Commons Sitting of 13 May 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nitrate Railways Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed.
Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords],
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill [Lords],
Red Cross and Order of Saint John Bill [Lords]
Read a second time, and committed.
Motherwell Water (Supplementary Supply) Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Motherwell Water (Supplementary Supply)," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the first time; and ordered (under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act) to be read a second time, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Northumberland (Wansbeck Division), in the room of the Right Hon. Charles Fenwick, deceased. — [Mr. Gulland.]
BANK AMALGAMATIONS.
Cpoy presented of Report of the Treasury Committee thereon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Sixty-second Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MEMBERS HOLDING OFFICE UNDER THE CROWN.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st February; Mr. Llewelyn Williams]; to lie upon the Table.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving Particulars of Cases in which persons have been reinstated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarters ended 30th September, 1917, 31st December, 1917, and 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
Copy presented of Fourth Report of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) appointed under the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPLOSIONS (SPRINGHILL COLLIERY, AYRSHIRE).
Copy presented of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Explosion of Firedamp which occurred at Springhill Colliery, Ayrshire, on 18th July, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (ANTHRAX) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire and report as to precautions for preventing danger of infection by anthrax in the manipulation of wool, goat hair, and camel hair. Vol. I— -Report of the Disinfection Sub-Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (LICENCES) BILL.
    Sir EDWARD CARSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reintroduce the Imports and Exports (Licences) Bill immediately?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): It is certainly intended to reintroduce the Bill this Session, but I am not at the moment able to fix a definite date.

  RAILWAY FARES (CHILDREN).
  Mr. A. K. LOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will
  4
  except from the 50 per cent. increase of railway fares the tickets for children going to or returning from school; and, if not willing to make this exception generally, will he do so subject to an, income limit of the parents or guardians responsible for the education of the children.
  Sir A. STANLEY: The claims of school children for exemption from the increase in railway fares have been considered very carefully, but I regret that it has not been found practicable to make a concession in their favour. The issue of season tickets to day scholars at reduced rates has not been discontinued.

  CARL ZEISS, LONDON, LIMITED.
  Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the business and factory of Carl Zeiss, Limited, optic manufacturers, was in 1917 sold by orders of his Board to another firm of optic manufacturers, Messrs. Ross, Limited; whether, since the outbreak of war, the management of Zeiss, Limited, was taken over by a Mr. Thomas Charles, of Barnet, who alone was able to carry out the method of graticuling field glasses; if so, will he say what sum was given by Messrs. Ross for acquiring Zeiss, Limited; do they employ Mr. Charles; and, if not, what compensation has been paid him by Messrs. Ross?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The factory, machinery, and stock of Carl Zeiss, London, Limited, were sold in the winding up of the business under the Trading With the Enemy Acts to Messrs. Ross, Limited, the highest bidders, for £10,500. After the outbreak of war the business was carried on by Mr. Charles until it was sold; he is not employed by Messrs. Ross, and, so far as I am aware, has not been paid compensation by them.
  Major NEWMAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think Mr. Charles has been rather hardly treated? He lost his own business and went into this, and now he has got nothing.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I have no information on which to base an answer.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CHEVRONS).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether men in the

  5
  mercantile marine are entitled to wear the chevrons for service; and, if not, whether any arrangement is to be made?
  Sir A. STANLEY: Under the recent Admiralty Order, officers and men of the mercantile marine serving under special naval engagements in His Majesty's ships and auxiliaries are eligible for chevrons for sea service during the War.

  COAL CONTROL (RETURNS).
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the number of complicated and unnecessary returns now being asked for by the Coal Controller, to the waste of paper thereby entailed, the strain put upon the clerical staff of the collieries, and the cost to the public Exchequer in personnel and buildings which will be incurred in order to deal with them, and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The Controller of Coal Mines is fully aware of the strain under which clerical staffs of colliery undertakings are working, and every care is taken to avoid asking for any information which is not really essential.

  MARITIME CUSTOMS, TSING-TAU.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement was entered into on 6th August, 1915, between Japan and China whereby the Chinese Maritime Customs at Tsing-tau were to be reopened; and, if so, on what date the reopening became operative?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): Our Vice-Consul at Tsing-tau reported that the Custom House at Tsing-tau was reopened on 1st September, 1915. A copy of this Report was sent to the hon. Member on 28th March, 1916, by direction of my predecessor in office.

  GERMAN PEACE OFFENSIVE.

    LORD R. CECIL'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. PONSONBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the
    6
    Minister of Blockade was acting under instructions when, at the reception of American correspondents last week, he referred to the possible offer of peace terms on the part of Germany as a peace offensive to be directed very largely against Great Britain, thereby implying that whatever the nature of the terms might be they would be rejected; and whether this represents the attitude of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BALFOUR: My Noble Friend usually meets American correspondents once a week, and discusses with them subjects in which they are interested. It was, I believe, a telegram from Washington, which appeared on the morning of the interview, which suggested its subject. I fully approve of what he said. The hon. Member is of opinion that my Noble Friend's statement about the coming peace offensive implied that whatever the nature of the German terms might be they would be rejected. The train of reasoning which leads him to this conclusion is, however, obscure, and I am unable to follow it. I may perhaps add that the references which my Noble Friend is supposed to have made to the presence of a German emissary in this country in the shape of a distinguished neutral are wholly imaginary.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that offensives are generally resisted, and that is why I put that part of the question? I give notice that on Thursday, on the Adjournment, I shall raise the question of the repeated failures of our diplomacy.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Minister of Blockade informed him of his intention before giving his interview to the Press on 3rd May, in which he stated that he anticipated an early movement for peace from Germany which this country ought to reject?
    Mr. BALFOUR: As far as I remember, he did not. Why should he?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman prevent the Minister for Blockade making these unauthorised statements, in view of the fact that on the previous occasion on which he did so the statements he made had to be repudiated by the Foreign Secretary himself?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not agree with the hon. Member's history, and in my opinion

    7
    the interviews which my Noble Friend has with these correspondents are convenient and useful for the public service.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon Gentleman think it proper for an Undersecretary, on his own, without consultation with his superior, to make important announcements in regard to policy?
    Mr. BALFOUR: There was no announcement about policy that I remember To what does the hon. Member refer?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman treated this interview as he treated Count Hertling's speech— that is, he never read it?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I have read it, and I suppose the hon. Member has. I have not discovered an announcement of policy. Has he?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.
    Mr. BALFOUR: What is it?
    Mr. SNOWDENrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will answer on Thursday.

  PERSIA.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information that the Persian Minister at The Hague has presented a Note declaring that the Persian Government declares as null and void all treaties and agreements imposed on Persia, especially the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907; and whether he can make a statement on this subject?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have seen a report to this effect in the Press, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Persia is not a party to the treaty to which he refers.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian Government has made any communication to His Majesty's Government, such as can conveniently be made public, regarding the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 or other treaties between the two Governments?
  Mr. BALFOUR: We have informed the Persian Government that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to regard the 1907 Convention, in so far as it applies to Persia, as being in suspense. The Persian
  8
  Government have not approached us in regard to any treaties existing between the two Governments.

  CENTRAL AFRICA.

    AGREEMENTS DURING WAR.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will enumerate the agreements, treaties, or undertakings affecting Central Africa into which His Majesty's Government have entered since the outbreak of war?
    Mr. BALFOUR: On 19th September, 1914, His Majesty's Government and the French Government assured the Belgian Government that they would support Belgium in every way in securing the integrity of her colonial possessions.
    On 3rd February, 1915, an agreement was arrived at between Great Britain and Belgium relating to the Congo-Uganda Boundary from Mount Salimio to the Congo Nile watershed.
    On 29th April, 1916, His Majesty's Minister at Havre addressed to the Belgian Government a note to the effect that His Majesty's Government adhered to the declaration made by the French Government to the Belgian Government on that day, pledging their support in the negotiations for peace for the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Belgian Congo, and to obtain for that colony a special indemnity to cover the damage suffered during the War.

  ICELAND (COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representatives of the Government of Iceland are, or have been, in this country with the object of renewing a commercial agreement or making new arrangements for communications between Iceland and this country; and whether a satisfactory conclusion has been reached?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Delegates from the Icelandic Government are now in this country to negotiate an agreement with His Majesty's Government and the Allied Governments where by it is proposed that Iceland shall secure her essential supplies in return for the sale to the Allies of Icelandic produce required by them. It is hoped that a satisfactory arrangement will be concluded at an early date.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES (ALLIED COUNTRIES).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he receives from British Ministers or consular authorities in Allied countries periodic statements as to the number of certificates of exemption from military services granted to British subjects of military age in their various countries; and whether he can state how many such exemptions have been given by the British authorities in Russia, Italy, and Japan, respectively?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information as to the number of exemptions given to British subjects in Russia and Italy. As regards Japan, with which country there is no military service convention, exemption certificates as such are not issued.

    UNITED STATES (MILITARY SERVICE CONVENTION).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a military convention with the United States has been concluded or is in contemplation whereby Conscription for military service may be enforced on the subjects of either country in the other's territories; and, if not, whether and for how long negotiations have been pending on this subject?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; a military service convention between this country and the United States of America was signed at Washington on 19th February last. The instrument, however, must be ratified by the King and the President of the United States before it becomes operative, and, as the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the President of the United States may only ratify a treaty with the consent of the Senate, which body is still considering the convention. It is, however, hoped that the convention may be ratified shortly.

    ARMY RESERVE MEN (EXAMINATIONS).
    Mr. WINGasked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that men of the Army Reserve are being called up for medical examination, that, in consequence, they are losing time and wages at the pit and other occupations, in some instances losing several days, especially men from the Houghton-le-Spring Division of Durham; if he will say what provi-
    10
    sion is made for such men in the way of remuneration and to whom do they apply; and if arrangements will be made for such not being called until medical examination can be promptly made and thus prevent the inconvenience of long waiting and other war-time difficulties connected with absence from home?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I understand that every endeavour is being made to secure prompt examination. The men should have received pay while detained, but some difficulty appears to have occurred locally in the payment, and fresh instructions are being issued. I am, however, having urgent inquiries made, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    YOUNG MEN (EXEMPTIONS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether young men of twenty-nine and thirty of military fitness are being exempted for the reason that they are in charge of drapery and fancy goods departments of warehouses; and, if so, is he aware that men of forty-seven to fifty years, married and in some cases with young families, can readily be got with knowledge of such trades, and, in any case, discharged soldiers who have done their share of the fighting could be got with such knowledge?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Exemptions of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, as far as they exist, have been granted by tribunals after inquiry into the circumstances of each case. Such exemptions constantly come under review, and in all such cases National Service representatives bring to the notice of tribunals relevant facts of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WATT: In the review to which the hon. Gentleman refers were the facts stated in this question, as to young men being retained and older men taken, considered?
    Mr. BECK: If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind I will be very glad to hear them, but, as he knows, this is one of these cases which are left to the tribunal, and I assume that decisions are taken in accordance with the facts brought to their notice.
    Sir H. CRAIK: On the question of reference to the Ministry of National Service, are these cases reviewed by some body superior to the tribunal?
    Mr. BECK: They are constantly being reviewed. We review all these cases quite regularly.

    TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if the trade union officials who have been exempted through the Trade Union Committee are still protected; and whether trade union officials of older age who are now liable to be called up for military service, many of whom arc occupying positions of great responsibility, will have their cases considered by the same committee or whether other means are open to them to claim exemption on account of the nature of their work?
    Mr. BECK: There has been no change in the position of the trade union officials referred to with regard to exemption from military service, except that in February last an Instruction was issued under which names of full-time executive or organising officials and district secretaries of trade unions might be submitted for special exemption, and also certain branch secretaries of the higher ages and lower medical grades. Before any alteration is made in the existing Instruction which would affect men made liable to service by the raising of the military age, due notice will be given.

    WIDOWS (ONLY SURVIVING SON).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he will give a ruling on the practice of the Department in interpreting the concession that the only surviving son of a widow who has lost one or more sons in the War shall not be called up for military service; whether the National Service representative on the Carnarvonshire County Appeal Tribunal was justified in maintaining that the concession did not apply to the case of a widow who gave birth to a son three months after the death of the father, which child is now two months old, the only other child of. the widow being a son of military age who is the sole support of his mother; whether the concession applies in the case of the only surviving son of a widower who has lost two sons in the War, one seriously wounded and another in the hospital, and a fifth now serving in Mesopotamia; and
    12
    whether the National Service representative was justified in maintaining that the term, "the only surviving son of a widow," did not include the case of a widower in the case indicated?
    Mr. BECK: I assume that the concession to which the hon. Member refers is the provision in the Proclamation of the 20th April permitting application for exemption to be made to a tribunal on the part of a man decertified by the Proclamation if he is the last surviving son of a widow of whom at least one son has died as a result of wounds received in, or sickness contracted by, service with the forces during the present War, The limits of this provision are clearly defined, and, although I recognise that cases of inevitable hardship will occur outside the scope of the provision, I regret that it is not possible to extend its application beyond the limits laid down, which were decided upon after full consideration of the difficulties involved.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in the Press on Saturday of the only surviving son of a widow being taken because of the birth of another son some months ago, and does the National Service Department accept that decision?
    Mr. BECK: I have seen the case, and unfortunately it has been my duty to see many most distressing cases, but as regards the last part of the question it is a matter for the decision of the Government as a whole. The emergency is very great. This method of recruiting men was put into effect only after what happened in France, and my right hon. Friend has to advise the Government that, distressing though it may be, men cannot be obtained unless the strictest regard is paid to the rule which has been laid down.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that the representative of the Ministry of National Service in the case mentioned has contended that a child two months old must be regarded as disqualifying the widow from the protection given as regards the only surviving son?
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the Government explain how a child two months old is going to be able to support the widowed mother?
    Mr. BECK: It is not a question of support. That should be dealt with by separation allowances. The Regulation is an endeavour to prevent an entire family

    13
    being wiped out. I agree that cases of distressing hardship are brought to our notice, but as the War lengthens it brings ever greater sorrow in its train. This we must face if the War is to be won.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Italian Government has just made a series of wide exemptions dealing with such cases?
    Mr. BECK: I am not aware of it.
    Sir E. CARSON: Has any calculation been made to see what would be lost to the Army by trying to meet such extremely grave and hard cases?
    Mr. BECK: Yes. We have endeavoured to make calculations. There are very few data available, but we do believe that once you open this door wider— it is open to a small extent already— it will mean many thousands of cases.
    Mr. ROCH: Can the hon. Gentleman state what the figure of his calculation was?
    Mr. BECK: I could not possibly do that.

    WAR MUNITION VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister for National Service if he is aware that London workmen who are temporarily resident in Dundee, as War Munition Volunteers, and in receipt of absence pay as being permanently resident in London, are being called up by the Munition Area Dilution Officer of Dundee, who has informed them that the notices will be postponed for one week to enable them to return home, but that they must return to Dundee, both journeys being undertaken at the men's own expense; whether it was understood that War Munition Volunteers would, upon the termination of their employment, be returned to the place where they were originally engaged; and whether, in such and similar cases, he will direct that the men shall be permitted to return to their homes and be called up from London?
    Mr. BECK: War Munitions Volunteers engaged on munitions work are called up for service by the Munitions Area Recruiting Officer of the area in which they are registered when released for military service by the Ministry of Munitions or the Admiralty, as the case may be. As my light hon. Friend is aware, the agreement made by a War Munition Volunteer on enrolment is made with the Minister of Munitions, but I am informed by the
    14
    Ministry of Munitions that it is not part of the agreement that a War Munition Volunteer, on the termination of his employment, should be returned to the place where he was engaged, but that cases are dealt with on their merits. I am making inquiries as to the cases referred to in Dundee, and I have drawn the attention of the Ministry of Munitions to the points raised by my right hon. Friend.

    MIDDLE-AGED RECRUITS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether the medical examination and classification of men of middle age has so far enabled him to form an opinion as to the percentage of men fit for military service of a useful character that will be obtained; and whether, until the total number of young men that the protected industries will give him has been ascertained, and the necessary quota of recruits obtained from Ireland, he intends proceeding with the examination or calling up of the middle-aged recruit in Great Britain?
    Mr. BECK: The number of medical examinations of the class of men referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is not yet sufficient to enable any definite conclusions to be drawn. The results of such examinations are being carefully observed, but I ought to state that it is not at present considered advisable that any announcement should be made publicly as to the results of these examinations. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Government has no intention of departing from the policy which was fully explained when the Bill was before the House.

    PROTECTED OCCUPATIONS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service whether the call up of the younger men from protected occupations is proceeding satisfactorily; whether the result to date is in accordance with expectation; whether large numbers are presenting themselves before their call, especially in the coal-mining areas; and has he any statement to make as to the percentage of recruits which are being passed as fit for active service?
    Mr. BECK: The calling up for service of the men available and released from protected occupations, that is from occupations dealt with under the Schedule of Protected Occupations, M.M. 130 (Revised), is now proceeding as rapidly as the circumstances permit. It is not in the

    15
    public interest that details of the numbers of or medical categories of recruits being obtained from any particular source should be published at this juncture. Considerable numbers of men who are available for recruitment under the revised Schedule do enlist voluntarily. The same remarks apply to the men who have been released from the coal mines.

    DENTISTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that dentists under thirty years of age have been exempt from military service on a finding of the Central Tribunal that there was a shortage of dentists for the needs of the people; whether, under the new Act, older dentists who possess the medical qualification but have never practised medicine are being pressed into the Royal Army Medical Corps; and, if so, will he explain why the older men are being taken first?
    Mr. BECK: The administrative arrangement to which my hon. Friend refers does not confer exemptions on dentists under thirty years of age, but lays down certain conditions on which dental practitioners may in proper cases be exempted by tribunals. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third part, therefore, does not arise.

  GOVERNMENT STAFFS (RECRUITMENT).
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have now considered the interim Report of Sir John Bradbury's Committee; and, if so, whether any Regulations dealing with the recruitment of temporary staffs, based on this Report, will be made compulsory on all Government offices?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I cannot as yet add anything to my reply of the 2nd May.

  ROUMANIA (PEACE TREATY).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the terms of the Treaty of Peace signed by Roumania have appeared in the Press;
  16
  whether the terms as published are authentic; whether the Allies and the British Government recognise this treaty; whether it is their intention to strive, with the consent of Roumania, for a revision of these terms; and whether Roumania still remains in alliance with this country or has resumed the status of neutrality?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no reason to doubt that the terms as published are authentic. As soon as the treaty has been formally ratified, Roumania will cease to be an Allied State and will assume the status of a neutral. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned to him on the 11th of March last.

  GERMAN DOMINATION.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has information concerning the recent coup d'état in the Ukraine; whether he is aware that the German General Eichorn has overthrown the Rada Government and set up a Government of Russians of the Octobrist party, which has issued a manifesto of adulation towards the Central Powers and denouncing the Allies; and whether the British Government or the Allies will use any opportunity that may arise to defeat the Octobrist propaganda and restore to the Ukraine the right of self-determination?
  Mr. BALFOURI have seen the reports which have appeared in the Press regarding the recent events in the Ukraine. His Majesty's Government will, of course, do all in their power there and elsewhere to defeat German schemes of domination?
  Mr. KING: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on Thursday next.

  EMPEROR OF AUSTRIA'S LETTER.
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the letter of the Emperor Charles of Austria of 21st March, 1917, containing proposals for peace on the basis of the restoration and compensation of Belgium, the re-establishment of Serbia with an outlet on the Adriatic, and the support of the just claims of France in Alsace-Lorraine,

  17
  was communicated by the Allies to the Governments of the United States or Belgium or Russia before it was rejected; (2) whether he will make a statement as to the reports that the Emperor Charles of Austria followed up his letter of 31st March, 1917, with a second letter in which he stated that he was convinced that he could induce Germany to make peace provided that the territorial demands of the Allies were restricted to Alsace-Lorraine, and that the Prime Minister of this country was favourably inclined to further negotiations, but that these were rejected on account of the opposition of Italy and France?
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the documents submitted by M. Clemenceau to the committees of the French Parliament in connection with the rejection of the. peace proposals made by the Emperor Karl included a letter from M. Poincaré to Prince Sixte in which the President demanded that France should not only have Alsace-Lorraine, but the frontier of 1814, and a guarantee in regard to the left bank of the Rhine; in view of the fact that he has stigmatised as a mare's nest the suggestion that France was making these annexationist claims, will he make a statement on the subject; (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the documents communicated to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Parliament disclose that the Prime Minister at the time of the peace proposals made by the Emperor Karl contended that they should be considered; why, under the circumstances, the Government has sought to create the belief in the public mind that no opportunity for the opening up of negotiations in conformity with British war aims has yet been presented; (3) whether he can state the annexationist claims made by Baron Sonnino which were the main cause of the rejection of the proposal for the opening up of negotiations made by the Emperor Karl; (4) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that M. Clemenceau has submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee and to the Army and Navy Committee of the French Parliament the documents relating to the proposals for peace negotiations made by the Emperor Karl of Austria; and will he immediately submit these documents to the House of Commons in open or secret Session?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have already stated that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, it is inconsistent with the public interest to discuss this subject by question and answer; but I have also promised to put the House in immediate possession of any official statement issued by the French Government, which is now considering the whole matter, and which is the Government primarily concerned.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any official statement issued by the French Government will in any case be published in the newspapers?
  Mr. BALFOUR: If that is so, perhaps the hon. Member will be content.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: In regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, does he mean to say that the people of this country have no right to any information as to the reasons for a decision which is leading to the loss of millions of lives?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No. What I said was that in my opinion it was inconsistent with the public interest to discuss the subject by question and answer.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman affirm or deny the statement in the French Press, published in this country, that the Prime Minister supported the proposals made by the Emperor Karl giving a prospect of the opening of peace negotiations?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I say it is inconsistent with the public interest to discuss this by question and answer.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement has appeared in the French Press on the authority of M. Ribot, the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and why should not this country be informed, as the French public are, as to the attitude of the Prime Minister?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member says it has appeared in the Press. If it appeared in the public Press that was all that was required.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not make a statement as to this intimation which has appeared also in British newspapers?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot lay down what on some future occasion may be discussed in Debate; but I do say, and say quite

  19
  distinctly, that I do not think the public interest is served by dealing with this very difficult and delicate matter by question and answer.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: In regard to Question 20, has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made in the French Press and repeated here that the Prime Minister supported the proposal made by the Emperor Karl, and that M. Sonnino opposed it on the ground of not fulfilling the annexationist claims of Italy? Can he say what are these claims which stand in the way of making peace?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question is covered by the right hon. Gentleman's original answer.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the agreement recently concluded between France and Germany for the internment in a neutral country of non-commissioned officers and privates of the French Army who have been prisoners of war in Germany for more than eighteen months; whether any similar agreement has been concluded between this country and Germany, or whether any and what steps have been taken to negotiate one; and whether, if the German Government have refused to release British private soldiers on the same terms as those of our Allies, the Government is prepared, by way of reprisals, to reduce the rations of German prisoners in our hands to the German standard, and to employ them in the same proximity to the firing line as they employ ours?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I understand that an agreement has been concluded between French and German delegates in Switzerland, but, as we have not got the text, I can make no statement for the moment.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (SMALL HOLDINGS).
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Agriculture -whether discharged soldiers are invited to apply
    20
    for small holdings or for training colonies when obtaining their discharge; and whether arrangements will be made with the Army authorities for each soldier on obtaining his discharge to be given a printed leaflet giving particulars of existing facilities and requiring him to state his agricultural experience and whether he desires to settle on the land?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY Of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): Soldiers at present being discharged are not specifically invited to apply for holdings on the colonies set up under the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916. The scheme has, however, been widely announced, considering the small number of settlers who can be provided for. If the Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Bill becomes law the Board will take steps to make the extended scheme fully known. In reply to the latter part of the question, the Board understand that the Army Council are preparing booklets, which will contain information as to the colonies, for issue to soldiers on demobilisation. By such means the Board will bring all facilities for settlement under the scheme before ex-Service men, but they cannot undertake to insist that each one shall state whether he wishes to settle on the land or not.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any discharged soldiers get small holdings?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I answered that question the other day.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How many?
    Sir R. WINFREY: There are twenty already on small holdings and there are twenty-three men whose claims are now being considered, and who are expected to be on the land before long.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many discharged soldiers there are, and what proportion these numbers bear to the whole?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of questions of that kind.

    HORSE MORTALITY, LEICESTERSHIRE.
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can explain the mortality among horses belonging to the Food Production Department in Leicestershire; whether the hay and straw were supplied by the

    21
    Army authorities; and whether he is aware that it has been alleged that the hay and straw used were of bad quality and proved unfit for use, and that on the 6th April, 1918, the manager of Ashby Mill reported that 6 tons of chaff and 5 tons of straw had been received from the Government unfit for use?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I understand that the deaths of nine horses belonging to the Department in Leicestershire were probably in some measure due to, or were accelerated by, the inferior quality of the forage supplied to them by the Army Service Corps. The statements in the last part of the question appear to be correct. I may say that immediately upon the discovery that the forage supplied was unfit for use, steps were taken to obtain forage from another source, and that the arrangements for dealing with the feeding of these horses appear to be now satisfactory.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the Board of Agriculture make arrangements with the War Office to allow the representatives of the Food Production Department to make local purchases for local requirements when emergency arises?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I should like notice of that question.

    POULTRY.
    Mr. A. K. LOYDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has been able to take any and, if so, what steps for obtaining and making available for poultry keepers a supply of buckwheat seed?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Arrangements have been made through the Royal Commission on Wheat Supplies for the purchase in France of 100 tons of buckwheat seed. The seed will, on arrival in this country, be sold to a number of selected agents for resale, on the condition that it is sown for the purpose of providing poultry food.

    MILK.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if the Report of the Committee appointed to deal with the production and distribution of milk will, when made, be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether, in view of the importance of the subject and the dangers of monopoly, opportunity will be given to the House to consider the Report before action is taken upon it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The Sub-committee specially appointed to consider the question of milk distribution in Great Britain has passed a series of resolutions on the subject of more effective control, and these have been submitted in the form of a draft scheme by the Committee, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth is chairman. I should like to have an opportunity of considering this scheme before expressing any opinion on the points raised in the question.

    CONFECTIONERY.
    Mr. WINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his recent Order re regulation of the sale of confectionery being reserved for the trade depending on the sale of same debars the sale of the same in cinemas; and, if not, will he say why the Order does not so extend?
    Mr. CLYNES: The effect of the Order is to prevent the sale of sweetmeats in cinemas, unless the contract for sale is in the hands of a person entitled to registration under the Order.

    TEA.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether co-operative societies 'are to be allowed to retail tea at 2s. 8d. per 1b. and give a dividend to buyers which reduces the net price to 2s. 6d., whilst private traders are forbiden to retail tea at less than 2s. 8d. per lb.; and, seeing that the effect of such a privilege will be to induce customers of private traders to register with co-operative societies for their future tea supplies when an official rationing scheme is introduced, what steps he pro poses to take in the matter?
    Mr. CLYNES: Co-operative societies, in common with other traders, are required to retail tea at 2s. 8d. per 1b. The payment of a dividend to the members of a co-operative society is not thought to affect the position inasmuch as that dividend represents the profit earned on the total purchases of members and not merely on their purchases of tea.
    Mr. LOUGH: When 10 per cent. Is given back to the customer has not that the effect of selling tea at 3d. per 1b. or, at all events, 2d. per 1b., under the controlled price, while other traders are prevented from doing anything of the kind?
    Mr. CLYN ES: I did not say that. I said the dividend paid to members of co-operative societies corresponds to the profits which the private trader receives. If the private trader wishes to hand back to his customers any of that profit, there is nothing to prevent his doing so.
    Mr. PETO: Can the private trader, who sells at 2s. 8d. a lb., hand over 20 per cent. discount on that price to the customer?
    Mr. CLYNES: I know of nothing to interfere with any private trader offering back anything to the public.
    Mr. PETO: In that ease, would it not enable the private trader to undersell the controlled price?
    Mr. CLYNES: No; it is only trying to induce the private traders to hand back any excess profit to the public.
    Mr. LOUGH: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department issued a Supplementary Order only last week to prevent private dealers from selling under 2s. 8d. a 1b. in any circumstances whatever?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes; but that is a very different point from that raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peto).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the Food Controller has issued instructions to the Tea Control Committee to allot an increase of 50 per cent. in the weekly distribution of tea to alleged co-operative societies without making any corresponding increase to other distributors; whether the Tea Control Committee have passed a resolution protesting against this decision; and whether the Government intend to maintain it?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Food Controller has issued instructions to the Tea Control Committee to allot to the Co-operative Wholesale Society for distribution to retail co-operative societies sufficient tea to enable those retail societies to distribute 1½ozs. per head per week to their regular customers. Sufficient tea in the aggregate is being distributed to other retailers to enable them to supply approximately similar quantities. I understand the Food Control Committee are about equally divided on the point raised in the Committee.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman admit the Committee did protest against it?
    Mr. CLYNES: I say they were about equally divided.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is any preference given, as is believed by small tradesmen, to co-operative societies?
    Mr. CLYNES: On the contrary; co-operative societies have suffered under the disability of a vastly increased membership during the last two years, and the arrangement now come to has been to redress a grievance which their members have felt.

    CATTLE PRICES.
    Major McMICKINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether Irish cattle have been selling for at least 100s. per live cwt., while the price of British cattle has been limited by regulation to 76s. per live cwt.; whether steps are being taken to put a stop to this anomaly; and whether any Government Department, by means of a subsidy, has in any case adjusted the difference in price between Irish and British cattle to the purchaser?
    Mr. CLYNES: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on this subject on Thursday, 11th April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Major McMICKING: Is my hon. Friend aware that meetings have been held in Scotland emphatically protesting against the action of his Department in this matter, and will he give an undertaking that for the future, when prices are being fixed, all parts of the United Kingdom shall receive equal treatment?
    Mr. CLYNES: As to the latter part of the question, I may inform the hon. Member that the Ministry of Food do not wish to give any privilege whatever to cattle dealers in Ireland. As to the protests, I think some of them seem to have been made under a misapprehension.
    Sir RICHARD COOPER: Why is it right to fix prices for British farmers and not to fix prices for Irish farmers?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is right in these times to fix prices in both countries, but in Ireland there has been some delay owing to difficulties.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is it not the fact that Ireland is a neutral country, and what right have you to interfere?

    FOOD MINISTRY.
    Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government contemplate the splitting up of the Food Ministry into several branches under different heads; and, if so, whether they are doing so after consultation with, and with the approval of, the Food Controller?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The whole problem of food supply affecting our Allies as well as ourselves is constantly under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but always in consultation with the Food Controller.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend say if it is the intention of the Government to set up a new Ministry of Supply in addition to the Ministry of Food?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no such intention, though, of course, the whole subject, as I have said, is constantly being reviewed.

  MUNITIONS.

    ROSS, LIMITED (GERMAN MANAGER).
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will ascertain if the works manager of Messrs. Ross, Limited, optic manufacturers, is a German named Hasselkus, naturalised in 1910; whether he is satisfied that under the management of Hasselkus the output of field glasses is satisfactory; whether a large number of field glasses which want graticuling are now lying at the works with no serious effort made to make them ready for service, while, in addition, a ton or more of optical glass has been taken off the market by Messrs. Ross and not made use of; whether he is aware that the percentage of rejected field glasses amounts to about 15 per cent. in Messrs. Ross's works as against a percentage of about 4 per cent. in the Zeiss works when they were managed after the outbreak of war by an Englishman, Mr. Thomas Charles, and before they were purchased by Messrs. Ross; is he aware of the distaste of English working men and women at being employed under a German; and is it proposed to continue Messrs. Ross as a controlled firm entrusted with the output of field glasses to the troops?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): In view of the serious nature of
    26
    the allegations made against Messrs. Ross, who have done such invaluable work in connection with the output of optical munitions, I hope the House will excuse the length of the answer. The works manager of this firm is Mr. J. W. Hasselkus, born in Schleswig-Holstein and naturalised a British subject in 1910. He has been resident in England for nearly twenty years, and has been in the employ of the firm of Ross from early manhood, rising from the position of designer to that of works manager. He is married to a French woman. His designs of special instruments, notably in the way of gunnery, have for many years been of service to the State. Since the outbreak of the War the results obtained from the works under his management, both in the production of new and, in some cases, secret instruments, and in the increase of output of standard instruments, have been of great use to the fighting Services. The statement that a large number of field glasses are now lying at any of the works of Messrs. Ross with no serious effort to make them ready for service is without foundation. I do not understand what is meant by the suggestion that a ton or more of optical glass has been taken off the market by Messrs. Ross and not made use of. No optical glass required for munitions of war is permitted to be marketed. The statement that the percentage of rejected field glasses amounted to 15 per cent. is also without foundation. The percentage of rejections from this firm's works is now, and has been throughout the War, amongst the lowest of any contractors producing such instruments. I see no reason for interfering with the contracts of this firm.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the hon. Member make inquiry of the Inspector of Ordnance Stores at Woolwich to find out if the field glasses supplied by this firm are satisfactory?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: All inquiries were made before I gave this answer.
    Major NEWMAN: Of that officer?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: All inquiries that were necessary to be made. I am quite prepared to make any further inquiries if substantial reasons for making them are given.

    NATIONAL PROJECTILE FACTORY, CARDONALD.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has now inquired

    27
    into the statement that Catholic workers at the National Projectile Factory, Cardonald, have compulsory deductions made from their wages for the support of institutions which are exclusively Protestant; and, if so, whether he can state the result of his inquiry?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have now completed my inquiry into the allegations that deductions from the wages of the" Roman Catholic workers employed in the National Projectile Factory, Cardonald, were compulsorily made and were, in part, applied to the support of Protestant institutions. As a result, I am able to state that there is no Foundation for these allegations. Some time ago the workers complained to the management of the practice then existing, under which unauthorised subscription lists Mere circulated in the shops. This practice was abused, and the workers agreed that there should be substituted for it the subscription of a small sum per week by deductions from wages. Of the 5,000 employés, all except one agreed to the proposal. The dissenting employé is still working at the factory, and it is recognised that he has every right not to contribute. The funds realised are vested in a committee elected by the factory employés. The committee consists of eight persons, four of whom are Roman Catholics, although the Roman Catholics form a minority in the factory. The deductions are wholly voluntary, and contribution is in no sense a condition of employment. The arrangement seems to be a satisfactory one, and I do not propose to interfere with it.

  DEPARTMENTAL ACCOMMODATION.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the official responsible for carrying out the requisitioning scheme at Kingsway and Finsbury has only had a very short experience of London conditions and London values, and, up to a year ago, was an architect in Swansea; and, if so, whether he will employ in these duties someone who has a better acquaintance with and a longer experience of London?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the question is in the negative. The requisitioning schemes at Kingsway and Finsbury, as well as other requisitioning schemes are carried out by the Instruc-
  28
  tions of the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation. The officer responsible is the Controller of Supplies
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Were not the negotiations conducted by subordinate officials who had no experience of London conditions?
  Sir A. MOND: No, Sir!
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the War Office Casualties Department was formerly in occupation of a portion of the Kingsway Buildings; whether, in consequence of the removal of this Department, a new place was found for it by the commandeering of Finsbury Court, E.G., and subsequently the adjoining building, known as Balfour House; and whether the commandeering of these buildings necessitates the removal of over 100 business firms in the City of London to various addresses which the firms in question have to find for themselves?
  Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regard the second part, portions only of the two buildings were requisitioned. As regards the last part, the number of business firms dispossessed was considerably less than 100, and although the responsibility of finding other accommodation rested with them, assistance was afforded by this Department in nearly every instance.
  Captain CARR-GOMMasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the whole of the west side of Kingsway has been requisitioned for the Aircraft Productions Branch of the Ministry of Munitions; how many business firms in Kingsway will have been displaced by this action; whether it is proposed to compensate these firms for loss of business, and how the compensation is to be assessed; and whether he will say what will be the actual cost of adapting these premises to the requirements of the new Government office?
  Sir A. MOND: The greater part of the west side of Kingsway has been taken over for the Aircraft Production Department of the Ministry of Munitions. About 122 firms were dispossessed. The compensation payable will be assessed in the usual manner by the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission. I am not yet in a position to state the actual cost of the adaptation of the premises.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Was there no alternative scheme to this, that would not have necessitated the eviction of a number of firms?
  Sir A. MOND: Our alternative was to take the best we could find.

  HOUSING (WANDSWORTH).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, in considering their reply to the housing circular of 18th March, 1918, the general purposes committee of the Wandsworth Borough Council requested Mr. Edwin Evans, J.P., L.C.C., president of the National Federation of Property Owners, to prepare for them a memorandum on the subject; whether he is aware that a large amount of land suitable for housing exists in the borough, and that the borough council has now declined the request of the Local Government Board to make plans; and whether he proposes to make representations to the Wandsworth Borough Council in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The reply to the first two questions is in the affirmative. The borough council have sent in to the Board some observations in regard to the housing position as respects Wandsworth, from which the Board gather that they do not think it necessary that they should erect houses, but they have not declined to do so. The matter will be considered as part of the housing problem affecting London as a whole, upon which I am expecting to receive a. comprehensive report from the London County Council.

  GOVERNMENT TEANSACTIONS.
  Commander BELLAIRS:asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet will consider the appointment of one or more men of real organising capacity, with plenary powers, to cut down the numerous forms which, under the present system of Government control, have to be filled up for the simplest transactions; and, if not, whether the Government see their way to arresting this evil and effecting a saving of labour, time, and paper by other methods?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the adoption of this suggestion would be useful. The Select Committee on Publications and the Stationery Office have taken all possible steps to bring to the notice of Departments the urgent need for cutting down forms and for effecting other economies of paper and printing. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would bring to the notice of the Select Committee any specific instances of the issue of unnecessary forms.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    GENERAL TRENCHARD.
    Mr. ASQUITHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his promise, any appointment in the Air Service has been offered to General Trenchard; and, if so, what is the nature of such appointment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad to say that Major-General Trenchard has been offered and has accepted the command of a very important part of the British Air Force in France.

    SECRETARY OF STATE (SEAT IN PARLIAMENT).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether arrangements have yet been made for the Secretary of State for the Air Forces to receive a seat either in this or the other House of Parliament?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that an announcement will shortly be made on this subject.

  COMMERCIAL CONVENTIONS.
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Council of Ministers in France has denounced ail commercial conventions containing a general clause regarding most-favoured nations; whether the object of such denunciation is to leave the country's hands free for the time when peace arrives; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to adopt a similar course, having regard to the probable shortage of raw material after the War and the necessity of providing for the requirements of the British Empire and her Allies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to all the parts of this question is in the affirmative.

  PARIS CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS.
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government will make a statement of the progress made amongst the Allies in carrying out the policy agreed to in the Paris Resolutions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is intended to make a general statement on this subject either before the reintroduction of the Imports and Exports Bill or at the time when it is reintroduced.
  Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is not the position with regard to this subject entirely altered by the entrance of America into the War, and by the fact that America has never given her approval to the Paris Conference Resolutions, and never will?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know on what ground the hon. Member prophesies what America will or will not do. So far as this Government is concerned, our policy is not changed.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it not the fact that America is very anxious for united economic control?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have every reason to believe so, and, of course, as my right hon. Friend knows, any useful action of this kind will be much more effective in conjunction with our Allies.
  Mr. WHYTE: Are we to regard the policy of the Paris Resolutions as an absolute policy or contingent upon the nature of the peace that is made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is rather a complicated question, of which I should require notice.
  Mr. WHYTE: No, Sir; it is very simple.

  IMPERIAL WAR CABINET.
  Mr. HOGGE:asked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has just taken over the other twenty-four rooms in Whitehall Gardens; and, if so, for what purpose?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The War Cabinet is about to take over seventeen rooms in No. 4, Whitehall Gardens, for the use of the members of the Imperial War Cabinet.
  Mr. HOGGE: When is this small War Cabinet going to cease commandeering?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In this case it is for the benefit of the self-governing Dominions

  PASSENGERS TO IRELAND (PERMITS).
  Mr. LINDSAYasked, the Prime Minister if, having regard to the new Regulations affecting passengers from Great Britain to Ireland, he will consider the desirability of issuing a permanent permit to each Member of Parliament for an Irish constituency?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The present Regulations empower the issue of permits for a period of six months, with further extension on application. Should this system prove inconvenient to hon. Members further arrangements can be considered.

  BRITISH CASUALTIES (FRANCE).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the pressure exercised by the French authorities to which he attributed the extension of the British line arose from a Parliamentary demand for the conservation of French man-power, he will take steps to inform this House on the subject of British casualties?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think if this House had been as well informed of our casualties as the French Chamber was of theirs, the Prime Minister and Sir Douglas Haig would have been better able to resist the pressure put upon them?
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is pure guesswork.

  WHITE TROOPS IN EGYPT AND PALESTINE.
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. OUTHWAITE:To ask the Prime Minister whether, in his statement that in Mesopotamia there is only one white division at all, and in Egypt and Palestine there are only three white divisions, he included the Australian and New Zealand troops there employed?
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: May I ask if it is in order to use the Question Paper of this House for giving information to the enemy?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have pointed out frequently that is not a point of Order for me at all. If the Government think it is not desirable to answer a question, it is always open to them to say that on grounds of national safety they will not answer it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Was not this statement made by the Prime Minister?
  Sir I. PH1LIPPS: If the Government are unable to stop the question being put, they are unable to prevent the information being given to the enemy. I am only speaking for the safety of our Armies in the field.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is the hon. Member putting a point of Order to me or making a speech?
  Sir I. PHI LIP PS: No, Sir; I was answering an interruption. I ask you if you cannot stop these questions being put on the Paper?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already answered that I cannot, as no question of order arises; also I am not in possession of what is useful information and what is not useful information. As an ordinary member of the public, I have no knowledge of what is desirable to appear and what is not.
  Mr. G. FABER: May I ask if the Clerks at the Table have any power in this matter?
  Mr. SPEAKER: They have no more knowledge than I have of the general strategy of this country, and are not in a position to pronounce an opinion.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: As a reflection has been made by the hon. and gallant Member above the Gangway, has your attention been drawn to the fact that my question only related to a statement made by the Prime Minister as to the strength of our forces in the East? That is the statement which gave information to the enemy, if any information was given. I am only asking as to the inclusion of certain troops, and does any charge rest against me, as has been insinuated?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information.
  HON. MEMBERS: The Prime Minister!
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not in the public interest to give this information.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not in the public interest simply because the Prime
  34
  Minister misled the House in his statement and made an incorrect statement to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked his question, and he has had his reply.

  INVENTIONS (COST OF TRIALS).
  Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when the trial of an invention is decided upon by the authorities, the expenses of such trial are borne by the inventor or from public funds; and, if from public funds, whether an officer has any authority for demanding the cost of ammunition from the inventor, when it is legitimately required for the purpose of practice, before the actual trial takes place?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to reply to this question. The expenses of any trial decided upon by the authorities are borne, should the inventor so desire, by public funds if carried out by the proper authorities or at their request. Further, if necessary, preliminary practice can be authorised, the expense of which is borne, if the inventor so desires, by public funds.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had his attention directed to the Motion now on the Paper relating to War pensions and allowances, and the necessity of keeping them free from the influence of party organisations, standing in the name of the Member for Salford and other Members; whether he is aware that 269 Members of this House of all parties have given their names in support of this Motion; and whether, in view of the importance of the subject of the Motion and of the large number of Members who support it, the Government can give an early day after the Recess for its discussion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is evident that there is a very general desire for the discussion of this subject, and I hope to be able to provide an opportunity for it after the Recess.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: Will it be soon after the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall be glad to arrange it as soon as business permits.

  INCOME TAX (CANADIANS IN UNITED KINGDOM).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the hardship and injustice in regard to payment of Income Tax to certain Canadian ladies who are over here simply because their sons are fighting in France; and whether he can see his way to omit such demands in cases, say, of incomes under £ 300 or £ 400?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: In the cases referred to the liability so far as concerns income from sources outside the United Kingdom is restricted to the amounts actually remitted to this country. In the case of a Canadian soldier, whose wife's income is for Income Tax purposes regarded as that of the husband, no charge is raised in respect of income derived from such sources.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Could not that be extended to the many cases of Canadian mothers and widows who are over "here with their sons fighting?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It equally applies. All the money on which these taxes are levied reaches this country.

  ARRAN (APPLICATIONS FOR LAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, out of the applications for laud in the Island of Arran, there were 14 applicants, suitable in every way, who were refused any land; whether several of these applicants had sons, some of them as many as four and five, serving in the various fronts; whether the Board of Agriculture in every case accepted the advice of the representative of the principal landowner there and did not once insist on getting land for applicants in any instance; and whether the Board is at present taking any action in this matter?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no in-formation as to the second part. As regards the third part, I am not aware of any difference of opinion between the gentleman referred to and the executive officer employed by the Board. I must demur to the assumption underlying the question, that the primary object of action under the Defence of the Realm Regula-
  36
  tions is to obtain land for applicants. The primary object is to increase food production, and any action the Board have taken or may take is designed to secure this object.
  Mr. WATT: Does not the Department of the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to find out in these applications if the applicants have four or five sons fighting at the front?
  Mr. MUNRO: I have said I have no information on the subject.

  MISCROPPING (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATT:asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that landowners in Scot land are making claims for miscropping on tenants leaving farms, which claims for alleged miscropping, in one instance amounting to £3 per acre, or £183 in all, arise directly out of the instructions of agricultural food production committees; and, if so, will he say what action his Board intend to take to prevent farmers being penalised for obeying instructions to provide food for the people?
  Mr. MUNRO: I am informed by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that they have no information as to claims, such as are referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, being made. If any such claims are made, they will fall to be decided either as provided in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1908, or by the Defence of the Realm (Losses) Commission, according as the extra cultivation has been undertaken voluntarily or in compliance with the requirements of a Notice under Defence of the Realm Regulation 2M.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. WING: asked the Comptroller of the Household the number of old age pensioners at 31st March, 1918, who have given up their old age pensions on account of earning more than 30s. a week?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Exact figures are not available, but the total number is under 4,000 out of a total number of over 900,000 pensioners.

  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Labour if the Committee appointed to inquire into' the ability of the insurance societies and companies to pay a war bonus to their agents have reported; if so, what is the decision; and will he publish the evidence given on both sides, together with the full findings of the Committee, as early as possible?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): My right hon. Friend received the Report of the Committee only at the end of last week, and is giving it consideration. If the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat his question in a few days, he hopes to be in a position to reply.

  WAR WORK (BUSINESS MEN'S OFFER).
  Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many hundreds of competent business men have offered to place their ser vices at the disposal of the Government, in a large number of cases without payment, to assist in the various Government Departments and that their offer has been refused; and if, in view of the urgency for men to join the Colours, and as this would enable a large number to be re leased, he will give the reason for such refusal?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Ministry of Labour, through the Professional and Business Register, has brought the claims of all suitable candidates for employment to the notice of Government Departments, and will continue to do so through the Appointments Department, in which the register is now incorporated. The Departments are, however, the judges of their own requirements, and I cannot say why they have considered some candidates unsuitable. I would point out, however, that many Departments are very properly seeking to find employment for discharged or wounded officers and men wherever possible, and this has no doubt reduced the demand for men of business experience over military age.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: Could not my hon. Friend utilise some selected persons out of this large number of business men
  38
  by adding to Sir John Bradbury's Committee now sitting to inquire into the staffing and over-staffing of Government Departments?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are in touch with the Appointments Department, and, of course, any suggestions made by us would receive attention.
  Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that many of these offers came from business men of very high standing who obtained their present position owing to their business acumen, and would it not be an acquisition to some of the Government Departments to have the use of their services?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not for the Ministry of Labour to dictate to the Government Departments as to whom they think most suitable for their employment. No doubt they have taken on a considerable number of business men, but we cannot dictate to them.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman bring this matter prominently before some of the members of the Government who are responsible?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We are constantly consulting in this matter.,

  TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of the true contribution paid by Ireland in the year ending 31st March, 1918, by the Excess Profits Duty and the tax on tea?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The amounts are approximately:

  SECRETARIES OF TERRITORIAL FORCE ASSOCIATIONS.
  General COLVINasked the Secretary to the Treasury if any decision has yet been arrived at by the High Court with regard to Income Tax as affecting secretaries of Territorial Force Associations; and whether it is proposed to add a Clause in the Finance Bill defining their actual status?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The draft case for the opinion of the High Court is in course of settlement.

  ADMIRALTY TEMPORARY CLERKS (WAGES).
  Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any conclusion has been come to in regard to the wages paid to temporary clerks employed at the Admiralty?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The general question referred to has not been settled, but meanwhile the case of temporary clerks who were in receipt of rates in excess of the old minimum rates have been considered on their merits, and rises in excess of the revised minimum have been granted in a considerable number of cases.

  LORD DENBIGH.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Joint Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether Lord Denbigh is employed by the War Aims Committee; and, if so, whether he receives any salary?
  Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Lord Denbigh has rendered valuable service to the War Aims Committee in a voluntary capacity.
  Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask whether the Government paid for his magic-lantern and other paraphernalia?
  Captain GUEST: The answer is quite conclusive.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether Lord Denbigh has any post at the War Office; if not, why does he wear military uniform; and does he give these lectures in uniform?
  Captain GUEST: That question can be directed to the War Office.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister whether it is not the fact that the Minister of Education, in moving a Motion in regard to proportional representation to-day, will speak as one who expresses his personal views on the subject which are not necessarily shared by other members of the Government; and whether this fact, coupled with the fact
  40
  that the Government Whips will be withdrawn, will not leave every Member of this House, including members of the Government itself, perfectly free to record their personal opinions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of this question is in the affirmative.

  National Insurance (Maternity Benefit).
  Mr. WINGasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that, owing to a dispute in Houghton-le-Spring and district between certain insured persons and the local medical men as to terms between the two parties for medical attendance on wives and families, complications have arisen resulting in non-attendance of medical men or midwives at the accouchement of wives of insured men, resulting in some cases of suspension of payment of maternity benefit to the wives of such members; if notice will be sent to all whom it concerns that, the dispute being entirely apart from the obligations of the National Insurance Act, prompt payments of maternity benefit will be paid to all entitled to receive it where the absence of medical aid is not deliberate as in this dispute; and if the instructions to officers are in accord with such action?
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I have received a complaint that maternity benefit was not paid in a particular case, in the area in question, in which the wife of an insured person was not attended in her confinement by a doctor or midwife. Inquiries have been made into the case, and it appears that the delay in the payment f benefit was due to a misapprehension on the part of the member, and that benefit has now been paid. I do not think any such special notice need be circulated, as the hon. Member suggests, seeing that, in the "Handbook of Instructions" issued by the Insurance Commissioners to all approved societies it is clearly laid down that maternity benefit cannot be withheld where it has been impossible to obtain the attendance of a qualified doctor or midwife, provided that other satisfactory evidence of the confinement is produced to the society.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Brixham Gas Bill [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BILL PRESENTED.
  Emigration Bill,— "to improve the existing organisation for affording information and assistance to those who wish to emigrate from the British Islands and to provide for the establishment and powers of a central emigration authority, and for the supervision and control of passage brokers and passage brokers' agents, and emigration societies, and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Mr. Long; supported by Mr. Hewins; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say whether the House will meet at Twelve o'clock on Thursday for the Adjournment or at the usual hour?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That has not yet been decided. I will say to-morrow.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I beg to move,
  "That the scheme for the election to the House of Commons of Members for certain constituencies on the principle of proportional representation, prepared by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose under the Representation of the People, Act, 1918, and laid before Parliament, be and the same is hereby adopted by the House."
  In introducing this Resolution to the House, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words with reference to the grand, simple, and fearless character who stood out before the world as the great protagonist of proportional representation in this country. Of the cause which I propose, very briefly, to recommend to the House, Lord Courtney was a lifelong and passionate exponent. It appealed to every part of his nature— to his strong, mathematical intellect, to his unswerving enthusiasm for individual liberty, to his concern for the rights of minorities, which formed part of his general passion for justice. Whatever may be the fate of this Resolution, the cause which it embodies has gained a dignity, from which time can never detract, by its association with this sincere and courageous figure.
  I pass to this Resolution. Although it is a matter of very recent history, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I briefly recall the circumstances that led up to the present occasion. Last Session a measure was placed on the Statute Book for the reform and extension of the Parliamentary franchise. It was a large and complex measure, full of matter which, in any ordinary times, would have given rise to the keenest controversy. It was debated with skill and
  64
  energy, and, if I may say so, with a rare spirit of accommodation in both Houses of Parliament. Its passage into law was rendered possible by three circumstances— in the first place, by a general sense of the overmastering necessity for a new register framed on a liberal plan; secondly, by the foundation of agreement which was laid in your Conference, Mr. Speaker; and, lastly, by the conspicuous skill with which the Bill was piloted through all its stages by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Just as it seemed the ship was reaching the harbour a storm sprang up that nearly threatened destruction. Hon. Members present have a vivid recollection of the anxious moments which were caused by the discovery of the acute differences of opinion between the two Houses upon the subject of proportional representation. Those differences were eventually composed by the acceptance on the. part of the Government of an Amendment, originally suggested by Lord Curzon, but proposed by Lord Lansdowne, for the appointment of a Commission to prepare a scheme under which, as nearly as possible, a hundred members should be elected to the House of Commons on the principle of proportional representation.
  The scheme so prepared was to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and, if adopted by a Resolution of both Houses, was to take effect as if enacted in the Franchise Act itself— with any Amendments which might be, agreed to. That suggestion was, as I have said, accepted by the Government, which agreed to appoint a Commission. The Government also agreed to consider the Report of that Commission whenever it should be presented, and to submit it to the consideration of both Houses. It was made clear by the spokesman of the Government that the two Houses were to be perfectly free to come to a conclusion upon the Report as a whole, and that, if the Report were adopted, the Government would undertake to put a Minister in charge of the measure, and he would use his best efforts to secure the passage of a good and reasonable measure into law. This is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on the point when submitting the Amendment to this House:
  "The proposal is that if this House agrees to the Clause the Commission shall be appointed! and shall report; that then the Government will give this House an opportunity of expressing its free opinion upon the general question of the adoption of the Report; if the opinion of the House so freely ascertained should be generally

  65
  in favour of its adoption, then the Government will put the Resolution for adoption in the hands of a Minister of the Crown, who will deal with it upon the same lines as we have dealt with the Report of the Speaker's Conference. That is to say, the Minister, whoever he is, will not he bound to insist on the use of the powers of the Government in the passage of every detail of the Report, but he will have the discretion which has been so freely exercised on this Bill, and in that sense the question will be left to the free decision of the House."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1918, cols. 2227–8, Vol. 101.]
  In accordance with this undertaking Commissioners were appointed to prepare a scheme. They were instructed to have regard to the advisability of applying the principle of proportional representation to town and country, and they were empowered to ascertain local opinion. The Commissioners set to work. They dealt very wisely with the matter, and confined their inquiries to those areas in which it seems the principle of proportional representation might be most easily and effectively applied. Having selected provisionally twenty-eight areas— thirteen boroughs and thirteen counties, and parts of two other counties, they held local inquiries in each of these areas to ascertain the local feeling as to the desirability of introducing this change. The scheme so prepared and framed is now before the House.
  It is proposed that proportional representation shall be applied in eleven Parliamentary boroughs and six Parliamentary counties, and that ninety-nine members in all shall be returned under this system to Parliament. In other words, we are invited to approve of a modest and limited experiment in proportional representation. Your Conference, Mr. Speaker, had proposed that something like 190 seats should be distributed upon this system. The present proposal extends to only about half that number. For some Members this scheme may be too small. For other Members this scheme may be too large. This scheme is exactly the right size for me. I have always cherished an academic belief— doubtless due to my unfortunate antecedents— in the virtue of a system of proportional representation, not as a method of bringing into Parliamentary prominence angularities and singularities of character and conduct— for I think our present system satisfies all reasonable requirements— but as a more exact method of ascertaining the true feeling and judgment of the country. Everyone's view of
  66
  this question is necessarily, to some extent, coloured by personal experience. I see before me and around me prosperous and popular heroes of many a stricken electoral field, members who have entered into every home, subscribed to every fund, and by a thousand and one meritorious processes have acquired what is known as the "intimate touch" with their constituencies. It is very natural that such hon. Members who have laboriously perfected themselves in the polite art of electoral intimacy should be unwilling to see any relaxation or change of system.
  4.0 p.m.
  I approach this question from a different angle, not as one of the few who receive votes, but as one of the many who record them. The House sees in me the afflicting spectacle of the lifelong minority voter. I have never had the joy or felicity of casting a Parliamentary vote for a winning candidate, and I am naturally inclined to sympathise with disfranchised minorities for whom proportional representation is designed to afford some slight measure of relief. At the same time, I have always felt the force of the contention that under a system of proportional representation majorities may be reduced to a dangerous degree. The Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) has given it as his opinion that there would be no particular harm in this. For him large majorities mean large measures, and large measures mean bad measures. But I do not take this view, and I have always been impressed by the considered opinion of a distinguished statesman, who was Prime Minister in a Government with a small majority, that Governments resting upon the support of small majorities are at a disadvantage in the conduct of foreign affairs.
  We cannot, of course, predict what may be in store for us in the ensuing decade, and it may well be that one party in the State may acquire an overwhelming preponderance by reason of its numbers and its skill in organisation, and this preponderance may be so great that the fears I have outlined may not be realised. But, notwithstanding this, I do feel that there is a distinct advantage in beginning with a strictly limited and partial experiment. I have never felt any difficulty in meeting the argument that you must either have all or none. I think that is a very foolish argument, for there are many principles, the application of which, in a

  67
  limited degree, is wholesome, but which cannot be widely adopted upon a universal scale. If the principle of proportional representation is to be accepted upon a limited scale by this House, then I do not see how the proposals of the Commission could be easily improved upon. The scheme is rigidly impartial as between different groups, parties and interests in the State. It is not calculated to disturb, so far as I can see, the party balance, and it enables the experiment to be tried in constituencies of varying sizes situated in different parts of the country. It extends to the counties as well as to the towns, to the north and to the south as well as to the east and to the west. It is framed upon a scale sufficiently large to enable the effects of the experiment to be discerned and measured, and yet so limited as to preclude the possibility of serious evils should the system in reality realise the best hopes of its worst opponents.
  The scheme, it is true, contains some omissions. I searched in vain for the illustrious name of Birmingham; that great city, the nursing mother of democratic Imperialism, designed by the whole colour and texture of its political antecedents, to read severe lessons in electoral perfection to Ireland, South Africa and Quebec, fails to be included in the recommendations of the Commission. Birmingham recedes into the shadow, and the rich mantle of political opportunity falls upon the stalwart shoulders of Sheffield. I do not propose to rehearse either the particular proposals of the Commission or the general arguments in favour of proportional representation. The matter has been so fully debated here, the subject has been so thoroughly and scrupulously explored that were we now discussing high electoral philosophy, even the most honeyed tongue would be unavailing to alter an opinion or change a vote. I am not out upon a desperate crusade against the settled convictions of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). My object is not to change the convictions of the hon. Member for Westminster but to get him to vote for this Resolution. The hon. Member for Westminster, and those who act with him, hold the opinion that the introduction of proportional representation will be followed by certain inconvenient consequences.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: To the State.
  Mr. FISHER: Yes, to the State. My hon. Friend honestly prophesies certain consequences, but I offer him in return a gift which no really confident prophet ever refuses, and that is the exquisite pleasure of verification. My suggestion to the hon. Member is that without withdrawing one jot or title of his fixed mind and high disdain upon this question, he should, so far, concede to his opponents as to permit of a modest and harmless experiment being tried in this country. If the experiment fails, if the worst forebodings of the hon. Member are realised, still the situation may be remedied, for the resources of civilisation are not exhausted, but if, as I believe, these disastrous consequences do not ensue, if the members hereafter returned to these constituencies are not monsters but men of like passions to ourselves, honourable, sane, and balanced, even if some of them may represent hitherto suppressed minorities, then I would invite the hon. Member and those who act with him to believe that it is possible that they may be mistaken. The truth is, that there is a very considerable body of opinion, both in Parliament and outside, in favour of some application of this principle. It is not without significance that since important bodies recently summoned to report upon the machinery of proportional representation in the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker's Conference, the Irish Convention, and Lord Bryce's Committee have reported upon the adoption of some form or other of proportional representation. Nor is it without interest to observe that the Commissioners, when they were holding local inquiries in the constituencies, found that opinion in favour of this change confined to any one class or party in the State. Liberals and Unionists, farmers and miners, Labour representatives, co-operators, women's organisations — all these various bodies were found amongst those who approved this principle.
  In Bristol the support appears to have been nearly unanimous, while in Leeds, Hull, and Sheffield there appears to have been a considerable preponderance of opinion in favour of a change; and though in other constituencies opinion was divided and support varied in strength, in every case there was a demand for some change. I think there is some difficulty in assessing the precise value to be attached to these expressions of local opinion. There is a natural

  69
  tendency on the par t of the bodies and parties already entrenched in a position of political advantage to look with distrust upon any change in the system, but taking the whole area selected for the experiment there appears to have been an amount of support for the principle quite in excess of what might have been expected, and I think this is sufficient to justify the House of Commons in adopting the recommendations of the Commissioners.
  I believe there are certain Members in this House who would be quite prepared to acquiesce in this Resolution if they could receive an assurance on two points — expenses and by-elections. Hon. Members here feel a very natural and honourable reluctance to impose upon constituencies other than their own expenses which they will not themselves be called upon to bear, and they are at a loss to understand how, under the system of proportional representation, by-elections can be inexpensively and conveniently fought. My own opinion is that if this Resolution is accepted by this House the Government will be compelled by the logic of events to bring forward a measure dealing with these two points, limiting the expenditure to be incurred in the selected constituencies and framing a scheme to meet difficulties which have arisen in connection with by-elections. During the Debates upon the Franchise Bill the advocates of proportional representation experienced a succession of defeats in the Lobby, and it may be asked in what respects the situation has changed, and by what means a measure which seemed to the majority of hon. Members so bad in February may be made acceptable to them in May? My answer is that we are discussing a new proposal and that we are dealing with a new situation. We are discussing for the first time a scheme of proportional representation strictly limited in scope to areas which permit of the experiment being tried with the minimum of disturbance and dislocation. That is a new proposal; and, when we reflect that the Franchise Bill would have been lost, that the cares and labours of a most arduous Session would have been thrown to the winds unless the Government and this House had been willing to enter into the plan of the Commission, then I submit we are confronted by a new situation demanding a fresh application of that accommodating spirit which so often in
  70
  the course of our Debates on the Franchise Bill proved to be the true path of wisdom.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I am not quite clear whether my right hon. Friend, in the remarks which he has just addressed to us, has spoken in the character of a Minister or of a private member, or of a compound of both, but whatever may be the truth, I am sure that the whole House will agree with me in saying that he has presented his case with a singular felicity, with cogency, and with what I regard as not less important, admirable conciseness and terseness. Let me, before I say two or three words about the proposals which my right hon. Friend has brought forward, associate myself with what he has said about the late Lord Courtney. Proportional representation was one of a number of causes to which he devoted a large part of his public life— causes unpopular when he took them up, but many of which, at any rate, have won their way, and some of which have reached their goal. In many ways he was a unique figure among his contemporaries. He belonged to no party, and, though the least of self-seeking of men, he always thought for himself and acted for himself He brought to our public life the resources of a very strong personality, a masculine mind, in which, with many-sided culture, he showed supreme indifference to the fashionable cries and watchwords of the hour, imperturbable confidence, and unwearied tenacity. It will be very long before we see his like.
  My right hon. Friend has pointed out that the scheme which he has asked the House to adopt is a compromise, or, if the word be more appropriate, an instalment. I rather prefer to describe it neither as a compromise nor as an instalment, but as an experiment. I do not profess, and I never have professed in the course of these discussions, anything in the nature of an abstract enthusiasm, or enthusiasm either abstract or concrete, as to the principle of proportional representation. As I have more than once reminded the House, I have been a member of Governments which have had the smallest, and which have had the largest majorities, on record. I think in both cases that they operated under very unfavourable conditions, and neither the small majority in the one case nor the large majority in the other was a real reflection of the general mind of the

  71
  country. It was a more or less accidental result of the particular circumstances of the hour. In view of the enormous expansion of the suffrage to which I am glad to say Parliament has agreed, and the necessity for a consequent redistribution, I think, as I have said before, that the time has come when the House might, at any rate, permit the experiment— an experiment which is not irrevocable. Should it fail, you can go back to the old system, and if it succeed you can develop and extend it— in constituencies in which, after local inquiry, it is found, as I understand as it has been found in these cases, that there is a predominant local feeling in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do not suppose that I am presuming to speak for the constituencies. At any rate, there has been a local inquiry, and I understand that the Commissioners in all cases believed— I do not say whether they were right or wrong; it may be that they were quite wrong— that there was a local feeling in favour of it.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In Scotland everybody objected to it.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I understand all the Members for Glasgow are in favour of it. [Hon. Members: "No!"]
  Mr. WATT: It was six to one.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Oh, six to one! I do not want to go into that. Of course, each case ought to be determined on its own merits, and the House will not prejudge the determining of those cases by the conclusions at which the Commissioners have arrived. It is true, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman in a phrase which, if he will permit me to say so, I listened to with some regret as coming from the Minister of Education, that "the scheme contains some omissions." That perhaps was a momentary lapse. It omits, as he pointed out, the great constituency of Birmingham It also omits, as I am glad and grateful to acknowledge, the County of Fife, which, however, could not have been made, as Birmingham could, the subject of the experiment. It also omits, I understand, the City of Westminster, represented by my hon. Friend below the Gangway.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: It could not be put in.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Still, they are omissions.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Why is not Fife as worthy, or as fitting a subject for the experiment as Birmingham?
  Mr. ASQUITH: It is not a question of fitness or of worthiness. It is a question of the number of Members given.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are quite enough Members for the County of Fife.
  Mr. ASQUITH: There are only two for the county.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House of Lords, in their wisdom, selected Fife.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I do not know what the House of Lords in their wisdom, may have done, but I can vouch for the common sense of the House of Commons. I admit that the subject lends itself to humorous treatment if we regard it from the angle of our various constituencies, and still more if from that of our neighbours; but I hope I may venture to submit to the House— reserving as it were for due consideration specific and particular cases, which can be done, I suppose, by way of Amendment— in view of the widely prevailing feeling, which, I think, is shared by people without distinction of party in almost all quarters of the House, that there should be, at any rate, an experimental provision for the more adequate representation of minorities. The moderate proposal which my right hon. Friend has now made is one which is at least entitled to respectful and sympathetic consideration, and, from that point of view, I venture to ask the House, subject to Amendment, to agree to his Motion.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "in the opinion of this House, the change In the method of Parliamentary representation and elections involved in the adoption of the Report is inadvisable that the scheme is not justified by the nature and extent or the results of the local inquiries held; and that the House declines to proceed further in the matter."
  I find it difficult to resist the temptation set before me by the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion of following him into a general discussion on the merits or demerits of proportional representation which has been often and amply debated in this House, but I think I ought to confine myself to the concrete matter of the Report. Within those limits, I shall still be able to come to grips, I think, with

  73
  some of the things that were said by the right hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult for me to resist the other temptation. In the first instance, I approached the theory without prejudice on either side, in fact, I may say with rather a partiality for it; but, after what I may claim to be a long and close examination of the subject, I am one of those who hold strongly that the representation of minorities, which, of course, is the gist of proportional representation, is contrary to the interests of Parliamentary self-government. It threatens the fundamental law that the majority must govern, and any artificial arrangement that prevents the full and free operation of that law is, in my opinion, against the interests of the State.
  I should like to go at once to one or two of the outstanding features of the present position and of the Report. Our contention is that the result of the local inquiries held, taken all over, constitute an overwhelming condemnation of this scheme. The weight of opinion against it is all the more significant because it must be remembered that proportional representation is no new thing. It has been going in this country for fifty years, as, indeed, we are reminded by the pathetic incident to which both the right hon. Gentlemen have alluded— the death of Lord Courtney— to whose unswerving loyalty and perseverance in the views he held with regard to this matter I beg to pay my tribute of admiration and respect. Not only has it had this long life, but it has had behind it a great society— the Proportional Representation Society— which has been in existence since before 1885, a society with a very good organisation, with funds, with branches, and with representatives in different parts of the country, some of whom, I believe, have attended the local inquiries, whether in the capacity of representing the locality I do not know. Against this we have had nothing of the sort. The Committee over which I have the honour to preside is only a Parliamentary Committee, formed for purposes to be achieved within the walls of this House. It is very remarkable that, with that great advantage, with the advantage of its long life and the advantage of this old Proportional Representation Society spread all over the country, we should have had nothing more in favour of proportional representation, when now for the first time it has come really before the country, than is shown in the reports of the local inquiries. The
  74
  promoters of proportional representation say, and the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion has urged, "Only let us try an experiment and you will see how popular it will become." I may remark that proportional representation has a remarkably good Press, so i am not surprised to see in the "Times" this morning a leader in favour of this schema In that leader, urging the experiment, it says
  "If it succeeds, it can be extended, and if it fails it can do no harm."
  I am afraid that there has been a remarkable lapse of memory on the part of the two right hon. Gentlemen who have urged this matter as an experiment. I am also afraid that the "Times" has replaced Lord Courtney by a younger writer with a shorter memory, because we hold that, apart from the results of the local inquiries, there are very strong grounds against making such an experiment. It is not the first experiment of the kind in proportional representation in this country. Another one, similar in its object, was tried under the Act of 1807. It was not exactly the same as this in form, but it has this very close connection with the present proposal, that an examination of the working of the single transferable vote in three-member constituencies will disclose all the difficulties and all the dangers which were found to exist in the Minority Vote of 1867. That experiment was introduced with high hopes. What really happened with regard to it? It very shortly became hateful to the electors, and yet it was hung round the necks of the constituencies to which it was applied for eighteen years. They could not get rid of it until the Reform Act of 1885 was passed. Eighteen years of this intolerable burden, of the birth and growth of the caucus, and of political stagnation in those important constituencies— for what purpose? All to suit the promoters of a proposition which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is based upon theory, postulates, expectation, and nothing else.
  Our contention is that if we are induced to load this experiment on to certain constituencies the result will be more or less the same to them. It seems hardly conceivable, after the attitude taken at the local inquiries by the great majority of these constituencies which are now chosen for proportional representation, that such an experiment should be forced upon them. I noticed a very curious

  75
  omission from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not say anything about the assent of the constituencies. That is a somewhat important thing when we are dealing with a matter which has been five times rejected in this House of Commons, and which was only forced into the Act by another place under a threat of the loss of a Reform Bill. Yet the right hon. Gentleman comes here and tells us that the assent of constituencies in changing the electoral process, in changing the use and form of the most priceless privilege of a citizen, is of no account, that we should have no regard to it, and that we have a moral right to follow the ex cathedra opinion of the Commission, which had to do a certain duty. Among the questions which I and others put to the Home Secretary before the Commission went about its work, there was one on this very subject of the assent of constituencies before proportional representation was imposed upon them, and how far he had given an undertaking that it should not be so imposed without the assent of the constituency. I think the right hon. Gentleman and I were at variance as to whether or not ho, had given an undertaking. He denied that he had given any undertaking. He said:
  "I was explaining to the House the Clause I was then asking the House to pass— and I think I correctly described it."
  The case is all the stronger if it was the Clause. How did he describe it: —
  "An experiment mi fair lines—"
  I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman read these words when he was making a somewhat elaborate quotation from that speech—
  "with due regard to the opinions of the constituencies affected."
  Those were the words in which the Home Secretary, the responsible Minister of the Crown in charge of the Reform Bill, embodied the condition which he attached to the acceptance of the Lords Amendment. Those words are all the more important because the right hon. Gentleman was a party to the arrangement with the House of Lords, about which this House knew nothing, and the terms of which he was explaining for the first time in asking this House to accept the Lords Amendment. How has that condition—
  "with due regard to the opinions of the constituencies affected"—
  been fulfilled in the Report? I will take the two instances of Glasgow and Liver
  76
  pool. I am not going into those eases in detail, because I do not want to encroach upon ground that belongs to hon. Members who represent those two cities. I will briefly state that in Glasgow both political parties unanimously, and the City Corporation by a majority of forty-eight to eighteen, combined to strongly and irreconcilably oppose this proposition at the local inquiry. In Liverpool the opposition was not so strong, because it did not include one of the great political parties. But in addition to many great bodies of opinion opposing, I may point out that in Liverpool there was a petition— which was got up, I believe, in three or four days— signed by 3,000 or 4,000 persons, including people of great importance in the community and at the same time ordinary voters, against the scheme. To my mind it is nothing short— I do not want to elaborate the case— of a perfect outrage to attempt to impose upon two great communities, two of the most important communities in this country or in the Empire, a change against which there is almost unanimity in the communities themselves and which has never been submitted in any form to the electors of those two great cities.
  In this connection, I want for a moment to deal with a question which has already been raised— the capacity in which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education has moved this Motion today. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister himself was in doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman spoke as a Minister or not. I understand that he was not speaking as a Minister. The answer of the Leader of the House just before this Debate began was to that effect. I must say that the contrast which was set up by the Home Secretary in the Debate on the Lords Amendments between the perfect freedom that this House would have in the first instance— that is the stage we have now reached— and what would happen afterwards if the report was adopted when the scheme would be put in charge of a Minister of the Crown: I must say that that contrast does throw a little doubt on the strict propriety of this Motion having been moved at all by a Minister of the Crown. But I make no complaint on that score, and so long as the position is clearly understood by the House, I would be the last to raise any technical objection to the right hon. Gentleman expressing the views he holds so forcibly, and which he

  77
  is able to express in such fine form and language. But we cannot ignore the fact that membership of this House is still based upon the representation of the constituencies that return Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman does not speak in a Ministerial capacity. Does he speak in a representative capacity?
  I confess until quite recently I did not know what constituency the right hon. Gentleman sat for. He is one of those happy individuals who have jumped through the door of the House straight on to the Treasury Bench. It is an admirable practice, and one which we owe to the present Prime Minister, of calling men deeply versed and practically experienced in matters which constitute the business of Departments of the State, direct to the highest office in those Departments. But it is a little confusing in the technique of Debate in this House. I have often thought, in view of the frequent resignations and new appointments in the present Ministry, of which I do not. question the wisdom or expediency, it would be for the convenience of the House if the Government were to issue a daily bulletin giving the names of the new appointees, the offices to which they are appointed, and now I find I should like to add the constituencies which they represent. It is because I find that the right hon. Gentleman is Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield that I ask to-day if he is speaking in a representative capacity in a Parliamentary sense. I should like to say a word or two about the constituency which the right hon. Gentleman represents. In Sheffield the whole of one political party, and, according to reliable information which I have received, a vast number of people outside of that party, are against the scheme, and in the right hon. Gentleman's own Division not only is the whole of that party opposed, but, what is worthy of note, because there have been very few meetings of electors with reference to the local inquiries— there has been such a meeting in the Hallam Division of Sheffield, and this is the resolution which was passed:
  "That this meeting of Conservatives and Unionists"—
  That, of course, is one party. I have not raised this question up till now as a party question, but from the point of view of the strong numerical opposition involved—
  78
  "of the Hallam Division, in General Meeting assembled, hereby signified its approval of the action taken by the Committee of Representatives in regard to proportional representation and affirms its emphatic objection to the application of the method to Sheffield. The meeting is strongly of opinion that the general desire is to retain the single member constituencies."
  That represents a large number— I should rather imagine the majority— of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from that, there is ground for advancing this other proposition. The Hallam Division had been represented for thirty-two years by a distinguished member of the Conservative party, and whatever Lord Stuart of Wortley's opinions may be about proportional representation, there is no evidence to show that he ever submitted them to the judgment of the electors. Now we have the judgment of the electors upon them. Certainly the constituency was a Conservative one when the right hon. Gentleman, by general assent and without a contest, was invited to accept the seat, which he certainly does with great benefit and ornament to this House. Yet it is under these circumstances that the Minister for Education urges the forcible imposition of the scheme upon Sheffield against the will and repugnant to the sense of the whole Conservative party. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can maintain that he is speaking in a representative capacity. What capacity, then, does he speak in?
  Mr. FISHER: The county council and the city council are in favour of the scheme.
  Mr. ANDERSON: And two of the political parties.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I have received a great deal of information on the subject, and the great burden of it has gone to show that the opinions of the majority of the electors of both political parties are not in the least represented by this resolution of the city council. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman does not speak in a Ministerial or a representative capacity, in what capacity does he speak? He gave the answer himself to that question when he used the word "academic." This is exactly the point of view from which people urge this theory of proportional representation. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as a theorist, as an idealist, and, at any rate, from a pinnacle far above us common mortals, who regard as a first necessity of the country that Governments, to whatever party they belong,

  79
  shall be strong and efficient, and supported by a majority which will enable them to carry out a definite policy consistently and continuously both at home and abroad as long as they hold office. I do not think it will be denied that if proportional representation is pushed to its logical conclusion, and is generally applied over the. country— and, of course, in the minds of the promoters this experiment is only a stepping-stone to its general application all over the country— in such a case proportional representation would reduce the majorities behind Governments down to a point where they could not pursue any definite policy and where their executives would be enfeebled and timorous.
  5.0 p.m.
  I pass now to the nature and extent of the inquiries that have been held, and it is very important. Prior to the Commissioners getting to work I and many other Members put a good many questions to the Home Secretary in order to ascertain what the procedure was to be. I will not attempt to go into them. But there was one particular question, and that was whether the general body of electors in the country were to be consulted and, if so, what machinery would be set up for the purpose? We could get no answer at all to that from the Home Secretary. He was not able to give it. In an unfortunate moment the House of Commons had parted with its powers to a Commission in a grave and fundamental matter over which it ought to have kept constant and close control— that of consulting the general body of electors before attempting a change which concerned them first and foremost, and next to them concerned the Members of this House. I submit that this House ought to have seen that these inquiries really got to the bottom of the opinion of the electors of the country. Nothing of that sort was done. The House of Commons was not "on the job" to do it. But at least I do think that the proposal might have been explained to the electors by the Commission itself. There was one very easy and authoritative means of doing that. There was one official paper— the White Paper, giving the rules for voting and counting the votes. Why was not that distributed? It was an official document with the Royal Arms on it. Why was it not distributed amongst the electors in the various localities? I can only say that I gather, from a great mass of correspondence
  80
  which I have had with the localities, that if that White Paper had been distributed among them such a cry of indignation and derision would have gone up all over the country as would have settled the matter there and then for all time. The House of Commons had parted with its powers and was not able to take any precautions of that kind. Nor were they able to get any information on the subject. The only information the House has had before it consisted of two documents which were issued from ex-parte sources, one from those in favour of this change and one from my committee against it. I venture to think that the one we issued was the more valuable. [Laughter.] I will tell you why; because the promoters of this scheme do look upon it as a preliminary to the general application of the principle all over the country. It is, therefore, to my mind of the greatest importance that in examining the trend of public opinion with regard to the matter we should draw our information from the widest area made available by the local inquiries held. Therefore, while the document on the other side only contained the report of the local inquiries held in the constituencies referred to in the Report, the document we issued covered the whole ground, gave accurate Reports of the whole of the local inquiries held, and from it, and it alone, can you gather the overwhelming opposition to this scheme in the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the questions of cost and by-elections. We know that these difficulties cannot be remedied without a new Act of Parliament. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was present during the former Debates, but we have seen the question of by-elections raised again and again in this House, and no one, not even the most ardent and passionate supporter of proportional representation, has ever been able to suggest a solution. I remember a case when an hon. and learned Member who moved one of the Motions upon which we had a Division was challenged on this point. We had a very remarkable spectacle afforded, because the hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished King's Counsel and when faced with that proposition he floundered about for ten minutes on the bench opposite without ever arriving at anything approaching a solution. With regard to the cost, I do not believe it can be reduced, because you may

  81
  depend upon it that the utmost limit of cost will be reached, and the normal cost of an organisation in non-election times will be so great that I think it is absurd to go about claiming that this is a democratic proposal. I apologise to the House for having occupied its time for so long, and I should like to say only one thing in conclusion. I believe myself that the genesis of this scheme and the methods by which it found its way into the Act at the last moment have already doomed it to an early death and a long sleep. I hope it will be so. But I desire to say that in my voluminous communications with the localities concerned I have never endeavoured to raise prejudice of any kind with regard to the part played in this matter by the House of Lords. At the same time I desire to point out here in the House of Commons that unless we reject this scheme here and now and take it out of the Act altogether this House, which it most concerns, can never alter it, can never amend it, can never recall it, without the permission of the non-elected and non-representative branch of the Legislature.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I rise to second the Amendment which has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). He has covered so much of the ground that I do not propose to follow him into those general questions with which he has dealt so ably, but as a Member for one of the seats which would be profoundly affected by the Commissioners' proposals if they were passed by this House I have naturally devoted a good deal of study to what I may term the details of the question, and among those details I would like to deal first with that question of cost which has just been referred to hon. Friend. I entirely agree with him that those costs probably cannot be reduced. In any case, I think I am justified in taking my stand now upon the Act as it exists and not being influenced— and I hope no Member of this House will be influenced— by the mere suggestion that at some future date some arrangement, of which we have.now no knowledge, may be made whereby the costs of elections as proposed by the Commissioners may be reduced. I believe it quite possible— in fact, I think it is certain — that even if those reductions were suggested in this House they would be refused for the simple reason that if reductions were made in the scale allowed in the Act a double injustice would be per-
  82
  petrated— an injustice to the candidate, who would be unable at the reduced sum to put his views fairly before all the electors in these vast areas, and an injustice to the electors, who would have to vote for candidates without knowing what their views were and without having sufficient means of becoming acquainted with their personalities. I believe that few Members of this House who support the Commissioners' proposals can have taken the trouble to look into the figures. I have made a careful analysis of a four-member area with which I am well acquainted, and I have assumed, for the purpose of calculation, that there would be eight candidates for the four seats. I find that on the scheme of the Commissioners, with the scale allowed in the Act, the total expenses under proportional representation of fighting these four seats would be £ 13,936, and that the total expenses of fighting them under the scale laid down in the Act by what I might call the ordinary method of election— the straight-fight method to which we are now accustomed — would be only £ 5,200. In other words, for one area of four seats the additional expense placed upon the candidates by these gentlemen who have advocated cheapening elections, due to the system of proportional representation as proposed by the Commissioners, would be £8,736.
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Gentleman has not told us how many candidates he assumes in the single-member area.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I have stated a four-member area with eight candidates. If there is any hon. Member who wants the exact figures I have them here, and can give them in detail. I am putting forward the calculations, that I have prepared with great care and thought, and perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) will make his own speech when I have finished. I have just made out that the extra cost to the eight candidates in this four-seat area would be £ 8,735. Let me in round figures call that £ 8,000. I want the House for one moment to follow this calculation a little further. If the extra cost for a four-seat area under the proposals which we are now considering is £8,000, the extra cost of 100 seats— which is practically the number dealt with in the proposals— will be twenty-five times £8,000, or £200,000— £200,000 extra expense put on these 100 seats by the present proposal. It is rather interesting to note, when you follow these figures out, that it would cost no more to contest 253 seats under our present system

  83
  and the scale laid down by the Act than to contest these 100 seats under the proposals which I hope we are going to reject to-day. What is the view of the minorities? Take one of the principal minorities in the city of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives— the Irish party. The representative of the Irish party stated before the Commissioners, speaking as the leader of a minority, that
  "The cost of an election is a much more serious one to the party I represent than to any other party. The other parties have their big funds, but we never have had big funds associated with our organisation. If we had to put up one candidate, it would cost £ 3,000."
  If the Gentleman who made that remark were speaking to-day, in view of the alterations that have been made, he would certainly have to reduce that figure of £3,000 to £2,127. The point, however, is the same, that the minorities would suffer under this largely increased expense. There is another detail, an important detail, to which I would like to refer, and that is that I wonder whether the advocates of these proposals have ever considered the effect they would have upon the Post Office! Under the Act every candidate is entitled to one free postage, and that would mean that the post office in an ordinary constituency would carry, say, on an average, 28,000 packets for each candidate in a single-seat area. We may assume that there would be two candidates on the average in each single-seat area, so that the Post Office would have to carry 56,000 such postal packets. What would the Post Office have to do under the scheme before us to-day? They would have to carry four times that number. In a four-member area 896,000 packets would have to be carried by the Post Office, or an excess of 672,000 packets over what they would have to carry in single-member areas. In these times that is a serious matter. It may be a detail, but I quote it as a detail, showing how imperfectly realised are all the difficulties and the expenses and the extra trouble which are involved in this scheme. May I point out the penalty which it imposes upon independent candidates. Every man who was not able to work with a team and to be one of two, three, or possibly four joint candidates would have to start as an independent." That would mean £ 2,173 for that one independent candidate in a three-seat area. It is quite obvious that these proposals, if carried into effect,
  84
  could only result in every man who was disposed to be independent, unless he were a very rich man, having to consider whether he could afford to pay this penalty for his independence or whether he had not better join one of the teams and save his money and get the benefit of the caucus machinery. What does that mean, except that this scheme, which is suggested would encourage and help minorities and crush the party system and all that kind of thing, would penalise and crush the independent man and rivet the party caucus more firmly round our necks than ever before? Now there comes the question of by-elections. This is the fifth or sixth Debate at which I have been present. The question has been touched upon repeatedly from our side, but never have we had anything worthy the name of an answer. I want to ask the House to consider what would be the result of the present proposals in the event of by-elections. At a by-election where there is only one seat each man would stand as a single candidate. There can be no reduction of expenses through joining a team, and therefore every candidate is by force of circumstances practically compelled to spend the maximum amount allowable under the Act, and that may vary, according to circumstances, from a little 'over £ 2,000 to nearly £ 4,000, the variation depending, of course, on the number of electors and whether the area is a county or a borough area.
  Let me pass from that and ask hon. Members who support the scheme whether they have realised that if we carry it out, and create these 100 seats which are to be allocated under these very expensive conditions, we are in effect preparing a black list of 100 members who would find it very much more difficult than any other members to receive Ministerial appointments.
  Mr. ANDERSONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER:If the hon. Member, as no doubt he will in due course, receives a call to that bench and has to go for re-election, he will find himself standing as an independent candidate, obliged to pay the full price of an independent candidate for his seat, and therefore he and the Government of the day, before they can offer or he can accept the post, will have to get together and consider whether he or his party can afford to pay £ 3,000 or so.
  Mr. ANDERSON: £ 3,000,000.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I do not know what the point of that interruption is. The hon. Member perhaps has a sense of humour which I do not possess, but it appears to me entirely irrelevant. I am endeavouring not to make wild remarks but to stick to the point, which is that any hon. Member elected under this system of proportional representation will be unable to accept promotion to Ministerial office unless he or his party is rich enough to find the extra money. Then the Government dare not offer promotion to a member elected under this system, unless he has been returned practically at the top of the poll with the first preferences, because it is as certain as such things can be that any man returned in a four or five-member area by second or third preferences will be unable to get re-elected when he comes to stand by himself. Anyone who will go into it carefully will find that is so, and these 100 members elected under this scheme will be in a disadvantageous position in regard to promotion into the Ministry, or into higher places of the Ministry, compared with other members.
  In Liverpool the weight of evidence against this proposal was overwhelming. I should like to read a few words which were said by the representative of the Irish party there, at whose suggestion the alternative scheme which is now embodied in the Commissioners' suggestion was adopted. He said:
  "We feel very seriously that this is not the time to apply such an experiment to the second city of the Empire. It is not a war measure. Liverpool is one of the last cities in the whole of Great Britain in which such a policy should be applied. The Representation of the People Act is a new Act, bringing in for the first time a great section who never had a vote before. Is it fair immediately to introduce this intricate system— a most complicated system such as this suggested here.
  Mr. WATT: Liverpool is not the second city of the Empire.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I was really quoting what was said by the Nationalist member. I think when the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) returns, the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) will have to settle that point with him. This representative of the Nationalists went on to say—
  "What we (that is the minority) say, is this. Give the Representation of the People Act a chance and when the electorate gets used to it and accustomed to the method of voting, then some scheme of proportional representation might be applied."
  86
  I should like to mention one other very, very important point from the Liverpool point of view, that is the sectarian question. I do not know whether hon. Members who support these suggestions realise that in many of the great towns, and in Liverpool in particular, there has been, and is to-day, unfortunately, very bitter sectarian feeling. There are parts of Liverpool into which, as one of the Nationalist leaders said before the Commissioners, he would be sorry for any Unionist who went to preach the propaganda of Unionism, and there are other parts of Liverpool where, as this Irish speaker again said, supported by the leaders and representatives of the Unionist party, in which anyone would be very sorry for any member of the Nationalist party who endeavoured to preach his propaganda. After years of patient effort, we have at last succeeded, under the presidency of Lord Derby and with his assistance, for which we are deeply grateful, in damping down that spirit. But these proposals if accepted would mean that some parts of Liverpool which are the most violently Protestant and anti-Irish would be coupled up with other parts of Liverpool which are most violently Catholic, anti-Protestant, and anti-Unionist. Sorry though I am to have to touch upon this, it is a question which must be faced, and if we pass this we shall be reintroducing into that great city, one of the greatest in the Empire, all the elements of the most serious sectarian strife, which in that city means riot and bloodshed, and this is to be done against the wishes of the Unionist party and of the Irish party, and against the whole weight of evidence. Not only that, but under these proposals the business men of Liverpool will never have a chance again of returning a member to this House. The members of the principal exchanges and those who have their offices round them will be utterly swamped. What about representation for that minority? Why should not that important minority of the business men of one of the greatest ports of the country have a chance of being represented? Under the proposals of my friends, who are so anxious for the rights of minorities, they will smother the rights of one of the most important minorities in the country. I only hope and believe that this House, having calmly and carefully considered the general application of this question and its details, will come to the conclusion that the proposals are full of injustices,

  87
  that they will create more evils than they cure, that they are fantastic and impracticable, and that the House will refuse to agree to them.
  Colonel SANDERS: Before entering upon the controversial part of this topic, I think I shall obtain the universal consent of the House in saying that if it is agreed that some scheme of this sort ought to be drawn up, we have reason to congratulate the Commissioners on drawing up such a fair scheme as that which they have presented to us. From the party point of view, I believe it could not be more evenly balanced. I have had it examined by experts, and while one thought it would bring a little gain to a particular party, the other thought it would bring a little loss. I think the conclusion that one may arrive at is that this scheme is drawn, from the party political point of view, as fairly as it is possible to deal with such a difficult matter. I do not want to go into all the blood-curdling statements of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I listened open-mouthed to some of his statements about sectarian strife in Liverpool—
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I say, as the senior Unionist Member for Liverpool, that they are perfectly true?
  Colonel SANDERS: I do not deny them for a moment, but I do not see what on earth they have to do with proportional representation. I do not see why, because you have proportional representation, there should be any more Nationalist throats cut by Orangemen or more Orange throats cut by Nationalists. It seems to me to be an absolutely irrelevant matter. The same with regard to the representation of the business population of Liverpool. The business population of Liverpool are not going to have their votes taken away from them under proportional representation. They will be able to deliver their votes just the same, and if they are in a minority— I have not the local knowledge to say whether they are in a minority or not— they will have a better chance of getting representation under this system than they would under the old system. Personally, I am in rather an embarrassing position over this matter. My own county is included in the Schedule, and at a meeting of the Unionist Association of that county, at which I was the impartial chairman, an unanimous resolution was passed
  88
  against applying proportional representation to the county. On the whole, so far as I can judge, the balance of opinion in the county is against proportional representation. I think you will find a very considerable majority in Somerset are in favour of proportional representation for Derby. That, of course, is a very old quip on this subject. As applied to myself, my personal predelications are against it. I feel as strongly as anyone the ties which bind one to a particular constituency. Undoubtedly under proportional representation there will be a certain diminution in the strength of those ties, and in putting proportional representation into effect at first there will undoubtedly be considerable inconvenience in the upsetting of political arrangements and in the institution of fresh ones. All that prejudices me to a certain extent against these proposals, so that if I have any bias or prejudice on the subject, my prejudice is against the Resolution that was submitted by the right hon. Member (Mr. Fisher).
  In spite of these circumstances, however, I am going to vote for the proposal. I am going to do so on practical business lines, because I believe that before very many years this House will be forced to adopt this scheme or some scheme on more or less similar lines. I believe it for this reason: Up to now the rule has been that you had two candidates standing for each division. So long as that is the rule our present system works very well. Up to now it has been the rule, and the exception has been when you have had more than two candidates standing for the same seat. I am afraid that that happy state of things is very nearly over, and through various causes. Payment of Members has to some people made seats in the House of Commons a prize instead of an expense. The Representation of the People Bill lowers the expense of getting into the House of Commons. Besides that, without wishing to rub in a sore place, I must say that there are signs in every party in the State that there are divergencies of opinion which may lead to more than one candidate from each of the existing parties contesting seats. We have to reckon with that in future. Evidence is coming to me every day that in a great many constituencies you will have sometimes three, sometimes four, candidates. Take the constituencies mentioned in this Schedule. Take places, for instance, like Newcastle, Glasgow, West

  89
  Ham, and the various divisions of Durham. You will find that in a great many of those divisions you will have three or four candidates belonging to different groups all standing for a single seat under the present system. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) stated, in a manner that I hope he will forgive me for describing as baronial, the fundamental law that the majority must govern. What becomes of that fundamental law if you have something like two-thirds or three-fourths contested by three or four candidates, and some half of the Members of this House represent not majorities, but minorities? The hon. Member for Westminster himself maintained that if that was the case the fundamental law was carried out and the majority was governed.
  I am afraid that before many years are past, if all the signs that one sees are not entirely false, on account of the multiplicity of candidates, we shall be driven to adopting some new system, and we shall either have to adopt proportional representation, which I believe is the right system, or go back to the alternative vote, which was rejected by the House of Commons not long ago. I am not going to argue the system of the alternative vote. If anyone remains unconvinced as to its demerits he ought to read the speech made in its favour by the right hon. Member for Derby the last time it was discussed. If that speech does not convince anyone against the alternative vote, I know of nothing that will. I look upon proportional representation as an alternative to the alternative vote. I think it is a good way for dealing with the subject, and that the alternative vote is a bad way and the wrong way. Therefore I believe hat we shall be simply forced by stress of circumstances to adopt such a system as this before many years are out. That being so, we ought to have in our own country, and under our own eyes, a working Example of the system, so that we can see whether we like it or not. If it is such a failure as its opponents say, and if it is such a bad thing, and the question comes up, they will be able to say, "You see what a shocking system it is. Whatever else we do, this is not the system we must adopt." You cannot leave the question alone altogether. I am convinced as anybody as can be of anything that before many years are past the
  90
  multiplicity of candidates for certain seats will drive us to adopt some new system.
  If this system is adopted, I wish to appeal to the Government that it should be given fair play. I quite realise what the last speaker said as to the difficulty about expense and the difficulty about by-elections. These matters can be dealt with. There is no inherent difficulty. It is essential that if the House adopts this scheme, the Government should assist us by bringing in a Bill to settle these two questions. This scheme has come up to get the Government out of a difficulty. The Clause was only put into the Franchise Act on account of the difficulty that was raised by the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords. It was to get the Government out of a difficulty that Clause was introduced, and I think the Government is under a moral obligation to bring in a Bill to deal with these two subjects.
  Mr. WATT: The Home Secretary promised to do so.
  Colonel SANDERS: If he promised to do so, you may be quite sure he will carry out his promise.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I must question the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Watt). I do not think the Home Secretary promised it absolutely.
  Colonel SANDERS: That is a matter that can be verified. I regard these two matters as essential quite as much as the hon. Member who spoke last. Subject to these two matters being dealt with, I shall certainly vote for this Motion, not because I think it is going to create a new heaven and a new earth, not because I look upon it as the last effort in the ingenuity of man, but because I think, as a practical proposition, we shall be forced to do something of this sort before long, and that of the various schemes that have been brought before us this is the most practicable and the best.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question has been raised, which I should have thought unnecessary, as to the capacity in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education has spoken on this matter. Perhaps I should begin my observations by saying that I speak in the capacity in which he spoke. That may be, perhaps, a sufficient answer to the anxieties of my hon. Friends below the Gangway as to the absence of any desire on

  91
  the part of the Government, as a Government, to put any pressure on the House, or even to give any advice to the House, at this stage of the proceedings. That was, as far as there was any compromise between the Houses, an essential part of the compromise stated at the time by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For the purpose of the Second Reading of this Motion the Government are standing neutral. Individual members of the Government will express their own opinions, but they do not speak for the Government, and the Government do not desire as a Government to influence the decision of the House. Of course, my right hon. Friend at that time— I myself protested from a more exalted position, on the benches behind— said, and that also was a part of the compromise, that if this Resolution were affirmed by the House the Government would then act towards it in the later stages that would be necessary, as they had acted in piloting the Franchise Bill through the House of Commons. That has a very material bearing on the amount of liberty which Members would reserve to themselves to deal, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, on the merits with individual cases.
  We must remember how much liberty the House has to deal on the merits with individual cases in the Schedules to a Bill. It is impossible to leave that liberty to the House. You cannot have one constituency, because the member is popular with the House, or has taken great trouble to canvass the House, having its burden made light, and then a case somewhat weaker, and then another case which is weaker still. Any Minister who is responsible knows that the only thing which he can do is to stand firmly on the recommendations and do, as my right hon. Friend did on the Schedule of the Bill, resist every case, because otherwise you have no sure footing for any resistance at all. It is, therefore, on this occasion, and on this occasion only, that the House will have absolutely free and unfettered control over this matter. There is no use in endeavouring to induce the House to believe that it is pledged by the so-called compromise. We are not pledged in the least. The compromise was that competent people should frame the best scheme for experiment that they could devise, that then the two Houses should freely judge of the merits of their production and decide whether they would have it or not,
  92
  and if the Houses decided against it there would be an end of the matter, while if both Houses decided in favour of it would become the law of the land. But both face to face with the other House and face to face with the Government we are absolutely free for the first vote which we shall give on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend
  My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke just now made an interesting and eminently characteristic— I do not mean characteristic of him— Heaven forbid!— but characteristic of this subject— and illuminating contribution to this Debate. He himself has, I think, voted on this subject on different Schedules, and he is not perhaps very strong one way or another on its merits on the particular question of proportional representation. As a representative he is going to give a vote which is opposed to the opinion of the great majority of those whom he represents, for he has told us that the county which he represents, which is one of those scheduled, has a considerable majority against the proposal. My hon. and gallant Friend's reason is that in the near future our present system is going to become intolerable, that another plan has been proposed for dealing with the kind of difficulty which he foresees, that he dislikes that other plan so much that sooner than face this possibility he will vote for something that he does not like. My hon. and gallant Friend was slightly inaccurate in speaking of that alternative, the alternative vote, as having been rejected by this House. Proportional representation has been rejected by this House on every occasion on which the House had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it, but the alternative vote was carried in this House, though by a very small majority. Therefore the method of remedying this difficulty which was approved by this House is rejected decisively in another place, and the method which has been rejected five times by this House is sought to be forced on this House by another place. I am not enamoured by either of these proposals, but, unlike my hon. and gallant Friend. I am with the majority of the House of Commons on both— that is to say, if you are to have either, I prefer the alternative vote to proportional representation. I think that its evils are infinitely less for the working of our constitutional system. I do not want to go into all the old objections which we have argued many

  93
  times, but look at one of many of the practical difficulties which will confront us if we reject the Amendment of my hon. Friend and pass the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. In the first place, we shall not have done with this matter. We have then got to go through the Schedules, and although for all chance of altering them we might as well swallow them whole without discussion, the constituencies concerned will insist on being heard and we shall spend a great deal of time going through the Schedules. But we shall not have done with the matter then. To make a practical scheme we have got then to have two Bills, or a Bill dealing with two subjects. One is the hitherto undiscussed and altogether undecided question of making provision for expenditure. The other is a subject which I cannot say has been wholly undiscussed, but which is certainly no less difficult, and that is how to deal with by-elections under the scheme. My hon. and gallant Friend said that somebody sitting near him had got a scheme in his pocket. Popkins always has a plan for dealing with these matters. The trouble is that when these plans are produced it is found that they will not work. We have had schemes drawn out, but as fast as they have been put up they have been knocked down or abandoned by their sponsors. Then the defenders of this system have never been able to defend a Schedule on its merits. But if we overcome all those things, then we come to this question of the elections. Let any Member consider what the last hour or two hours are going to be like in our polling booths. They are always crwded out and there is often considerable confusion, and unless very good arrangements are made you are always liable to have the scandal of a number voters failing to record their votes. There have been bitter complaints of that from time to time
  What are you going to have in the case of a constituency like Sheffield, a seven-member constituency, with two or three parties sending forward twenty-one candidates and one or two independent or fractional candidates thrown in, and the polling booth crowded during the last hour or quarter of an hour, or even during the last five minutes, with voters trying to mark the order of their approval of some twenty-one or thirty names? You would have a preposterous and scandalous block which would result in the disfranchisement of a great number of men, and those men who have been working all day and
  94
  therefore could not easily get there earlier, and difficulties would reappear in an aggravated form in the constituencies, because when you declared the results not one man in ten or not one man in a hundred would be able to give an intelligible account of them. The Schedule actually proposed by the Commission is rather a remarkable Schedule, and teaches a remarkable lesson. It is claimed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and it is common ground to us all that the Commission, quite rightly under the instructions which they received, selected a list of those constituencies where they thought the change might be introduced with the least friction, where it was open to the least objection, and would work most smoothly and with the smallest possible break in old traditions and old connections. They selected the constituencies, therefore, after inquiry, not as being those which would test both the facilities for a general system and the difficulties of a general system, but they selected only such constituencies as they thought were specially favourably circumstanced for a trial of the experiment, or constituencies so selected because they afford peculiar facilities. They have selected even a smaller number for the actual experiment; some they cut out because the opposition was absolutely overwhelming, or because nobody was in favour of it. The result is that you have got a residuum left which is in no sense a guide to the country as a whole, because the experiment is conducted under conditions which are far from that which it is intended to prove.
  6.0 p.m.
  But if the experiment worked in the constituencies so selected it would not prove what the advocates of proportional representation are anxious to prove, that the system could be extended to the country, because the places selected are not typical of the country as a whole, but only of those constituencies in the country which afforded the greatest facilities for trying the change. Look at what has not been represented at all in the Schedule. My hon. Friend did not refer to that feature, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerset, on the last occasion on which he spoke, spoke as an agricultural Member, and advocated this in justice to agriculture. The agriculturists were not altogether of that opinion. When the Commission got down to Warwickshire, for instance they dropped this

  95
  scheme like a hot potato as soon as it was understood what it meant. You will find, generally speaking, that public support of proportional representation is in the inverse ratio to the knowledge of what it involves and what it is. But what I was going to say was this: You have not got a single Scottish county in the whole of the Schedule, not even the county of Fife; you have not got a single Welsh county in the whole of the Schedule; you have not got a single London borough in the whole of the Schedule. How can any Schedule be complete which has no Scottish county, no Welsh county, and no London borough? We are told by others than my hon. and gallant Friend that our present system is unfair to the minority, and that the majority is over-represented, while the minority, especially where the minority is permanent in character, is absolutely unrepresented. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Herbert Fisher) drew a pathetic picture of himself exercising the franchise for I know not how many years, yet have never voted for the successful candidate. I have been more fortunate than the right hon. Gentleman, because I have consistently voted for myself. But my right hon. Friends' sympathy should extend a little further. In regard to permanent minorities that are unrepresented, where do you find a larger one than among the Unionists of Scotland or of Wales? In one Scottish constituency sometimes the whole of the seats are held by the Unionists, and if you select a Welsh constituency they hold the whole of the seats at the present time; but, whether they do or not, if you wish to redress the balance of representation in Wales or Scotland, then the subjects of this proposed experiment are not happily chosen.
  Go a little further: In the case of the City and Corporation of Liverpool, they opposed proportional representation strongly; the City and Corporation of Glasgow opposed it, and the constituency of Portsmouth also opposed its application. Are you really going to force upon these great cities a system of experimental proportional representation which is not a part of the general law of the land, in face of the protests of great municipal institutions which are in the closest touch with their local life and people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sheffield!"] My hon Friend refers to Sheffield. The fact that the Corpora-
  96
  tion of Sheffield was favourable is really no good reason why you should override the Corporations of Glasgow, Liverpool, or Portsmouth. My point is that while you occasionally do something that somebody wants, you habitually do something which the people concerned do not want. I think it is monstrous to force on great cities like those what is not part of the general law of the land, and is not applicable to the whole country, and to make those cities the subject of an experiment against which their corporations have protested. I do not know what we have come to in these days. I have been brought up in traditions of respect for municipal life and great municipal institutions, and I hope the House will have some regard to the wishes of those great bodies in respect to their local representation.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman disregard all other evidence except that of local corporations?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, but I attach a weight to the evidence of local corporations that I do not attach to any other bodies as regards the local feeling of our towns and cities; least of all do I attach weight to the evidence of the peripatetic visitor who appears before the Commissioner in a matter with which he appears to have had the smallest possible connection. The result of an examination of this Schedule, I think, makes an over whelming case against its adoption at all. I do not believe that the experiment will work, and the Schedule shows that if an experiment, made under these conditions, is forced upon these places, it will sometimes be clearly against their will, and sometimes with doubtful support on one side or the other. The Schedule shows that the experiment is to be worked in constituencies which are not sufficiently typical of the country as a whole, and it affords no guidance as to its feasibility. I think that even in the constituencies which were taken, the Commissioners hardly did all that was really required to make their inquiries effective. The Commissioner, in the case of one great city, concluded his inquiry without hearing objections, in less time than is required to sit and hear objections to an unopposed return. We want something more than that. We want it made clear, in the first place, that, before holding the inquiry, that the persons concerned had explained to them what the inquiry was about, how

  97
  the experiment was going to work, what it involved, so that the witnesses might know what they were talking about. What is the value of an inquiry conducted under those circumstances? How many on the one side or the other really understood the thing discussed? You only ask them whether they are for or against proportional representation.
  At some of the inquiries I doubt whether the Commissioners themselves at all realised what was involved in proportional representation. When objections were raised as to difficulty of indicating preference among all the candidates, the objection was answered by the Commissioner, saying that it was only necessary to mark one or two of the names. That will not do. They have got to mark every name. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] They have got to mark the order of their preference with an "X." I think if there is one objection to this experiment it is taking the four-member constituencies. It is obvious that the four-member constituency is a most unfortunate one for the trial of an experiment of this kind. Unless the balance of parties is overwhelmingly on one side, the result is a foregone conclusion. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are three parties!"] It would be the same among three parties as among two. Unless there was an overwhelming balance on one side, as between two parties it would be two and two, and amongst three parties it would be two and two, and one for each of the others. That would occur in the bulk of the four-member constituencies, and, in a very short time, if the experiment is carried out, the people would find out that unless there was an overwhelming weight of popular opinion in one direction or another, it would not be worth while fighting, and they might as well divide up the representation according to their own support, without consulting the electors. I am not sorry that this inquiry has been held, except that I am sorry that we have once again to discuss it in the midst of such grave circumstances. In my opinion, the result has been exactly what might have been foreseen. You have selected the most favourable conditions in which you can hope to have proportional representation, rejecting those places which are difficult — the majority of the constituencies throughout the country, where the local opposition for one reason or another, would be much greater, where interference with boundaries would be much greater, and where the conditions of population
  98
  and space would render the execution of your plan infinitely more difficult. You have selected only those constituencies which are the most favourable to take for your experiment, and you cannot get any scheme which is not open to objections infinitely greater than is the scheme under which this House is elected, and under which I hope our successors will be elected.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, calling in aid in support of an experiment which he did not seek for a minute to show was a fair or typical experiment— he passed that point altogether by— calling in aid everybody's favour he could cite, appealed to the work of the Irish Convention. In attempting to frame a Constitution for their land it is quite true they adopted proportional representation as one of several securities required or suited to the peculiar and unhappy conditions of their country. Is my right hon. Friend going to ask us to adopt the rest of their provisions for safeguarding the rights of minorities and securing full expression of their opinions in Parliament? If any Conservative friends of my own, for example, believed democracy is going too fast and asked to have particular constituencies loaded or selected representation given, I really do not think the example of the Irish Convention helps us in the least. They were dealing with a problem of singular difficulty, not working on a clean slate, and not devising the best of all possible schemes in the best of all possible worlds, but trying to find something to meet some of the difficulties with which the path of Irish reform is beset. My right hon. Friend cited Lord Bryce's Conference. I happen to be a member of that Conference, and my right hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker) was also a member of it. We should both be very much surprised at being told that in being signatories to the Report we were giving support to the idea of electing the House of Commons by proportional representation.
  The two Houses have different functions to fulfil. I wish it had always been recognised, and we should not be here discussing proportional representation. They are of equal importance, but they are different. The House of Commons has to provide the energy which directs and controls government, which starts legislation, which carries a nation forward on the path of reform. The functions of a Second

  99
  Chamber are of a wholly different character. They are to exercise restraint, when we seem to move too fast or go in advance of, or opposition to, public opinion. If you once realise how different their functions are you will see that to assent to or to oppose a particular scheme for the Second Chamber is not to support or dissent from a scheme for the election of this House. No, Sir, I supported that proposal in Lord Bryce's Conference, not a little for the sake of harmony, to try to secure a scheme in which a very large majority could co-operate, and because I recognised that the objections to which proportional representation was open as applied to the election of this House do not apply with anything like the same force to proportional representation applied to the Second Chamber, and it really is too much to have Lord Bryce's Report brought forward as if all the members of that conference would be followers of my right hon. Friend. I will not go again, as I have said, into the broad objections which I have to proportional representation. They are objections of principle, they are objections which spring from my conception of the constitutional functions and duties of this Assembly, and the effect proportional representation will have upon them. There have been people always who have sought in one shape or another to introduce some form of minority representation into this House. They have met with no support from any of the great leaders of this House on one side or the other. Bright, Gladstone, and Disraeli all opposed the earlier methods, and opposed them by arguments and on lines which are equally applicable to the present case. I have shown that this scheme is not typical of the country; I have shown that if your object be to give minorities representation, you have left out the two numerically most important minorities in the country. If the object be as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. J. R. Marriott) said on an earlier occasion to stem the course of revolution, I do not think this schema would get so much support from some of the quarters in which it is supported, nor does any reasonable man think that a gimcrack structure of this kind will be a buttress against revolution.
  Colonel Sir MARK SYKES: I hardly hope that I shall persuade my right hon. Friend to believe in proportional representation, but before going any further I
  100
  would say that there is one point on which I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am sure everybody regrets that when such important matters are in hand as this House has in hand it should be diverted into discussing such matters as this. I will say that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has set our minds at rest on one point. He has made it quite clear where the Government is. The Government sits on the fence, and he and his right hon. Friend stand on each side with pitchforks, waiting to see which way this House is going to vote. I think from the last things the last speaker said that the action of the House of Lords still rankles in his mind. I think his natural dislike to proportional representation has been increased by the action taken in another place. It seems to me, too, he laid almost unnecessary stress on the dreadful picture he drew of the crowds which would assemble at polling booths and polling stations as one of the reasons for not putting this into execution. It seems to me that a few more polling booths and a few more officers would at least meet that. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman is not going to give proportional representation a ghost of a chance. If it were tried where people did not want it, it would be unjust; and if it were tried where people did want it, it would be no proof. So we cannot know by any experiment whether it is to be a success. He complains if it is tried everywhere, because that commits the country to a wide scheme; he complains if it is tried anywhere, because there is no case that is really suitable. It is an example of his methods that when the municipal authorities of Glasgow turn the thing down they become a great municipal body, one of the institutions of the country upon which we must look with reverence, while Sheffield is only used to answer a question, and he would not have raised Sheffield at all if he had not been interrupted.
  There are the two practical difficulties of by-elections and expenses. I do not think it is beyond the power of draftsmanship to meet those difficulties. I cannot help thinking there is something behind this violent opposition to proportional representation. One argument is that it is complex. That, I think, is the agents' argument. Of course, election agents take a different view of mankind from anybody else. Just as the Prussian regards mankind as cannon-fodder, so the election agent regards mankind as ballot-

  101
  fodder. Man is born to vote, and to vote as he is told. Suppose— to raise no invidious distinctions— the colour of an imaginary party is purple. Well, the election agent's argument is this: "Your father voted purple, you have yourself voted purple. Mr. Blank is the candidate. Be has kissed your baby, shaken your hand subscribed to your place of worship, or subscribed to your place of refreshment. You will get into this car, go to the polling booth, put your cross opposite his name read nothing, think of nothing, do as I tell you." And just as the Prussian tells us that when he has made his calculations, a discount of, say, 20 per cent. must be made, so the election agent tell us that when the best action is taken there will be a certain proportion of people who will spoil their papers, or lose their way to the poll at the last moment. The man who takes that view abhors proportional representation, because it involves people thinking and acting on their own account instead of his programme. There is another objection, and it is a higher objection. It has never been stated in this House, but I am sure the House will admit there is something in it. That is the Whips' view. I am sure the Whips do not like proportional representation. I am sure they are responsible for the subtle propaganda which says proportional representation will fill this House with cranks.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was Disraeli's and Bright's view.
  Sir M. SYKES: Disraeli and Bright were both very good party men. Well now, a Whip's definition of a crank is "a wealthy man who does not want a knighthood, or an able man who does not want to be an Under-Secretary." These things were in evidence even in the great days of the great giants of Parliament, and no doubt in those days as now the basis of government from the Whips' room point of view was office for the great, titles for the good, and jobs for the really deserving, and unless people want those things government is impossible. The House, indeed, might be filled with pestilential people like Wilber-force, Cobden, or Plimsoll, who wanted to get something done and not to do somebody else, and if that were so, from that point of view, the thing would be most unsatisfactory. But I do not know that the nation would lose so much by the presence of people of that kind. There is another form of objection: that is, the objection,
  102
  not on the part of the political machine within this House, but the political machine without this House. We have a striking example in a three-line Whip from one of these political machines— these universal providers of candidates, statistical cooks, pamphlets, posters, and all those things which are necessary to force undesirable legislation upon the minds of an unwilling people before it is brought forward. Of course, these machines object to proportional representation, because it diminishes their power, which rests on one or two things. One is their power of sending the wealthy stranger with the well-filled purse into a constituency; the other is their power of backing a local and popular nonentity. Under proportional representation, those two stand-byes cannot be relied on any more. There is nobody rich enough to stand for a whole city— that is, to do the proper subscriptions for an enormous area— and if a man were popular in a very wide area he would not be a nonentity; therefore, he might be able, and would not be docile, and, therefore, would be objectionable.
  Then there is another power of the outside machine, which is struck at heavily by proportional representation and which is very objectionable to proportional representation. The outside machine always has the power, if there is an unorthodox member of the party who is holding a seat, of sending out a second candidate, who will split the vote and put the other side in. That is the power of queering the pitch, but the objection to proportional representation is that if you queer the pitch of one candidate you are queering the pitch of the whole party. That will not do, and, therefore, naturally the outside machine will resist proportional representation to the end. Then there is another kind of objection not stated by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that is the objection of the great and all powerful caucus. In the right hon. Gentleman's case we have seen an immensely powerful political machine which has returned to this House a unanimous voice, I think, for nearly twenty-five years. It cannot mean that everybody in that particular area is of one way of thinking, but, of course, I understand that anybody connected with that has a greater respect for this particular machine than those outside who, like myself, wish we could have such advantages. It has something of the

  103
  charm of the Stuarts, something of the picturesqueness of the great Venetian oligarchy, but, perhaps, at the same time, like those two, it had better never have been. I believe that the pure gold of the right hon. Gentleman's opinions would have been more useful and stronger even if they had had a little alloy. There is another argument which has been raised to-day, and that is the "strong Government" argument, the argument that we must have strong Governments and decisive majorities in this House, that is to say, that the single-member system does not represent the real views of the people at all, but puts in a majority which can force anything through this House whether the people like it or not, and, therefore, after a General Election, no matter how obscure the issue has been, the result is always final and decisive. I think that is rather a Liberal than a Conservative view, but it is not democratic. It is only as democratic as those Roman senators who allowed their slaves to pull their noses once a year— Saturnalia— on condition that they could thump them for the rest of the year.
  I would never advance any new proposal unless there were some good reason for it, but I submit we must have a new method to fit a new situation. I believe the era of the whip, the caucus, the association, and all that sort of thing, is gone, and that post-war England is not going to be like pre-war England. The War has burnt out the vitals of our old political machine. When all the political chickens that we have been hatching in this War come home to roost I believe there will be a strange fluttering in the dove-cot The hon. Baronet signed a three-lined Whip from an association begging us to turn down this measure. I believe it is only proportional representation that will save him or his association. Does he imagine that six years after this War a bourgeois institution like either of the political associations is going to cut much ice in this House? Does he think that the democracy that was only six years old when we were raving here about the Licensing Bill is going to talk the sort of stuff the Whig and Tory machines have been putting out during the nineteenth century? I do not think it is very likely. I ask hon. Members to consider the case of France. If there had been proportional representation in France, there would have been a
  104
  strong Conservative minority in the Chamber of Deputies, representative of the very large and important fraction of French opinion which has been voiceless, I think, for now thirty years or more. It is because I do not want to see the Carlton Club a refuge for aged cavaliers and despairing non-jurors, both of them voiceless, scratching epitaphs on the window-pane, taking part in the politics of this world, that I entreat Conservatives to support proportional representation. I do not believe— and I think the same applies to the other great historic parties— that property or commerce, or what is now-called Bourgeoisie, is going to make much impression on this thing much longer. But I do believe that with proportional representation it will have a guarantee of a permanent voice in legislation, and I think that this, perhaps, may be a last opportunity. I do hope that the opportunity will not be thrown away in order to gain some imaginary advantage in a world that is dead— and I am not sorry that it is dead.
  The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir J. Compton-Rickett): The arguments to which we have listened have very largely been based upon the desirability of making an experiment, because argument has failed to convince the opponents of the proportional system of the strength and value of that system. We are therefore now asked to make an experiment in order to convince others by the working of this system that it is a desirable part of our constitutional methods. But do those who suggest that remember that we have a number of novelties to undertake at the next election— a very great extension of the electorate, the two sexes coming, for the first time, to the poll, a variety of detail that we have already passed in the Representation of the People Bill— and is it desirable to add a complicated and disputed system to so much upon which we have so far agreed? The only reason for pressing this Resolution on the House to-day is the fact that there was a difficulty— if you like, a crisis— in the Representation of the People Bill, and in order to save the face of another House it was agreed to reduce the proposal to something of a definite character, and to make a list of constituencies where it could be applied, and submit it to the free will, the unfettered decision, of this House and of the other House. Why this great anxiety on the part of another House— an anxiety not

  105
  shared by this? The only reason hinted at by the last speaker, and which has appeared from time to time in this controversy, is the fact that it is thought the country is going to be swept by a democratic wave, and that one party in the State, and one party alone, will hold the Government of this country for a succession of years. I very much doubt if the method now suggested is going to arrest that, much less to arrest the progress of revolution Revolutions are not made at the polling booth; they are made in the streets, and they are made from circumstances and movements quite different from any that we are debating to-day. But, looking at the British character, looking at the opportunities that democracies have had in a great number of constituencies all over the country of obtaining if they pleased the control of government, I personally am struck by my own experience with the fact that, apart from purely trade matters, the great organisations of Labour are as divided in opinion almost as much as the classes above, if I may use the expression, and we shall find that they will fall into the different constituents of which this House more or less has been constituted in the past.
  I want to say a word about the desire of minority opinion to have a voice in this House, and the argument that minority opinion should be formulated in legislation more than at present. That under this proportional system it will have a chance there is no doubt, but is that desirable? The public opinion of this country ought to be in advance of legislation, and there is no better way of recording that public opinion than on the platform and in the Press. Before the new idea takes shape, and particularly before it takes legislative shape, surely it should be argued in this House. It ought to have its "ups and downs," and be thoroughly explained; the country itself should be possessed of the idea before there is any attempt to put it into force, it may be to rush it through into law by this House. We have groups of opinion here. There will, in the future, apparently be those who will support a measure, not because they approve of it, but because they are getting something in return for that approval. That is not favourable to the establishment of sound and safe legislation. Then, with smaller minorities in the House of Commons, we shall have a position which I do not think is quite realised. We shall send up our decisions
  106
  to another place by much smaller minorities, and the moral effect of those decisions must be weakened. It will not require the same amount of courage on the part of the Upper Chamber to use its veto when the majority is smaller to that required with a majority under our present system.
  We have been already told that the party caucus will have free play under the new system, or, rather, that the new system is going to give, if anything, more extended powers. I do not think it will. I think the individual Member will be far more in the hands of his party and of the local party than he is at the present time. The vermilion party, and the vermilion agents— my hon. Friend behind me— will be more in request, because the poor, confused elector will not be wanting to know whether he has to vote for one or two: he will be anxiously desirous in respect of the six or seven members who have been selected for him. He will go into the polling booth with the caucus card to do his duty, not according to his conscience, but according to the wish and will of the party which is introducing him into politics. I venture to add one word also about the loss of personal contact. Every one of us knows how, for instance, that he has to a certain extent to educate his constituency in the politics of the day, and they have to influence him, too, and the personal contact is certainly an element in the good relationship between Member and Constituency, and for the purpose of any representation becoming effective. In conclusion, I would put forward one reason which I think has been overlooked. We are asked now, at this moment, in view of all sorts of changes with which we are threatened, to make yet another change. We are not to wait until we see what the complexion of the new House of Commons is, but to adopt our remedies and new rules as suggested by the new advocates— to anticipate, to assume, to make provision against the eccentricities or foibles of the electors. Has it ever entered into our minds that there are more things unlikely than that we shall have a Federal system? We may be hurrying now too much. Is it suggested that we should apply proportional representation to a Federal Imperial House?
  An HON. MEMBER: Yes.
  Sir J. COMPTON-RICKETT: Such a Parliament will probably delegate a great deal of its powers to subordinate Parlia-

  107
  ments, and it will not concern itself in little matters. It will deal with great subjects of State, and leave alone minority opinions and all sorts of little things. These smaller opinions and measures will find their appropriate place in the subordinate Parliaments. I suggest that at this crisis in our history, that at this time of complexity and of difficulty as to the future, we should not proceed to this new scheme. If we introduce a Federal system it will be hardly consistent with the importance of the powers retained by the Imperial Parliament to break up the House into small parties and coteries, whose interests must be parochial rather than Imperial.
  Colonel Sir H. VERNEY: A most excellent precedent has been set by those in favour of this scheme in practising great conciseness in what they have had to say. In view of the fact that hon. Members hope to get the Division on this subject before dinner, I shall endeavour to follow that example. I speak neither as the Whip of a party nor, I hope, a crank, as described by one hon. Member. I speak as one of those on whom it is proposed to try this experiment. I, as well as the hon. Member for South Bucks, and the hon. Member for Mid-Bucks, will welcome this experiment. I suppose it is the only subject on which we ever have, or ever shall, agree. An inquiry has been held in Buckinghamshire. We had the unanimous opinion of the three Members asking that this experiment should be tried upon us. The hon. Gentleman who represents the constituency in which you, Mr. Speaker, live, is anxious that we shall not be allowed to try the experiment. Nobody wants to compel him to do it. Nobody suggests that should you, Mr. Speaker, wish, when the time comes, to vote for the man who in this respect is such a reactionary advocate, that you should have to do it in any other way than you have been accustomed to. I think, however, it should be quite clear to those who have attended many of the Debates here that proportional representation is bound to come, just as bound to come as was woman's suffrage, but with this differences. Whereas in the case of woman's suffrage the House is committed to it for better or worse, with proportional representation we now have the great advantage of being able to test whether the scheme is or is not a success. The right, hon. Gentleman the Member for West
  108
  Birmingham deprecated the fact that we should be dealing with this matter at this time. There is only one way in which we can dispose of this matter, and that is by passing this Resolution. Those who suggest that we should do it once and for all apparently labour under an entire mistake. The advocates of proportional representation will go on raising this until, as it is bound to do, the House of Commons carries it. If for no other reason than for the purpose of saving time, and of allowing those who wish to have this experiment tried, to have it tried at once, I hope the House, without delay, will agree to pass this Resolution, and let us get on with other and even more pressing business.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: I am opposed to the Resolution put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, and for a good many reasons. I do not, however, wish to go into the general question, because I do not want to take up the time of the House. I wish to call the attention of the House to one of the constituencies which is included in the Schedule. We have been told— as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said— that each case must be decided on its own merits. The Act under which the Commissioners reported expressly laid down also that the scheme was to become law with such modifications and additions as might be tarried in the House. I want to speak of one constituency, the constituency of Northamptonshire. I think it is my duty to do so, because I have been officially requested by the Corporation of the City of Peterborough, who oppose this Resolution, and I am myself quite in agreement with that opposition. I am also speaking because the county council of the Soke of Peterborough has unanimously come to a resolution in opposition to this proposal. It is proposed to make this county of Northamptonshire, including the Soke of Peterborough, which is included in the Schedule of the Report of the Commissioners— it is proposed that it shall become a four-member constituency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has put before the House the objections to four-member constituencies. When I turn to the Report of the Speaker's Conference I find that originally it was proposed that "a Parliamentary borough, which would be entitled on a basis of population to

  109
  return three or more members, shall be a single constituency, provided that a constituency entitled to return more than five members shall be divided into two or more constituencies each returning not less than three nor more than five members; and the election in any such constituency shall be held on the principle of proportional representation, and each elector shall have one transferable vote."
  7.0 p.m.
  Therefore, it is clear that the original proposition was that this experiment of proportional representation should be applied in boroughs, that it should be applied to densely populated areas with common interests and continuous boroughs. An entire change has been made. County constituencies have also been included, and they have now fastened upon this county of Northamptonshire. What I want to put before the House is that there could not be a worse county, or a worse area, for the application of proportional representation than this county of Northamptonshire— at any rate, if it is to include the new Peterborough Division. If you take the map and look at Northamptonshire you will see it is a long, straggling county lying diagonally across the map of England. It extends for seventy miles, running north-east and south-west, and runs right away from the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, not far from Crow land in the north-east, right to Oxfordshire, near to Banbury and Deddington in the south-west. It is only thirty miles broad even at the widest part. It is bounded by five counties on the west — Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Leicestershire, Rutland, and Lincolnshire, and by, four counties on the east— Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and Cambridgeshire. If you look at that on the map you will see right away in the north-east corner is what is called the Soke of Peterborough. It is a very old county administrative area, and, as its name implies, it dates from Saxon times. Its jurisdiction is as old as the Abbey, which dates from about the seventh century. When the County Councils Act was brought in and the county councils were established it was felt that the Soke of Peterborough ought to retain its own county council administration. It has its own Quarter Sessions. It is isolated from the rest of Northamptonshire and it does not look to Northampton in any way. It includes the ancient borough of Peterborough as well. This area has always
  110
  been kept independent of the rest of the county, and in the petition to the Assistant Commissioner who held the local inquiry the corporation of the city of Peter borough pointed out that the Soke of Peterborough had been administered for a great many years separately from the county of Northampton, and the people living in the Soke view with great apprehension a proposal which deprives them of their ancient privileges. The railway facilities are very bad. It takes two hours to get from Peterborough to Northampton— in fact, it is easier to get to London. The new Peterborough Division includes the county of the Soke in which more than half the electors live, and also the old borough of Peterborough, and part of that borough is in the county of Huntingdon, and that is going to be left there. Peterborough is one of the most ancient boroughs in the country, and has returned Members to Parliament for a great number of years. It returned two Members as early as the time of Edward IV. Under the Representation of the People Act the borough of Peterborough is to lose its identity, and not only this, but the new Peterborough Division will lose its identity if it is to be included in this scheme, and it will be merged in this long, straggling county with which it has no common interests.
  It is not proposed to include the borough of Northampton. What we say is that if the three essentially Northamptonshire Divisions of Wellingborough, Kettering, and Daventry want to be combined in a scheme of proportional representation, let them have it, but do not include the new Peterborough Division. The Northants County Council discussed this question of proportional representation without consulting the Council of the Soke, and, although they passed a resolution in favour— largely, no doubt, owing to the eloquence of my hon. Friend below me— it was only passed by 26 votes to 23, and the chairman was entirely opposed to it. The County Council of the Soke of Peterborough were unanimously against the proposal, and so was the corporation of the city of Peterborough and the Liberal Association, while the Unionist Association have not taken any action at all. Here you have a constituency which was never contemplated by the Speaker's Conference, and parts of which are situated a long distance from each other. One part is interested in agriculture, while the other has a large shoemaking industry, and there are no satisfactory

  111
  railway or travelling facilities between the various parts. I am putting these views before the House now because I know if this Resolution be carried there will be very little chance of getting the Schedule altered, and I put it to the House as a reason for accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster that here is a county which should not have been included, or, if it is included, it should include only the three essentially Northamptonshire divisions. For these reasons I considered it was my duty to bring this matter before the House.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I will not follow my hon. Friend who has just spoken into the details of the corner of the constituency which he represents here, but I will merely say that at the local inquiry there was undoubtedly objection from Peterborough, but there was on the whole a most distinct and marked majority of all shades of political opinion in favour of the experiment being applied to Northamptonshire I hope the House, before deciding upon this matter, will consider whether important points which have been put to-day by the opponents of this principle are accurate or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) said that the constituencies have not been consulted fairly or in a representative way by the Commissioners. I think it is most important that the House should realise that that is not the case. The Commissioners by their very instructions had to deal with those counties and towns which had more than three members, and by being limited to them they could not apply it to parts of Scotland or Wales where on the grounds of a minority there might have been good ground for doing so.
  Taking the limited number of constituencies to which the instructions of the Commissioners applied, I think any hon. Member of this House who looks at those divisions will agree that they are of a very varied character. They include purely agricultural counties, and a very large variety of other interests in different geographical positions, and the political traditions are different in the various towns and cities selected. I respectfully submit to the House that this is an experiment which is fair in its incidence and it is one which will inform this House and the country in a way which will finally guide and dominate public opinion as to
  112
  the value of proportional representation if this House allows it to be tried in the way suggested. I approached this subject is the first instance with very little interest. When I first had the honour of sitting as a member of the Speaker's Conference I knew very little about proportional representation and I cared less, but after we had gone into the problems of representation I became convinced that apart from the alternative vote this was the only method by which you could secure important minorities their fair chance and it was the only way in which this House could actually reflect the considered opinion of the country whose servant this House is proud to be.
  The Paymaster-General told us that we ought not to try this experiment now lest we should have a federal constitution, and we ought to leave it to subordinate legislation, and he also said that as we have other novelties in the Act of Parliament we ought at least to leave this one out. How can the country be better informed upon this system than by trying a reasonable and limited experiment, so that the action of this House in the future may be based not on arguments or prophesies, but upon the actual knowledge of how it works in a number of constituencies. Could there be any better time to try it than when owing to a great war there is, in fact, a party truce? At the present time there is a damping down of all partisan feeling, and in the case of the Representation of the People Act, the people have shown that they have been willing to bring about the most important reform Act the country has ever seen. That Bill could not have passed in this House or in another place had it not been for the spirit of conciliation which now exists, and the desire to try as many experiments and new methods as possible in a way which would give rise to the least opposition.
  As against the argument of applying the principle to all boroughs and constituencies, and refusing to apply it at all, there is now before the House a proposal stamped with the imprimatur of a Commission which has inquired into it, and it is a proposal which will promote harmony amongst the persons who differ on many other matters. I earnestly ask the House to support the findings of the Commission, to allow this experiment to be tried, and the question will be solved for a generation, whereas if you leave it unsettled and open there must be an ever-

  113
  growing volume of opinion anxious to disturb the representative system. Are we not all agreed that it would be in the true interests of the country that our representative system should be on its main lines left as it is with this experiment added, so that the time of Parliament in the future can be given to more important matters.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: I desire to protest against the sort of argument which has been presented to the House by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. Those who have looked carefully into this matter and considered the places where it has been given a real trial found that it had to be dropped by the unanimous consent of all parties in the instance which has been alluded to. Those who are opposed to proportional representation would be glad, perhaps, if the trial of it were made, because they are quite certain that it would be found wanting. It is no justification for voting for something which one believes to be bad so that hereafter it may be put right. May I remind the House what is the actual position under the Statute? At the present time you are to have proportional representation for a certain number of counties and boroughs, and in the Act of Parliament you have expressly provided, if there is a by-election that it shall be conducted under the present system. That means that in these hundred seats you are going to have two different systems of election. An hon. Member who comes into the House like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. H. Fisher) will be elected by the present system— he would never have got here under proportional representation. In Sheffield, Buckingham, and so on you will have to maintain the expedients and the registers necessary for both systems, because if it is a General Election it will have to be by proportional representation, and if it is a by-election it will have to be by the system at present in force.
  I stand here as one of the happy persons who was scheduled and fortunately escaped, although, like Ulysses, I am glad to have escaped death. I grieve for my dear companions who are still in the unhappy position of the 100 seats. The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) says that it is quite unnecessary, for the purposes of proportional representation, that you should have many choices. You can put down your 1, 2, or 3, and that is
  114
  enough. I learned that the large body of railwaymen, so far from going on any distance or marking their preferences beyond 2 or 3, are content with giving a choice of 1, 2, or 3, and there stopping. That means that proportional representation is not in use and to answer the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that you will have a. large number of candidates, 15, 16, 17, or 20, and that you will put a very heavy burden upon the elector who have to make his choice among so many by saying that he need only vote one, two, or three is to say that you are not going to put forward a scheme which you hope will be carried in the sense of proportional representation, but that you are asking for some system of minority voting. I find that a certain number of Noble Lords and Members of this House voted for proportional representation upon its face value as communicated to them by its promoters. I have asked them to give me their reasons, and to sit down with me and explain tome the able memorandum put forward by the Home Secretary as to the way in which an election would take place. I found hardly any of them familiar with the details, or with patience enough to go through the memorandum. Speaking generally, I found that they had given the matter no real attention, but had been guided by the argument which had been addressed to them that proportional representation would somehow procure the representation of minorities. The hundred seats which have been selected will really offer no guide. They will not relieve the House in any sense from the difficulties that occur in Wales and Scotland and elsewhere. If this system is once put into force, there will be no opportunity until a new Act is passed of going back upon it. I therefore trust that the House will deliberate long before imposing a dual system of election upon these constituencies which have been selected, and that it will turn down proportional representation as not adequate to give the results which its champions claim for it.
  Sir H. CRAIKrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 166.

  Division No. 41.]

  AYES.

  [7.21 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Robinson, Sidney

  Addison, Rt. Hon Dr. Christopher

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Rothschild, Major Lionel de

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

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

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Anderson, William C.

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

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

  Armitage, Robert

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E,)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs. Clitheroe)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G

  John, Edward Thomas

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

  Snowden, Philip

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Somervell, William Henry

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Beach, William F. H.

  King, Joseph

  Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ward, A. S. (Hurts, Watford)

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Marriott, J. A R.

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Watt, Henry A.

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

  Bryce, John Annan

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Weston, J. W.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Mount, William Arthur

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

  Newman, Major J. R. p. (Enfield)

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Outhwaite. R. L.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darl'gton)

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Currie, George W.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

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

  Pratt, J. W

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Du Pre, Major W. Baring

  Pulley, C. T.

  Essex. Sir Richard Walter

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES. — Colonel

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Amery and Mr. Holt,

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

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  NOES.

  Archdale, Lieut.- E. M.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes (Fulham)

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Holsey)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Keswick. Henry

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bigland, Alfred

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Bird, Alfred

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

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

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. Macreage

  Blair, Reginald

  Gretton, John

  Macmaster, Donald

  Boyton, Sir James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Brassey, H. L. C.

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Brookes, Warwick

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. (K'ton)

  Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

  Malcolm, Ian

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Butcher, John George

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Clough, William

  Hinds, John

  O'Grady, James

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parkes, Sir Edward E.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Suffolk, S.E.)

  Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pennefather. De Fonblanque

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Philipps, Captain Sir Owen (Chester)

  Davies, Ells William (Eifion)

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  116

  117

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Starkey, John Ralph

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

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Remnant, Col. Sir James Farquharson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

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

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Swift, Rigby

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Rowlands, James

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

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Royds, Major Edmund

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

  Terrell, George Wilts, N.W.)

  Young, William Perth, East)

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Younger, Sir George

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tootill, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Sir

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Walker, Colonel William Hail

  T. P. Whittaker and Sir J. Harmood- Banner,

  Smallwood, Edward

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Proposed words added.
  Resolved,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the change in the method of Parliamentary representation and elections involved in the adoption of the Report is inadvisable, that the scheme is not justified by the nature and extent or the results of the local inquiries held; and that the House declines to proceed further in the matter."

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."This is a Bill to increase the amount of land under the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916. It will be within the recollection of the House that that Act contained provisions under which the Board of Agriculture in England were empowered to secure 6,000 acres of land in England and Wales, and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland were empowered to obtain 2,000 acress in Scotland, for experimental colonies. It will be remembered also that, at the time of the passing of that Act, an attempt was made to extend its scope, but it was felt that it would be sufficiently large in its provisions for a start. The result was that that Act was placed on the Statute Book in August, 1916. The Board of Agriculture has now exhausted its powers under that Act of Parliament. In the first instance, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wilton (Sir C. Bathurst) took charge of the administration of that Act, and he succeeded, after considerable effort and after travelling a good many hundred miles, in securing two colonies under the provisions of that Act from the Crown. These colonies have been leased. The first is at
  118
  Patrington, in Yorkshire, where we obtained 2,363 acres. We came into possession of that land in April, 1917, so that we have now been in possession of that colony for a year, and we have proceeded as speedily as we possibly could to equip it. We have had considerable difficulties, I need hardly say, with regard to the building of houses, but still the equipment there is proceeding. Then my hon. and gallant Friend succeeded in leasing from the Crown 1,000 acres at Holbeach, in Lincolnshire. We came into possession of that at Michaelmas last, so that we have been in possession there for six months. Since I have had the honour to hold my present position I have had charge of the administration of the Act, and have succeeded in obtaining by purchase a colony at Heath Hill, in Shropshire, where we have secured 1,150 acres that we have purchased from the Duke of Sutherland.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: At what price?
  Sir R. WINFREY: I will deal with the price a little later. We have obtained altogether in England two colonies by leasing and the colony at Heath Hill by purchase. I believe the price was something like £40 an acre. That makes 4,513 acres for England. We have also secured for Wales a colony at Pembury, in South Wales, of 1,345 acres. We come into possession of that land next Michaelmas. Therefore, altogether, we have obtained in England and Wales 5,858 acres out of the 6,000, which is the whole of the land, less 42 acres. I am told that in Scotland they have already obtained 1,174 acres and are negotiating for a further 700 acres by purchase. During the War we have experienced considerable difficulty in equipping these holdings, but we are getting on slowly, although I hope surely. At Patrington we have built thirty houses, of which twenty are already occupied, and there are plans out for building about twenty more. At Holbeach, in Lincolnshire, we are building

  119
  sixty houses. Although we only got possession last Michaelmas, that is about six months ago, we have got eight houses completed, and six are already occupied. There we are up against labour trouble, and very great difficulties in regard to the cost of material, and so on. With regard to the Heath Hill estate, in Shropshire, when we purchased I am glad to say we found no less than forty-five houses and five farmhouses upon the estate, so that the cost of the equipment of that estate will be very much less than at Patrington and Holbeach. At Pembury, Wales, there are two good farmhouses and three cottages. There, again, we shall have to spend a considerable sum of money in equipment.
  In answer to a question the other day I said we had already received up to date about 267 applications for small holdings. T had not the opportunity, by way of question and answer across the floor of the House, of going into that in detail, but I think the House and those hon. Members who put questions should realise that the men who are being discharged from the Army now are not able-bodied men. They still remain in the Army. The men who are now being discharged are discharged through wounds or some ailment which renders them unfit for further military service. Therefore, the applicants coming before us now are not fair samples of the applicants we shall receive on demoblisation. That accounts for the large percentage that have been rejected. We have been obliged to refuse 100 out of the 260 applicants. For instance, only to-day I am told by the officer of the Board who interviews these men that a discharged soldier came before us wanting a small holding, who said he knew something about dairying, but when we came to ask him questions we found that his experience of dairying consisted in going round with a milk cart in London, that he knew nothing whatever about the land, that he was wounded in the foot, and was suffering from neuresthenia, that a doctor told him that he must get out into the country, and that he thought he could get a small holding. Naturally we have a good many of that class. But we have eighty-eight applicants comprising men who are still serving, whom we believe will make excellent settlers, and we hope that they will come back safe and sound on their discharge from the Army in due course, and will become good
  120
  settlers. We have fifty-three applicants not yet interviewed whom we propose to interview very shortly. We have actually placed twenty-six men upon the land who are now working either at Patrington or Holbeach.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is twenty-six the total number so far?
  Sir R. WINFREY: It is twenty-six out of 267— that is, one-tenth of the applicants. Our principal work is to get these colonies ready for the discharged soldiers on demobilisation. We do not expect to put upon the land the class of soldier who is being discharged now, because he is discharged through disablement. That is not the class of man very capable of making a success on a small holding. This new Bill increases the quantity of land which may be obtained from 8,000 to 80,000 acres. That will bring the total in England and Wales up from 6,000 to 60,000, and in Scotland from 2,000 to 20,000. It multiplies the existing figures by ten exactly. Of course, it is a purely enabling Bill. It will only enable us to get these colonies if we can succeed in getting the land on lease or on a rent charge. We have no power under this new Bill to purchase for money down. It is not an easy matter to find suitable land. That my hon. and gallant Friend who preceded me in the administration of the Act discovered. It is not easy to find land entirely suitable for these colonies, land which, of course, is in the market and which we can either lease or secure by a rent charge. Still, we hope to find patriotic owners of land who will be prepared to come forward and let us have land in the various agricultural counties of England. If we can succeed in obtaining that land— and we shall take practical and organised steps to get into touch with the land owners of the country in order to secure these 80,000 acres— then we have the consent of the Treasury to find the necessary cost of equipment. It will be seen that this Bill is merely an extension of the pioneer Bill which we passed in 1916. It does not propose to deal with the great national problem. That, in itself, will require a really national scheme, which will involve acquiring probably 1.000,000 acres of land. This is an enabling Bill to enable us to increase the small-holding colonies from 8,000 to 80,000 acres. I hope that, with this explanation, I shall have very little difficulty in securing the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. WHITE: One has seen this Bill with some surprise, and one has received with considerable surprise also what has been said from the Government Bench. We are told that it is merely an enabling Bill. So far as I can gather, the point of the Bill is that it gives the Board of Agriculture in England and also the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, taking them together, an absolutely free hand to acquire ten times the amount of land that they were permitted to acquire by the original measure with very few checks at all. We are told that this was a pioneer measure. Before we extend such a measure it is important to be informed how far it has gone. We ought to have some further particulars, and those particulars have not been given us to-day. It is all very well to call this an enabling Bill. It does not empower the purchase of land it is true, but it gives the Department a free hand to do as it likes in acquiring an enormous amount of land, without the House of Commons being really familiar with the lines on which the scheme is developing. Up to the present time the total number who have been settled on these thousands of acres that have been acquired is twenty-six. My hon. Friend the Member for Hanley asked particulars of the price which had been paid for certain land which had been purchased from the Duke of Sutherland. It was probably about £ 40 per acre. I may inform my hon. Friend, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, that the question of purchase price or the amount of the rent really goes to the root of the whole matter, it shows whether this operation has been carried on anything like a commercial basis. In the Act of 1916 there was specially inserted a Clause that particulars as to price and valuations for rating and so on in respect of all land acquired should be inserted in the annual report of the Board of Agriculture. I would like to ask whether such particulars were given in the last report of the Board, and whether they will appear in the new report which may be expected shortly. It seems to me that the House of Commons having put in a definite Clause providing for the publication of such particulars, when a Department asks for such wide powers of extension it should first supply these particulars.
  I, personally, am very suspicious about these extended powers. I know we are not purchasing land, but we are renting
  122
  it, or obtaining it on a rent charge. There is power, and a very good power it is in some cases, to acquire land for this purpose on a rent charge, but one would like to know how the rent charge compares with the present rent, and how the rent that is to be paid compares with the annual valuation for rating purposes. I take it that if large amounts of land are got even at a rent charge, if that rent charge is too high, then the undertaking is waterlogged from the very beginning from a commercial point of view. If these experiments are to be successful, considerable allowances must be made for experimenting, but we must ultimately have in view a business basis; if not, the experiments will be carried on simply at the expense of the taxpayer, and the more you extend them the more expensive they will become. The people who will really reap the benefit will be those who let the land either for rent or on a rent charge, and they will make the profit and gain the advantage, rather than the gallant men in whose interests the original measure was promoted.
  It was suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary just now that the men in process of discharge from the Army were not particularly suitable for these experiments because they are disabled and not able-bodied men, and that the experiment will work much better later on, after the conclusion of the War, when it is possible to get the able-bodied men, many of whom have already applied for land. Yes, but the able-bodied men will not have to face the same difficulties after the conclusion of the War as the disabled men, and my own impression is that when the House gave these powers it had disabled men in mind, and hoped that all that possibly could be done would be done on their behalf. If we are only to provide for able-bodied and efficient men, as the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to indicate, why not enable them to obtain land direct on fair terms without any Treasury finance? These able-bodied men can look after themselves, but if we are to carry on things at the expense of the taxpayer, it surely should be in the interests of the unfortunate men who have been wounded and disabled during the War. I can only offer that comment on the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary as to disabled men not being very suitable for this work. He told us of the case of a man who said he knew about dairying, but whose only experience

  123
  it was found had been in the delivery of milk in London. But experience is not altogether so important as some people think. There is probably no land throughout the country which produces so much per acre as that devoted to allotments and small holdings, and this land is to a very great extent cultivated by people who began without any experience of cultivation and who learnt by practice, by reference to books, and by seeking the advice of their neighbours. To-day we have allotments all over the country. I really think the Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to attach too much importance to the question of experience. Experience may be useful, but there is one thing which is far more useful, and that is to enable the men who want the land to get it on fair terms wherever it may be.
  We have been told that it is thought that patriotic landlords will come forward with gifts of suitable land. The same thing was said when the Act of 1916 was brought in. May I remind the hon. Gentleman there is no need of this provision in order that patriotic landlords may supply land for cultivation by soldiers or sailors, because there is already another piece of legislation in existence by which we are enabled to take land which is offered in this way. I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to give us information as to how much land had been offered by patriotic people who hold it. We had precisely the same hopes held out on the last occasion, and it would be useful to know how far they have materialised. I have a very considerable suspicion that very large sums may be spent and improvident purchases may be made, and the result may be not what we are hoping for. I am out for doing everything that can be done on the land for our disabled soldiers and sailors, but I am not out to exploit either them or the taxpayers for the benefit of those who hold this land which by hypothesis is wanted for this purpose, and which at present is not being adequately used. This is a really important question. If we are to give the gallant men who have been fighting in the War small holdings, and if there is land not now being used that is suitable for the purpose, why should not that land be taken straight from the owner on some direct system of finance, instead of bringing in the taxpayer to finance and perhaps to endow the transaction? It may be
  124
  necessary perhaps to bring in the taxpayer or to use public money to build houses and that sort of thing, but a very strict watch should be kept to see that the rent or rent charge is not too high, and there should be some provision that the rent which the nation is to pay to the landlords should bear some fair proportion to the valuation at which the property is already rated for public purposes. I had hoped, after the discussion on the Act of 1916, that the Parliamentary Secretary would have said something on these points. Perhaps he, or someone else speaking for the Government, will do so at a later stage.
  I am not taking up a position of opposition, but I am very doubtful indeed about giving this blank cheque for the acquisition of ten times the amount of land authorised under the original Act, because I see great dangers ahead. Those who have read the recent report of the Committee on Public Accounts know what was said there about the exorbitant prices which Government Departments had been paying in connection with acquiring land. Those who have read the report of the Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee on the valuation and acquisition of land for public purposes know what a disclosure that was of the difficulties in which Government Departments find themselves now. Surely some action should be taken on the reports of these Committees before we are asked to enable a Government Department to obtain more land on a vast scale. Another recent report was that of the Royal Commission on Housing in. Scotland, and one recommendation of that Royal Commission was that where land was acquired by a Government Department for housing purposes power should be given to acquire it on the basis of the Finance Act valuation. If that can be done in the case of buildings, why should you not apply precisely the same principle where the land is wanted for agriculture. I put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that he and his Department will consider it. I sincerely trust, before this Bill goes any further, the House will be given some information on these subjects. There is another point I should like to touch upon. The Small Holdings Colonies Act was regarded as a very important measure. This Bill proposes to increase the amount of land available tenfold. I put it to the Parlia-

  125
  mentary Secretary that a measure of this kind ought not to be sent to a Standing Committee, but should be dealt with on the Floor of the House, and I hope that before this Debate closes a promise will be given that it shall be so dealt with, so that the question of how far the plan shall be extended and other questions relating to price and so on, which are very important when you are dealing with such an enormously increased amount of land, may be considered on the Floor of this House, as finance goes to the very root of the measure.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I fully sympathise with my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. White) in his desire that in financing a scheme of this kind every possible attention should be paid to cost, not so much from the point of view of those abstract principles of which he is so eloquent an exponent in this House, but because of the small holder himself. There is a very grave tendency, and I think it has been exhibited in this experiment, and has certainly attached to some of the county council small-holdings schemes, to pile on the small holder a greater charge than he can reasonably be expected to pay. At the same time, I am not with my hon. and learned Friend in his anxiety about this tenfold increase in the amount of land to be acquired. Two years ago I was one of those who ventured, in season and out of season, to criticise the then Small Holdings Colonies Bill. To be perfectly frank, I regarded it as a meagre Bill, an almost ludicrous Bill, having regard to the object which was supposed to be in view. We were then considering, as we are this evening, some measure of recompense to those men who are fighting or have fought our battles in the various theatres of war, and it seemed to me in the former connection that to provide for these purposes 8,000 acres in the whole of Great Britain was merely to trifle with a profoundly important subject. I am not at all persuaded by what my hon. and learned Friend has said, that the Government is really taking a desperate plunge when it multiplies the acreage tenfold. I want rather in two or three minutes to direct criticism to other aspects of this question. I entirely fail to understand why the Board of Agriculture is so addicted to this principle of colonies as applied to the provision of land for our soldiers and sailors. It is quite true to say that under the colony system you have the advan-
  126
  tages of supervision and instructions speedily and conveniently applied. That, I think, is the only advantage that can possibly attach to this system, whereas, as far as I can see, there is every other possible kind of disadvantage
  I am not at all certain that our discharged soldiers and sailors will desire to be congregated in separate colonies. I am perfectly certain— and I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will bear me out in this— that applicants for small holdings, as a rule, have not shown a disposition to migrate from their native places to distant counties; so much so that, if I am rightly informed, it has been one of the greatest stumbling-blocks to the success of the Act of 1908 that the applicants insisted on having land in the immediate neighbourhood of their own then homes, and very frequently refused very promising offers of land in parts of the country with which they were not familiar. How much more must that be so in the case of soldiers and sailors who are invited, each and every one of them, it may be, to go right away to another part of the country with which they are not familiar to settle in company with other soldiers and sailors in one of these experimental colonies! And why experimental? It is only because the Board of Agriculture and the corresponding Board for Scotland adhere so pathetically to this principle of the colony that they need regard it as experimental at all. There is nothing what ever experimental about small holdings as such. Everybody knows — the Parliamentary Secretary will bear me out— that the Act of 1908 has been one of the most successful of the smaller Acts passed in this House in recent years. I have not seen the latest Report, I think, but up to the time that I used to read these Reports the ratio of failure in the case of these small holdings was something less than 2 per cent. The allotment and the small holding is almost universally successful, and I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is absurd to pretend that an immense knowledge of agriculture is required in order that an intelligent man may run a small holding. I should be disposed to criticise, if I wished to occupy the time of the House, the Schedule of questions which appear to be sent out by the Board of Agriculture to prospective applicants for small holdings under the Small Holdings Colonies Act. They ask far too many questions and exact far too many conditions.

  127
  I should be disposed to believe— and I wish it were possible that this Bill could be adjusted so as to meet the circumstances— that a very much better way of dealing with this matter would be to give larger powers, both financial and otherwise, to the county councils. I am not at all averse to the possession of land by the Board of Agriculture or by the corresponding Boards in either of the other countries; not in the least. I welcome it. I should like to see it vastly extended, but for the immediate purpose— and this ought to be regarded as an immediate question— I should like to see the powers of the county councils extended from now. I am told that there is still outstanding a very long list of applicants for small holdings under the scheme of1908. It does not follow, of course, that these people are— in fact, it is very unlikely that they will be— discharged soldiers and sailors for the most part, but I dare say there is a considerable number of people of that class. The Act of 1908 was a very small affair. I wish, and I think a great many Members of this House wish, that it had been possible to pass a far more ambitious measure, but its rate of progress slow as it was, is swift in comparison with the progress that is being made under the Small Holding Colonies Act. It is two years since we passed this Bill, and I gather from a Report recently issued that on the Patrington estate there are few prospective settlers, and that the estate is being worked on a profit-sharing basis. In the case of Holbeach, only two small holdings have been taken up, and here again the estate is being farmed as a whole. Heath Hill estate is, I understand, not yet in the possession of the Board, and the same is true of the estate in Wales. We are dealing with an experiment which is to be applicable and serviceable to men who have fought in the War, but the men who return from the War, even if it were to last a few years longer, will be dispersed all over the world or returned to their avocations long before these experiments by the Board of Agriculture look like reaching anything in the nature of fruition. I will only say, in conclusion, that I welcome this extension, but that I would press on my hon. Friend to exercise the great influence he has with his Department, and with the Government as a whole, to make them regard this question from a very much larger point of view. Even with his 60,000 acres in England and
  128
  Wales, and his 20,000 in Scotland, he will only have begun to touch the outer fringe of an immense subject. I welcome the addition. I speak in no sense in a hostile spirit to the Bill, but I would press upon my hon. Friend the desirability of tackling a great national problem in something like a national way.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Harmsworth) dwelt on the fact that the Small Holdings Act of 1908 had been a great success. I should be very glad to think that was so, but the figures of the Board of Agriculture show for last year and the year before that no less than 5,000 small holdings had disappeared. That is to say, the number of holdings under 50 acres were last year 5,000 less than in the year before, and in 1916 were 5,500 less than in the year before that.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Does the hon. Gentleman say that there was that reduction in the county council small holdings under that Bill?
  Mr. DAVIES: No; I said the number of small holdings in the country. Whatever the number of small holdings under the Act of 1908, the number of holdings under 50 acres were last year less by 5,000 than in 1916, and in 1916 were less by 5,500 than in the preceding year. The old explanation by question and answer used to be that the land had been taken for building purposes, but that reason is evidently no longer available, and I suggest that my hon. Friend will find the real reason in this, that small holdings are not economic. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. D. White) seemed to assume that this Bill was intended to provide for disabled soldiers, the gallant fellows who had been to the War, and I admit that I voted for the previous Bill on that assumption. It was on that assumption that it was recommended to the House, and it was certainly as for the benefit of the wounded soldier that it was advocated to the country. I was, therefore, amazed to read in the Report on the farm colonies the following words:
  "The colonies were not intended to make provision for disabled men as such."
  Are we to understand that, having failed to make any provision for disabled men with the 4,000 acres and the money which was placed at its disposal two years ago, the Government is now asking us to place at their disposal no fewer than 45,000 acres,

  129
  representing presumably £1,500,000, for purely experimental purposes? Let me read another sentence:
  "The object of the colonies was not to provide for disabled men as such, but to ascertain by actual experiment how far small holdings grouped on the colony system on the lines recommended by the Committee could be successfully carried out."
  It is certainly not necessary to hand over to the Board of Agriculture more than 4,000 acres for purely experimental purposes. I am quite willing that the money should be spent, but it should be spent for the soldiers and not for needless and costly experiments on the part of the Board of Agriculture. The Report goes further and gives us some insight as to the capacity of those who are responsible for carrying out the present Act. The first estate acquired by the Board was in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It comprised 2,363 acres, and is rented from the Crown at 28s. or 29s. an acre. That was intended for an experiment in mixed holdings. It was obtained for the purpose, and obtained, I think, at a very high rent. But the Commissioners who obtained it, instead of finding it suitable for an experiment, are now finding that they cannot experiment on it for the holdings they desire. In fact, it is very doubtful whether the land is fit for the purpose for which it was intended, and it would be unwise on our part to hand over to a body of that kind 45,000 acres until they show that they are capable of dealing with 4,000 acres. In any event, even as a business experiment, a body which has failed in dealing with 4,000 acres could not very well come to the House and ask to be entrusted with the control of 45,000 acres for the same purpose. Another thing which must be obvious to anyone is that unless capital is going to be advanced to the applicant he is bound to fail. I have always contended that small holdings do not pay, and one of the main reasons is that the small holder has not the necessary capital to cultivate the land in a proper manner. It is quite true that the rent and the price of the land are generally high, but I am quite sure the main reason why small holdings fail is that the tenant often has not the necessary capital. On the other hand, one would have thought that these men, who have made such sacrifices for the country, would have been met by the Government and would have been placed on holdings of such a nature and under such circumstances that they might succeed. But
  130
  what the Government is really telling them is, "We will provide holdings; we will provide the necessary buildings; you will have colonies; you will have experiments made beforehand; but we will not provide you with any money." In other words, they are saying, "You have been away from the country for two, three, or possibly four years. In that period you could not have saved any money, and when you return to the country we will decline to help you." The conditions under which the present experiments are carried on and the refusal to help applicants with money have resulted in the fact that so far they have not been able to settle any men on the land which they have already bought, and in particular the admission of the Board of Agriculture that these colonies were not intended to assist soldiers, but were for purely experimental purposes does not justify us in acceding to the demand of the Government.
  Major HUNT: Although this is a small extension, intended, I suppose, to benefit soldiers and sailors, there is nothing like enough to be of any real use when we remember the enormous number of men who want to come back on the land. I do not think 50,000 acres for England and Wales is anything like enough,and it is very unsatisfactory that the men, as I understand it, will have no chance of owning the land themselves when they have made a success of it. I cannot agree that the Act of 1908 was a success. From all I have heard about it is was not a success, and one of the great reasons for its non-success was that the small holders had to pay not only the rent but a sinking fund, an I when he had paid them for so many years the land did not belong to him but to the county council. That is one of the great blots on the Act. I know the working people about me were of that opinion. They did not see the fun of paying for the land and then having it belong to someone else. I think this is a very poor attempt to solve the land question for soldiers and sailors after the War. Surely, if we are to have 1,000,000 acres they should be provided now. If you do not do it now you will not be in time; if you do not open up the land it seems to me that you are bound to have a large number of men, necessarily unable to help themselves, crowding into the towns, where you will make the conditions worse even than they were before the War, and that will be a very serious thing for this country even if it does not

  131
  bring about some form of revolution. I think, on so big a question, it is the Government's business to formulate a land policy at once. I have had a certain amount to do with small holdings, and, even under very adverse conditions, they pay if they are under industrious people; but if the Government want really to help the soldiers and sailors they must provide not only the land, but capital where it is needed in some way or other. It is no use putting men on the land if they have no capital, and if you are not going to provide it for them where it is necessary. Therefore, I am afraid the Bill is not really going to do any good at all.
  Then, if small holdings are to be made to pay, you must also prevent the. middleman and the rings in the market from robbing both the producer and consumer. I remember asking a member of the Government whether he did not find, in his examination of the question, that in the case of small holders and their produce the middleman robbed both the producer and the consumer, and his answer was that the more he went into it the more he found that was so. Those were not his actual words, but that was the meaning of what he said. If you really want to help the sailors and soldiers you must arrange that that shall not be the case in the future or else the smallholder will not be able to live. I have made inquiries about the matter, and I quite agree that you must, as far as possible, provide land in the different counties. A man likes to go back to his own county. The county feeling is very strong indeed. I suggest that the way to do it is to see what land you can get in each county. Go to the Lord Lieutenant and ask him to call the landlords together and say, "We want so many thousand acres" Then you can see whether they are willing to provide them. My information is that the landlords and the land agents, and I think to a great extent the farmers will help to find the land if the hon. Gentleman will proceed in that friendly way. I think in that way you will get the land at a reasonable price, without compulsion, but you will certainly have to have compulsion behind it in eases where it is necessary. In the great majority of cases you will not require compulsion, but you must have the power to exercise it where it is necessary. We are going to grow an enormous amount more food in this country than we have grown before for a great number of years.
  132
  There will possibly be another submarine menace, and we cannot tell when it will come again. Moreover, we have learnt in this War the absolute madness of neglecting our agriculture. The hon. Gentleman said that the men coming forward were wounded men not able to take small holdings. I do not think the men would require a good deal of teaching, but I think you ought to have some kind of college in three or four counties where the men could go to learn the way to cultivate small holdings. I have spoken to fanners about it, and some of them who were very much against small holdings hold the opinion that a man with a pension, who may have lost an arm or a leg or an eye, will be able to get along on a small holding, and will be a help to the country and to the farmers at harvest time and other times. I understand the pensions range from 13s. 6d. to 25s. The farmers say that if you can give these men small holdings at reasonable rent they will be able, with the help of their pensions, to do very well.
  You will have to provide houses and small holdings for these men who have been injured in this War; but this Bill is not anything like big enough to help them. There is the further objection that you are not providing them with land banks from which they can get capital. Therefore, I am afraid the Bill is of very little use, and I hope the Government will reconsider the question. These men who have fought for us and risked their lives are entitled to go back to the land and to be helped by the Government if they want to go back. To put it plainly, they are entitled to a bit of the country they have fought for, and it would be a gigantic mistake if the Government do not recognise that there is a very strong feeling among the soldiers in France, as well as in this country, that they are entitled to that. If the Government do not face the question now they will have neglected their duty, and the consequence will in all human probability be very serious.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture comes down here to-day and refers to this as an experiment. We have had many experiments of this kind, differing in method, but all alike in result, and that is utter failure. We have had the Small Holdings Act of 1908. References have been made to the results of two years, showing a reduction in the number of small holdings of over 10,000. Why does not the Board of Agriculture with its new

  133
  experiment take some of these 10,000 small holdings which have disappeared from use, I presume, as a result of its former endeavours in experimental legislation. Such is the result of the Small Holdings Act for England. If you look at the Small Holdings Act for Scotland, which came into operation in 1911, the last Report shows that in 1916– 17 there were fewer small holdings in Scotland than at the time the Act came into operation. So much for that experiment. This Bill is designed on precisely the same lines. The Board of Agriculture, through its officials, goes round and secures land as best it can from the landowners. They give £40 an acre to the Duke of Sutherland. I notice that the Duke of Sutherland does not give away land in Shropshire. He only gives it away when it is assessed at 3s. an acre for rates in Scotland and is worthless. A high price has to be paid for the land, then buildings have to be put upon it— I was told by a builder recently in Sussex that the cost of building is eight times what it was before the War— and then the rates and taxes have to be paid, so that under the present conditions you can offer no hope to the man who is at present in the Army and who desires Later to go on the land. That is quite clear.
  If the experiments of the past, with advantageous condition of lower prices of land and lower prices for materials of all sorts, have failed, how are you going to succeed to-day when the price of agricultural land has gone up by leaps and bounds as the result of the Corn Production Bill. We had the case the other day of the Marquis of Lincolnshire bringing in a Bill in the House of Lords to prevent the sale of lands over the heads of the sitting tenants during the War. That Bill received short shrift in the House of Lords. I mention that to show that the present tendency is for agricultural land to go up by leaps and bounds in price. I suppose it is 50 per cent. higher in price than it was ten years ago. Therefore, what possibility can there be of making success of small holdings such as are proposed in this Bill? That is so clear in any case from the failure of the parent measure that I cannot understand why this land is required. We have only had twenty-six men put upon the land. I would like to know how many acres per men are they to receive? They are men who have been discharged from the Army, and probably are not capable of the most active operations and of very hard work, so that I would con-
  134
  clude that 10 acres would be quite a sufficient amount to allot to each man. That means that you have taken up 260 acres of the thousands of acres which you have already had the right to secure. Therefore, at the present rate of progress, you can go on for about thirty years without needing to come to this House to get the right to acquire other territory. It seems to me that the purpose of this measure is just to give the public and the soldier the idea that the Board of Agriculture are doing something when they are doing nothing. You will see in the papers to-morrow that the Board of Agriculture are going to secure these thousands of acres and make a new experiment which will go a long way towards securing 1,000,000 acres later on, and people will be fooled again as in the past.
  All these arrangements have failed and will fail so long as you have the present land monopoly system in existence. I object very strongly to any further powers being given to the Board of Agriculture. We have heard in this House a remarkable statement in advocacy of a certain measure. We have had Conservative Members urging that measure because they were assured that the old conditions were going to be replaced in a short time by entirely new ones. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull said that the old government by the bourgeoisie was going and predicted the rising of revolutionary parties in this country— revolutionary in their outlook, at any rate. When I speak of revolution, I do not mean necessarily the revolution of the streets, but the revolutionary spirit which even Conservatives can see is coming. That revolutionary spirit will, I think, first of all, be directed to a fundamental reform of our land system and its eventual overthrow. It is by new methods, by such potent methods as the taxation of land, that the position of the landowner will be challenged, and, instead of the Board of Agriculture having to go cap in hand and ask the landlords to permit ex-soldiers to use some of the land, the view will be that the land belongs to the community as a whole, and that what belongs to the community as a whole, the community will take without compensation to anybody calling himself an individual owner of the soil. I am confident that it is only by the root-and-branch destruction of the whole land system of this country that small holdings can possibly be made to be profitable.

  135
  The hon. Member opposite said that the small holder could not exist, because he had not capital provided by the State. I do not know how the State is going to provide capital for anybody in the future when we have a debt of £10,000,000,000. The State will be concerned chiefly in finding the interest upon the War Debt, and not in doling capital out to small holders, and if they dole it out to small holders it would have to be at such a rate of interest as would sink the small holders further into a poverty-stricken condition. You can have a system of small holders springing up in the country only if you destroy the whole land system and have nothing but small holders on the land. Take Denmark, for instance. There you have a country in which there are very few men except small holders. The result is that they unite together in their co-operative societies and provide for themselves everything which the Board of Agriculture and its officials seek to provide for our unfortunate small holders, but which they are unable to do, because you cannot have a successful system of small holders when you have one small holding here and another many miles away with great estates between them, and the whole economy of the countryside is such as to deprive them of the opportunities which are essential to their prosperity. It is because the whole system will be challenged and will be fundamentally altered that I have no desire to see this further power given to the Board of Agriculture. The results of the experiment so far show that it is not necessary to give such powers. They are not putting the men back on the land. If they were they could come here and say, "We have put so many men on the land. Here are the figures. Here is the price of the land. Here are the outgoings of this small holding. Here is the profit. This is a success." In such a case I would consider the matter. The hon. Gentleman has given us no facts. He has told us that twenty-six men have been put on the land in over eighteen months, but he can show us no results so far to guarantee the success of this experiment, or to show that there was any need for the extension of the powers of the Board of Agriculture. That being so, I can see no reason for extending these powers.
  Captain Sir C. BATHURST: I find myself in considerable difficulty in
  136
  approaching a consideration of this Bill. Two years ago, as the House no doubt is aware, I was invited by the then President of the Board of Agriculture to become organiser under the Board of the original land settlement scheme for ex-Service men, and I am bound to say that it was the most unenthusing and most disappointing task to which I ever set my hand. The scheme then, as I took the opportunity of saying in this House, was mean in the extreme— as a national scheme to provide with land in their own country these men who had been so gallantly fighting for our security overseas— and attempts were then being made by appeals to the Treasury and to the Cabinet of the day to embark upon a much wider and more generous scheme approximating more to the much more liberal scheme which were being embarked upon by our various overseas Dominions to provide for the men who had come from overseas to help us in this War. As the result of my experience— and I venture to think that no one in this House has had greater experience, though in connection with a somewhat limited scheme— I find it extremely difficult to commend this extended proposal to the favour of this House. I do welcome the idea that a very much larger area of British soil should be made available for men to settle upon, and I have every reason to believe that there is a considerable number who are not only anxious but are well-fitted, with little or no training, to become land settlers in this country. But I am not at all satisfied that by simply multiplying the existing area by ten you are going to satisfy these prospective or would-be settlers, or that you are going to carry out a scheme that is economically sound.
  I have reason to know that with even the limited area which is to be obtained, the difficulty of securing the right kind of land, in the right areas, where proper social facilities can be obtained, where proper equipment will be available, and suitable cottages, will be very considerable. There was a serious outcry from the farmers because they would be unsettled or displaced in order that their farms might be taken over by the Government for the purpose of these small holdings. That was the difficulty two years ago. It is at least three times as difficult now, and I am not at all sure that you are not going to add, by resolving upon this scheme now, to the already considerable embarrassment and causes of unsettlement which are agitating the minds of farmers throughout the country, as the result of what they

  137
  call the turning of the screw upon them by various Government Departments. If we could achieve the end that most of us desire I should be the last to criticise, and I should say, "Let the country pay handsomely for putting these men on the land." But you are going to put on the land a mere handful of men out of a very large number in the British Army to-day who are ready and anxious to settle on British soil. Even if the land of a quality which can be intensively cultivated, and out of the small area of which a living can be made, I estimate that you are not going to settle more than 1,200 men. Land is going to be exceedingly difficult to get, and extremely expensive, and, when you have obtained that, the men are not going to settle down comfortably if these colonies are some distance from their homes. I, for my part, would infinitely prefer to this Bill that the discretion of the small holdings committees of the county councils should once more be revived, and authority given them to provide men, within the county, on the territorial basis, with small holdings within reach of their homes, with plenty of people taking a burning interest in them and in their future welfare, and with a general supervision on the part of the county authorities.
  With regard to my own county— I am on the small holdings committee in Gloucestershire — we are ready and anxious to embark at once upon a scheme for soldiers and sailors, so long as we are allowed to get on with the provision of small holdings. There are considerable numbers of estates and farms coming into the market, and we can buy with greater judgment, with more discretion, and at lower prices than the State will have to pay in order to get areas on which to settle a very much larger number of men, many of them at a considerable distance from their homes. I should not be surprised if in Gloucestershire alone we could not, if we had the power, settle, within two to three years, 200 out of the 1,200 that I estimate this area of land which is to be acquired by the State will provide for. I think the same may be said of every county in England, and we should be able to keep the men on the land on the territorial basis, as comrades in the matter of cultivation as they were comrades in arms. I find it very difficult to support this Bill. I shall be interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Acland), who had a good
  138
  deal to do with the first land settlement scheme, has to say, and I am prepared to be very largely guided by the action he takes and by the advice he is prepared to give to the House. I do not like the Bill; I think it is going to be a great waste of Government money, and I am quite sure that the localities could carry out the work infinitely better, if given the powers to do it.
  Major DAVIES: I join in the appeal which has been made to include in the scope of this Bill disabled soldiers. There is a general impression abroad that those men who are discharged from the Army owing to wounds and physical disabilities will not come within the scope of the measure, which is not primarily intended for their benefit. I should be very sorry if that be the case. I hope my hon. Friend will make it perfectly clear that this form of colony is intended not only for men discharged, but also for those men who have been wounded and discharged on account of physical disabilities. I should like to know, further, what precisely are the functions of the Minister of Agriculture as to the men being given pensions in this matter. We know perfectly well that it is open to the right hon. Gentleman to elaborate a scheme for the training of discharged men, and I sincerely hope that the scope of the operations between the activities, on the one hand, of the Board of Agriculture, and, on the other hand, of the Ministry of Pensions, will be extended in order to include those men to whom I refer. I believe the Ministry of Pensions intend to establish training colonies with a view to training discharged men in market gardening, in poultry keeping, and in other kinds of work closely akin to agriculture. I agree that men who have been discharged because of physical disabilities could very usefully be trained in agricultural pursuits. I believe that more and more as time goes on a great many men serving in the Army and who will be discharged will desire to earn their livelihood in agriculture. With regard to the county committees, I agree entirely with the remarks which fell from my hon. Friend sitting below me (Mr. Ellis Davies) who, we know, speaks with authority on this question, and I sincerely hope that the Government will see fit to adopt the suggestion he threw out which will make for the success of any scheme of this kind. Personally I do not believe in bureaucratic methods, and I think that the more

  139
  devolution we have the more prospect there is of this scheme being successfully carried out. I am glad to find that the Bill contemplates increasing the acreage alloted to Wales, which in the original Bill was only 2,000 acres, but which is now increased to 20,000. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it necessarily follows the small holdings are not going to be successful. They may not have been so in the past, but agriculture now is, and for a great many years to come, will be a much more profitable occupation than it was in previous years. Therefore, I think the prospects of the smallholders are much brighter than they have ever been before
  9.0 p.m.
  There is one other point I wanted to mention and that is with regard to finance. If the money is spent as we believe it ought to be spent in providing opportunities for discharged men going on the land, I think it would be much better spent if in the first place we made provision for the suitable training of discharged men rather than embarking upon a big scheme of this kind. I understand, rightly or wrongly, that the Ministry of Pensions finds difficulty in extracting money from the Treasury for carrying on adequately the treatment and training of these men, and I think the discharged disabled men will be better able to serve the State if first of all the State were to see that the treatment and training provided was the very best that could possibly be established. When that has been done by all means go ahead with your small holdings. But the first thing to do is to provide for the treatment and training and to see that there is the closest co-ordination between the Ministry of Pensions and the Board of Agriculture and that having done, it may be possible to provide that these smallholders shall secure the necessary amount of capital to start on their farms. Unless this is forthcoming the whole scheme will be useless. Credit societies ought to be established which will enable the smallholder adequately to stock and equip his farm, and. more than that,the Government ought to make provision for a maximum amount of co-operation between all these smallholders, to assist them in marketing their produce and also in purchasing the equipment and stock which they require for their holdings. When all these things are done, and I sincerely hope that the Board
  140
  will push forward with their scheme, then we may find that the requirements of the men who are returning from the Army and desire to go in for an agricultural career will be adequately met.
  Sir J. SPEAR:Every well-wisher of the country has in years past been alarmed at the migration of the population from the rural districts into the towns. In this connection we have all heard that the maintenance of the physique of the people as well as the importance of our food supplies make it extremely desirable that more people should live on the land, and it seems to me that when before long, and the sooner the better, the brave and gallant fellows who have fought for us in war come home again, it is an extremely good opportunity to accomplish this purpose and seek to settle many of these men on the land. Therefore, one cannot but have the greatest possible sympathy with any proposal the Government may present to the House for the purpose of effecting that object. But I am bound to say that I was very suspicious from the beginning that the establishment of these colonies was not the best way to effect it. After what has fallen from the hon. Member for Wilton (Sir Charles Bathurst), who was rather enthusiastic in support of these colonies when he first had charge of them, one becomes a little anxious as to what action one should take on the Bill now under consideration.
  I am not prepared to vote against the Bill, as presumably my hon. Friend opposite will, but I believe that it will be necessary in Committee to consider considerable Amendments which will somewhat limit the powers of this Bill before we have clear evidence as to the probability of its success. I venture to believe that it would be far better for us, at least in carrying out the policy of settling returned soldiers on the land, if we endeavoured through the county councils to secure some more holdings throughout the country for these men. It has been said, and I fully agree, that these men who will come back proud of the achievement of the victory which we hope they are going to secure, would much rather settle down in the locality where they were born and bred than migrate some forty or fifty miles to find a small holding in one of these colonies. I ventured last week to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it was not proposed to take some steps such as were

  141
  recommended by the Royal Commission, suggesting that advances of money should be made from the Treasury to county councils to help these men to start in the cultivation of the small holdings.
  Much has been said about the failure of small holdings. I think it has been some what exaggerated. At first the prices of agricultural produce were so low that it was exceedingly difficult for smallholders to make any headway, and they had to sell hay, straw, and produce which they ought to have consumed in order to keep up the fertility of the soil, but I think with improved prices there is a prospect of small holdings being more successful. The hon. Member below the Gangway delivered a speech we have listened to many times before. He wanted all the land of this country to be small holdings, and I think he took up an illogical position. Because he cannot got that, he is against any small holdings whatever, and is going to oppose the Government Bill. I think we want holdings of all sizes in this country— the small holding for the agricultural labourer to get his lift up, then the bigger holding to which he can advance, and holdings, too, sufficiently large to encourage enterprising men to settle upon them— men who, by the cultivation of the best classes of stock and by the best system of agriculture, do contribute very extensively to certain classes of agriculture produce which are necessary and add to the prosperity of the agricultural districts. We want holdings certainly of all sizes, but especially at present we want to give the returned soldier who is suited to the work a chance to start in the cultivation of the land he has helped to save.
  Criticism was levelled at the Parliamentary Secretary just now, because he had to reject so many of the applicants for small holdings, and he explained that many of them had had no previous experience, nor were they, in his judgment, fitted to make them a success. It is a positive cruelty to put a man on a small holding if he has not some adaptability to the work. Whether it be a small holding of 10 acres or one of 20 acres, unless he has sufficient knowledge of the cultivation of the soil, and a somewhat acute knowledge, I am afraid he will make a failure, and therefore it is of first-rate importance to have the right men for this class of occupation in order to meet with success. But to encourage the settlement of returned soldiers here and there through-
  142
  cut the whole country will have this additional advantage. I do not think, except very near a large town in market gardening, that a man can make a living out of 10 or 20 acres of ground; but if, with his little pension, he settles down comfortably on a holding of that size, any spare time that is over and above that necessary to the cultivation of his holding can be very profitably laid out in assisting his neighbour, perhaps, who has a larger holding. He will thereby increase his income, and be enabled to accumulate money that will by and by help him to procure a larger holding. Therefore, I am in a difficult position. I shall not vote against the Bill, because I recognise that it is an earnest effort on the part of the Board of Agriculture to deal with what we all agree is a very important subject and a difficult subject to deal with. At the same time, I feel strongly that it is better for us to encourage suitable returned soldiers and sailors to settle in small holdings throughout the country than it is to bring them into one large colony.
  I would like to say this before I sit down: If those large colonies are procured, it must mean the turning out of many who are at present cultivating large areas. It will dispossess the men who, by the ordinary principles of supply and demand, have become occupiers of that land. It is rather hard on them to be turned out, but if small holdings were established throughout the country, and if you took 20 acres from a farmer here and 20 acres from a farmer there, it would not be nearly so great a hardship as if you took away the whole of his farm. It might be, and probably would be, that he would farm the remnant of his farm, devoting the extra labour and the manure to it, and he might produce just as much food as from the whole acreage. Of course, I know the farmers do not like to part with any of their land, and merchants and others are in pretty much the same position. But I submit that this is a national question. We want to get more people to live in the rural districts in the interests of the physique of the nation, in the interests of increased food supply, but especially, in this case, to find suitable occupation for returned soldiers and sailors, and to give them a chance of a living, and a useful occupation in the district from which they went forth to fight for their country. Under those circumstances, while I cannot vote against the Bill, I do wish the Board would rather induce the Treasury to

  143
  carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission and help county councils to advance capital to those men on loan, in order that they may start on small holdings. Then I think we should accomplish the purpose we all have in view more readily than we shall in the direction the Government propose in reference to the establishment of these colonies. But the work has been begun, and up to a limited extent I cannot bring myself to take any action in opposition to giving a fair trial to this experiment, although I do not think this is the best way of seeking to settle these men in life.
  Mr. ANDERSON: When this matter was brought before the House on a previous Bill there was a general consensus of opinion that the Government proposal was altogether inadequate, and, as one previous hon. Member said, it was really a. mean scheme. I should have imagined that when the representatives of the Board of Agriculture proposed the present extension they would at least have justified wholly what they have already done, that they would have proved that the previous scheme was on the right lines, that it had been a great and assured success, and that therefore they could in all confidence ask the House to agree to an extension of the principle they had previously adopted. Has the Parliamentary representative of the Board of Agriculture made any such convincing statement? How many disabled men have been placed upon the land, or have been granted small holdings under previous arrangements? Have any disabled men been placed upon the land under previous Bills? I gather that twenty-six men in all have been found small holdings. How many of those were disabled men, and what was the average cost to the nation of the placing of each of those men? At what average cost to the nation was each man found a small holding? These are points which ought to be much more clearly brought out than they have been up to the present. It is quite clear that there has been great difficulty even in finding 6,000 acres of suitable land for the experiment on the previous lines. Indeed, I make bold to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Board of Agriculture, after taking the land, has found in certain cases that it was not very suitable at all for small holdings. I myself have letters of complaint from discharged soldiers who have gone down to these colonies under the promise that when they had under-
  144
  gone a period of training a small holding would be found for them, and, after undergoing that period of training, they at last have come to the conclusion that they were going to be no more than just paid land labourers working upon these colonies. I have raised that matter in this House by means of questions. I, therefore, would like to ask how far is the present colony land suitable for the purposes of small holdings? How far are the men who are trained being guaranteed that they are going to get small holdings at the end of their training, and is this the best way of going forward? If there has been all this difficulty in regard to the 6,000 acres of land already acquired, is the Board of Agriculture convinced that it is not going to encounter even greater difficulties in regard to securing suitable land under this new proposal?
  Personally, I am convinced that there is a good deal of force in the argument that it is far better that the soldiers who desire land should, to the largest possible extent, be allowed to settle down in their own counties. The less bureaucracy you have in this matter, the better. The more it is taken in hand by local associations that know the land and who know the men, the better. To that extent the success of it will be very much greater. It is no good believing that any man can become a good land-worker. Many men who have been soldiers might desire to work upon the land, but their suitability would certainly have to be inquired into. We should not be doing very much for the soldiers if we placed entirely unsuitable men on the land, men who will never really learn land-work, because they arc far too old to learn the technicalities of it. We want, in regard to these schemes, to have far wider local powers, to have very far-reaching powers of co-operation, and we want to have very drastic powers in regard to the acquirement of land when land can be found under suitable and good conditions. It is very important that these men should not be burdened with debt o fall sorts, should not begin the experiment with a load of debt round their neck which, in many cases, they will never be able to shake off. Consequently means must be found, either by special co-operative, or credit banks, and in other ways, to raise the necessary capital under the very best conditions. I do not know how far the landowners will be willing to co-operate in any scheme of this kind. I am quite certain that in any case full powers of

  145
  compulsion ought, where necessary, to be vested, and that these powers ought to be fully used.
  I desire to say this: That it will be an excellent thing if large numbers of soldiers who can do land work, and who have knowledge and experience of land work— many of whom were farm labourers before the outbreak of the War— it will, I say, be an excellent thing if they can go back to the land under new conditions of independence and greater freedom. I am sure it would be a good thing if we could colonise England to a far greater extent than is at present the case. I am certain that the whole experience of the last few years has been to the effect that this country should grow far more food than it has done in the past. From every point of view, this country ought to grow more food inside its own shores than in the past. Among other things, I do believe that if what is suggested is to be done, there will have to be a real alteration of the present system of land tenure. You will have to get down to the root causes. You will not be able to solve the problem by the rather doubtful, and not too successful, experiments which the Government is now tinkering with. Old systems have gone. That applies as much to the land system as any other. In the rebuilding which will come very fundamental changes will have to take place. I am satisfied that the men who will come back from the battlefield will not be content to go back to old conditions of life. They will demand something better and higher than the old conditions. I am also assured of this, that they will not be content with the kind of schemes the Government are now bringing forward. Something much more drastic, and going much deeper to the root of things, will have to be adopted if the future of these men and the welfare of the country is to be correctly considered.
  Mr. T. DAVIES: In the memory of hon. Members here, I think it will be allowed that when the original Bill was brought before the House there was an endeavour to increase the land which had to be taken for the purposes of the Bill by tenfold, or by even hundredfold. At that time we could not get any more than the quantity of land set down in the Bill. The reason given then was that this land, or these colonies, was simply for experimental and training purposes. I do not know whether it is intended that this addi-
  146
  tional land should be treated in exactly the same way as the land under the original Act. After hearing the speeches of such experienced agriculturists as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock, I am not quite sure whether, without some considerable alteration when the Bill comes before the Committee, I can support it with such a good heart as I thought I should be able to do. I was rather surprised also in reading the Report on the original Act to note that it is rather disclaimed that the land was intended entirely for disabled men— they say nothing about discharged men. I thought at the time of the passing of the Bill that the land was intended for those who had fought in the War for us, and that it was intended entirely for discharged soldiers.
  Sir C. BATHURST: And disabled soldiers.
  Mr. DAVIES: Well, the paragraph in the Report I have in my hand does not quite support that view. The colonies were not intended to make provision for disabled men as such, but to ascertain by actual experiment how far small holdings on the colony system, upon the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee, can be successfully organised. I hope that by getting this much larger quantity of land the disabled soldiers will not be debarred, because many of them with a pension, by getting from 10 to 20 acres, will be able to make a good living. I think, instead of having these great colonies, it might be better to have smaller quantities in different counties than to have a large piece of land in one or two places. We all agree that if a farmer has to give up land he would rather give up about 20 acres than give up the whole of his farm. It would be easier to get small holdings in this way than to have large colonies. If the experiment which this 6,500 acres is intended for proves a success, I hope the Government, if they get this Bill, will not rush into getting the whole of this land exactly on the same pattern until they have found out that the experiment in the first 6,500 acres has been the success that they anticipated.
  Most of the soldiers I have in mind will not require much training. When the last Bill was before the House dealing with this subject I stated that I could find in my own county more men than

  147
  would be required to take every acre provided for in the Bill, and they would be men who would not want any training. The men who have fought for us and have been prepared to lay down their lives and have been disabled should not be prevented from taking a portion of land on that account. There are many men now at the front who after the War will be invaluable as small holders, but they probably will not have any cash, and I think some suitable means should be devised to get money for those men, and to encourage them to take small holdings. It is far better to take men who understand the land and provide them with money than to get men who do not understand agriculture, even if they have money, because the latter are more likely to make a failure of it. If the Government will listen to some Amendments in this direction in Committee, I shall feel inclined to support this Bill.
  Mr. ACLAND: As the hon. Member who has just spoken has been so kind as to ask me to express my view of this Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for Wilton (Sir C. Bathurst) has done the same, I feel overwhelmed with their kindness and consideration, and I am only sorry that what I have to say will not be very clear guidance one way or the other. I am really puzzled about the Bill for this obvious reason, that one would expect after eighteen months' time given to an experiment it would have been possible to have said definitely that the experiment had either been a success or a failure, and if a failure we should not have had any more proposals, and if a success we should have had something a good deal bigger than the lines of this Bill. I do not see why it is necessary to make another effort still more or less on an experimental scale. I believe it was right to begin on as mall scale. We tried to put these smallholders together in colonies. There was much to be said in favour of doing that, and I hold it was justifiable only to propose a modest beginning. If it has been on the whole a success one would have expected that the next time the Government came forward they would have had some thorough scheme of making land available for settlements after the War, and that they would have been able by that time to tell the House what powers
  148
  they proposed to take with regard, for instance, to simplifying and cheapening the acquisition of land.
  It is one thing to try to get hold of 6,000 acres without having done anything to simplify the acquisition of land by public authority, but it is quite a different thing to acquire 60,000 acres. If the Government were going to ask for a much larger scheme I should have thought they would have been able to tell us what their policy was, and what was the scheme sanctioned by the Government, if any, with regard to the reclamation of land. We might have heard what they were going to do with regard to getting rid of the undoubted evils of several big farms being in the hands of one farmer, who would be better if confined to a smaller area, and whether that was the main lines on which they were going to operate by getting several holdings out of the hands of one man. I have been trying to think what this limited extension does mean, and I can only account for it by supposing that it is put forward to make use of the superabundant and overflowing energies of my hon. Friend opposite and the Under-Secretary without too much chance of getting too much done.
  I know how the Treasury regard any scheme of this kind for the general amelioration of the British nation, and I feel sure that they have been impelled by the President of the Board of Agriculture to do something, but they have been able to arrange not to do too much at one time. When I think about the general condition of our home politics I am not so much surprised that so little is being proposed, and that in eighteen months we have got no further towards a general scheme of settlement, and I am surprised, in view of the general position, that it is possible to propose anything at all now. This is the first proposal really savouring of anything in the nature of reconstruction of our land system after the War which has come before the House, and I am surprised that even that has got through, because when one knows the position the more we know it and the more we realise the absolute impossibility of getting any domestic scheme of reconstruction through under our system of government. A year ago my right hon. Friend asked me to work on a Committee of which the Parliamentary Secretary was the chairman, in order to try and work out a real scheme for getting a large amount of land on which to settle ex-Service men,

  149
  I think we did our work under his chairmanship quickly and efficiently. We did it a year ago and nothing else whatever has happened from that time to this, because the War Cabinet are utterly unable to consider schemes of that kind.
  Several times, as we all know, different Governments have successively asked for the removal of the embargo on the action of county councils in order to get the small holding scheme started again and make some sort of preparation for settling soldiers on the land. That has been turned down over and over again, because it is quite impossible to ask the War Cabinet to give their minds to the necessity of the case and to remove the obstruction. So it is with other things and must be so long as the present system goes on. I myself, as Chairman of one of these Reconstruction Committees, did a tiny piece of work with regard to afforestation. I was vain enough to think that it was a matter of importance, and I was very impatient to get the Report out by Easter. We got it out by May, and I hoped that would be in time to enable the Government to take some action before the autumn. That Report went in more than a year ago, but nothing whatever has been done, except that there have been some conversations between Government Departments, most of it, I am sorry to say, of an obstructive character. It has been twice on the agenda of the War Cabinet, but, of course, the Cabinet have to consider such enormously important matters that it has never been reached and never will be reached so long as the War Cabinet is the bottle neck through which all our schemes for reconstruction and development have to pass. In the light of these events one is rather disposed to re-shape one's ideas about a Bill of this kind, particularly seeing that the instances I have given arc by no means the only ones. In the work that we tried to do with regard to afforestation we came across the problem which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) and others have mentioned, namely, land acquisition. It became apparent, unless we had an easier and cheaper system of land acquisition by the State and by public authorities, that it would really not be right to go under the old clog of the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts, and so on. Progress, however, has been made after long delay. A report has been presented to Parliament, but there again no simpler powers of land acquisition for these reconstruction purposes have been taken.
  150
  In the light of these events, when we do get a thing through we ought not to look at it too carefully, but we ought to be thankful for small mercies. The War Cabinet cannot consider these things. Over and over again they have been requested to set up a small domestic cabinet to deal with and to settle these domestic affairs. The War Cabinet, of course, never can do more, as the War becomes more difficult and critical. Therefore, when we have something which has got through this frightful constipation— I am sorry to use the word, but it is really the only one to describe the position— of our domestic affairs we ought not to look too closely at it, especially when we are perfectly certain that, whatever powers are given to the President and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, they will be administered with extreme care and watchfulness. This Bill, which I in common with other Members find it so difficult to understand, may be allowed to have its Second Reading, so that, at any rate, if the War goes on long enough, some land may be ready for the men when demobilisation takes place. It is only because of my thorough and profound trust in the administration of the Board of Agriculture at the present time that I think we ought to give them this Bill for which they ask. The general position with regard to the larger schemes which we all expected is extraordinarily unsatisfactory, and I wish it were not the case of having to be grateful for such a small measure as is presented to us this evening.
  Sir R. WINFREY: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has dealt with the difficulties which face this Department and all other Departments at the present time in getting on with works of reconstruction. They are real difficulties, and I am sure that the House realises how serious they are. I am quite confident myself that these experimental or, as I prefer to call them, these pioneer colonies are going to be made a success. I admit that it has been a slow progress. We have only got possession of half the land at present. There are two colonies of which we have not got possession at all. Still we are coming to the end of our powers to obtain land, and we want the House to give us the power to go on and continue the work. It is the determination of the Department not to have such large colonies, but to have smaller colonies, and to get them in a

  151
  greater number of counties than we have them at the present time. That means that if we can get 60,000 acres we may be able to have a small colony in every agricultural county in England. I should like to say, in reply to a question, that the estate in Shropshire of 1,150 acres, which we purchased from the Duke of Sutherland, cost us £35 an acre. We have upon that estate no less than forty-five excellent houses and five farm-houses and buildings. If that land had gone into the open market it would have made more than that. The same thing applies to the Pembury estate. We have given £ 30,000 for 1,345 acres, which works out at £ 22 per acre. It is good land, and I believe it is a great bargain for the State. We propose to put these small holding colonies on business and commercial lines, and we are doing so. I may take the ease of Holland, which I know best, because Lincolnshire is my own native county, and I was born within five miles of the district. There we have splendid land, and we propose to build a house and to put one man on every 10 acres. It is land which will grow potatoes and catch crops of every sort. We are spending £ 300 on the man's house, we propose to spend from £ 150 to £ 200 on his buildings, and to give him 10 acres of land. We propose to let the house, buildings, and land at an inclusive rental of £ 40 per year. We have already got twenty-six men down there.
  Mr. T. DAVIES: All discharged men?
  Sir R. WINFREY: Yes. I was down there the other day and I saw one man with an artificial hand ploughing. He had got a hook attached to his arm, and he was ploughing. That is the type of man that we are prepared to take and want to take. We cannot take men suffering from neurasthenia and nervous breakdown. We have one man with one arm. He has come along and started cow-keeping, and he is going to make a tremendous success of his holding. I am quite certain, if you give us time, that we are going to make the thing a success.
  Major HUNT: Can you say anything about the capital of the men about whom you are talking?
  Sir R. WINFREY: All these men that we have put on the holdings to start with are men who have either been put through a term of probation or have a little capital
  152
  of their own. When they have no capital we ask them to go through a term of probation.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: Would it not be better to allow the men to borrow rather than go through a term of probation?
  Sir R. WINFREY: There is no power in the Act which allows us to lend money to these men.
  Mr. DAVIES: Will you take power?
  Sir R. WINFREY: We have to confine it to men who have a small amount of capital and to men who are prepared to work on probation and who are able to save sufficient money to take a small holding.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: What do these men pay? How will they be able to save?
  Sir R. WINFREY: We pay them a very good wage. In the case of Patrington estate we propose there should be a division of profits. It is to be a profit-sharing business. Therefore, if any man has no capital, he can come to Patrington and can share in the profits. These are the main principles of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) had said, it is not a big thing. It is intended to go on with this pioneer policy until such time as the Government can introduce a much larger and more national scheme.
  Sir CROYDON MARKS: I find no word in the original Act which is now sought to be amended or in this Bill which gives me any encouragement to believe that this Bill is intended for use or is to be used exclusively for men who are returned from the fighting line. On the contrary, I find it stated to be a huge experiment— an experiment, not for the purpose of the dealing with the land by men who understand the land, but for placing on the land, not as units but as aggregate masses, men who are to be congregated together as colonists. Perchance, before they can be so congregated, you must have displaced men who are actually engaged upon the land at the very time. In the original Bill it was proposed that if the farmer or the tenant was to be displaced he was to be compensated, and the labourer was to have his railway expenses paid to another place. I cannot understand what reason there is for displacing one body of labour which is used to the land for the purpose of placing on the land a number of

  153
  experimental novices, possibly, who have never yet been on it, not finding them in money, but giving them a period of probation and, as we have heard from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, they are to have profit-sharing if there is any profit, although until the profit arises I see nothing in the Bill which is going to provide for their wages. You cannot have a profit until you have gone through a certain amount of work. You cannot reap until you have had a sufficient amount of sowing of seed, of corn, and so on, which has to be purchased. Where is all this to come from? There is nothing in the Bill to say that the man must already have been connected with the industry. You are banding together a number of people, when you know that it is the opinion of every agricultural district, not that you should break up the land, but that you should assist men who are on the land, and who can make best use of it with the power of the State behind them, whereas it is now proposed to give that assistance to men not used to the land before.
  Some people imagine that anybody can be a farmer, that anybody can deal with land, and that if a man has failed in everything else and has been in a town, he wants to return to the land. If he returns he will grow a great many more thistles than anything else, because he has not had experience. If men from the front are to be helped, there are plenty of them who have come from agricultural districts who could be returned and helped in their own native places, where they know something about the land, rather than that they should be massed in other places where they know nothing about the particular land and have had no experience, It is suggested that there is to be a probationary period. That implies that you are going to make an experiment with the men. If you are going to make an experiment with the men, how long is it assumed to be necessary before a man can become a good agriculturist? Is it six months, or a year, or longer? At the very time we are discussing putting men on probation in order to make an experiment in connection with land we have an Education Bill before this House under which we are providing that the boys in the agricultural districts are themselves to be trained in agriculture. County councils are to have the power in such matters in their own districts, which means, as in my own county, matters touching agriculture. If
  154
  it is necessary for boys and young people to be taught agriculture through a period of years, what chance is there going to be for a successful result from an experiment which is going to take men returned from some other occupation and put them through a short period of training at an industry at which they have never worked before. I consider the experiment of taking the number of acres of land which is now proposed— it was 12,500 acres originally, now it is to be 125.000 acres—
  Sir R. WINFREY: It is now 60,000 for England and Wales.
  Sir C. MARKS: What is it for England, Scotland and Wales?
  Sir R. WINFREY: It is 80,000, including Scotland.
  Sir C. MARKS: Is it not 125,000, instead of 12,500 acres?
  Sir R. WINFREY: No; it is 80,000 acres altogether.
  Sir C. MARKS: You are taking 80,000 instead of 8,000.
  Sir R. WINFREY: Yes.
  Sir C. MARKS: We have heard to-night that only twenty-six men have been placed upon the land which has been purchased. These men apparently had capital to start with. If they had not had it, they could not have been put on the land. I consider that the experiment now about to be developed is being developed on wrong lines. You are developing it on lines to help men who have a little money, who probably could help themselves equally well without your assistance if they could only get hold of land. The difficulty is to get the land. If you make it easy for people with money to get the land, you can then apply your help in other and better directions than this, where men may possibly be needing your help to find the land and work in the counties from which they come. I suggest that if this Bill is not drafted widely enough to permit the Government to lend the money to men to acquire the land in their own districts, and to acquire that which is necessary to work it, it ought to be amended in Committee in order that the land in the country shall be worked by men accustomed to it rather than that a number of colonies should be' formed of men who admittedly have not had experience with it, and who would not

  155
  be easily trained. You cannot train an agricultural labourer in six months or twelve months. It takes a number of years to train a good agricultural labourer. Those who know the agricultural districts of England know full well that there are labourers who can till and who can produce from some districts what no other labourers can. That is why in making exemptions care is being taken that men shall not be drawn from the district who are essential to any particular crafts connected with agriculture. Now the Board of Agriculture, having made all that provision to keep men from the Army for the essential crafts in connection with agriculture, are proposing a huge experiment of trying a number of men who have not had the experience of the land which is not to be their own. The opportunity for getting land of their own is wanting in the provisions of this Bill. I suggest that the Bill will want radically altering if it is to obtain the support of the Members of this House who have the interests of agriculture at heart
  Mr. RAFFAN: This Bill has received no welcome from any quarter of the House. I have listened in vain to hear one hon. Member give it support. The Bill has been commended to us in a speech from the hon. Member in charge, which is lacking in enthusiasm and which showed a conviction that it might not attain the end in view. And while there has been this consensus of criticism from so many quarters, it cannot be attributed to any disinclination to support the objects to attain which the Bill was introduced. On the contrary, there is, I think, in every part of the House, and throughout the country as well, an almost passionate desire that an opportunity should be given to the men who are fighting so gallantly for the country to settle down on the land when they come back. It is absolutely certain that if the only opportunity which is given to these men to come back and work again as agriculturists means giving them an improved wage, you will not secure an addition to the number of agricultural workers before the War. You will not find that the men who were employed as agricultural labourers prior to the outbreak will be willing to come back and settle down as mere wage earners with no prospect, that ultimately they will be able to secure a piece of land which they themselves can cultivate. In nearly all our Colonies, in most of them, at any rate,
  156
  great efforts are being made to offer inducements not only to soldiers who have come from those Colonies, but to soldiers from the Mother Country to go and settle there, and we may be quite sure that unless a real opportunity is given to commonise the land of Great Britain this magnetic attraction of settling down in one's own home will be so great that it will be impossible to secure land workers in this country in any large number. I was one of those who, when the original Bill was introduced, predicted that only failure could accrue from the experiment which it was then proposed to make. The experience of the past eighteen months or two years has fully realised that prediction. We have been told several times in the course of this Debate that as a result of the efforts of eighteen months or two years only twenty-six men have been settled on the land. I gather that all these men are in one colony in Lincolnshire.
  Sir R. WINFREY: No!
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. RAFFAN: At any rate, they are in not more than two colonies, and therefore, so far as this proposal of commonising the land is concerned, we are not in a position to say that the scheme has been brought into operation to a sufficient extent to say it will prove a success. Even if the provision for 200 men were taken advantage of, that would not meet the great demand that is bound to arise at the close of the War. What is the scheme, then, except a mere mockery of the hopes which have been raised amongst Service men that they will get an opportunity of settling on the land? So far as I can judge, even if the promises of this Bill were realised, even if all the men anticipated were settled on the land, it would not make up for the number of men who have been withdrawn from the small holdings of the county councils during the last year or two; and if the county councils continue their embargo the only result of this proposal will be to put us in exactly the same position as we were before, and not to produce for us any addition to the number of small holders. It seemed to me that this experiment was bound to fail, because it was based on the fundamental fallacy that it was impossible to secure a great system of land settlement which would do justice to our soldiers without fundamentally altering the land system of this country. My right hon. Friend, in a moment of enthusiasm, indicated that a number of landowners would probably

  157
  come forward with offers of land for the purpose. I think his hope was based on the generosity of one man only, and they certainly have not been realised, for the example of the one pioneer who came forward with an offer of land has been followed by no others, and it has been found impossible to secure a sufficient number of landowners willing to let their land on reasonable terms. Indeed, it has been necessary to take Crown lands for the purposes of this experiment, because private owners could not be found in sufficient numbers to make land available at reasonable prices. If that has been our experience so far, what is the use of going on in the old blundering fashion? I should have thought that the lessons of this War with regard to our land system were clear enough. What has been one of the greatest successes in the matter of food production since the outbreak of war? It has been the development of the allotment system, under which hundreds of thousands of working men, many of whom had had little or, no previous experience, settled down for the purpose of growing potatoes and vegetables, and the result has been that the potato famine which threatened us a year or more ago has entirely disappeared, and whatever may be our apprehensions as to the supply of wheat and other foods, there need be no further alarm with regard to the supply of potatoes. How was it possible for these men to settle down and take up this work with such great enthusiasm? It was unnecessary to introduce any Bill to tempt them to take up this work, and there was no promise of any subsidy from the National Exchequer. They required to be provided with no capital from the State coffers, but what was done in their case was that you did take steps to see that the landowner was not allowed to prevent access to the soil, and that where the land was paying no rates then it could be compulsorily acquired by the local authority and no rent paid, while if it was paying rates it was paid for at the rateable value.
  If the Board of Agriculture would proceed along those lines and side by side with that alter the present method of rating, which presses so hardly on the smallholder because his equipment is necessarily so much greater a proportion of the value of the holding than in the case of the farmer, then, indeed, there might be some hope of action being taken
  158
  that would have the effect of settling smallholders in the country. Along the lines on which this Bill proceeds, however, there appears to be no hope whatever, and although I am reluctant to divide against the Second Reading I do suggest that the Bill will not only be useless, but positively mischievous, because it will give the impression to those who do not follow the proceedings closely that some real effort is being made for the purpose of dealing with the problem, and will discourage those who would otherwise press for the real solution. I listened to my hon. Friend for some explanation as to why, if you are to proceed along the lines of settlement in each county, small holdings near the men's homes, he should propose to proceed with a Bill of this sort, instead of permitting the county councils, who already have experience in the matter, who have their small holdings committee, who have the local knowledge and have acquired a considerable amount of experience, to do the work. That point was put by the hon. Member for Wilton (Sir C. Bathurst), by the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire (Major Hunt), and others, and there has been no answer to that at all. In the meantime, while they propose to encourage land settlement by this Bill, they are not only discouraging the county councils, but are putting a positive embargo on the action of the county councils. Why that should be so we have had no explanation of any sort. Several hon. Members have expressed the hope that the Bill will be satisfactorily amended in Committee. While, as I have said, I am reluctant to challenge the Second Reading I look forward with no hope to making the Bill a satisfactory Bill in Committee. There is not the framework here on which you can build in Committee or on the subsequent stages of this Bill. I do appeal to the Ministers who are in charge of this Bill to endeavour to realise that this is a problem of great magnitude. It is necessary for them to find a solution which is in accordance with the magnitude of the problem, and it is a mere mockery to provide a measure of these dimensions, and on that to hold out some hope that there is a real desire to settle soldiers on the land.
  Mr. HINDS: The object that the Government had in introducing this Bill is one which appeals to me very much for the simple reason that when the Bill

  159
  was brought in the first time there was a chorus all round the House that it was of too small a nature. I think it has a two-fold object, to get the man who has been used to agriculture back on the land once more, and another tiling is that these men, when they have been fighting in the War, will not go back to swell the town populations in the various parts of the country. With regard to the experiments which have already taken place on the land acquired, and contemplated for that of which possession has not yet been obtained, I think there were three different objects in view. One kind of farm was to be a mixed farm, another was to be a poultry farm, and another was to be for market gardening. I believe the one acquired in my own county was intended for a market garden, and I think the land which was acquired at a very low rate, and was a very good bargain for the Government, is well adapted for market gardening. It is very near to a large population, and can take a large number of men, who can make it pay. I thought it was to be on a co-operative principle, that there would be a central farm that would buy all the stuff from the men, and sell for them all the stuff produced. According to what we have heard to-night, the Board of Agriculture are going to alter their tactics to some extent, and to put these small holdings in various counties all over the country. I quite see, with regard to that, the criticism that if they are going to do that they had better put it in the hands of the county councils and give power to them to advance money to these men.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear) that in future farming is going to pay better than in the past. The reason that small holdings have not paid is because the men have not had the money to put into the farms; they will not pay unless you provide the money. You could take power under this Bill that men coming back from the front should have advanced to them the money necessary to make the farm pay in the first place. There will not be an inducement to the man to go on with the farming unless he is lent a sum of money by the Government which he can repay by easy stages. He will not be encouraged unless you trust him. You want the man back from the War to be put on the land, you want to give him a holding of his own, and some inducement to
  160
  make agriculture pay. But, without giving him some amount of money to stock his farm, I do not see how the man is going to have the inducement to make it pay. The other Bill was far too small. I was on the Committee that looked for land in the Principality, and we found we could not disturb sitting tenants. What is the use of disturbing one sort of man to put another in his place? It was very difficult to get 2,000 acres altogether. Five-sixths of all the holdings in Wales are small holdings, because they are under fifty acres. With regard to these holdings in Lincolnshire, it seemed to me that £40 was a lot of money. I know they are going to pay £200 or £300 for the houses, and £100 for the cost of the buildings, but £4 an acre is a very high price It must be good land, and it depends a good deal on the quality of the land. While I welcome the Bill very much, care should be taken to give all encouragement to the men when they go into these holdings at a price at which they can make them pay, so as to give them an inducement to work as well as they can.
  Mr. BOOTH: When my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Davies) rose I expected he would plead for a class which I wish to bring before the attention of the House. He told me afterwards it was an oversight on his part. I want to put before the Board of Agriculture the case of the tuberculous person, and it has a very important bearing now because the sanatorium committees formed under the Insurance Act are overburdened with returned soldiers. I am not suggesting that a man in an advanced stage should be taken and given a small holding. I refer to the man who is discharged cured from these institutions. Probably in the first instance I should plead for the discharged insured soldier. The trouble is that many of these men who have had in their younger days an acquaintance with agriculture have gone into the towns and town life has injured their physique. Then they have gone through hard military training and developed tuberculosis. They have not all gone to France. The majority have broken down in this country and have come back under the Insurance Act, because the Pensions Minister has made an agreement with the National Health Insurance Commissioners. They come on to sanatorium benefit in very large numbers and when they are cured they are faced with the problem how to make a living. Some of them are men of

  161
  quite substantial means and if they could have a holding on which to take wife and family, the problem of their health would be solved. But they go back into the workshop, tempted by the high wages as compared with the poor wage they say the farmer offers to the agricultural labourer. They say they cannot keep their wives and families on it. They go back to the old situations in the munitions works, and it is very painful, indeed, to find that cases discharged as cured, provided the men were working in the open air, develop in the course of a month or six weeks, and they begin to spit blood and exhibit symptoms which show that it is only a question of time before they descend to the grave. It seems to me, therefore, that the fact that there is no particular provision in this or the previous Bill limiting it to wounded soldiers is rather an advantage, because it would enable us to put on the tuberculous soldier. In most cases the man has never been to the trenches, because he developed tuberculous symptoms whilst training in this country. I urge this because at present some of the more enlightened insurance committees are determined to experiment and, if possible, to solve this terrible problem.
  I do not know if hon. Members know how vastly this problem is growing, but it is growing by leaps and bounds, doubling and trebling. And it is not merely the discharged soldier who is coming back, but even with the civilian population, owing to the strain of longer hours, it is increasing. I think it is gone up over 50per cent. among the civilian population here. It is a very serious matter, and there seems to be no permanent cure for these cases unless they are taken in hand at some of these agricultural colonies. The idea of the Board of Agriculture in this Bill should be encouraged. I am delighted to gather that there is now one case of a tuberculous soldier. That information will be received with a great deal of joy and satisfaction throughout the ranks of the insurance workers in this country. I hope he is the forerunner of many. I suggest that there should be a colony of those tuberculous people. They would not live so near to each other as to be a danger, living right out in the country. They would probably be an encouragement to each other, and it would probably be a check upon them. Fortunately, from one standpoint, but unfortunately from another, the men take a very sanguine view of their
  162
  condition. They are convinced that they are cured. Most of them think that they have never had consumption, and it was a mistaken diagnosis. That is a happy feature in one sense, but it also contains a very great element of danger. If there were a colony for these people, it would be easier for the visiting doctor to review their cases and caution them not to act prematurely. I hope that there will be sufficient room in these 60,000 or 80,000 acres for something of this sort. It is difficult to get insurance committees to embark upon this, because it is to a certain extent in the experimental stage, but if the Board of Agriculture would give us a helping hand it would be an excellent example. I am not asking them to convert their experiment into an experiment to kill tuberculosis, but if in one of the corners of their scheme they will bear the suggestion in mind, and if so, and it proves successful, then probably the insurance committees and societies throughout the country will develop a large scheme, and so help this nation to kill what is at the present time one of its most terrible foes— namely, tuberculosis.
  Mr. WATT: This measure applies to Scotland, but very little has been said on the Scottish aspect of the case. I am pleased to see the Secretary for Scotland. I have on two or three occasions referred to the fact that he has been absent when Scottish measures were before the House. I regret to learn that he was ill on those occasions, and I take this, the earliest opportunity, of expressing my regret that in these circumstances I complained of his absence. With reference to this measure in its bearing on Scotland. I may say that under the Act of 1016, which it amends and extends, Scotland was permitted to purchase 2,000 acres for colonies for soldiers and sailors. We have been told to-night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the English Board of Agriculture that in Scotland 1,160 acres of that 2,000 have been purchased. We were not told how many of these 1,160 acres were colonised already. That is a very small proportion of what was permitted by the Act of 1916, only a little more than half. I do not know why the Board of Agriculture for Scotland has been so much behind England in purchasing the necessary land and placing soldiers and sailors on it. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will give us some indication of the facts connected with

  163
  these 1,160 acres. Will he tell us the price that has been paid for this land, and how many men have been put on the land?
  I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire (Major Hunt) in what he said about the necessity of financing these soldiers and sailors that are put on the land. Unless this is done with these men they cannot possibly be a success. No doubt they will have a little capital of their own when they are put on the land, and if they are not financed in some way by the Government that little capital will be lost to them. I understand that the Board of Agriculture in England has made an arrangement with the banks for financing farmers and agriculturists generally. I have asked my right hon. Friend why the same arrangement has not been made for Scotland, and he has told me that the subject was under consideration. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend realises how often the Board of Agriculture in Scotland has things under consideration. It seems to me to be a stock reply which it has in that Department, which is just read out to the House. Why should the Board of Agriculture in Scotland in this matter be behind the Board of Agriculture in England? I do not know whether the two Departments are not equally well staffed Certainly our Scottish Board will be none the worse for a little combing out and gingering. My right hon. Friend will no doubt endeavour to explain satisfactorily why his Department is behind in this respect. I would ask him to take the earliest opportunity of getting the banks in Scotland to arrange to finance agriculturists in the same way as the Board of Agriculture in England has done in the case of England.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his courtesy in withdrawing the somewhat acrimonious comments which he made upon me the other night. If it had been in my power to be present I would have been here. The difficulties in Scotland with regard to this particular scheme are considerably greater than in England. In the first place, there is the difficulty resulting from the condition in the Act of 1916 that one-third of the land secured should be arable. Apart from that, there is this consideration that in Scotland we have a system of long leases, while on this side of the Border it is
  164
  much more easy to get land, as the leases, I understand, are very often annual leases. But, in spite of the difficulty, I quite recognise that the demand in Scotland is not likely to be less comparatively than in England. In fact, I believe that the Scottish soldier is more attached to the soil from which he has sprung than is the case in England, and whereas the soil may be ungrateful, nevertheless he is more desirous and more determined to settle upon it rather than emigrate to a foreign land. In spite of the difficulties to which I have referred, the Scottish Board of Agriculture have succeeded in obtaining a considerable quantity of land during these recent months. We have secured a farm in Eastern Boss of 644 acres, and farms in Dumfries extending to 266 and 264 acres respectively. The total obtained up to-date is 1,174 acres, of which 1,036 are arable. In addition to that, the Board is in treaty for the purchase of land in Fifeshire amounting to TOO acres, so that I hope before long the powers given to the Board in Scotland under the Act of 1916 will be exhausted. I, for one, welcome the proposals of this Bill, which will, I hope, enable us to get more land than we have been able to obtain up to the present time.
  Mr. WATT: How many men are placed upon the land?
  Mr. MUNRO: I did not anticipate that this Debate would come on to-night, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him information on that matter.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Are they not very small holdings?
  Mr. MUNRO: They are somewhat small so far as we have gone, but we have got the very greatest amount of land we could possibly secure. I was recently approached by a deputation of my Scottish colleagues representing the three parties in the House, Conservative, Liberal, and Labour, and they asked me if I could by conference with the interests concerned arrange a solution of this question. I had a most helpful conference with the landowners in Scotland, and I hope next week to meet representatives of the farmers and small holders. All of them are equally anxious to attain the object we all have at heart, namely, to secure that every soldier who desires it shall be settled on

  165
  the land at home, and shall not be huddled into great cities, or hustled across the water into the Colonies. I can only say that all the measures it was possible to take have been taken up to the present moment, and I welcome the proposals made by the English Board, with which I associate myself, for the purpose of extending the ambit of the area which is to be secured. I am not without hope that at an early stage it will be possible to secure it.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  HORSE BREEDING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. Whitley in the Chair.]
  CLAUSE 1.— (Restriction on Travelling and Exhibiting Unlicensed Stallions.)
  Any person who after the appointed day, being the owner or having the control of a stallion of a prescribed age, travels it for service, or exhibits it at any market or show or in any public place, or permits it to be so travelled or exhibited, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds unless the stallion is at the time licensed under this Act.
  Mr. WATT: I beg to move, after the word "age" ["prescribed age, travels"], to insert the words "uses it, or permits it to be used, for stud purposes, or."
  I move this on behalf of the hon. and gallant Member (Major David Davies), who is not able to be present for the moment, but he is anxious that it should be submitted to the consideration of the Committee. The Clause is for the purpose of restriction on travelling and exhibiting unlicensed stallions, and the object of the Amendment is to widen its scope, and make it not only necessary for the owner of the stallion to obtain a licence, but the controller of the stallion will also require to have a licence. This makes the measure more far-reaching. It places in the first Clause not only the man who utilises a stallion, but the man who possesses one. I do not know what view the President of the Board of Agriculture takes of the Amendment, but I beg to move it for his consideration.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I hope the hon. Member will not
  166
  press his Amendment. The Bill is strictly limited, and as it stands it is a Bill agreed in principle by all the great breeding societies of the country. I am very much afraid, if it is intended in the way suggested, it will provoke very great opposition. There are a number of very valuable stallions which, from their breeding or other qualities, are valued by the owner of the mare, who know well that they are not sound under the Regulations of the Bill, but who yet take the risk and back their own judgment. The object of the Bill is not to prevent owners of mares taking that course; the object is to prevent people who are ignorant of the unsoundness being taken in by a stallion which is travelled on the road or exhibited in market places, and who, for the sake of the low fee, send their mares to that stallion, with disastrous results. I quite agree that the Amendment is consistent with the object of the Bill, namely, the improvement of horse breeding, but I am very much afraid that it would be impossible to carry it through without reasonable and strong opposition from the breeding societies of the country, and I regret that I cannot accept it.
  Major DAVIES: In deference to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him whether he would consider extending this Clause and adopting this Amendment not in the words I have actually put down on the Paper, but on the lines of Clause 14, which he has already drawn up in respect of Ireland? I submit that the Amendment is only designed to strengthen the Bill and to bring within its scope all stallions for which a fee is charged for service, and in doing so I think the case has been made out for excluding thoroughbred horses which have undergone a very severe training during the time they have been racing. But there are other horses in addition to the thoroughbred horse which have undergone this severe training and which would not come under the scope of the Bill as it is drawn up at present, and the object of this Amendment is to bring all those stallions within the scope of the measure. Then the Irish Clause, as I have endeavoured to point out, does not meet the difficulty, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept this Amendment, might be willing to apply Clause 14 and make the provisions of that Clause applicable to Clause 1.
  Mr. PROTHERO: That is rather a new suggestion, but I am afraid that the same objection applies to it as to the original Amendment. It is impossible, I regret to say, for me to accept this widening Clause, because, as I say, it is an agreed Bill in principle, and I feel that I should be going back upon the negotiations I have had with the breeding societies were I to accept it. I may also say that it so enlarges the scope of the Bill that it would be quite impossible to carry it out with the limited funds I have, even if it were possible for me to accept the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is such an authority upon horse breeding generally that I am very sorry not to be able to accept it, but I hope he will not press it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. WATT: I beg to move to leave out the words "or exhibits it at any market or show or in any public place."
  This Amendment takes the place of the one I have on the Paper, which is to leave out the words "or in any public place." I think it is an improvement on that. The Amendment which I moved for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Major Davies) was a widening Amendment. That was done simply for the hon. Member, as I am desirous, not of widening the measure, but of narrowing it, and this is a narrowing Amendment. As the Committee is aware, any owner of a stallion, or anyone having the control of a stallion, is to take out a licence if he travels it for service or exhibits it at any market, and the idea behind my Amendment is that if he travels it for service he should take out a licence, but that he should not be asked to take out a licence under the severe penalty in this Section if he simply exhibits it at any market or show or in any public place. Questions arise on these particular words as to what is exhibiting and what is a public place. Those are two very difficult points, I think, in law to decide, and I think it is unnecessary to impose such a severe penalty on any owner of a stallion who exhibits it in any public place. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to be content with what is really the intention of the whole measure, namely, to insist that owners of stallions, or those who have the control of stallions which are travelled for service, should be asked to take out a licence.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I was not quite sure what the hon. Member had in his mind
  168
  when he moved the Amendment. I thought that he objected to the words "in any public place," and that he would have been content with my explanation that, if a man travels a stallion and exhibits it for service in any market or show or in any public place, he would allow me to retain the words, if I explained that that covered a road. If a man is travelling an unsound stallion and he travels it along the road up to the market or show, and then draws it back again, and does not come under the penalty, he has nevertheless given an advertisement to the general public that that animal is travelling for service. I shall be very glad, after the explanation of my hon. Friend of his readiness to consider those words, to see whether they are not too wide as they stand, and to bring it up on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 2.— (Licensing of Stallions.)
  (1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (in this Act referred to as the Board) shall have power to grant, revoke and suspend licences for the purposes of this Act.
  (2) The Board shall, on application being made in the prescribed manner, and on compliance with the prescribed conditions as to inspection and examination, grant to the owner of any stallion a licence in the prescribed form in respect of the stallion on payment of such fee (not exceeding one guinea) as may be pre scribed:
  Provided that the Board may refuse to grant a licence and may revoke or suspend a licence in respect of a stallion if it appears to the Board that the stallion—

  (a) is affected with any contagious or infectious disease;

  (b) is affected with any other disease or defect prescribed as a disease or defect rendering the stallion unsuitable for service of mares; or

  (c) has proved to be inadequately prolific; or

  (d) is calculated if used for stud purposes, to injure the breed of horses.

  Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, at end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:
  "Provided that in the case of a stallion that is not less than eight years old and has been licensed in three successive years (i.e., as a five, six, and seven year old) such licence shall not be revoked or suspended except on account of contagious or infectious disease."
  This Amendment raises a point of importance. The object of the Bill is to safeguard the owners of mares, but I am sure it is not the intention unnecessarily to harry the owners of stallions. It is stated, quite rightly, that the principle of the Bill is agreed upon by the powerful horse-

  169
  breeding societies, but a number of these are very strong on getting this Amendment accepted. It was put down after consultation with the officials of the Shire Horse Society and other societies who are interested in the same subject. The principal point that is aimed at by the Amendment is to prevent a horse, after it has gone through an examination for a certain number of years again being examined for wind. Such an examination in the case of a stallion in serving condition is a troublesome and, in some respects, a dangerous operation. The horse is not in a fit condition to be run round the arena, very possibly on rather heavy ground, for a considerable time to give it that thorough examination which the veterinary surgeon so loves to give when testing a horse's wind.
  In the first place, it is bad for the horse. It is bringing the horse before the tribunal an unnecessary number of times. If for three successive years his wind has been passed, I do not think it necessary in the interests of breeding to subject him to another test in the fourth successive year. When the horse has reached the age of eight years, after he has been through an examination three times in three successive years, it is reasonable to consider that this is sufficient. The horse ought to be considered safe from wind troubles. It is not only the possible danger to the horse that has to be considered, but also the risk to the owner. That is not only a real risk, but there is considerable feeling of insecurity on the part of many owners of stallions on this particular point, because veterinary opinion of wind is always rather an uncertainty. I have known one man cast a horse for its wind, and another man, equally competent, examine it the next day and say it was one of the soundest winded horse he had ever come across. This does not happen only in exceptional cases. Anyone who has had a good many horses through his hands will bear me out in saying that there is nothing in which veterinary surgeons differ so much as about questions of wind. I am referring specially to horses that are in hunting condition. In the case of a horse that is in a serving condition it is far harder to examine it and arrive at a trustworthy opinion as to whether or not it is sound in wind. Every additional examination means additional risk to the owner of the horse. From that the owners of horses reported by the breeding societies wish
  170
  to be relieved. They support the Bill as a whole. They think it is a good Bill. But I think I am right in saying that they are unanimously of opinion that some Amendment on these lines ought to be introduced. I hope that the President will give this Amendment his most kind consideration.
  Mr. PROTHERO: This Amendment proposes an age limit for the licensing of stallions. The experience of the Board during the period which has elapsed since voluntary registration shows that stallions develop unsoundness at any age between four and twenty years, and in the last registration year (1916–17) sixty-seven stallions were rejected as unsound which were passed as sound in the previous year. I should like to point out that the breeding societies themselves recognise that a stallion may go unsound at any age. The Shire Horse Society requires that every stallion before it competes for its prize should have a certificate of soundness. If the society think it essential for the purposes of exhibition to have a certificate of soundness, surely they must also think it essential to have the same certificate for breeding purposes. This question of an age limit was considered by the Royal Commission on Horses in 1892, and by the Horse Breeding Advisory Committee in 1911, and by Lord Midleton's Committee in 1915, and in each case the recommendation was opposed to the adoption of any age limit. When I say that in opposition to the general granting of an age limit I do except in my own mind the case of wind. I think wind stands by itself, and I entirely appreciate the hon. And gallant Member's arguments as to the difficulty of the danger of trying a stallion for wind, and also that after a certain period, if the horse has been passed as sound, it is right to except that horse from future examination, but I do not think the way to do that is by a general age limit, but rather by treating that particular disease on particular grounds. If the hon. and gallant Member will turn to the first Clause, he will see the words "having the control of stallions of a prescribed age." The prescribed age means the age prescribed by the Regulations, and it is the intention of the Board in these Regulations to prescribe the age at which examination for wind only may be dispensed with. We intend to examine for all the other elements of unsoundness, whatever age the stallion may be, because we think it necessary, but in the case of

  171
  wind we do mean that a stallion of the prescribed age, say, eight years, which having been three or four times examined for wind and passed quite sound shall be able to receive a licence. This is not merely a concession, because it has been our meaning throughout. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will accept that explanation of our meaning in lieu of pressing for a general age limit which we could not see our way to concede.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "stallion" ["the stallion on payment of such fee"], insert the words "and also, if so requested, a certified copy thereof."— [Mr. Prothero.]
  Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move to leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
  My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) who has asked me to move this Amendment, considers these words unnecessarily vague, but it was especially to paragraph (d) that he attached importance. There is, perhaps, something to be said for paragraph (c). If a horse has been serving for a number of years and does not get foals, that may be a very good reason, but my right hon. Friend thinks that paragraph (d) was very vague, and was particularly anxious to have it left out.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Will it not be necessary, in order to make it read grammatically, to leave out the word "or" at the end of paragraph (b)?
  Mr. PROTHERO: There is no doubt that paragraph (c) must stand. In some cases it is no doubt more the fault of the mare than the stallion, but when a very large proportion of the mares that are served prove barren, there is ground for saying that the stallion is inadequately prolific.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th of February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. BOOTH: With regard to the Maternity and Child Welfare Bill, is there any intention to take it on the first day we resume after the holidays?
  Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): No, Sir.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute after Eleven o'clock.