that the supporters will not put forward their scheme, and it goes to an Assembly who, although they have taken this up as a hobby, do not seem to appreciate the absurdity of having four-member constituencies. I wish to ask the Government, therefore, whether we cannot have some sort of light and leading from them? If they would only tell us· they would put

      2181
      these Amendments of the Lords into some sort of rational form we might do something. At present we are simply groping in the dark, and we may go on talking about these things all night. I do not want to do so, but I am quite prepared to do so if necessary. Cannot we make some reasonable compromise on proportional representation and the alternative vote? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I do not think we can, probably, because I believe proportional representation has only been put forward by the other Chamber as camouflage, simply with the object of ultimately changing it to the alternative vote, as was said by the "Times," on the day after it was put in. If we are dealing with an honest controversy, if this is not an attempt to throw out on party lines what was unanimously recommended by a Royal Commission, and if we are trying to get a settlement, let us come to it on rational lines. The first thing is to clear the air of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham said, that the proposals made with regard to his particular constituency are perfectly absurd. If the Government would be prepared to support an Amendment that these constituencies should be divided into constituencies returning not less than three nor more than seven members, we should get rid of very considerable difficulties in that
      respect. Upon the other matters I pro. pose to say something later.
      Sir WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: It was any intention, if this Amendment was dealt width and passed, to endeavour to include Liverpool, but I think we should be wrong. I think it is wrongs for the London Members to run away from the main issue—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are not; and we are not going to!"]—and that it will be wrong for the Birmingham Members to try and make an extension of this Amendment. Any reasonable solution would probably be in the direction of those Members who are going to vote for proportional representation having it in their own constituency, but I appeal to the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment, and to the right hon. Gentleman who has proposed the Amendment to the Amendment, to throw in their lot with the boroughs, including Liverpool, who object to this, and to throw the whole affair out as a matter of general principle. If we do not, we are going to be here for a great many hours discussing a number of similar Amendments about various places, and to waste a great deal of time while possibly not obtaining any good results.
      Question put, "That the words 'and the City of Birmingham' be there added to the proposed Amendment."
      The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 156.

      Division No. 153.]

      AYES

      [5.10 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Clough, William

      Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

      Alden, Percy

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Greig, Col. James William

      Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

      Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Baker, Joseph Ailen (Finsbury, E.)

      Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

      Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Barnett, Capt. R. W.

      Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

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

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Bellairs, Commander C. W.

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

      Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Bigland, Alfred

      Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

      Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

      Blair, Reginald

      Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

      Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

      Bliss, Joseph

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Buscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

      Boyton, Sir James

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Hermon-Hodge Sir R. T.

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Falconer, James

      Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

      Brookes, Warwick

      Falle, Sir Bertram Godfrey

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

      Bull, Sir William James

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

      Burdett-Coutts, William

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

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Gardner, Ernest

      Horne, Edgar

      Butcher, J. G.

      Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

      Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

      Hudson, Walter

      Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

      Gilbert, J. D.

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

      Glanville, H. J.

      Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

      Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Goldman, C. S.

      Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Asten Maner)

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Jessel, Col. Sir H. M.

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Starkey, Capt. John R.

      Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Parkes, Sir Edward E.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

      Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

      Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

      Pennefather, De Fonblanque

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Keswick, Henry

      Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

      Sutton, John E.

      Kiley, James Daniel

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Swift, Rigby

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

      Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

      Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

      Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Thomas-Stanford, Charles

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H.

      Tickler, T. G.

      Lonsdale, James R.

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon)

      Walker, Colonel William Hall

      Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

      Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      M'Kean, John

      Remnant. Col. Sir James Farquharson

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Malcolm, Ian

      Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Mallaby-Deeley, Harry,

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Whiteley, Sir H. J.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Rowlands, James

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Royds, Major Edmund

      Wiles. Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

      Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

      Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

      Williams, T. J. (Swansea)

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

      Mills, Lieut. Hon. Arthur Robert

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Wilson. Col. Leslie O. (Reading)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

      Smallwood, Edward

      Wilson-Fox, Henry

      Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

      Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Yeo. Sir Alfred William

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Nield, Sir Herbert

      Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

      Nuttall, Harry

      Stanley, Capt. Lord (Abercromby)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      O'Malley, William

      Stanton, Charles Butt

      Chamberlain and Sir F. Lowe.

      NOES.

      Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Adamson, William

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Macdonald. J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

      Dixon, C. H.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Anderson, W. C.

      Du Pre, Major W. Baring

      McMicking, Major Gilbert

      Armitage, Robert

      Ffrench, Peter

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

      Millar. James Duncan

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Mitchell - Thomson, W.

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Molloy, Michael

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Mond. Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Grant, J. A.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

      Griffith, Rt Hon. Sir Ellis J.

      Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

      Barton, Sir William

      Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

      Morrell, Philip

      Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Hackett, John

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Beach, William F. H.

      Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

      Newman, Major John R. P.

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Ogden, Fred

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Haslam, Lewis

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Parrott, Sir James Edward

      Black, Sir Arthur W.

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Boland, John Plus

      Herbert, Col. Hon A. (Somerset, S.)

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Higham, John Sharp

      Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Brace, Rt. Hon. William

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Pratt, J. W.

      Broughton, Urban Hanlon

      Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Buxton, Noel

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Cator, John

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

      Jones. Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

      Cecil,Rt.Hon.Lord Robert(Herts,Hitchin)

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Robinson, Sidney

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Keating, Matthew

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

      Cheyne, Sir W. W.

      King, Joseph

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Scott, Leslie, (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

      Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

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

      Courthope, Major George Loyd

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Shaw, Hon. A.

      Cowan, Sir W. H.

      Lowther, Maj.-Gen. H. C. (Appleby)

      Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      2184

      2185

      Snowden, Philip

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Wardle, George J.

      Winfrey, Sir Richard

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Watson, John B. (Stockton)

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

      Weston, Colonel J. W.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

      Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Whyte, Alexander F.

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

      Turton, Edmund Russborough

      Williams. John (Glamorgan)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES. Sir R.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Adkins and Mr. Peto.

      Sir W. RUTHERFORD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, as amended, to add the words "and the cities of Manchester and Liverpool."
      I do not propose to waste the time of the House by repeating arguments already used, and I simply move.
      Sir J. RANDLES: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: In debating this matter last week, I said that if a proposal for proportional representation were sent down to this House, as it has been sent down, in a form applying it to boroughs only, we should exactly have this kind of discussion, and that we should have Member after Member rising to move the exclusion of the borough in which he Was interested. That has happened, and, of course, it is quite easy for the House to go on moving Amendments of this kind, and to spend the whole afternoon, or the whole day, in that way. I venture to think that the Division which has just taken place carries a natural conclusion. Am I not probably right in saying that all those Members who are opposed to proportional representation in the boroughs as it comes to us from another place supported that Amendment?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not all of them, or the majority would have been bigger.
      Sir G. CAVE: At all events, am I not right in saying that those who voted for that Amendment are opposed to the Lords Amendment as it came down to the House? There may he other hon. Members who take the same view. If that is so, the House has really come to a decision, and the better course would be now to take a Division upon the main question of agreement or disagreement with the Lords Amendment. I have always thought that any proposal of this kind
      of a partial character, a proposal to apply this principle to the boroughs only, or even to a certain number of boroughs only, which might be specified in the Amendment, ran the risk of being met and dealt with in this way. I think it is open to the advocates of this principle to reformulate their proposals at some future time in such a form as to bring them before the House in a manner which might be acceptable. But I have a strong feeling that if this kind of thing goes on we run the risk of losing very much more than the principle of proportional representation, and that we are bringing the Bill itself into great danger. Speaking for myself, I think the wisest course for the House would be to disagree with the Amendment of the Lords.
      Sir H. JESSEL: In consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I wish to withdraw my Amendment, in order to let the House go to a Division on the main question.
      Amendment to time proposed Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
      Proposed Amendment, as amended, to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      I desire to avail myself of the occasion to reply to what was said by the Minister of Blockade on Wednesday last about the opposition to proportional representation having been the result of party machinery. I can assure the House that is not so.
      Sir F. LOWE: I beg to second the Motion.
      Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
      The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 141.

      Division No. 154.]

      AYES.

      [5.25 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Alden, Percy

      Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Barnett, Captain R. W.

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

      Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

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

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Pennefather, De Fonblanque

      Bellairs, Commander C. W.

      Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

      Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

      Been, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

      Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Bigland, Alfred

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Black, Sir Arthur W.

      Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Blair, Reginald

      Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Bliss, Joseph

      Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

      Raphael, Major Sir Herbert H.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

      Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

      Boyton, Sir James

      Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

      Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Brookes, Warwick

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Bull, Sir William

      Horne, Edgar

      Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hudson, Walter

      Rowlands, James

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Royds, Major Edmund

      Butcher, John George

      Hunter. Major Sir Charles Rodk.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

      Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

      Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

      Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

      Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

      Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

      Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Cava, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Jessel, Col. Sir H. M.

      Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.

      Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Shaw, Hon. A.

      Cheyne, Sir W. W.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

      Smallwood, Edward

      Clough, William

      Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

      Soames, Arthur Weliesley

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

      Collins, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

      Stanley, Capt. Lord (Abercromby)

      Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

      Keswick, Henry

      Stanton, Charles Butt

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon, Sir J.

      Kiley, James Daniel

      Starkey, Capt. John R.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. H.

      Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

      Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      Strauss, Edward E. (Southwark, West)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Sutton, John E.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Swift, Rigby

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Lonsdale, James R.

      Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsford)

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

      Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

      M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

      Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

      Macmaster, Donald

      Thomas, Sir A, G. (Monmouth, S.)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Thomas-Stanford, Charles

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Tickler, T. G.

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Tootill, Robert

      Falconer, James

      Malcolm, Ian

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

      Mallaby-Debiey, Harry

      Walker, Col. W. H.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Manfield, Harry

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Fiennes, Hon. Sir Eustace Edward

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

      Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

      Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannon)

      Gelder, Sir William Alfred

      Molteno, Percy Alpert

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

      Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

      Whiteley, Sir H. J.

      Gilbert, J. D.

      Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

      Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Glanville, Harold James

      Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

      Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

      Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

      Munro, Rt. Hon, Robert

      Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Nicholson, Slr Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

      Greene, Lieut.-Colonel Walter Raymond

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

      Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

      Nield, Sir Herbert

      Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

      Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      O'Malley, William

      Wilson-Fox, Henry

      Gretton, Col. John

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Winfrey, Sir Richard

      Guest, Capt. Hon. Fred. E. (Dorset, E.)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Essex, S.E.)

      Parkes, Sir Edward E.

      Yeo, Sir Alfred William

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Parrott, Sir James Edward

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Younger, Sir George

      Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

      Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sir

      Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

      T. P. Whittaker and Sir F. Lowe.

      NOES.

      Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

      Armitage, Robert

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Adamson, William

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

      Baring, Sir Geoffrey (Barnstaple)

      2188

      2189

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Pratt, J. W.

      Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick, Burghs)

      Haslam, Lewis

      Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

      Barton, Sir William

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

      Beach, William F. H.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Robinson, Sidney

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Rothschild, Major Lionel de

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Boland, John Pius

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., clitheroe)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

      Brace, Rt. Hon. William

      Keating, Matthew

      Snowden, Philip

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      King, Joseph

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Broughton, Urban Hanlon

      Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

      Tennant, Ht. Hon. Harold John

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Cator, John

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Cautley, H. S,

      Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

      Lowther, Maj.-Gen. H. C. (Appleby)

      Turton, Edmund Russhorough

      Cecil, Rt.Hon.LordRobert(Herts,Hitchin)

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Wardle, George J.

      Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

      Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

      Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

      McMicking, Major Gilbert

      Weston, Col. J. W.

      Courthope, Major George Loyd

      Marriott, J. A. R.

      Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

      Cowan, Sir W. H.

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Mills, Lieut. Hon. Arthur R.

      Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Mitchell-Thomson, W.

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Molloy, Michael

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Dixon, C, H.

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

      Du Pre, Major W. Baring

      Morrell, Philip

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Mount, William Arthur

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Ffrench, Peter

      Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

      Wood. Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Field, William

      Ogden, Fred

      Wood, sir John (Stalybridge)

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

      Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

      Wright, Captain Henry Fitzherbert

      Goldstone, Frank

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

      Peto, Basil Edward

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Major

      Hackett, John

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Newman and Mr. Anderson.

      CLAUSE 32.—(Redistribution of Seats.)
      (1) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the First Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be a Parliamentary borough returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.
      Lords Amendment:
      In Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["Schedule shall be divided"], insert the words, "Subject to the provisions regarding Parliamentary boroughs returning three or more members in this Act contained."—Disagreed with.

      FOURTH SCHEDULE.
      Provisions to be Substituted for Part IV. of the First Schedule to 46 and 47 Viet., c. 51, and for Paragraph (3) of Part V. of the same Schedule.
      Maximum Scale.
      The expenses mentioned above in Parts I., II., and III. of this Schedule, other
      2190
      than personal expenses, shall not exceed an amount equal—
      in the case of a county election, to sevenpence to each elector on the register;
      in the case of an election for a borough, to fivepence for each elector on the register.
      Where there are two or more joint candidates at an election, the maximum amount of expenses mentioned in Parts III. and IV. of this Schedule shall, for each of the joint candidates, be the amount produced by multiplying a single candidate's maximum by one-and-a-half and dividing the result by the number of joint candidates.
      Lords Amendments:
      After the word "borough" ["for a borough, to fivepence"], insert the words "returning one or two members or a division of a borough returning one member."—Disagreed with.
      After the word "register" ["to five-pence for each elector on the register"], insert the words "in the case of an elec-

      2191
      tion for a borough or a division of a borough returning three or more members, to threepence for each elector on the register."—Disagreed with.

      FIFTH SCHEDULE.
      Redistribution of Seats.
      1. The names, contents, and boundaries of each Parliamentary borough and county and division thereof shall be as specified in this Schedule.
      Lords Amendment:
      At the beginning of paragraph I insert the words, "Subject to the provisions regarding Parliamentary boroughs returning three or more members in this Act contained."—Disagreed with.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords insist upon their Amendment to the Seventh Schedule (to leave out paragraph 6) for the following Reason:
      "Because it is consequential upon the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the first Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18 [Alternative Vote], to which the Commons have disagreed."
      Sir G. CAVE: On a point of Order. Will the Bill be lost if we disagree with a purely consequential Amendment on an Amendment with which we have already disagreed? The position is this: The other House, having inserted proportional representation, made a change in the Schedule relating to the return of county councillors for the county of London. That was consequential upon their adoption of proportional representation. This House disagreed with the general Amendment introducing proportional representation throughout the country, and, as a consequence, disagreed with the Amendment relating to the return of the county councillors for London. Now the other House has inserted a new Amendment reintroducing proportional representation in a modified form with which we have disagreed already. The Lords, also consequential on their new Amendment, have revived their old Amendment relating to the county of London. It would, of course, appear natural that, having disagreed with the main Amendment, we should also disagree with the consequential Amendment, but I want to know from you, Sir, whether we can take that course without losing the Bill, or whether we
      2192
      must, as a matter of order, introduce some Amendment, or disagree in some modified form, so that we do not, by disagreeing with this minor Amendment, lose the Bill?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am hardly in a position to give a decision on this matter. This is rather sprung upon me. It appears that this Amendment is consequential on what, we have done, and, therefore, we cannot accept something which contradicts the view which the House has taken.
      Sir G. CAVE: If there is any doubt about the effect of our disagreeing with this Amendment, I would rather postpone it, and see whether we can introduce it in some new form.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It will give me, at any rate, some little time to consider it.
      Question, "That the further consideration of the Lords Reason be postponed," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: Would it be in order to postpone the question of the alternative vote for exactly the same reason?
      Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go on postponing. We have to consider something.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords insist on their Amendment in Clause 18 [Alternative Vote] (to leave out Sub-section (1), to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:
      "Because in then view the adoption of the alternative vote would introduce serious complexities into the electoral system without any corresponding advantage in the way of fair representation."
      Sir R. ADKINS: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the exact position we have reached by this action of the House of Lords? Is it open to this House to reinsert in the Bill an Amendment giving generally the alternative vote which the other House has now twice rejected; and would such an insertion involve the loss of the Bill? If it would, is it open to us to amend the Lords Amendment in any form which falls short of restoring the full alternative vote of universal application which the House de63led on previously?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The House of Lords has struck out this particular Section, and it has insisted on striking out this particular Section. If this House does not accept the proposal as amended, of course these two Houses are not ad idem, and the Bill must drop. Two courses are open to the House—either to accept the Lords proposal as it stands or to send back an Amendment.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: If this House were to insist on its original proposal and disagree with the Lords, the Bill then would not go back to the House of Lords at all, but would die here on the floor of the House now?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I do not exactly know what place it would die in. It would certainly not be included in the list of Bills to which the Royal Assent has been given.
      Mr. SAMUEL: The point is that there would he no opportunity for the Lords to reconsider their decision.
      Mr. SPEAKER: No.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: Should I be in order to insert words that would leave out the University of Wales?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I have already received au Amendment from a right hon. Member.
      Sir W. DICKINSON: I beg to move as an Amendment, in lieu of the Amendment upon which the. Lords insist, to insert, "(I) If at an election for one Member of Parliament in any Parliamentary borough there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act."
      I do not propose to keep the House by any long speech, but I desire to move the reinsertion of the alternative vote in a form in which the House of Lords will be able to give it their consideration—and, I hope, their sympathetic consideration. They are evidently very partial to dealing with the country in parts and not as a whole. This is to reintroduce the principle of the alternative vote in all elections in Parliamentary boroughs, and I do not myself think there is any necessity for me to use any arguments in this matter. This House has once, twice, thrice declared its adhesion to the principle by which the minority is not to be enabled to obtain its candidate in cases where there are
      2194
      more than two candidates. I hope that the House will send this back again to the House of Lords in order that they may again be able to give consideration to the wishes of the Commons in this very important matter. I beg to move in the form I have indicated.
      Mr. J. A. BAKER: I beg to second the Amendment, formally, seeing that the matter has been so fully debated.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think those of us who are in favour of the alternative vote would deeply regret, even if it were limited to the boroughs, where we desire to see it alike throughout the whole of the country. The other House, however, has voted differently—that it should not be applied to the whole country. If we were to insist upon our view the consequence would be that this great Statute would not become law. As an alternative, my right hon. Friend opposite has proposed that the matter should again be brought before. this House and the other House, not in its original form, but with the limitation to the boroughs only. Imperfect as is that measure, it is one which all friends of the alternative vote will certainly support. I do not propose again to argue the case which has been before us so often. I would only say this in a word: that if the next Parliament were to be elected, not with the assistance of the alternative vote, if a large number of members were returned, as might very well be the case, not by the majorities of their constituents, but notoriously by the minorities, and if, as might very likely occur, those minority members themselves determined the political complexion of this House, and determined, possibly for four or five years, the character of our legislation, and if this anomaly were due to the action of the House of Lords to-day in rejecting the alternative voting method for elections, the political consequences could not fail to be most grave. Therefore, I earnestly hope that on further consideration, in view of the difficulties through which the country may be passing when this War is over that their Lordships will reconsider the matter, and not by their action secure the possibility, or the probability, of returning a large number of members to this House to determine its character who have been elected, not by the majority, but by the minority of their constituents.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: I shall, of course, vote, as I hope all my Friends will vote, in favour of the alternative vote, but I

      2195
      regret that it is only confined to the boroughs. Like many others here, I represent a large industrial constituency where the elements are very similar to those of hon. Friends about me. I have to express this feeling: that a large number of the industrial classes will resent most strongly this action; that those within the area of the county divisions will not have the same privilege and freer choice given by the alternative vote that I hope their Lordships will give to the boroughs. I only want to say that while' I accept this as a compromise I accept it only as a compromise, because I believe the alternative vote should be applied to the whole country.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: I should not like this subject to leave this House without making, at any rate, one final, and, I hope, one short protest against what has happened. We have heard the reasons why the other House has deprived us of the only safeguard that we have possibly got for a system of free and fair elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The hon. Member will be able to answer me, possibly, after I say what I have to say. The reason the House of Lords give is that, "in their view the adoption of the alternative vote would introduce serious complexities into the electoral system without any corresponding advantage in the way of fair representation." This although the alternative vote, having been submitted to a Royal Commission composed of men of all parties, unanimously reported favourably upon it! That is the position we have reached! A non-elective Chamber can deprive us of a system that is in use throughout the world in one form or another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]
      An HON. MEMBER: Let us get on with the War!
      Mr. HEMMERDE: I shall be considerably shorter if hon. Members will answer me afterwards, and not during my speech. I only want to say that it is perfectly clear that the reason why this thing has been considered by the Second Chamber in this way is, not that they have considered in any way alternative schemes for redressing what the Royal Commission unanimously thought to be an evil that needed redress; they have made no attempt to deal with this question at all. Their desire to protect the rights of minorities—which they have shown in proportional represen-
      2196
      tation—has gone so far that they actually want to protect minorities at the expense of majorities throughout the country. Depriving us of this machinery is what that really means. We may put in this Amendment knowing that we are face to face with this, that the House of Lords in a matter like this does but register the decrees of one party in the State. [Interruption.] Everybody knows that to be true ! When this measure went up to the House of Lords there was practically no debate upon it. One or two persons, quite unknown in politics, proposed its rejection. This, a measure which had been reported upon unanimously by Royal Commission! Their Lordships can give no alternative at all except the exaltation of the minority into the position of the majority, with the possibility, as my right hon. Friend below me has suggested, of creating a position that will last four or five years—it may very well be ten years ! — because the Parliamentary effect of the minority vote all over the country may actually — [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—I know perfectly well that party —[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] I have got very few more words to say, but I know perfectly well which party it is that gains by this system, and that it is delighted at the result. Though all further speeches are unnecessary now, I wish to protest; and I appeal to my hon. Friends in this House to protest against the other House arrogating to itself the right to tell us how our elections are to be determined—whether by their attempt to insert proportional representation, whether by their refusal to allow us to have this system of the alternative vote recommended by an impartial Royal Commission. They are arrogating to themselves functions that they have no right to, and the only good feature about the whole thing is that action like this, unblushing and flagrant, \will soon bring —[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—sweep away—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—that party which exists merely to register the decrees of the Tory—[Interruption].
      Sir G. YOUNGER: I only desire to say two words, to ask the House to accept the Amendment which my right hon. Friend behind me seeks to amend. We have already rejected the Lords Amendment on proportional representation, and it appears to me to be a perfectly fair deal that we should accept this.
      Mr. PETO: The House might have listened to what I said earlier in the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] This Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras — [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—runs very close to what I ventured to suggest as a compromise. The hon. Member for Dartford said a moment ago that the House had refused part of the compromise which deal, with proportional
      representation, and he has referred to this as a compromise. I wish to make it perfectly clear that by that action they have Left me perfectly free to vote against the alternative vote, as I certainly intend to do, as it is no compromise whatever.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 194.

      Division No. 155.]

      AYES.

      [5.59 p.m.

      Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

      Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Adamson, William

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

      Haslam, Lewis

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Alden, Percy

      Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Rees, G. U. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)

      Randall, Atheletan

      Anderson, W. C.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Richardson, Aiblon (Peckham)

      Armitage, Robert

      Hobhouse Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

      Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Hogge, James Myles

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Robinson, Sidney

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Hudson, Walter

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Rowlands, James

      Barton, Sir William

      Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

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

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Shaw, Hon. A.

      Black, Sir Arthur W.

      Keating, Matthew

      Smallwood, Edward

      Bliss, Joseph

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Boland, John Pius

      Kiley, James Daniel

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Brace, Rt. Hon. William

      King, Joseph

      Smith, Sir Swiro (Keighley, Yorks)

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

      Snowden, Philip

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Buxton, Noel

      Lewis, Rt. H on. John Herbert

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Lough, Rt. Han. Thomas

      Sutton, John E.

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Clough, William

      M'Callum. Sir John M.

      Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

      Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

      Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falls. B'ghs)

      Thomas, Sir A. G. (Mon., S.)

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Thomas, Rt. Hon.J. H. (Derby)

      Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

      M'Kean, John

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      M`Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

      Tootill, Robert

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      MCMicking, Major Gilbert

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Maden, Sir John Henry

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Mallalieu, Frederick William

      Waring, Major Walter

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Manfield, Harry

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Middlebrook, Sir William

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Millar, James Duncan

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Falconer, James

      Molloy, Michael

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

      Whyte, Alexander F.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Morgan, George Hay

      Wiles, Rt. Mon. Thomas

      Field, William

      Morison Hector (Hackney, S.)

      Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

      Fiennes, Hon. Sir Eustace Edward

      Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Galbraith, Samuel

      Morrell, Philip

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Gelder, Sir William Alfred

      Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Gilbert, J. D.

      Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

      Williams Thomas J. (Swansea)

      Glanville, Harold James

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

      Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

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

      Goldstone, Frank

      Nuttall, Harry

      Winfrey, Sir Richard

      Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Wing, Thomas Edward

      Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

      Ogden, Fred

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon(Glasgow)

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Outhwalte, R. L.

      Yeo, Sir Alfred William

      Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

      Parrott, Sir James Edward

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Hackett, John

      Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

      Dickinson and Mr. W. T Wilson.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

      Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin

      Goldman, Charles Sydney

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

      Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

      Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Greene, Waiter Raymond

      Parkes, Sir Edward E.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gretton, John

      Pease,Rt.Hon.Herbert Pike(Darlington)

      Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Pennefather, De Fonblanque

      Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Barnett, Capt. R. W.

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Barnston, Major Harry

      Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

      Philipps, Capt. Sir Owen (Chester)

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

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

      Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

      yman, Rt. H on. Ernest George

      Beach, William F. H.

      Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

      Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Bellairs, Commander C. W.

      Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

      Rawson, Col. Richard H.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

      Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

      Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

      Blair, Reginald

      Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

      Rothschild, Major Lionel de

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Royds, Major Edmund

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

      Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

      Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

      Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

      Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid.)

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Boyton, Sir James

      Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

      Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

      Brassey, H. L. C.

      Horne, Edgar

      Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

      Brookes, Warwick

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Broughton, Urban Hanlon

      Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon F. S. (York)

      Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Stanley, Capt. Lord (Abercromby)

      Butcher, John George

      Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

      Stanton, Charles Butt

      Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

      Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Carew, C.

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

      Stewart, Gershom

      Carnegie, Lieut.-Col. D. G.

      Kerry, Lieut.-Col., Earl of

      Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

      Cator, John

      Keswick, Henry

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Swift, Rigby

      Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

      Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

      Cecil,Rt.Hon.Lord Robert(Herts,Hitchin)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Terrell, George (Wilts)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc's.)

      Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cheyne, Sir W. W.

      Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

      Thomas-Stanford, Charles

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

      Tickler, T. G.

      Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

      Lonsdale, James R.

      Turton, Edmund Russborough

      Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Walker, Colonel William Hall

      Courthope, Major George Loyd

      Lowther, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Appleby)

      Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent Mid)

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      McCalmont, Brig.-Gon. Robert C. A.

      Weston, J. W.

      Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

      Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

      Macmaster, Donald

      Whiteley, Sir H. J.

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

      Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

      Malcolm, Ian

      Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

      Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

      Dixon, C. H.

      Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

      Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

      Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

      Du Pre, Major W. Baring

      Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Falle, Sir Bertram Godfrey

      Mills, Lieut. Hon. Arthur R.

      Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

      Fell, Sir Arthur

      Mitchell-Thomson, W.

      Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

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

      Mount, William Arthur

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Newman, Major John R. P.

      Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Gardner, Ernest

      Nieid, Sir Herbert

      George Younger and Sir S. Roberts.

      Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

      O'Malley, William

      Question put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 18.—(Modification of Method of Voting in Certain Constituencies.)
      (1) If at an election for one member of Parliament there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords insist on their Amendments in page 14, line 33, page 19, line 41, page
      2200
      26, line 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:
      "Because they are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords to leave out Sub-section (1), upon which they insist."
      Sir G. CAVE: This is an Amendment consequential upon the striking out of the alternative vote, and I am afraid the same point of Order arises. Under these

      2201
      circumstances, perhaps, the best plan would be to postpone this Amendment also.
      Further consideration of the Lords Reason postponed.—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Lords Message:
      They disagree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 51, line 17 (paragraph 39), for the following Reason:
      "Because they are consequential on the disagreement by the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18, Sub-section (1), an Amendment upon which the Lords insist."
      Sir G. CAVE: This is consequential on the alternative vote, and no point of Order arises upon it. I move, "That this House cloth insist on its Amendments to the Lords Amendment,. to which the Lords have disagreed."

      CLAUSE 35.—(Regulations to be Laid Before Parliament.)
      All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation, or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there-under.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords insist upon their Amendment to leave out the word "if," and to insert the words "unless and until," to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:
      "Because it is contended that the form is not the form usually adopted in similar enactments, and that in any case the Amendments are required in order to preserve the independent rights of each House of Parliament."
      Sir G. CAVE:I think I had better move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," although personally I am not in agreement with the
      2202
      course taken by the Lords. This Amendment relates to the question of laying Regulations upon the Table of both Houses. The effect of the Clause as introduced. by us is that if as to any Regulation the two Houses take a different view, the Lords taking one view and the Commons the other, it would be for His Majesty's Government to decide whether by an Order in Council the Regulations should be annulled,or not. The other House has taken the view that either House should have the power to annul a Regulation, and now insists upon this Amendment. The matter is not one of vital importance, because this point seldom arises, but we shall reserve our right in future Bills. It is not worth while having a quarrel with the other House over a small matter like this.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: I wish to propose an Amendment. It might appear from the explanation of the right lion. Gentleman to be a verbal point, but it is really a question of very serious constitutional importance. Although the Home Secretary has made the declaration that this Amendment being agreed to will not constitute a precedent, but we know that in fact it always does become a precedent, no matter what declaration may be made at the time. The fact that it is there in the Act of Parliament will lead to it being quoted in future as a precedent, whatever we may choose to say now. The point was discussed when the Amendment first came down from the House of Lords. The ordinary form which has been in use for a number of years, although formerly there were different. forms, is to the effect that where Orders in Council, regulations, or rules are laid upon the Table of either House and either House passes an Address for their alteration or annulment, then His Majesty in Council may alter or annul that Order in Council or other document, as the ease may be. There is not an absolute obligation. The word "may" is used. As a matter of fact, unless there were some reason to the contrary, an Address passed by either House would naturally be acted upon by His Majesty in Council—that is to say, by the Government of the day The House of Lords now have put in an Amendment to the effect that if their House, for example, wishes a Regulation annulled and it passes an Address to that effect it ipso facto is annulled and becomes void, although this House may approve the Regulation in its original form and

      2203
      desire it to be maintained. In this Bill the Orders in Council, Regulations, and rules are of immense importance. The whole working of the Act depends upon it. There are a very large number of points relating to registration, methods of voting, and so forth which depend upon Orders in Council or regulations, and if one House, irrespective of the other House, has the power to secure the annulment of any one of them the effect may be contrary to what is generally desired. There appear to have been curious divisions of opinion in the other House. On both occasions when the matter came before the House of Lords the Government stood by the original form, and a small number of Peers—it was the dinner hour, and there was a very small House—defeated the Government. When the matter was before the House of Lords yesterday, the Lord Chancellor, speaking for the Government, said:
      "I do not regard this matter as one of capital importance. The Clause in the form in which the Commons restored it is the usual form, and no doubt will work in the future as it has worked in the past."
      After one very short speech from Lord Chaplin their Lordships divided. The Government numbered 20, and their opponents numbered 24. Consequently, the Lords insisted upon their Amendment. We cannot insist upon our view, because if we do the Bill is killed. Consequently, it will be necessary to move an alternative form. Therefore, I should like to move—
      Mr. SPEAKER: We have passed that stage. I am afraid that I have put the Question.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I do not object to the Lords Amendment being agreed to. I want to move a consequential Amendment, after the word "annulled" ["That the rule, regulation, or provision may he annulled"], to insert the words "and His Majesty in Council has annulled," and then after the word "provision" ["His Majesty in Council has annulled the rule, regulation, or provision"], to insert the word "it." The provision would then read,
      "All Rules, Regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless and until an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any
      2204
      such Rule, Regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the Rule, Regulation, or provision may be annulled, the Rule, Regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
      That would, in substance, restore it to the original form. It would be necessary not only that one House should pass an Address, but. that His Majesty should, in fact, annul the Regulation on the advice of his Ministers. Consequently, the essential constitutional object which we have in view would be attained. I trust that the Government will accept this Amendment. The Home Secretary all through has held the opinion that the Clause in its original form was right. The Government in the other House have held the same view, and I trust that we shall give their Lordships an opportunity of allowing us to revert in substance to the form that has been in use for a good many years past.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps we had better agree to the Lords Amendment first.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "annulled" ["That the rule, Regulation, or provision may. be annulled"], to insert the words "and unless His Majesty in Council has annulled."
      Question proposed, "That. those words be inserted in the Bill."
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. I understood that Amendments must precede the Question, "That the House doth agree (or disagree) with the Lords in the said Amendment." If that be so, and I understood it was so from your ruling earlier in the day, I take it that it is too late for this Amendment to be moved now. If that objection fails, I beg to submit that you cannot move as a consequential Amendment an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman who moves it describes as wholly altering the Amendment to which it is moved. The Lords have disagreed with what the right hon. Gentleman declares to be the. normal practice. He proposes, by what he calls a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to restore the practice to which their Lordships have dissented. I submit that a consequential Amendment of that kind is not consequential but is contradictory of the decision to which the House has come.
      Mr. SAMUEL: On that point of Order. Cannot the House agree to the Lords Amendment and, as a consequence, make a still further Amendment?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was told that they could not.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I do not know how far this is an Amendment or how far it is a denial or a reversal of the decision to which the House has just come. Of course, it is open to the House to accept an Amendment from the Lords, and then to propose a consequential Amendment to the Bill. I take it that is what this Amendment is.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I submit that is not what this Amendment is. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech stated that he sought by means of this Amendment to reverse the decision to which the Lords have come. He could not do that by simply moving to disagree with the Lords Amendment for reasons within the knowledge of us all, and he therefore sought to do it by adding these words. As the House has already agreed to the Amendment, I submit that it is not in order to convert that agreement into disagreement by making a consequential Amendment.
      Sir G. CAVE: On the point of Order. I am afraid that it is true that having just agreed to the Lords Amendment we are now asked in substance to disagree with it. My right lion. Friend seeks to add words which altogether annul the agreement.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: The House is asked to amend the Bill in the shape in which we now have it. Are we not entitled to so amend the Bill by adding words which differentiate no doubt against the Lords, but which do define the methods in which the Rules are to become operative? I submit that having accepted the Lords Amendment we now have the Bill before us and we can amend it in any direction that fits in with the scheme of the Bill as it is before us. I, therefore, submit that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is in order.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It really comes to this If the effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is to defeat the Lords Amendment, and practically to restore that which the Lords have set aside, then I think he cannot move it. It would be reversing the decision to which we have just come in agreeing with the
      2206
      Lords Amendment. But if while agreeing to the Lords Amendment it suggests a third course, then I think it is open to the House to consider it. I am not in a position to say how far it does that. The Amendment having only just recently been handed in in manuscript, it is exceedingly difficult to make out what are the differences between the Bill as it originally stood, the Bill as it was returned to us by the Lords, and the Bill as it would eventually stand amended by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Since you put the point to me, I must in candour say that the effect of the Amendment is to restore the substance of the Bill to what it originally was, but I thought it was quite in order to do that so long as you had a difference in form and did not definitely disagree with the Lords Amendment, which would have a vital effect upon the Bill, I thought you could do it either by amending the Lords Amendment or by accepting the Lords Amendment and making a subsequent alteration.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Then you are reversing the decision to which the House has just come. The House has just come to a. decision to accept the Amendment which the Lords have sent up. If now we do anything to set that, aside, and to restore the original form of the Bill, I think we shall be going against the decision to which the House has just come.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I must bow to your ruling, but it ought to be put on record that many Members of the House do not agree with this new form, and that the House has not, in fact, agreed to it.
      Lords Message:
      That the Lords insist upon their Amendment—to leave out the words His Majesty in Council may annul the Ride, Regulation, -or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder," and to insert instead thereof the words "the Rule, Regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act"—to which the Commons have disagreed for the following Reason:
      Because it is consequential upon an Amendment made by the Lords—to leave out the word "if" ["if an 'address is presented"], and to insert- instead thereof the words "unless and until" —on which they insist
      Mr. SPEAKER:The Amendment is not on the Paper. It is consequential upon the Lords Amendment on Clause 35.
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." I think it is consequential.
      Mr. SPEAKER: This hangs on the same Amendment to leave out the word "if," and to insert instead thereof the words "unless and until."
      Mr. SAMUEL: Before you put the Question that we agree with the Lords, I can now move my Amendment, because this is the Amendment to which it really relates. It does not appear on the printed Paper; consequently I moved my Amendment at the previous place. I beg now to move that the House doth disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, and in lieu thereof to insert the words I proposed. Is it impossible to move any Amendment to a Lords Amendment on which they insist? I think we have just done so in the case of the alternative vote. Cannot I move an alternative?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; the right hon. Gentleman can move an alternative if it really is an alternative, provided that it does not go back to the original position.
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it possible for anyone on this Amendment to move a decision incompatible with that to which the House came on the last Amendment?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that you ruled me out, Sir, on the last Amendment because I came too late, and the House had already agreed to the Lords Amendment.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: No; because you contradicted it.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Now the House has not yet agreed.
      Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the first Amendment which the Lords insist upon is to leave out the word "if," and to insert the words "unless and until." We have agreed to that. Then comes the next Amendment upon which the Lords insist, to leave out the words from "annulled" to the end of the Clause, and to insert the words "the rule, regulation, or provision shall have effect, as if enacted in this Act." The right hon. Gentleman proposes to accept that, and
      2208
      to move an Amendment to it. We must accept that, because the Lords insist upon it. If the House does not accept that, of course there is a deadlock. It is open to the right hon. Gentleman to accept that and to move some other alternative, if it really is an alternative, and does not replace the Bill in its original position.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am afraid I am not in a position to frame a form of words which will do both what I want and what the Lords want.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in the new Subsection (11), inserted by the Lords in Clause 38 ["leave out the words 'returning officer,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'sheriff'"], for the following Reason:
      "Because they consider that the returning officer can better perform the duties involved."
      Sir G. YOUNGER: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland to give us some explanation about this Amendment, because it was inserted upon my own Motion to meet an objection raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs (Mr. Gulland)—I should like to know why the change is now proposed?
      Mr. MUNRO: It is quite true, as my hon. Friend has said, that when the Bill was last before the House some doubt was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs as to whether it was clear that the returning officer came into being as such even before an election was pending, and remained in office as such even when no election was pending. I then accepted the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) in order to meet that point, and substituted the word "sheriff" for the words "returning officer." That put the matter beyond all doubt. On reconsideration, however, it appears to me perfectly plain—and think I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs that it is plain—that under the Bill the returning officer in Scotland exists independently altogether of the question whether or no there is an election pend-

      2209
      ing. It appears from the Bill that he has duties to perform directly the Bill becomes law, and further duties to perform from time to time afterwards. Inasmuch as that is so, and I am advised that the introduction of the word "sheriff" might cause some complications, I respectfully suggest to the House that this Amendment should be agreed to and that the words "returning officer" should be restored to the Bill instead of the word "sheriff," which was inserted for the reasons I have stated.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords agree to the consequential Amendment made by the Commons in Clause 39 (Application to Ireland), Sub-section (3) ["Provided also that the person who, at the passing of this Act, is town clerk for the county borough of Dublin shall, so long as he holds that office, be the registration officer for the Parliamentary borough of Dublin, and that the last preceding proviso shall not apply in his case"], with the following Amendments: Leave out the word "person," and insert instead thereof the word "persons"; leave out the words "is town clerk," and insert instead thereof the words "are town clerks"; after the word "Dublin" ["county borough of Dublin"], insert, the words "and the county borough of Belfast respectively"; leave out the word "he," and insert instead thereof the word "they"; leave out the words "holds that office," and insert instead thereof the words "hold their respective offices"; leave out the word "officer," and insert instead thereof the word "officers"; after the word "Dublin" ["Parliamentary borough of Dublin"], insert the words "and the Parliamentary borough of Belfast respectively"; leave out the word "his," and insert instead thereof the word "their."
      Lords Message:
      The Lords disagree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the First Schedule [new paragraph inserted after paragraph (15)] for the. following Reason: Because the obligation on the Board of Trade to give this information is unnecessary.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in the Fourth Schedule ["after the words 'personal expenses, to insert the words and the fee, if any, paid to the election agent'"], with the following Amendment: At end insert the words "without reckoning for the purposes of that limit any part of the fee which may have been included in the expenses mentioned above."
      Sir C. CAVE: I beg to move to leave out the words "mentioned above," and to insert instead thereof the words "first above mentioned."
      Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords (to insert a, new Schedule after the Fourth Schedule), with the following Amendments: In Part I., paragraph (11), in lieu of the words left out ["if the returning officer gives special directions to that effect"], to insert the words "unless the returning officer directs to the contrary," and in the same paragraph, in lieu of the words left out ["The returning officer may, if he thinks fit, give a special direction that voting in person is to be allowed at the election, and, if a direction is so given, may, if he thinks fit, limit the days of poll on which votes in person are to be received in pursuance of the direction"], to insert the words "The returning officer may give a special direction that votes shall not be given in person at the election, or that votes may be given in person on certain days of the poll only"; and as a consequential Amendment, in paragraph (13), to leave out the words "in pursuance of a direction of the returning officer."
      Lords Message:
      That the Lords agree to the second Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords (to insert a new Schedule after the Fourth Schedule), with the following Amendment consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18,

      2211
      Sub-section (1), in lieu of the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed; to insert as a footnote to paragraph (32) as amended by the Commons the words "This form will require modification when the transferable vote is not used at the election."
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move to amend the Lords Amendment by inserting, after the word "transferable," the words "or alternative." It is necessary to make that consequential Amendment.
      Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Message:
      The Lords agree to the reinsertion of the Fifth Schedule, as amended by the Commons, with the following Amendments: In Part IL, in pal graph "Dorset," leave out "Poole," and insert "Eastern" (as the name of the division); in paragraph "Glamorgan," after "Llandaff" (as the name of the division), insert the words "and Barry."
      Lords Reason for insisting upon their Amendment to the Seventh Schedule (to leave out paragraph (6),
      "because it is consequential upon the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the first Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18 [Alternative Vote] to which the Commons have disagreed—further considered.
      An Amendment made to the Bill by reinserting paragraph (6) with the exception of the words "(which makes the number of county councillors and the boundaries of the county electoral divisions in London depend on the number of members for Parliamentary boroughs and the boundaries of Parliamentary boroughs and divisions in London.)"
      Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments to Clause 18 [Alternative Vote], Clause 25 [Deposit by Candidates at Parliamentary Elections], and Clause 36 [interpretation], to which the Commons have disagreed,
      "because they are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in Clause 18, upon which they insist—further considered."
      Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
      2212
      This, however, will involve consequential Amendments in the Bill.
      Amendments made to the Bill: In Clause 18, Sub-section (4), after the word "transferable" ["the system or transferable"], insert the words "or the alternative."
      In Clause 25, Sub-section (2), after the word "of" ["under the system of"], insert the words "the alternative or of."
      In Clause 36, re-insert Sub-section (7), paragraph (a), leaving out the words "given so," and inserting instead thereof the words "so given."—[Sir G. Cave.]
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to he assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their Amendments.
      Committee nominated of Sir G. Cave, Sir Willoughby Dickinson, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Scanlan.
      Three to be the quorum.—[Sir G. Cave]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments subsequently reported. and agreed to.

    MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to-the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps it is. right that I should explain that the arrangement that I announced earlier in the Sitting, that the present Sitting should

    2213
    be suspended, cannot be carried out. The Members in another place, not unnaturally, require. a little time to consider the situation and will not meet until to-morrow. In these circumstances this House also will meet at the usual hour to-morrow.

    CATTLE SALES ORDER.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food last week that I would draw his attention to a Regulation which has been made under the Cattle Sales Order, 1917. The Noble Lord who is at the head of the Ministry of Food is at the present moment addressing a meeting in Committee Room No. 14 composed of almost all the Members of this House who are in the Service who are at present attending at this House, and he is explaining to them some of the conditions under which he has made certain Regulations respecting the Cattle Sales Order and other matters of essential food for the people. The facts to which I have to draw attention will probably explain some of the things which are apparently a puzzle to the Noble Lord. For example, on 28th January this year there were offered for sale at Birkenhead Cattle Market 160 head of Irish cattle. On the same date last year there were 2,000 head of Irish cattle offered in the same market. That is a very great discrepancy. It needs explanation, and I shall endeavour to give the House an explanation which those who are concerned in the trade are unable to give the House. It is all due to the new Regulation which was made under the Cattle Sales Order and which came into operation last December. By this Regulation there was adopted by the Ministry of Food the Birkenhead Irish Cattle and Meat Supply Association, which was given powers for the sale, the purchase and the distribution of Trish cattle. This fact in itself has had a most disastrous effect upon the trade. A document has been issued under the authority of the Ministry of Food which declares that this association and the control by this association shall come into operation after Monday, 31st December, 1917. This association is composed of dead meat sellers, cattle salesmen and cattle dealers in Irish cattle, and under the authority of this association there is a committee. I attribute to the operations of that com-
    2214
    mittee the enormous discrepancy which I have pointed out. It would. be at once apparent that this association is composed of people whose interests are at variance with the producers of cattle in Ireland. It is quite possible by this arrangement that you create a close co-operation, a monoply, in fact, I may call it a ring, and the worst feature of that ring is that their interests are opposed to those of the producers of cattle Ireland. They have power to divide cattle into certain classes, and I am informed by those who know all about it that this classification of cattle has operated very much against the proper supply of the markets. The. classifiers are the committee and their decision is to be accepted as final. The association, as I have said, is composed of certain people. It may well be that the cattle salesmen and the dead meat sellers, if it is to their interests to do so, might possibly act in collusion with each other. The retail butcher is prohibited from buying live cattle at the Woodside and Wallasey lairages, and he can only purchase supplies of dead meat from the usual source, the wholesaler. It will, therefore, be seen that the retailer is entirely shut out from this association; so also is the producer of cattle in Ireland. In this connection I should like to read a letter written to a very large firm in Dublin on behalf of the Birkenhead Irish Cattle and Meat Supply Association. This letter was written to Messrs. Beatty and Malone, Dublin:
    In reply to your letter of the 7th inst. I have to inform you that this Association is being formed under the direct control of the Ministry of Food, and that it is incumbens upon you to join in order to do business at Birkenhead."
    There we have a pistol held at the heads of people engaged in this trade. Here is a large firm compelled to join, whether it likes it or not. What are the conditions upon which they can join? Perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Clynes) has never had before him the conditions of membership.
    "The members of this Association will be admitted by the committee of the Association, and will be required to sign an agreement of membership and to observe the rules and regulations of the Association. Entrance fee, £25, subscription £5, guarantee £100."
    So that in the first instance there is a charge of £30 and also a guarantee of £100. Unless you join the Association under these conditions of membership you cannot trade in Birkenhead. Who are eligible for membership?
    "Companies, firms, and persons regularly carrying on business as Irish cattle salesmen, dealers selling

    2215
    their own cattle, and dead meat salesmen having a recognised place of business in Woodside and Wallasey lairages."
    Therefore, it is circumscribed. By these means you exclude a number of persons in Ireland who are most important for this trade, namely, men who produce their own cattle, but who do not trade in cattle—men who have large tracts of land, many of whom are in my own Constituency, and who bring their own cattle to Birkenhead, and there sell them, and have sold them in the past. These men are excluded from the association. They are to be compelled to hand over their cattle to salesmen who may be in collusion with the dead meat sellers, or those who buy them to take away by rail. It is only a few weeks ago that I had a conference with two brothers in my Constituency, who very often sold in one day at Birkenhead no less than £4,000 or £5,000 worth of cattle. They are excluded. There is another man in my Constituency who raises cattle. He is not a trader. He has been in the habit all his life of bringing large quantities of cattle to Birkenhead, and of selling them to the retailers who come to buy there. That man is excluded from this market. He will not be allowed to transact his business there. He cannot join this association, and he will not hand over the cattle which he has raised with so much care on his own land to salesmen who may possibly be in collusion with the dead meat sellers or the man who is going to buy the cattle to put on the land.
    This exclusiveness promotes a monopoly which this House has always set itself against. The general policy of this country has been against monopoly. I shall be told that this restriction upon trade and the other restriction upon trade under the Defence of the Realm Act are justified by the condition of things. There are, I admit, restraints upon trade, but this is a restraint upon the transference of essential articles of food for the people, with the result that I have indicated. The exclusion of this class of men, who largely exist in the county that I represent and in neighbouring counties, should be removed. I tell the representative of the Food Controller that, great as is the discrepancy which I have pointed out, it will be still greater, because I know—I have had a conversation with the Cattle Association of Ireland last Monday week—they will retain their cattle rather
    2216
    than submit to the tyranny of this association, a tyranny under the direction of the Food Controller himself. I know that this position has been arrived at. Having regard to my own opinion of this Regulation, which I think is quite unjustified and unnecessary, and, in fact, vicious, I would encourage the boycotting of Birkenhead as a port of arrival for these Irish cattle and a place for their distribution. How am I justified in assuming that attitude'? Because in the neighbouring city of Manchester there is the old freedom of trade which is now extinguished at Birkenhead. In Leeds, in Norwich, and in other markets the old freedom of trade still exists, although I do not know how long it will be allowed to exist. This much I say, that the men I represent here to-night, the strong, substantial men who have supplied this country with their food, and who are anxious and willing and able to do so at the present time, will transfer their trade to some other port, where at least they will not be faced with these restrictions.
    According to the Regulations which I attack, there is an arrangement which provides that, in order to provide a flat rate covering insurance of cattle, cattle salesmen's commission, railway charges for cattle and of dead meat, and wholesale dead meat salesmen's commissions, the seller on the one hand is to pay to the banks, to the credit. of the committee's account, 10s. per head and the purchaser 20s. per head. I submit that that is an imposition which affects the free sale and purchase of cattle. There can be no doubt that the 10s. to he paid by the seller and the 20s. to be paid by the purchaser comes out of the price of the cattle. It must affect the mind of the purchaser and it must affect the mind of the seller, and it is utterly ridiculous to say that it cannot affect the price of the beef. On the face of it it must come out of the price of the beef. If this flat rate were extended to the whole journey, from the time the beast leaves its stall or its grazing ranch, until it reaches the point of slaughter it would not be so bad, but this 30s. fiat rate is to affect the carriage of the beast only from Birkenhead to its destination. That destination may be the lairage only a few hundred yards away, yet the 30s. is charged. The beast may be bought by the retailer in the next street or the next town, yet this restriction is placed upon the

    2217
    dealer and the producer. I have here a bill furnished to one of my Constituents the other day, a man who, on his immense tracts of land, raises large numbers of fat beasts and has brought them over here and sold them here up to the present, and who dare not now put a footing into the market though he is getting on in years. He has been carrying on these transactions since he was a boy, and he has this bill from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bank, Limited—"Government levy, 10s." That. will have to come out of his pocket, out of his price, and this man is excluded even from the association, or, if he were admitted to the association, it could only be on the payment of a fine of £25, an annual subscription of £5, and a guarantee of £100.
    All this is done under Government Regulations and by the Ministry of Food. and, for the benefit of those who were not here when I began my observations, I may say that it is no wonder that there should be the discrepancy between the 28th January this year, when there were 160 head of Irish cattle offered for sale, and the corresponding date last year, when there were 2,000 head of Irish cattle for sale. I regret that. owing to circumstances over which I had no control I have been unable to present this as a sufficiently consecutive case in a sufficiently comprehensible form, but I trust that I have said enough to show that you are in restraint of trade and against the public policy of this country by issuing this Regulation, creating a monopoly to the detriment of the friendly trade which bas existed 'between England and Ireland in this most essential article of food, beef and mutton, for the people of this country. There is at present in. Ireland, I am glad to say, abundance of cattle, but as regards people who have traded here up to the present, who are well disposed towards the people of this country, and who in their own interests, even if it were for nothing else, are anxious to carry on their trade in the smoothest possible manner, I can scarcely convey to the House the strong feeling that exists among this very important class of our community on account of this very vicious Regulation. I can see no justification for it, I do not know what justification the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) is going to make. I would ask him to take note of what I say, and advise the Food Controller in regard to this very mischievous Regulation—that bad as has been its effect up to the pre-
    2218
    sent, it is likely to be worse, because these people in Dublin and throughout the country will not rest under this Regulation, and Birkenhead and his association will be boycotted and the cattle will be taken elsewhere where there can be freedom of trade as there has been in the past.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the House will allow me, the only reference I will make to Ireland is to express the hope that the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will ask the Food Controller to consider again the question of removing the embargo upon the export of Irish butter. Great damage is done to that trade by that embargo. Butter is far scarcer here than it is in Ireland. By the present arrangement you are taking away from people who are poor butter that is distributed when it arrives here, and you are hitting trade in Ireland which is prejudicial to an established. business like that of the creameries, and bad for the poorer classes in Ireland. I do not pretend to be an expert on Irish questions, and I only make this suggestion because I think that this is another unnecessary Regulation, and I hope that the Food Controller will remove it.
    The question which I want to raise is one to which I need not refer to at any length, because I have already put questions on the subject. To-day I asked and received a written reply to the question whether the Minister of National Service has cancelled the exemption from military service obtained by Mr. MacDougall, Commissioner for Live Stock in Scotland, who is of military age, and three of the six Sub-commissioners who are also of military age? I asked whether he would cancel these exemptions as soon as the Military Service Bill becomes an Act? The answer which I have received says that if these officers are exempted it will be on -the ground that their services in their present capacity are indispensable to the State, and certificates will be issued under Section 2 of the Military Service Acts which will supersede the exemptions previously held; but the Minister of National Service goes on to say the issue of such certificates requires his consent, and he is carefully considering all the circumstances in conjunction with the Minister of Food. There we have the Minister of Food, and I want to press upon. him that he shall not ask for these exemptions. I cannot believe there is

    2219
    any case of indispensability. Scotland is not a country where farmers are as rare as black swans. East Lothian is full of the finest farmers in the world, and in Perthshire and in many other counties there is an abundance of farmers over military age who could very properly give their services at the present time, and are far more experienced in connection with live stock than these gentlemen of military age who, it is suggested, are indispensable. It rests now with the Minister of Food to say whether he is going to press for the exemption of these gentlemen, in which case I may refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that one of them has been refused a renewal of exemption by his own agricultural committee.
    It might be said, what has a Member from the Midlands got to do with this matter? The fact is that a case like this becomes known all over the United Kingdom and prejudices the cause of recruiting. It detracts very much from the special value of an Act like this for combing out the dark places if, when the House of Commons passes an Act for the application of the comb in one Government Department, another Government Department keeps in clover at home five gentleman of military age. These gentlemen did not volunteer before Conscription came in, and when Conscription came in they obtained exemption in the beginning on the ground that their services were indispensable on their farms, but, though they could not leave their farms, they took these posts and draw, one of them, £1,000 a year and the others £500 a year. They can leave their farms to draw salaries. Such a case as this is resented bitterly by men like the one-man business men. There are many of them in my Constituency, and though I admit that the Department concerned is behaving with consideration to them, yet when these men go to the War they have no one on whom they can devolve their business, and they will come back, probably, to a cold hearth and an empty shop with their business gone, while a Government Department is exempting those farmers, those young, strong men of that Scottish breed who make some of the best soldiers in the world.
    It is a most serious matter, and cannot escape attention. I receive sheaves of letters about it. The Scotch papers are
    2220
    full of it. It is regarded all over the country, from Nairn to Nottingham, as a scandal. It is known everywhere, and it is said here is a Government Department conniving at exemptions on the plea that these men are indispensable, when it is perfectly obvious that in many parts of Scotland there are men of far greater experience than these gentlemen, who indeed are not particularly experienced in regard to live stock. This is not the only case in which unfortunate events have occurred. I was told, in answer to a question, that the Department of Agriculture know of no farmers who dismissed their hands above military age and obtained exemptions for their sons of military age in their places. I could myself, in my own experience, travelling about the country, give the Department information regarding cases in which this has happened. This matter is certainly one in which the Ministry of Food must be closely interested if they do not actually have to deal with it. It is folly to keep strong, able, young men on Scotch crofts to scratch the surface, which is called agriculture, and keep them out of the Army or from doing agricultural work elsewhere where they could make something, while on the crofts they can make nothing at all as the crofts hardly feed the people who are on them. The Ministries of Food and Agriculture should recognise that crops and deer forests cannot be scratched and made to smile with crops of corn. I would ask them to act as I have stated in regard to these men, and, above all, I would ask the Minister of Food to abstain from pressing upon the Minister of National Service the exemption of the farmers to whose cases I have referred.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARI to the MINISTRI of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): With respect to the second of the two questions raised by my hon. Friend (Sir J. D. Rees), the case of Mr. MacDougall, being now in the keeping of the National Service Department, will be dealt with by my hon. Friend (Mr. Beck), who may have more up-to-date information than at the moment I possess. I have answered some half-dozen questions put by my hon. Friend, and I can only say, for the Minister of Food, that we have endeavoured in this case, and in the others that may be similar to it, to keep in mind only the public interest, and in no sense to shelter any of the

    2221
    strong, young Scotsmen referred to in the speech of my hon. Friend. The ultimate decision in these matters must rest with some tribunal, and it must be left to them to say finally what is their decision.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the Ministry of Food press for their exemption?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that the view of the Food Controller up to the present has been that it is in the public interest that these men should be retained in their present position, and in view of the food situation the whole country over, and particularly so in regard to the situation as to supplies and distribution, it is essential to have the most competent men for the purpose of increasing our supplies and assisting us in a more skilful and equitable distribution of food. With regard to the point raised as to the Irish butter Regulation, I can well understand that, in the opinion of many people, these Regulations are regarded as unnecessary, but the public Departments in these days must do many things that are found to be unnecessary. These Regulations were not entered into until representations were made from Ireland that Ireland would be depleted of her butter supply, and that it was in the interests of equitable sharing that the available butter under these Regulations should be retained there, and that such surplus as there was for trading might be brought here under the scheme of Regulations and certificates already laid down. With regard to the question of the Irish cattle situation raised by my hon. Friend on the Irish Benches, I can assure him that I should despair of any arrangement whatever being entered into between the Food Ministry and the interests concerned if the promoters of the Ministry of Food were in any case really described by the number of statements which he has made. As to a number of his descriptions as to what takes place, I repudiate, on behalf of the Ministry of Food, the idea that the Ministry of Food is encouraging or is proceeding to establish anything in the nature of a ring. It is not true. Trade in these days, especially in respect to food, is a matter of association and mutual effort, arranged jointly between the Ministry, the trade, the great consuming public, and the different classes of food producers who work on our farms and in other ways produce food so that instead of dealing with small individual
    2222
    traders, the business has to be done to a great extent through associations, and it is impossible for the Ministry of Food to settle each matter directly with every separate large and small trader who has some article which the Government, in the interests of the consumers, may require in bulk. When it is proposed to establish an association it is not in the exclusive or private interests of a circle of individuals, who will ultimately gain personally by what has been done.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: That is the effect of what you have done.
    Mr. CLYNES: And that is exactly what I deny we are doing. I think my hon. Friend will agree that he has overdrawn his descriptions of what we are proposing or purporting to do in the case of the supplies of Irish cattle. Our object is not to repress food supplies, not to divert them—if that were physically possible in the case of Ireland—to other countries; our object is to take such steps as have already been adopted to encourage supplies further, and to increase those supplies in view of the present and prospective shortage from which we may suffer, But we are bound to direct those supplies through a channel of better organisation, and by means of the associations that have been suggested. The lion. Member referred to the charge of 30s. which is suggested to be paid as between the seller and the buyer. The seller is to be charged 10s. and the buyer 20s. That sum of 30s. which is charged is not indefensible taxation on, those who sell or buy in the first instance; it is a payment corresponding to the payment now incurred. between the seller and the buyer, and it is to cover charges for labour, tolls, in live-stock markets, distribution, and other charges, which have to come out of the 30s. At Birkenhead the cattleman charges take the place of the auctioneers' charges. A very considerable item covered by this 30s. is the charge for insurance against possible condemnation of animals suffering from tuberculosis. There are the various items covered by the transactions as between the buyer and the private owner, that is, the seller of the cattle. They are necessary and unavoidable, and in this respect it cannot be said that the charge is another injustice to Ireland, because this provision already exists in the English cattle markets. The English seller of a head of cattle in this country can now dispose of

    2223
    cattle without placing the cattle, so to speak, in the pen of the Government, and meeting charges to the extent of 30s.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Why should 30s. be flat rate to be applied only to the cost and expenses of carriage only on this side? Why riot also before the cattle arrive at Birkenhead?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have already pointed out that the charges at Birkenhead on this side are also incidental to the Irish side. The charge is intended to cover the deal as between the seller and the buyer. Steps have already been taken in England—
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from the statement he has made, will he allow me to read a paragraph from his own Regulation?
    "In the above scheme both the seller and purchaser, in addition to paying all the other expenses connected with their particular branch of business as heretofore."
    Mr. CLYNES: That does not dispose of my statement; there are certain and numerous charges in addition to those I have already named. The circle which has been established by the Government in this matter was to some extent broken through during the month of December last. Had that not been the case, it is highly probable that the buying by deadweight as well as live-weight would have had to be agreed to. In addition to the Committee which it is proposed to set up, the Birkenhead cattle salesmen and the meat salesmen have been authorised to form an association. That is the body announced by my hon. Friend. We suggest that the association should be established at Birkenhead by those who have been and were now doing business there, so that more effective control may be exercised over the operations of the various trades. Any cattle dealer or salesman can become a member of this association. These associations have become a practical need in these commercial and trading transactions, and I am certain that Irishmen have long ago learned the value of such associations, not only in trade, but politics. With regard to the charge of £25, it is to cover the running expenses of the association; and the guarantee of £100 is required by the Ministry of Food for its financial protection in the event of anything going wrong on the financial side. It is contemplated that the association, when formed, will act as agents of the Ministry of Food, and
    2224
    the guarantee of £100 is not thought to be excessive, in view of the circumstances. As to the constitution of the association, and the question of membership, the matter has not yet been definitely settled by the Ministry of Food. Apparently the Irish cattle dealers are not satisfied with the suggested arrangement, but nothing will be finally settled by the Ministry of Food without consultation and in a spirit of give and take—
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I am sorry to interrupt so often. Were the Irish cattle trade consulted before this Order was issued?
    Mr. CLYNES: I could not, for the moment say, but I am certain that since it was discovered that the regulations were not satisfactory, efforts were made to consult with the dealers and to arrange a conference with them, and in the meanwhile no action has been taken to apply these Regulations. Before finally deciding on the present arrangements we invited the Irish cattle dealers to send a deputation to London to lay their views before the Minister of Food on this important matter. This is a business which we thought could best be settled by technical men who would have regard to the immediate present interests of the consuming public in this country as well as those of Ireland. I am sorry to say our approaches to the parties concerned to send a deputation were met in the first instance by a refusal. Whether that refusal was dictated by motives which to some extent have been stated by the hon. Member opposite, I cannot say, but we felt it our duty to press them to confer with us, and it was therefore decided by the Food Minister, as our chief desire was to settle matters amicably and fairly, to send, as his representative, competent mere who have long had in their keeping the arrangements applying to England and are well versed with the Irish situation, and send them over to Ireland, to confer with the interests affected before any decision was reached. I should like to make it plain that we want to get into touch with the responsible cattle dealers who are resident in Ireland, and if it is necessary at a later stage to have a further discussion with outside buyers of Irish cattle, who are for the most part resident in England, we shall invite them to a special conference in London. We have no doubt that as a result of these meetings it will be possible to come to a satisfactory

    2225
    settlement. I wish the House to understand that at the moment there has not been any arbitrary decision come to. We are anxious to discuss and amicably settle these matters, our object being to increase the supplies of food by mutual goodwill as between the buyer in England and the seller in Ireland.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question as to the arrangements for dealing with Irish cattle traders? Is it the case that the cost of the carriage on live stock from various parts of Scotland to the markets in Glasgow is borne by the Government, while the whole cost of sending cattle from Ireland to markets in this country has to be borne by the owners of Irish cattle?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not quite clear on points of detail as to the comparisons between England and Ireland, but I have given the House a general assurance that there are the same charges already in operation in England as it is proposed to apply to Ireland, and that the charge of 30s. per head in both cases covers exactly the corresponding items of expenses in the two countries.
    Mr. SCANLAN: But this is a definite question. I take it that in England and Scotland the Government defray out of Government funds the cost of the transit of cattle from the farm to the market. There is no cost to the seller. But in Ireland the whole cost of sending the cattle from the farm by Irish railways and by cross-Channel steamers has to be borne by the seller. If this is so, and I have good reason to think it is, will the hon. Gentleman, if he sees the injustice of it, take steps to provide a remedy?
    Mr. C LYNES: This certainly is a question which I cannot be expected to answer without notice. I will get the facts and let my hon. Friend know.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) to say a word about the case of Mr. MacDougall, which has been on many occasions before this House. Mr. MacDougall, as I understand it, is an agriculturist of military age, but of great ability in securing live stock for the distribution plans of the Ministry of Food. It is perfectly true that the Minister of National Service has a right to refuse military exemption to Mr. MacDougall or any other person covered by exemption, if he be of military age, given him by a Government Department. We are prepared to take the full responsibility of exercising the right to remove such exemption when we are satisfied it is proper it should be removed. On the other hand, my hon. Friend must realise that in so vital a matter as the food supply of the people it is really almost impossible to expect us to entirely overrule the Minister who is carrying out food control, and therefore, though the question is not yet decided, although we have made the fullest representation to the Noble Lord the Minister for Food, I feel that if he and his Ministry deliberately state that Mr. MacDougall and the other Live Stock Commissioner are essential to the work which the Ministry of Food has in hand, it would be extremely difficult for the Ministry of National Service to refuse exemption, because, after all, the responsibility is almost greater than we, with only a partial knowledge of the exact facts, can be expected to take.
    House adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Eight o'clock.