Commons Sitting of 15 June 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords],
Corporation of London (Rating of Reclaimed Lands) Bill [Lords],
Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords],
To be read a Second time upon Monday next.
Lever Brothers (Wharves and Railway) Bill [Lords],
Read a Second time, and committed.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Weardale and Consett Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [8th June] as relates to the Resolution "That it is desirable that the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," be now considered.—[Dr. Addison.]
So much of Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government still hold Russian prisoners at Constantinople, the Dardanelles, or other parts of Turkey; how many of these there are; what steps are being taken to release them; and what has been done with the Russians who were held at Fort Chanax up till last October?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): There are 11 Russian subjects interned at Chanak by the British Military Authorities for activities as secret service agents prejudicial to the safety of British troops. These members include those referred to in the question as being held there in October. The question of their repatriation is under consideration. With the exception of the detention of these 11 men, no Russians are held as prisoners by British Military Authorities at Constantinople, Dardanelles, or other parts of Turkey.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these men is married to an English woman living in my constituency, and that nothing has been heard since October, and can he give any details?
    Mr. C. PALMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether British prisoners in Russia have been released?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not a matter on which I can give information.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an assurance as to this man?

    CRIMEA (GENERAL WRANGEL'S FORCES).
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the progress of negotiations for an armistice

    1053
    between the Russian forces and those of General Wrangel; and whether the British representative with whose assistance the negotiations are to be carried on is controlled by the War Office or the Foreign Office?
    The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The reply to the first part of the question is that the negotiations have fallen through on account of the offensive recently launched by General Wrangel. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that every shade of political opinion in Russia believes that we are backing up Poland to their detriment?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: This is a question as to the Crimea. My hon. Friend's supposition is entirely unfounded.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did not general Wrangel give himself unreservedly into our hands in these negotiations, as was stated here?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: He did so at one time, certainly.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it he is now fighting?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that General Wrangel destroyed the waterworks and electric generating stations at Tsaritsin before evacuating the city; and whether any protest was made by the British officers assisting General Wrangel against this act of wanton destruction?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information on this subject beyond the statement made in the Moscow Wireless Report.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Secretary of State for War how many demobilised officers and men of the Army and Air Force are serving with General Wrangel in the Crimea and with the Polish forces in the Russian territory occupied by Poland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that any demobilised British officers are serving either with the forces of General Wrangel or with the Polish forces. The
    1054
    War Office or Air Ministry, however, do not keep count of the movements of officers after demobilisation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: If the hon. Gentleman is so desirous of helping, why does he not join Wrangel?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why do not you join?

    POLISH INTERVENTION (MEETINGS IN LONDON).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the mass meetings of British workers held every Wednesday and Saturday at 8 p.m. in Grosvenor Square to protest against the Polish intervention in Russia; what is the number of mounted police, inspectors, police constables, plain clothes officers, and troops employed at or in the vicinity of these meetings; whether the meetings have been conducted in an orderly manner; and, if so, what is the reason for the presence of large forces and are they likely to provoke disturbances?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have heard of certain meetings at the times and place mentioned, but according to my information they are certainly not mass meetings of British workers. The number of police employed is, I am informed, about 30; no troops have been present. Violent and inflammatory language has been used by some of the speakers; and it has been necessary to have a sufficient force of police present to prevent any disorder or any attempt to intimidate or annoy the representatives of a Friendly Power.
    Mr. MALONE: Is it true that the police are now armed?
    An HON. MEMBER: No, they are not.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is there any reason why this meeting should not be diverted to Hyde Park instead of being held for the special purpose of annoying the Polish Embassy?
    Mr. SHORTT: That also is a matter for the Commissioner of Police.

    RED ARMY (BRITISH WORKERS).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desire of large numbers of workers in this country to save the workers' republic in Russia,

    1055
    any difficulties will be placed in the way of men who desire to enter Russia for the purpose of serving in the Red Army; and whether they will be permitted to train and organise units in this country?
    Mr. PALMER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if he will represent to the Prime Minister the importance of promulgating throughout this country the address which M. Lenin has addressed to the workers of England, so that these may understand the meaning and purpose of Soviet rule?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Let us hear the answer to the question first.
    Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a question on Thursday last. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, afford facilities for any hon. and gallant Member of this House—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Including yourself!
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think these personal allusions in the course of our proceedings are very undesirable. If they are begun by one hon. Member, it is very easy for other hon. Members to answer. The game is one at which two can play.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    BAGHDAD RAILWAY.
    Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the present position with regard to the Baghdad railway; how far the result of the War and the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire has affected the rights of the shareholders and owners of that railway; and what steps, if any, have been taken with regard to its future?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Provision has been made in the Peace Treaty with Germany for dealing with German interests in public utility undertakings in enemy countries including Turkey, and the Treaty of Peace with
    1056
    Turkey will contain Clauses for dealing with the rights of shareholders in Turkish railway companies, but until the final conclusion of peace with Turkey, it will not be possible to make a full statement on the subject; nor for the same reason can anything be said regarding the future of the Baghdad railway system.
    Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: When the Foreign Office are dealing with this matter, will they consider that there is plenty of British private enterprise ready to take the place of the existing shareholders in the Baghdad railway?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    AIRCRAFT (GERMANY).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can state approximately the total number of airships and aeroplanes possessed by Germany at the time of the Armistice; what portion of these have either been handed over to the Allies or destroyed under their supervision; and whether there is any provision in the Peace Treaty which would prevent Germany retaining part of her military aerial material for ostensibly civil purposes, and thus evading the main purpose of the Treaty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first and second parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is that at the time of the Armistice Germany possessed approximately 16 airships and 18,500 aeroplanes, and that up to the 29th May no airships or aeroplanes had been handed over to the Allies, but 700 aeroplanes and 3,000 aero engines had been destroyed under Allied supervision. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that Germany was under no obligation to destroy aircraft material until the ratification of the Peace Treaty. For various and sufficient reasons—the state of confusion owing to the revolution, etc.—the actual work of destruction was not commenced until the 3rd May. The progress since that date has, I think, been satisfactory. With regard to the third part, Article 202 of the Peace Treaty provides that all aeronautical material which had been used or designed for warlike purposes shall be delivered to the Allies.
    Sir F. HALL: Does my right hon. Friend think that the obligations in the

    1057
    Treaty are being satisfactorily carried out with regard to the destruction of these aircraft? Does he recognise the great necessity, at all events to this country, to see that Germany is deprived of both aeroplanes and airships?
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is it not a fact that the Germans are manufacturing more aeroplanes than they have destroyed since the War; that they are manufacturing three aeroplanes to every one that is being built in this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My information is exactly the opposite. My information is that 60 aeroplanes have been manufactured by the Germans during the same period that we have manufactured 300—on a comparable basis. It is very difficult for me to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman, for he wants me to give him an assurance, and it is not my duty to do so. Marshal Foch and the Inter-Allied Commission are the responsible authority for the disarmament of Germany. With all that that reserve implies, I should say that I believe that the process is being carried out—I would not say punctually, I would not say willingly—but it is being carried out without undue obstruction, and will be fully completed.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to communicate with the Inter-Allied Commission on the other side, and impress upon them the great necessity that steps should be taken to deprive the Germans of their aircraft as quickly as possible?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I will.
    Mr. MALONE: Did not General Masterman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Question No. 42! [See Cols. 1076–1077.]

    MOSLEMS (PROTECTION).
    Brigadier-General SURTEESasked the Prime Minister what guarantees the Allies have obtained from the Greek Government that they will preserve the religious institutions of the Moslems in Thrace and Asia Minor and that they will not molest or persecute them in their enjoyment of civil and religious rights?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The terms of the Draft Treaty of Peace with Turkey provide for the acceptance of Greece of such
    1058
    stipulations as may be deemed necessary to protect the interests of inhabitants who differ from the Greek majority in race, language and religion, both in the Adrianople region and also in Smyrna and the adjacent territory under Greek administration.

    WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister, if any decision has yet been come to as to the date when the trial of the German war criminals will be commenced; if the procedure to be adopted as regards the submission of evidence and the examination of witnesses has been approved by the Allies; if the list of persons indicted by the British Government has been finally settled; and if particulars of the persons concerned and the offences with which they are charged will be published beforehand?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: A full statement on this subject was made on 17th May, and there is at present nothing which I can usefully add to the information contained in that statement.
    Sir F. HALL: No steps have been taken since 17th May! Will the right hon. Gentleman see that at all events they get to work in regard to trying these German criminals?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the statement made by the Leader of the House is as strictly applicable to-day as then.
    Sir F. HALL: That is all!

    DODECANESE ISLANDS.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether the agreement between Greece and Italy as to the future of the islands of the Dodecanese is a private one between these two nations or has been brought to the notice of the Supreme Council; and whether the League of Nations is to be consulted after the whole matter has been arranged?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The arrangement come to in Paris between the Greek and Italian Governments was a purely regional understanding affecting matters in dispute between Greece and Italy. The members of the Supreme Council were made aware at the time that such negotiations were in progress and cordially approved of a direct settlement being

    1059
    arrived at between Greece and Italy. As regards the last part of the question, I am not in a position to predict what action will or will not be taken by foreign Governments in matters concerning the League of Nations.

    PERSIA.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the report of the disturbances which took place recently at the German Consulate at Tabriz owing to the German officials giving shelter and assistance to a number of Persian Bolsheviks engaged in plotting, under Russian instigation, against the present Persian administration; if the German consul concerned, Herr Wustrow, was formerly at the German legation at Teheran and was expelled for intriguing with the Turks and Russian Bolsheviks against British interests; whether any protest in the matter has been addressed to the German Government; and, if so, with what practical result?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Persian Government had protested to the German Government against the activity of Herr Wustrow at Tabriz and, it is understood, were about to do so again when he was killed at Tabriz on 4th June.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question as to whether any protest has been addressed to the German Government by the British Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think any protest was made.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it time some protest was made?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member will oberve it is a matter which concerns the Persian Government and the Persian Government did make a protest.
    Sir F. HALL: When the German Government and ourselves are endeavouring to settle differences are we going to recognise their right to shelter these Bolshevists?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think we need pursue that. This gentleman
    1060
    has been killed or has committed suicide and that seems to put an end to the matter.

  BRITISH ARMY.
    FUTURE OF GUARDS REGIMENTS.

      STATEMENT BY MR. CHURCHILL.
      Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been come to regarding the future of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh Guards regiments; whether these regiments are at present below establishment; what has been the weekly average number of recruits of each regiment in November, 1919, February, 1920, and May, 1920; and whether, whilst maintaining these three regiments as at present constituted, he will consider the possibility of effecting an economy by having one regimental office in Buckingham Gate for the three regiments?
      Lieutenant-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any definite decision has been arrived at with regard to the suggested re-organisation of the Irish and Welsh Guards; whether the Report of the proceedings of the conference of the colonels and commanding officers dealing with this matter was officially communicated to the Press; and, if not so communicated, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
      Major JOHN EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before any decision is taken to abolish the Welsh Guards Regiment, steps will be taken to ascertain Welsh opinion on the subject?
      Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the announcement by the Army Council that the rumours of changes in the organisation of the Guards are premature, he can give assurances that there is no intention of changing the name or altering the independent organisation of the Scots Guards?
      Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the resentment caused in Wales by the report that a proposal to abolish the Welsh Guards is under consideration; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Welsh national sentiment is considered in

      1061
      this matter, especially having regard to the achievements of the Welsh Guards during the recent War?
      Major EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before any decision is taken to abolish the Welsh Guards Regiment, steps will be taken to ascertain Welsh opinion on the subject?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: This subject has now been considered by the Army Council. There is no intention of disbanding the Irish or Welsh Guards so long as they are able to maintain their recruiting in such a manner as to preserve the national character of the regiments. The maintenance, however, of five regimental headquarters, which, now that the Guards' regimental lieutenant-colonels no longer command Territorial brigades, perform few functions other than those of record offices, requires careful study. It may seem advisable to reduce them to three, or even to establish one joint record office for the Brigade of Guards. In any case, care will be taken to balance the claims of efficiency and economy against those of sentiment and tradition.
      Major GLYN: May I ask whether there is any foundation at all for the statement that there is going to be a change in the Scots Guards?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No; there never was any question raised of making a change in the Scots Guards. The suggestion was that the Irish Guards should be brigaded with them.
      Sir J. HOPE: Is it not a fact that if the Scots, Irish, and Welsh Guards were in one regimental headquarters, while the other two retained their independent regimental headquarters, it would in effect be amalgamating the Irish, Welsh, and Scots Guards in one regiment?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not agree that it would have that effect, but I do not wish to prejudge that; it must be examined very carefully. We must not turn down incontinently suggestions of economy which do lead to a considerable saving of public money.
      Major O'NEILL: May I ask how much it is estimated would be saved by these alterations, and will they not in effect do away with the separate regiment of the Irish Guards, and the Welsh Guards too
      1062
      for that matter, which will affect the esprit de corps of these regiments, and is the amount of money to be saved worth that result?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: That would rather prejudge the consideration of the question of amalgamating the headquarters, which must be taken in hand. The original proposals, which were put forward from purely military quarters, would have resulted only in the reduction of the Welsh Guards to a company and of the uniting under one record organisation of the Irish Guards and of the two Scots Guards battalions, leaving the Guards in three regiments of three battalions each. Those proposals, if carried out, would have resulted in a saving of £275,000 a year, but as it was never intended that such a step should be taken unless recruiting for the Welsh and Irish Guards failed, the only further question which is open, from the point of view of economy, is that concerned with the regimental offices. The maximum economy in that direction, assuming that separate bands are kept for each battalion, as is intended, would be about £20,000 in that respect per annum.
      Major EDWARDS: So far as maintaining the national character of these regiments is concerned, do not the Welsh Guards compare very favourably with the Scots Guards or the Grenadier Guards?
      Mr. PALMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman save £3,000,000 on the uniforms and allow us to spend the rest on keeping these men in their present regiments?
      Mr. HINDS: Is it not a fact that recruiting for the Welsh Guards in the last six months has been higher than in any other battalion of the Guards?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I naturally have made careful enquiries, and out of 500 recruits 200 were Welshmen, but if you take the wastage in a battalion at 150 in a year, which is not an unreasonable calculation, it will be seen that there would be a gain of 50 Welshmen per annum if that figure were maintained. That is a matter of great importance, having regard to the fact that this battalion was reconstructed so quickly after the War. So far as the rate of recruiting for the Welsh Guards is concerned, it is higher in the last few months than that

      1063
      for the Grenadiers or the Coldstreams, but as the Grenadiers and Coldstreams had already practically attained their full strength, they were only allowed to recruit at a lower rate.
      Major GLYN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of my question dealing with the rate of recruiting and say whether it is not a fact that the reason why the recruiting for other regiments has gone up is that certain regiments of Foot Guards have been closed to recruiting?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that.

      WAR DECORATIONS (TERRITORIAL MEDAL).
      Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for War if he can state when the medal promised by him many months ago to the Territorials who volunteered for foreign service in 1914 will be ready; can he promise that at least the ribbon will be issued in the immediate future; and is he aware that the issuing of this ribbon would do much to stimulate Territorial recruiting?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The preparation of the riband is being taken in hand. The issue of the medal will not be commenced for some time as the preparation and issue of the War Medals must take precedence.

      CHEMICAL EXPERIMENTAL GROUND.
      Mr. HUGH MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the present annual cost of the experimental ground at Porton; whether any decision has been arrived at as to its future; and whether, in view of the importance of economy, he will have it closed down?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The annual cost of the rent of the experimental ground at Porton is approximately £2,750. It has been decided to retain the land, as it is the only site in the country suitable for carrying out field experiments in chemical warfare. Until the attitude of the League of Nations to chemical warfare is defined, it is essential to have an experimental ground for the research necessary to provide our soldiers with adequate protection against gas.

      DEMOBILISATION.
      Mr. PRESTONasked the Secretary of State for War whether a soldier who
      1064
      has been demobilised in 1920 and has been granted a protection certificate (soldier not remaining with the colours) can be ordered to rejoin on the ground that he was demobilised in error; and under what legal authority can a demobilised soldier be called up to-day?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: A soldier who has been demobilised in error and who has colour service to complete may, under existing instructions, be recalled to the colours for the purpose of completing his term of engagement.
      Mr. PRESTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question and state under what authority a demobilised man can be called up?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: He is held by his original attestation.
      Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: May I ask whether a soldier is not given a protection certificate when he is demobilised?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: If that were issued in error, it would be no cover to a man who originally attested for 7 years with the colours and 5 years with the Reserve as a soldier of the Regular Army.
      Colonel WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the certificate issued by the military authorities is valueless?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think that would be the assumption, but there were millions of men, who served under the provisions of the Military Service Acts, who have been demobilised. They are entirely covered by the protection certificate, but men who engaged in the Regular Army but were demobilised in error are still covered by their original engagement.
      Colonel WILLIAMS: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if the Army authorities have made a mistake they should stand by the mistake?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I think ow duty is to endeavour to repair our mistakes, and, as far as possible, carry on as if they had not occurred.

      RE-CLOTHING.
      Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before committing the country to expenditure in reclothing the Army in pre-War uni-

      1065
      forms, he will give orders for pattern uniforms of khaki to be made with regimental colour and cuff facings and collar badges of one line regiment, one rifle, and one cavalry regiment, and cause these to be displayed in the Tea Room, together with the comparative cost of uniforms so adorned and made at the Pimlico factory compared with the price of pre-War uniforms?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I do not see my way to adopt this suggestion at the present time.
      Mr. PALMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a small deputation of anti-waste Members of this House to put the whole matter before him?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I would consider it to be my duty to receive a deputation of Members if they so desired, but I should not counsel it.
      Sir F. HALL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that the great majority of Members are desirous of saving?
      Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to provide the Territorial Army with new uniforms?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have already stated, the only regiments to be considered for the provision of full-dress during the current financial year are the Household Cavalry and Foot Guards. It is intended to issue only service dress to Territorial units.
      Mr. PALMER: And the service dress will be khaki?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: The service dress will be khaki.
      Major WATTS MORGANasked the Secretary of State for War how much time is occupied on an average per day by private soldiers in pipe-claying and cleaning uniforms of the pre-War pattern?
      Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War what cleaning materials are necessary to maintain the pre-War uniforms in proper condition; what is the cost of these materials; and by whom is the cost to be defrayed?
      Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, owing to the amount of labour involved in cleaning brightly coloured uniforms, the proposed reintroduction of pre-War clothing in the Army is extremely unpopular with private soldiers and is likely to prejudice recruiting; and will he reconsider the matter?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that little, if any, more time is occupied in cleaning uniforms of pre-War pattern than in cleaning service dress, which is difficult to keep smart and clean, and that practically no addition to the cleaning material is necessary. In the case of most regiments the only article of full-dress which requires pipe-clay is the waist-belt, and at stations abroad the white helmet. The expense is met by the clothing allowance scheme, which is about to be reintroduced. I have no doubt that the soldier will take a pride in keeping clean his full-dress, which is so closely connected with the traditions of his regiment.
      Major MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how much time is occupied in cleaning the different uniforms?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot do that without notice, but certain I am that smart habits and appearance on the part of a soldier in His Majesty's Army is most important.
      Major MORGAN: Notice has been given in the first part of my question asking the right hon. Gentleman to tell how much time is occupied in cleaning the different uniforms?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not notice the hon. Member had specifically put it. It is very difficult to estimate how much time is occupied. In the case of the very clean and smart soldier, who keeps his uniform in good condition, it would probably be a very short time, but the slipshod, lazy, and dirty soldier would undoubtedly have to give greater service to make his outfit clean.
      Mr. BILLING: The time occupied is about twenty minutes. I speak from experience.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Very likely.
      Major MORGANasked the Secretary of State for War whether the wearing of regimental buttons and badges, together with the associations of

      1067
      khaki, will provide the maximum of esprit de corps, and so relieve the taxpayers of spending £3,000,000 on the proposed new uniforms for the Army?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: My military advisers do not consider that the wearing of buttons and badges with khaki would cover the many Regimental traditions or the distinctions that have been earned by units and are associated with their historical past, nor do they agree that it would provide the full incentive to esprit de corps. Khaki is now the working and fighting dress of the soldier, and is of universal pattern, whereas the distinctions and honoured traditions of a unit are intimately connected with the pre-War uniform which was the fighting uniform of former days.
      Mr. DAWESasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to use gold lace in the proposed new uniforms for officers?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; but the amount of gold lace to be used on the new uniforms for officers will be very small as compared with that worn before the War.
      Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether, having regard to the desirability of keeping officers of small incomes, the right hon. Gentleman will see that anything that he specifies is within the income of not necessarily wealthy officers?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, and I would point out that the allowance which has been authorised is in that direction.
      Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allowance is not sufficient to pay for the uniform of an officer of the middle classes?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that it will in the main be sufficient, but previous to the grant of this allowance the whole cost of providing the uniform was thrown on the officers, so that they are certainly far better off in that respect than they were before the War.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War has brought in officers from different ranks of society?
      Mr. DAWESasked the Secretary of State for War whether any allowance will be made to officers to defray the cost of
      1068
      the proposed new uniforms; if so, how much; and whether this item is included in the estimated expenditure of £3,000,000?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; as I stated on Tuesday last, new entrants will receive a grant of £150 towards the cost of uniform and those who joined during the War will get £150 less the amount of outfit grant already received, which, in most cases, is £42 10s.
      Sir J. HOPE: Will pre-War officers receive any allowance covering the expense of altering their pre-War uniform?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No. Where the pre-War uniform is of a more expensive pattern and has more lace on than the new pattern, the officer will be allowed to wear it and to continue to wear it until that uniform is worn out.
      Mr. PALMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that public opinion is dead against him on this extravagance?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, it is very difficult to gauge exactly what public opinion is and still more difficult to gauge what instructed public opinion is.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in most cases where uniform has been put away for five years and more they are quite old, and will he not reconsider the question of making the same allowance to these officers? I know of cases where it will be very hard indeed.

      TROOPS, HODEIDAH.
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for War what British or Indian troops have been stationed at Hodeidah, on the Red Sea, during the past six months; with what object were they stationed there and if they are now leaving or have all left; and, if so, on what date did the last leave?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: No British regiments have been employed at Hodeidah. Hodeidah was occupied on the 14th December, 1918, by one Indian battalion owing to the difficulty of establishing communication with Sanaa, and to form a base for the surrender of interned allied subjects and the remainder of the Turkish force. The garrison had to be slightly reinforced at the time that Colonel Jacob's mission was held

      1069
      prisoner at Bajil in case operations should have proved necessary. One Indian battalion now remains, and it is the intention to withdraw this as soon as the state of the country will allow of this being done.
      Sir A. FELL: Are we to understand from that reply that this expedition is really going to be abandoned, and that we are to have no more adventures in Arabia, where no good can come of them?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I have explained that troops went there originally to enable the interned Allied subjects and the remainder of the Turkish force to be handed over. That was certainly a necessary object.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before that battalion is withdrawn, will the Government take urgent steps to arrange a peaceful settlement regarding the future of Hodeidah and its district between the Idrissi and the Imam Yahya, as, unless such agreement is arranged, the place and its inhabitants will be involved in serious hostilities on our withdrawal?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I will report both points of view to my colleagues in the Cabinet.

      BAGPIPES.
      Mr. CHARLES BARRIEasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether Irish regiments have requested permission to use the bagpipes; whether the War Office propose to accede to this request;
      (2) whether the use of bagpipes is the special prerogative of Scottish regiments?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Requests have been made by Irish regiments to use bagpipes, and the whole matter is at present under consideration.
      Mr. BARRIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the resentment there will be in the Highland regiments if this proposal be carried out?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: It is quite true it should be very carefully considered, but a privilege is one thing, a monopoly another.
      Dr. MURRAY: Before bringing this innovation into Irish regiments, will he consider the sentiment of Highland and
      1070
      other Scottish regiments which have had bagpipes for generations?
      Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it ought to be most carefully considered; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Guards already have bagpipes.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the Scots bring the bagpipes from Ireland, in the first instance, many centuries ago?

    GENERAL SIR JOHN COWANS.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War if he can give any information regarding the objects of the visit of General Sir John Cowans to Mesopotamia; is he travelling at Government expense; if not, is this officer paying his own expenses; and is he receiving pay and allowances from the War Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no official information on this subject. No charges are borne upon Government funds.
    Mr. MALONE: Has General Cowans obtained the permission of the War Office to leave this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir John Cowans has retired from the position of Quartermaster-General, which he held with great distinction for a very long time, and he is perfectly entitled to take any lawful course which seems open to him.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is he still on the active list?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, he has retired definitely.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CURRAGH CAMP (DISCHARGES).
    Sir JOHN BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of ex-service men were recently engaged to work at the Curragh Camp in Ireland, and undertook to work 66 hours a week; whether objection was taken by some local civilian painters as to the number of hours worked by these ex-service painters; whether the matter was referred to the engineer officer in charge; whether the result was that the ex-service men were discharged and lost their job; and

    1071
    whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which these men were dismissed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office): Inquiries are being made, and I will inform the hon. and learned Member of the result as soon as possible.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the scheme of the Civil Service Whitley Council fixing 35 as a maximum age of entry into the established Civil Service; whether he is aware that there are many capable ex-service men over that age at present on the temporary staff of the Civil Service; and whether, in view of the anxiety on the part of the late Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in France regarding the future of ex-service men, he will take the necessary steps to provide that the employment of ex-service men over 35 at present in the Civil Service will not be prejudiced, but permanency guaranteed, and that all further recruiting for the Civil Service will be suspended until all capable ex-service men now employed are admitted on the establishment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 8th instant by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Ealing.
    Mr. SEXTON: Arising out of that question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in future he will take good care to clean his own doorstep before he fouls that of his neighbours? If he reads the question, he will see what I mean.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (IRELAND).
    Sir MAURICE DOCKRELLasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men in Irland are at present in receipt of the out-of-work donation; what is their percentage of unemployment as contrasted with that of ex-service men in Great Britain; is the fullest information given by leaflet to out-of-work donation recipients and by notice boards at each employment agency as to where employment can be applied for by ex-service men in search of work, and in
    1072
    general is every effort being used to help the men to find employment; has money been placed at anyone's disposal in Ireland for helping ex-service men; and, if so, what is the amount and by whom is it being disbursed?
    The MINISTER OF LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The number of ex-service men in Ireland claiming out-of-work donation at 4th June was 19,127, compared with 155,915 in England, 2,980 in Wales, and 14,097 in Scotland. As regards the second part of the question, I am sorry to say that I have not the data which would enable me to strike the several percentages which my hon. Friend desires to compare. The fullest possible information is given by leaflet, poster, etc., as to how and where ex-service men who are unemployed should apply for employment or out-of-work donation, and every effort is being made to find employment for these men. Apart from the out-of-work donation, in cases which come within the regulations, ex-service men are eligible for grants from the Civil Liabilities Department.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is profound discontent among ex-Service men in Ireland at the failure of the Government to find employment for them. Is he further aware that the treatment centres are capable of being made self-supporting and of providing both training and employment for ex-service men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I fully recognise that these men everywhere, and particularly in Ireland, need our sympathy, and I am doing all I possibly can in the matter.
    Sir M. DOCKRELL: The Prime Minister has referred to the fact that negotiations were going on with the trade unions concerning the employment of ex-service men? Are similar negotiations taking place with the trade unions in Ireland?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The unions are the same whether they be in Ireland or in other parts of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member thinks there is any differentiation, I shall be very glad if he will point it out. Obviously, the negotiations will apply to both countries.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    RECRUITING.
    Mr. FREDERICK GREENasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Territorial Force is being reconstituted as a self-contained citizen army on a popular basis, any steps have been taken to secure the active co-operation of leading representatives of local authorities, such as mayors of municipal boroughs in the London area, in holding local recruiting meetings and taking other steps desirable, in conjunction with the local territorial associations, to secure an adequate number of recruits for the Territorial Army?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a cardinal principal of the present Government scheme for the Territorial Army that this citizen force shall be constituted and raised on the broadest popular basis. The local Territorial Associations who are the recognised official agencies for recruiting the Territorial Army are themselves based on a local and popular system of organisation and are exhorted to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with representative local authorities or organisations for other public purposes in this matter. Under the constitution of the London Territorial Association out of 56 co-opted members, 28 are the Mayors of London Municipalities co-opted ex officio. The London Association have in fact addressed invitations to all the mayors in question to co-operate with them in the manner suggested in the hon. Member's question. In eight cases favourable replies have been received from the mayors of

    Hammersmith

    Lewisham

    Holborn

    Westminster

    Chelsea

    Finsbury

    Kensington

    Islington.

    In eight other cases the replies received from the Mayors of

    Stepney

    Fulham

    Bermondsey

    Poplar

    Camberwell

    St. Pancras

    Battersea

    Greenwich

    have proved unfavourable. The mayors of these boroughs have, unfortunately, declined co-operation. In the other 12 cases no reply has been received to the Association's invitation.
    Mr. GREEN: May I ask whether these mayors who have returned unfavourable answers have resigned their ex-officio positions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Major PRESCOTT: Have appeals been made to the authorities of Greater London?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure they have.

    MESOPOTAMIA (OUTBREAK NEAR MOSUL).
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any details regarding the origin, nature of, and casualties in the recent out-break of trouble at Abu Tafar, near Mosul, Mesopotamia; and what steps have been taken to deal with the situation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On the 3rd June, a party of some 300 Shamman Jarba tribesmen, led by Sherifian officers attacked Tel Afar (4 miles west of Mosul) and killed all the Government officials including Major J. E. Barlow, D.S.O., M.C. (the Political Officer), Lieutenant B. Stuart (Gendarmerie Officer), Mr. A. V. Walker (Gendarmerie Instructor), and No. 32287 Private W. R. Lawler, 7th Hussars. It is feared also that two cars of a light armed motor battery which visited Tel Afar on 4th June were also captured, and the crews killed. No report of any further casualties has been received. A punitive column from Mosul should have reached Tel Afar on the 8th June.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to where these Sherifian officers come from?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that question. I do not want to make any charges I cannot prove.
    Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: Are not incidents of this character likely to occur constantly until we decide what our policy is, and state that policy?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think they are likely to occur very frequently in different parts of that enormous area which we are endeavouring to pacify.

    TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MATERIAL (FRANCE AND FLANDERS).
    Major GLYNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the approxi-

    1075
    mate sum of money that was paid during 1917 and the first six months of 1918 by order of the War Office, either direct to the manufacturers or through the Ministry of Munitions, for glass and china insulators, telegraph and telephone cables, and telegraph poles; whether he is aware that miles of telephone and telegraph cables, both buried and air line, still remain untouched in France and Flanders; whether he is aware that in some cases, however, local farmers are tearing down the wire for the purpose of making fences; whether the War Office have thrown up any of this material for sale by the Disposal Board; and, if not, for what reason have articles of this nature been bought during the financial year ending 31st March costing the Post Office Department £76,000 for insulators, £660,000 for telegraph and telephone cables, and £37,000 for poles?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am making inquiries into the first three parts of this question, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member later. As regards the last two parts, certain material of the nature mentioned has been thrown up for sale by the Disposal Board after the General Post Office had taken what it required.
    Major GLYN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries immediately to find out, first, how much stuff is going to waste in France—whether there are not miles of cable rotting in France at the present time under War Office arrangements?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am making inquiries into the specific points brought forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and if he wants me to make others, he had better put them down.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    OFFICERS' SWORDS.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that it is not obligatory upon officers of the Royal Air Force to equip themselves with swords, but that it is obligatory for such officers to wear a sword on ceremonial occasions, he will suggest some method by which officers of moderate means can avoid the expense of purchasing a sword and yet be able to comply with ceremonial regulations?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The wearing of swords on specified occasions is at once the privilege and the duty of every officer in the service of the Crown who wears His Majesty's uniform, including the members of the Privy Council and the Corps Diplomatique. The suggestion in the question is that an exception should be made in the case of the Royal Air Force. I can see no good reason why any such distinction should be made.
    Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague suggested that the purchase of this sword was not obligatory. Therefore, I am asking how he can so manage that, while the officer will not possess a sword, he may be able to borrow one for ceremonial occasions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The purchase of a full-dress uniform is not obligatory at present upon the Royal Air Force, largely on account of the difficulty of clothing prices and so forth. But it is intended that a uniform shall be adopted by the Royal Air Force, and if it be adopted the use of the sword with it will be indispensable.
    Mr. PALMER: What is the purpose of the sword—for clearing a way through the air, or what?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know. The officers on board the ships of His Majesty have not much use for their swords, but they have not been deprived of them. [An HON. MEMBER: "To grapple with another ship?"] They have not been deprived of them under the modernising spirit. I do not see why the new Air Force should be placed on a different footing. As far as the action of the men and the officers in command is concerned, the Air Force have many duties on the ground, and it seems to be quite natural that they should be possessed of the sword as a weapon, as in the Navy, and more so in the Army.

    PASSPORTS.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can see his way to effect any reduction in the sum of 7s. 6d. at present charged for passports, issued by the Passport Office, Lake Buildings, St. James's Park, to persons desiring to visit France, having regard to

    1077
    the additional 8s. charged for endorsement at the French passport office, which unduly increases the initial expenses to persons of small means, before being able to cross the Channel?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Having regard to the fact that a British passport is valid for any number of journeys for two years and can be renewed for four successive periods of two years each on payment of the sum of 2s., I do not consider that the initial fee of 7s. 6d. is excessive. Moreover, this fee is below the average of the fees charged for passports in other countries and in our own Dominions. In cases of established hardship passports are issued gratis.

    MOTOR CAR ACT (INFRINGEMENTS).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary what is the average number of police officers it is intended to employ during week-ends for the special duty of detecting infringements of the Motor Car Act in the Metropolitan police area during the months of June and July?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it would be desirable in the public interest to make the statement asked for.

  FINANCE BILL.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to proceed with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; and when the Government Amendments in regard to the Excess Profits Duty will be tabled?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to answer the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, the Government Amendments were tabled last Wednesday evening and appeared in the Votes and Proceedings on Thursday last.
    Mr. TERRELL: May we take it that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will not be taken next week?
    Mr. BALDWIN: There is no chance of that.
    Mr. A. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) will be made amenable to this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT RETURN FORMS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that the forms asking for a return for assessment for Income Tax and Super-tax may be sent in duplicate in order to save taxpayers the unnecessary trouble and inconvenience of making copies of the same to keep for reference?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The Royal Commission on the Income Tax have approved a suggestion on the same lines as that of my hon. Friend. The matter is under consideration, but in any event the proposal could not, of course, be brought into operation for the current year.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (GOVERNMENT POSTS).
    Mr. C. WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant the Return asked for by the Member for West Derbyshire?—[Return giving the names of Members of the House of Commons who hold office under the Government or the Crown; the amount, if any, received by such Member as remuneration, apart from any salary he may receive as Member of Parliament, and the date of each appointment.]
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir.

    CIVIL SERVICE (WOMEN).
    Major HILLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Civil Service Commissioners have made unfavourable recommendations as to the employment of women administrative officers in their Department in spite of the acknowledged excellence of the work done by their temporary women officers?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The answer is in the negative.
    Major HILLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury

    1079
    and Civil Service Commission can see their way to appoint at least two women each to administrative posts at once under the relevant Order in Council of 1910, in order to set an example to the other Departments?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am in favour of the principle underlying my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, and as far as the Treasury is concerned, a proposal for the employment of women of administrative rank is now under consideration.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    The following Questions stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. G. Terrell:
    58 & 59. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he can give an estimate of the loss of revenue in connection with Excess Profits Duty which is involved in each of the Government Amendments to the Finance Bill,
    (2) if he is now in a position to state the amount of Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty which is derived from British companies registered in this country, but which carry on their business abroad.
    Mr. TERRELL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why I have not been called upon to put question 58?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already put three questions.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I point out that two of those questions were withdrawn, and were not reached?
    Mr. SPEAKER: But they are still on the Paper.
    Mr. TERRELL: I do not wish to quarrel with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but when a question is put on the Paper by mistake and other questions are there in perfect good faith, I venture to suggest that an hon. Member should be allowed to ask the questions put down properly on the Paper. Questions 51 and 52 were put down for to-day by mistake.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should be careful to avoid such mistakes.
    Mr. TERRELLrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Time is very short, and if I listen to the hon. Member he
    1080
    would be only preventing other hon. Members putting their questions. If he wishes to raise any further point, he can do so at the conclusion of questions.
    At the end of questions—
    Mr. TERRELL: I desire to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. Why have you not called upon me to ask questions 58 and 59? These two questions have been on the Order Paper for some days, and were perfectly in order. Questions 51, 52 and 53 were transferred yesterday by a mistake until to-day, in ignorance of the fact that they had been already answered. They were, therefore, out of order according to the understanding at which the House has arrived. Questions 58 and 59 were, I suggest, perfectly in order and I, therefore, ask your ruling why I am not called upon to put them to Ministers?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The reply is that I had already called upon the hon. Member to ask questions 51, 52 and 53. If he had not wished these questions to appear on the Paper he might have given notice last night up till eleven o'clock to take them off.
    Mr. TERRELL: I called your attention before the Questions were reached to the fact that they were withdrawn. They only appeared on the Order Paper this morning for the first time. They were withdrawn before they were reached, and I submit I should have been called upon to ask questions 58 and 59.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is incorrect in saying that they appeared for the first time on the Order Paper to-day. They were on the Order Book last night; otherwise they could not have been here to-day, and it was open to the hon. Member to have these questions removed if he did not wish them to be asked. I cannot superintend this business on behalf of every hon. Member. Each hon. Member must look after himself.
    Mr. BILLING: Where questions are postponed at the request of Ministers, do they count among the three questions allowed to be asked? Is it the question which is called or the question actually asked that ranks?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We should get into a hopeless tangle if we had to consider the genesis of every question and its history up to the time of its being asked. It is

    1081
    not for me to tell an hon. Member that he has more than three questions on the Paper. If he has more than three, I cannot call upon him to ask those in excess of that number.

  SCOTLAND.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOVERNMENT GRANTS).
    Sir J. HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the application from a conference of Scottish local authorities that Government grants in aid of local expenditure should be paid by monthly instalments, and so save the heavy interest on overdrafts incurred by local authorities for expenditure which is not re-imbursed to them for many months after their payments are made; and what action he proposes to take?
    Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: My right hon. Friend has received the application referred to, and is considering it in consultation with the Treasury.

    SMALL-POX, GLASGOW.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any of the cases removed to hospital as suffering from small-pox during the present outbreak in Glasgow have been vaccinated at any time during the past six months; and what are the ages of the cases, how many are vaccinated cases, how many unvaccinated, and in how many is the question of vaccination doubtful?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As the particulars necessary to a complete reply are lengthy, I propose to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following are the particulars referred to:
    1. No cases have been removed to hospital who had been vaccinated within six months previous to the date of contracting infection.
    Twenty-nine persons who subsequently developed small-pox were vaccinated either in their own homes or in the Reception Houses after known exposure to infection, that is, between the date of contracting infection and the development of the disease. In seven of these cases
    1082
    vaccination failed. In twenty-two the disease was in modified form, except in the case of a child of two months, who had been exposed to infection at home for seven days before discovery and vaccination.
    2. One hundred and eighty-six cases of all ages have been vaccinated in infancy. The mortality among these has been 12 per cent. One hundred and sixty-eight of these cases and the whole of the deaths have occurred among persons over 16 years of age.
    3. In fifty-seven cases who had never been vaccinated the mortality has been 35 per cent., all but six being under age 15.
    4. In three cases the primary vaccination was doubtful. One of these, an adult, died. These are included in the one hundred and eighty-six vaccinated cases.
    Of the one hundred and eighty-six previously vaccinated cases, one had been revaccinated in 1890, five in 1901, one in 1906, and one in 1916; but the two latter showed no evidence of successful revaccination.
    Among the group vaccinated in infancy, only four were under 10 years, and were mild and modified cases.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions how many soldiers who are suffering from the amputation of a leg have been provided with their second artificial limb; and how many such soldiers are still waiting for the said limb?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): A duplicate artificial leg has been supplied in 6,362 cases. The number still to be supplied is 20,350. As regards the latter figure, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to refer him to the circumstances referred to in the answer I gave to his question on the subject of artificial limbs generally on the 20th May, of which I am sending him a copy for his information.
    Major COHEN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in France, where

    1083
    there are three times the number of these men to be dealt with, very few are kept waiting?
    Major TRYON: I am aware that my hon. and gallant Friend has recently been studying this question, and I shall be very glad to receive any information he can give us with regard to the position there.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that ex-soldiers who lost limbs during the recent War have in certain cases been supplied with unsuitable artificial limbs of an inferior quality; if he will state the policy of the Ministry in the matter; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that all artificial limbs supplied must be of the best quality procurable?
    Major TRYON: Every precaution is taken to see that only artificial limbs of the best quality are supplied. Every limb must be passed by the surgeon of the hospital, and periodic inspection is given by officers of the Ministry. In the event of any defect being subsequently found, re-admission to a limb-fitting hospital is arranged on application being made through the appropriate Local War Pensions Committee in order that the defect may be put right or a more suitable type of limb supplied.

    WAR PENSIONS COMMITTEE, PERTH.
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the indignation which has been expressed in Perth at the action of the Regional Director for Scotland in not confirming the appointment of Captain Ballantyne as secretary and treasurer of the local War Pensions Committee; and whether he will give reasons for his failure to approve an appointment which is so generally desired in the Perth district?
    Major TRYON: Captain Ballantyne's appointment as secretary and treasurer of the Perth Local War Pensions Committee was sanctioned only for a probationary period. As his work did not come up to the standard required, the appointment could not be confirmed. My right hon. Friend now understands that the local committee have unanimously agreed to
    1084
    the appointment of another gentleman as their secretary and treasurer to succeed Captain Ballantyne.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    AUSTRALIAN JAM.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Food if he can state the quantities of jam imported into the United Kingdom from Australia during the past 12 months, and the amount of the same placed upon the home markets during that period; whether any importers of that commodity have found it difficult or impossible to dispose of the same in this country, and, if so, why; whether applications for supplies have been received from the Continent and refused; if so, on what grounds; and will he state the general policy of the Ministry when dealing with jam imported from the Commonwealth of Australia?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The total quantity of jam, fruit, jelly, and marmalade imported into the United Kingdom from Australasia during the year ending 31st May, 1920, was 11,416 tons. Licences were granted for the re-export of 1,641 tons. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given him on the 19th May. No licences for re-export have been refused since October, 1919. No restrictions of any kind are imposed by the Ministry of Food on the sale of these jams.

    BACON.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the speeches of one of his officials named Mr. Woodhouse, in which he stated that his Department was able to supply better bacon than private enterprise was able to supply, and this was admitted by members of the trade; whether he can name one member of the trade who has admitted this allegation, and where the bacon is to which he refers; and whether he will take steps to have the proper information put before the public, and have the official in question severely reprimanded?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member has not correctly repre-

    1085
    sented the speech made by the official referred to; the remaining parts of the question do not therefore arise.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. W. YOUNGasked the Minister of Food whether he will state the tonnage held by members of the potato allocation authority in Scotland at November, 1918, as per their returns to the Board of Agriculture, and the exact amount of this tonnage held by them on 30th June, 1919; how much of the tonnage held by them on 1st November, 1918, was finally claimed and paid for; whether, in whole or in part, the amount held by Messrs. F. M. and G. Batchelor, Dundee, was included in the 984 tons already referred to as being held by members of the allocation committee; and, if so, whether their inclusion was in respect of Mr. Alexander Batchelor being a member of the allocation authority?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Individual returns of tonnage of potatoes held in November, 1918, were rendered to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in confidence, and, as the hon. Member was informed in reply to his question on 20th May, they are not, therefore, available for publication. The tonnage held by the members of the allocation authority on the 30th June, and the compensation paid in respect of claims made by these members, were indicated in the reply referred to. In reply to the third part of the question, the figures already given include all ware potatoes held by Messrs. F. M. and G. Batchelor of Dundee; Mr. Alexander Batchelor, a member of that firm, is a member of the allocation authority.

    CONDEMNED FOODSTUFFS.
    Mr. ROBERTSONasked the Minister of Food what quantities of bacon, fish, and other foodstuffs have been condemned and destroyed or used in other ways than as food since 1st January, 1920?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The quantity of bacon condemned and destroyed under certificate from the sanitary authorities from 1st January to 18th May, 1920, was approximatey 46 tons. The consumption of bacon in the same period was approximately 100,000 tons, and the condemnations were exclusively
    1086
    confined to bacon imported prior to the resumption of control by the Ministry of Food in 1919. No bacon purchased by the Ministry has been condemned as unfit for human consumption. With regard to fish, 2,307 tons have been condemned, including 133 tons of shell-fish. 97 per cent. of the remainder was utilised for fish meal and fish manure. As regards other principal foodstuffs, less than one ton of cheese and approximately five tons of butter have been condemned out of a consumption of 40,000 and 35,000 tons respectively.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION).

    VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the importance to traders and the public, that the portions of the Victoria and Albert Museum now occupied by a certain staff of the Education Department, and closed to the public, shall be restored to their proper uses at the earliest possible opportunity, he will make arrangements that the staff of the Education Department now in this museum shall be removed to Whitehall at an early date, and in any case before the end of June?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The removal of the Board of Education staff from the portions of the Victoria and Albert Museum which it now occupies cannot be commenced until early in July. It is expected that the vacation will be completed before the end of that month.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the weekly or monthly cost of the staff of the Civil Liabilities Department in October, 1919, and April, 1920; the number of claims dealt with by this staff on each of those dates; and the difference of the number of the staff on these two dates?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The total cost of the staff of the Civil Liabilities Department for the month of October, 1919, was £9,076 18s. 7d., and for the month of April, £10,368 11s. 9d. The number of the staff on 30th April, 1920, was 11 in excess of the number employed on 31st

    1087
    October, 1919. As regards the number of claims dealt with, I give the figures for the whole of the month of October, 1919, and the whole of the month of April, 1920: October, 1919, 12,820; April. 1920, 14,035. In addition to the above figures, which include those cases only which were finally dealt with during the two periods referred to, there were 26,993 cases partially dealt with during the month of April, 1920. These I have not included in the total figures for that month, as there is no corresponding figure available for the month of October, 1919.
    Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Department have been doing wonderful work during the last few weeks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, and I wish to pay a tribute to them for the hard work they have done.

  HOUSING.

    LOUTH SCHEME (RECENT DISASTER).
    Colonel Sir H. NORRISasked the First Commissioner of Works whether his Department has made an offer to erect a certain number of houses in Louth, Lincoln; whether such offer has been accepted; and, if so, what is the authority for the Office of Works entering into undertakings of this kind?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I am arranging that an extension of the Louth housing scheme, which has been rendered urgently necessary as a result of the recent disaster, shall be entrusted to the Office of Works. The scheme will be prepared and carried out by the Office of Works, on behalf of and at the expense of the borough council.

  TRANSPORT.

    BICYCLES, RAILWAY RATES.
    Mr. SITCHasked the Minister of Transport if and when he proposes to reconsider the present heavy charges made for the carriage of bicycles by rail, with the view to some reasonable reduction therein, having regard to the great dissatisfaction felt among large numbers of persons accustomed to take their machines with them on their holidays?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): A deputation was received from the National Cyclists' Union on 23rd March, and they were told that, although no immediate alteration would be made, their case would receive consideration in the forthcoming general revision of rates.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it the case that at the present time it costs far more to take a bicycle five miles than a passenger?
    Mr. NEAL: Yes, I think that is so.

  EDUCATION.

    ASSISTANT SCHOOL TEACHERS (COLLEGE TRAINING).
    Mr. SWANasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware of the great difficulties in the way of uncertificated assistant school teachers who are due to have a two years' course of training at various colleges in order to qualify as certificated assistant school teachers, and that large numbers were due to enter such colleges last year, but cannot be guaranteed a college before September, 1920, due to the military authorities retaining such as a hospital; if steps will be taken as early as possible to get these teachers places in the various colleges; and if the financial loss can be met by a compassionate grant?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The only training college which is still occupied as a hospital for military purposes is the City of Leeds Training College. A considerable portion of the premises of this college has now been returned for educational purposes, and I hope that the remainder will be set free shortly. My right hon. Friend greatly regrets the interference with the careers of students that has been caused by the occupation, but he has no power to make a compassionate grant such as is suggested.

    GOVERNMENT GRANTS (COMPANIES, FIRMS, AND PERSONS).
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount of grants made to various companies, firms, and persons during the War; to whom they were made; the reasons for making them; the extent to

    1089
    which these reasons have been fulfilled in practice; and to include those companies, firms, and persons to whom were granted abatements in connection with Excess Profits Duty, instead of the Government supplying funds?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member would be good enough to state more precisely what grants he has in mind, and by what Department they were made, I shall be glad to consider what information can be given. Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th March last to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen Central.

  INDIA.

    LAND REVENUE (ASSESSMENT).
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India have taken, or propose to take, to give effect to the recommendation of Lord Selborne's Committee regarding the embodiment in the Law of the main principles governing the assessment of land revenue in British India?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): In reply to a similar question in the Indian Legislative Council on the 8th March, it was stated that "the Government of India consider that as land revenue is a provincial subject, the necessary legislation must be undertaken by the local legislatures. They are in communication with the Secretary of State, and propose to address Local Governments on the subject before long"

BILL PRESENTED.
  SUPERANNUATED POOR LAW OFFICERS (ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES) BILL,
  "to provide for payment of additional allowances to superannuated Poor Law officers and servants in necessitous cases," presented by Mr. ORMSBY-GORE; supported by Dr. Macdonald, Mr. Townley, Sir Park Goff, Mr. Forestier-Walker, Mr. Briant, and Sir Albion Richardson; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL,
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 119.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 119.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords],
Lowestoft Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Gas Regulation Bill): Sir Ryland Adkins, the Lord Advocate, Major Barnes, Mr. Bridgeman, Sir Henry Cowan, Viscount Elveden, Mr. Hayday, Sir Robert Horne, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. McVeagh, Mr. Munro, Major Nall, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Frederick Thomson, and Mr. Tootill.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee A: Mr. Charles Murray.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D; Mr. Munro.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, with an Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Eastbourne Waterworks Company;

  1091
  and for other purposes." [Eastbourne Waterworks Bill [Lords.]
  Eastbourne Waterworks Bill [Lords],
  Read for First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURE [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the remuneration and expenses of the Commissioners to be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend The Corn Production Act, 1917, and the enactments relating to agricultural holdings, and of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by any other Department in meeting payments in respect of wheat or oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one or any subsequent year under Part 1. of The Corn Production Act, 1917, as amended and continued by such Act of the Present Session, and any expenses incurred by such Minister or Department or any other body under any other provision of the said Act as so amended and continued.
  Provided that—

  (a) for the purpose of the payments aforesaid the minimum prices of any year shall not exceed such sums as bear the same proportion in the case of wheat to sixty-eight shillings per customary quarter, and in the case of oats to forty-six shillings per customary quarter, as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year bears to the cost of the production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen and

  (b) without prejudice to the rights of any person in respect of anything done or suffered before the commencement of such Act of the present Session, compensation under Section Nine of The Corn Production Act, 1917, as amended and continued by such Act of the present Session, shall be payable only in respect of loss suffered by reason of the taking possession of land under that Section."

  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I need not waste very much time in speaking myself since I have circulated a White Paper, which goes very fully into the whole subject, and in which the whole policy and commitments involved are set out with considerable elaboration. There will be no payment
  1110
  whatever under this Resolution in the current financial year. Whatever payments there may be will occur in subsequent financial years, and certainly not in this one. The payments involved will appear in the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture, and will be subject therefore to the consideration of this House. The payments range themselves in two categories. First of all there are certain necessary expenses. They are very small. There may be expense involved in additional staff for the Ministry for the purpose of carrying out the guarantee and checking the totals, but we anticipate that the greater part of this work will be carried on by the Agricultural Executive Committees, and we do not think the payment under that head will be at all a large one. Then there is the payment of the Commissioners who every year after the harvest are to estimate the variations in cost of production of wheat and of oats, and consequently of the amount of the minimum guarantee from year to year. We estimate that at quite a small figure, only about £2,000 per annum, because this will not be a whole time job at all. We shall probably make use of the services of existing officials of the three Departments named and they will merely be taken off their regular work; some special work will be given them and there will be certain payments in respect of that special work, and certain costs involved in carrying it out. We put that figure at less than £2,000 a year. A bigger payment by far, if and when it arises, will be the guarantee for wheat and oats, and the earliest time at which any such payment could take place would be in April, 1922, that is to say, in the financial year 1922–3. Of course, this guarantee is an essential part of the Bill. The whole of Part l—and Part 2 really, to a large extent, is dependent upon Part 1—depends upon this system of guaranteed prices, and without this system of guaranteed prices the Bill would be meaningless and we could not proceed with it.
  In the Resolution we very carefully confine the guarantees to wheat and oats. We do not include barley. I know many of my hon. Friends who represent agricultural constituencies wish to include barley. We cannot see our way to include barley. It would entail a large additional liability on the State, and, in our opinion, it is not necessary for the purposes of

  1111
  the Bill. The reason why we ask for this liability is that we wish to promote and increase arable cultivation—tillage—whether that tillage be used for the production of wheat, oats, barley, potatoes, or arable dairying, or any other purpose for which arable land might be used, and we hold that, if we take two crops like wheat and oats, one of which, at least, can be grown on all arable land, one of which at least is, I will not say an essential, but at all events a possible element in rotation, we accomplish the point we require, namely, obtaining greater arable cultivation, and therefore greater production, without including barley. Therefore, much as I sympathise with my hon. Friends who wish to include barley, I have not put it in this Resolution, and I could not agree; in fact, it would be out of order if I agreed to its inclusion.
  4.0 P.M.
  With regard to the guarantees, they are necessary to the Bill. They are indeed part of the very texture and essence of the Bill. Without the guarantees the Bill would be meaningless. The policy that we have at heart would not be carried out. I wish to make it perfectly clear what the guarantees seek to do. We do not propose by them to secure the farmer a profit. It is no part of the duty of the State to guarantee a profit. What we have regard to is that in years gone by, in the eighties and the nineties, there was a tremendous break in prices, with the result that, not only did arable farmers get no profit, but they were involved in very heavy loss, and the memory of those disastrous times has lingered, and especially now, when the cost of labour is high, farmers are unwilling to embark on an enlarged programme of arable cultivation unless they are secured against those disastrous losses that overtook their predecessors in the eighties and the nineties. The object of the guarantee, therefore, is to secure them against tremendous losses, while, at the same time, giving to the farmers the opportunity of obtaining the best prices possible, which, under present conditions, rule a great deal above the guaranteed prices. Although I have said the first possible payment can take place in the financial year 1922–3, I do not anticipate that it is likely to take place then, because from all the information at our command, especially as regards
  1112
  wheat—I agree the question of oats is rather more speculative—there is every reason to suppose that prices will continue to rule for some time a great deal above the guaranteed prices. What is the position of the farmer? He has an opportunity of getting something like the world prices, which would be a good deal above the guaranteed prices, and there is also this guarantee, which is covered by this Resolution, that if a break in prices takes place he is secured against disastrous loss. In this connection, I would like to make an announcement which I think is of great importance. Having regard to the present situation, we are anxious to extend the production of wheat. We realise that there may be a wheat shortage all over the world, and we think it is most important that we should try to induce the farmer to sow as much wheat as possible this autumn and next spring, so far as there is any spring sowing.
  Mr. LAMBERT: What would be the guarantee?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I will come to that. We wish to induce the farmer to sow as much as possible, but the farmers are being deterred by the fact that they cannot get the world price, that is to say, the price of imported wheat, and the Government, in order to overcome that, have come to a new decision only yesterday. It is not proposed to make any change in the maximum price for homegrown wheat of the 1920 harvest. That will remain at 95s., as already announced.
  Mr. LAMBERT: If it goes above that, will the farmer get it?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, not for the 1920 crop. As regards 1921, there was a similar undertaking. That crop is the first crop with which we deal in this Bill. With regard to home-grown wheat harvested in 1921, that is, wheat sown in the coming autumn and spring, the maximum already announced, that is, 100s. per quarter of 504 lbs., will be cancelled. The effect of this will be that, so long as the import of wheat is still controlled, and the farmer is thereby deprived of the full benefit of a free market, he will receive for his home-grown wheat, of sound milling quality, harvested in 1921, an amount equal to the

  1113
  average, c.i.f., cost price of imported wheat of similar or comparable quality. The farmer will have the advantage of the price of imported wheat, and if there is any break in prices he will have a guarantee against serious loss provided by this Bill. What we want to do is to stimulate the production of wheat in the national interests, and I would appeal to hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies to do everything they can to get as much wheat sown as possible in the coming autumn, in order that the nation may have the advantage and the farmer may have a protection against loss.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Have we any power to fix a maximum price? Have we power under the Defence of the Realm Act?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not fixing a maximum price, I am taking away a maximum price.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Can he explain how he is not going to fix a minimum price? I do not see how he can do so. It has that effect.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly, there is a power under the Defence of the Realm Regulations which have not yet come to a conclusion, and some of these Regulations may be extended under the powers of the Food Controller.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They end in August.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, unless some other arrangement be made. But some of the restrictions may remain. I would like to deal with one or two other matters relating to this guarantee. Some hon. Members have questioned the amount of the guarantee; some think we ought not to have a guarantee at all, and others say that it is too small. If they think there should be none, they should have voted against the Second Reading, and on that occasion there was no Division. With regard to the amount, there has been misapprehension and misunderstanding. It is assumed that the maximum would be 68s. for wheat and 46s. for oats. That is the amount fixed by the Royal Commission for 1919, having regard to the cost of production. They fixed a datum line from which variations will be made from year to year as the cost
  1114
  of production goes up or down. I do not want to prejudge what the Commission will do or what they ought to do, but it is quite clear that what they will do will be to take particular items in order to find out the cost of production. They will take them one by one and ascertain what the variations have been. These items will, of course, include rates, manures, seeds, labour and such other various items associated with production. They will see whether these things go up or down and will take an average throughout the country. They could not deal with particular farms. Upon that they will be able to say whether the guaranteed prices should rise or fall. Without prejudging what the Commissioners may do in the future, I have had calculation made and worked out as to what the 68s. guaranteed price of wheat would amount to in this year, and the 46s. on oats. According to that calculation the guaranteed price for 1920, if there was a guaranteed price, but there is not a guaranteed price, instead of being 68s. should be something between 80s. and 85s., and instead of 46s. for oats it should be 53s. or 54s. That is a very different matter from 68s. and 46s. which have been assumed to be the guaranteed prices this year. Of course, I admit that this involves the State in considerable liability. We realise that that is so. It is part of our policy. I cannot give any estimate of the amount because I do not know what prices are going to be the rule. Several elements in the calculation are uncertain. We do not know what is going to be the cost of production, and upon that depends the guaranteed price. Certainly there is uncertainty as to the price that will rule in future years, but I have taken out certain figures for the calculation as far as I can. Assuming that the acreage for 1919 is the figure, and taking that as the basis, although it may be greatly increased, the payment under the guarantee in respect of the difference between the maximum price and the average price would be £434,000 on wheat and £1,279,000 on oats for every shilling of difference. But, as I have said, several of the elements of this are uncertain. There is not only the cost of production, but there is also the question of acreage. So that it is quite impossible to give a definite figure at this stage, or to say what

  1115
  might happen in future years. But what I want to say is that the House has passed this Bill on the Second Reading without a Division. It has accepted the principle of a guaranteed price, which is a principle inherent in the Bill. Part I of the Bill rests upon the guaranteed price, and there are other things, such as the continuance of the Agricultural Wages Board and the control of cultivation, which also depend upon the guarantee. I think that the House, having passed the Second Reading, must feel bound to pass this Resolution, and that on that basis its justification is quite easy to find. It is the policy of the House thus accepted and the policy of the Government to stimulate arable cultivation and to increase production, especially the production of wheat, indeed of all foodstuffs in this country. We can do that only by giving this guarantee. We do not want the farmer to embark upon this extra risk and expense without some protection or inducement. It will mean greater cost and trouble, because every farmer knows that the cost of running a grass farm is much less and gives less trouble. The cost of labour is also less than on arable land, and that cost at present is high. If we want the farmer to increase cultivation in the national interest we have to give him this guarantee. It is, in fact, a sort of State insurance for the purpose of seeing that the land of the country is put to the best possible cultivation. On all these grounds I ask the Committee to carry this Resolution. I have only gone into the matter very briefly, but I shall be prepared to answer any questions.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Government's position with regard to this Bill is clearly defined. They are in favour of a subsidy to agriculture. Some of us who listened to the Second Reading Debate on the Bill take a different view. I consider that this Bill ought to have been divided into three parts—one dealing with the question of subsidy, the other with wages, and the other with such questions as fixity of tenure and compensation. That I am not discussing now, but I wanted to explain in one short sentence why it was technically difficult to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which included many things of which many of us are in favour. This, however, is a Financial Resolution, which raises the issue in a much more clearly defined manner, because money is
  1116
  required for the purely protective purpose of subsidising agriculture in this country, and on that point I myself and many others of us have a quite clear view, and we intend to oppose this Resolution. My right hon. Friend, in the remarks he made to the Committee encouraging us to vote for this Motion, said he had supplied us with a White Paper which did away with the necessity for him to make a long speech. In the course of his speech he made one or two comments upon this White Paper. Before I give my own reasons for opposing this Resolution, I should like to deal with those comments. He pointed out that there is no payment in the current financial year, and apparently tries to suggest that the fact that we are committing ourselves to nothing this year is a substantial reason why we should commit the country to expenditure in future years; that it was not going to touch our particular pockets this year, and that that was a sufficient reason for glossing over this particular Resolution which may establish quite firmly a protective scheme in this country. He pointed out that the bulk of the work would be done by the agricultural committees, and that the expenditure would not, therefore, be large. He put it at under £2,000. That expenditure of £2,000 is explained on page 4 of the memorandum—
  "It is not anticipated that the total expenditure in any year for the remuneration and expenses of the Commissioners will exceed £2,000."
  We have heard that story before. My right hon. Friend opposite, in dealing with this very question of corn production, when we were discussing the Supplementary Estimates for this year on the 9th March, pointed out, with regard to an expenditure of £105,500, that nearly £10,000 of that was due to extra costs in connection with the Corn Production Act. We now have the same story given to us as when that was brought before the Committee, but when we come to meet the bills we have been accustomed to discover great discrepancies between the Estimate as made by the Minister and the actual amount we are called upon to pay. Then my right hon. Friend pointed out that the larger part of the money required is for a guarantee for wheat and oats, and that it did not include barley. He did not tell us that the Agricultural Commission recommended the inclusion

  1117
  of barley. I am going to suggest that if he makes out a case for wheat and oats, he must obviously defend, as he will be called upon to do, the exclusion of barley and a great many other things in which the agricultural community are interested, and I suggest that his partial explanation was not sufficient to cover this particular point. Then he pointed out that the guarantee did not seek to secure a profit for the farmer. There is one simple question that might be addressed to my right hon. Friend, to which, I daresay, the Committee will be glad to have a direct answer: Can he give the Committee any evidence at all of any single practical farmer saying that as a result of this Bill he will plough up an extra single acre of land? If he will look at his own White Paper, he will see a significant fact in the figures dealing with wheat. In the year 1914–15, the first year of the War, he will find the acreage under wheat was 2,333,354 acres, and, despite all the encouragement and all the grants to the farming industry inside that time, by 1919 there were only 2,370,367 acres under wheat.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Take 1918.
  Mr. HOGGE: In 1918 there were 2,793,049, an increase of less than half a million acres on 1915. My right hon. Friend shakes his head. He might do a little sum in arithmetic. One figure is 2,300,000, the other 2,700,000. The difference is inside half a million. That is in spite of all that has been promised to the farmer. 1918 was the year in which the War closed, and immediately the War ended, down dropped the acreage by nearly the same figure as the increase between 1915 and 1918.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No effective guarantee!
  Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend interjects that the reason is that they had no effective guarantee. In reply to that, there is the obvious retort that they had the Corn Production Act of my right hon. Friend's Government. If that was not an effective guarantee, then it shows that the Government are ineffective in their efforts to protect the farmer.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We are amending it.
  Mr. HOGGE: It shows that the Government measure has been a failure. That is all that that proves, and I am quite willing
  1118
  that my right hon. Friend should have that point, free, gratis, and for nothing, in view of the reiteration from that Bench that this is the only competent Government for dealing with the affairs of this country, and that in them resides all the wisdom by which these things can be determined. Now we see that the Corn Production Act was so ineffective that it explains the decrease in this acreage between the years 1918 and 1919. I think I have covered the points made by my right hon. Friend in his supplementary remarks to his White Paper. My position is quite clear, and I can state it quite briefly. I object entirely, I do not mean entirely, but strongly and definitely, to any policy of guarantee at all, and I object strongly to this guarantee being made to the farmers, because, amongst other things, of the demands from other industries that it will lead to. In Scotland you are going to have a crisis in the herring industry. The herring fleet, which consists of some 700 to 800 boats, with 7 to 8 men for each boat—a male population of between 7,000 and 8,000—are refusing to catch fish, to hunt the herring, unless the Government will guarantee a minimum price. I say deliberately that this policy, by which everybody is attempting to secure themselves at the expense of the whole community, ought to stop. It not only applies to agriculture and the fishing industry, it applies all round to these demands that we have for increased wages, one trade against another. Everybody seems to have his hand in his neighbour's pocket, and, so far as the conditions of industry are concerned at the present moment, we are becoming a nation, one might almost say, of pickpockets. What we do not realise is that all this money, all this subsidy given by Governments, has to be paid by the ordinary taxpayer, and that it is coming out of large sections of the community who cannot afford to pay it, and that the burden upon that section of the community is becoming absolutely intolerable. If it is said one must give a sufficient reason for not according a guarantee to the farmer, my answer is that the farming industry is doing extremely well at the moment. Agriculture in this country was never doing better. Agriculture is making huge profits. Everybody who moves about the country in touch with the agricultural industry knows the difference in the social status of the

  1119
  average farmer in this country. I have noticed it, and so have other members of the community, and it is ridiculous to suggest that the farming community of this country require this kind of inducement to grow food. It is a monstrous theory that there is a particular industry in the country that will not do its obvious duty unless it is given financial support by the Government. Agriculture is in a much more favoured position than any other industry. Agriculture does not have anything to do with the Excess Profits Duty.
  Major HOWARD: It has had maximum prices.
  Mr. HOGGE: I was not talking about maximum prices. I am pointing out what has not been denied, that there is no liability to Excess Profits Duty in the agricultural industry, and I am also reminding hon. Members of the great opposition to the Excess Profits Duty as a tax upon industry and as a restriction upon the energy and vitality of business men in the ordinary industries of the country. Agriculture does not suffer from that, and these farmers are therefore in a favoured position. My further point is this; if this liability is incurred under the guarantee, it may come at a time when the taxpayer is in a less effective position to meet it. In that connection the Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend gave a new Cabinet decision with regard to the maximum prices in 1921. The White Paper says:
  "The Government have already announced that after the harvest of 1920 British wheat will be saleable at the same price as the average monthly c.i.f. cost of imported wheat, subject to a maximum of 95s. per customary quarter for wheat harvested in 1920, and a maximum of 100s. per customary quarter for wheat harvested in 1921, if control continues so long."
  My right hon. Friend says the Cabinet have altered that and that he has cancelled the 100s. for the wheat harvested in 1921 and that he substitutes for that an amount equal to the average c.i.f. cost of imported wheat. That is to say, the British farmer will be able to take the same price as could be obtained by the c.i.f. imported wheat at a date in 1921.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: As long as the import of wheat is still controlled and the farmer is thereby deprived of the benefit of a free market he will receive for home-
  1120
  grown wheat harvested in 1921 of sound milling quality an amount equal to the average c.i.f. cost price of imported wheat or of similar comparable quality.
  Mr. HOGGE: You substitute for the maximum price of 100s. this c.i.f. which means that the farmer gets it both ways. If the c.i.f. imported wheat price is higher than 100s. he gets that. If the price in this country were the price of a free market in this country he would not get that, but he would get his 100s. maximum, so that he is sure of the 100s. and he may take the alternative of a c.i.f. price which may be higher. There again, you give the farming indusry in this country, as against the average taxpayer, a privilege which I as an ordinary taxpayer who represents a large urban ocmmunity think they have no particular right to get. I do not believe in pledging the credit of the taxpayer without knowledge of the economic situation in which we may be. This money is being averaged as at April, 1922, but it is only 1920, and we have to consider what is going to be the graduation from this artificial prosperity in which we find ourselves to the slump in employment and in business which will come in those years, and also to what we are committing the taxpayers of the country. I object to that strongly. My fourth and last reason for opposing this Resolution is that it means, in spite of what my right hon. Friend says, the employment of a large horde of officials for inspection purposes. I know my right hon. Friend has tried to minimise that by giving us certain figures, but if he remembers his own supplementary figures which we debated in March, he will find under sub-head (a) that we spent £10,000 on the Corn Production Act, £30,000 on temporary clerical staff, and £46,000 on additional war bonuses; over £100,000 for a purpose which I have heard hon. Members, with whom I seldom agree, say is not necessary. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), whom I should imagine will take a different view from myself every time on a question of this kind, said that that inspection was absolutely unnecessary. He said
  "From the agricultural point of view I, for one, attach very little value to the minimum price, and to put inspectors on to discover whether or not the State was likely to be liable to pay this minimum price is unnecessary."

  1121
  That is the statement of an authority with whom my hon. Friends opposite agree, and with whom I disagree on question of principle. I am not making a party point but a financial point when I say that this expenditure to which we are committing ourselves, and this power which we are giving to the Ministry of Agriculture, does inevitably mean the appointment of a large number of officials who will be a drain on public money. For this reason I object strongly to this financial Resolution, and also on the grounds which I have urged against it, and those of us who are opposed to the protection of a particular industry in this country will have an opportunity to give a clear vote on a subject which cannot be misconstrued.
  Captain FITZROY: The hon. Member who has just spoken, if he has done nothing else, has shown us quite clearly that legislation of some kind is necessary to increase the food production of this country. He quoted figures at some length to show that under the conditions which now prevail the amount of wheat grown in this country since 1918 has considerably fallen. Therefore, that leads me to suggest that the Government is perfectly right in introducing legislation now and trying to make it law as soon as possible in order to remedy the lamentable condition of things which now prevails. I agree, and I stated so on the Second Reading, that the Bill as now introduced will not bring about the results which are desired; but the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has made to-day with regard to the de-control of the maximum price in the near future has, at any rate, so far as regards Clauses 1 and 2 considerably altered my opinion in that respect. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not tell us that the Government will remove the control for this year's harvest as well as the 1921 harvest. The average farmer would be much more satisfied if control was removed at once, and if he was able to get on the harvest which will be gathered this autumn whatever the world's price may happen to be at the time. In the White Paper which has been issued explaining this Resolution we are given figures of the average world price for a statutory quarter of wheat at the present time, and the average comes out, I think, I am right in saying, at about
  1122
  100s. a quarter. The control price for this year's harvest is 95s. and the difference appears to me to be so small from the Government's point of view that they are more likely to get wheat sown this autumn by de-control of the price for this year's harvest and that it is well worth their while making an announcement now, instead of deferring de-control until the harvest of 1921.
  The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) finds fault with the guaranteed price on principle. I am very much inclined to agree with him that guaranteed prices or subsidies are very bad things in themselves, but, unfortunately, we have already embarked upon that slippery slope, not only with regard to agriculture, but with regard to other industries and it is very difficult to turn back. Once you embark on the dangerous ground of interfering with economic laws, you land yourselves in all sorts of difficulties. The hon. Member suggested that we were leading the way in this respect. On the contrary, we are only following others. This interference with economic laws has been started with regard to the railway service and with regard to coal mining. As regards the railway service, that is a service the wages of which very much affect the wages of agricultural labours, and it is very difficult for us not to be influenced by what has been done in that direction. My hon. Friend seemed to forget and to ignore the necessity for this Bill, which is the increased food production of this country. It is not a measure for the benefit of farmers. It is a national Bill for the benefit of the nation, to try to increase the food supply of the country, and when in the same breadth the hon. Member told us that during the last three years the number of quarters of wheat which had been grown have declined by something like 600,000, surely that in itself is evidence enough that something is required to stimulate food production in this country. Who is interested in this financial resolution and in establishing a system of guaranteed prices? First of all the nation, secondly, the labourers, not the farmer. If the hon. Member would read the Interim Report of the Royal Commission when dealing with this question of guaranteed prices he will find that they quote the evidence put before them, and in paragraph 19 they say:
  "A considerable body of evidence given by farmers went to show that in the opinion

  1123
  of many of them no measure for assisting the farming industry by means of guaranteed prices for cereals is necessary solely in the interests of farmers themselves."
  They go on, quite rightly, to say that the farmer has changed his method of husbandry so as to make his farming pay. He can lay his land down to grass and get just as much profit out of it with the expenditure of a great deal less capital than would be necessary in turning it into arable cultivation. It is not a farmer's question at all. It is purely a measure to effect an increase in the food supply of the country. The method of guaranteed prices may be economically unsound, but no other method of increasing the food supply of the country that I know of can be suggested. There is no other method which will give that confidence to the agricultural community to invest their capital and alter their methods of cultivation, short of guaranteed minimum prices, if the world's markets go down as they were before the War.
  As regards labour, you have upset ordinary economic laws by establishing wage boards. Of what value is a wage board to an industry unless by some means you guarantee a price which will enable the wages when established to be paid? The natural corollary of a wage board must be guaranteed prices. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to do away with the wage board? If not he must vote for guaranteed prices. The more one sees of the working of wage boards the more one sees that it is absolutely necessary to establish some means by which the wages can be paid. I have here an account of the proceedings which have recently taken place at the wage board during a discussion of the further increase on the minimum wage of the agricultural labourer. The Clause dealing with this question in the Corn Production Act of 1917, lays down that the wages are to be such as will enable the worker to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation. That is a very difficult thing to define and no consideration is given, and perhaps ought not to be given, as to the means of the industry to pay the wages that were raised in those industries. Therefore those who represent labour at this wage board say, "It is no concern of ours to consider whether the
  1124
  industry can pay it. All we have got to consider is fixing a wage which will carry out the intention stated in that Act." If that is so, and I have no doubt it is so, it must follow that if you have wage boards which are carrying on the work in that manner it is absolutely necessary to establish a guaranteed minimum price by which those wages can be paid.
  The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hogge) did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. As this Bill is founded on the principle of guaranteed minimum price it seems to be a little inconsistent, having as good as voted for this Bill by not voting against it, to oppose bringing into practice the principle which you accept. The hon. Gentleman would be very inconsistent if at any rate he did not refrain from voting against the resolution now before the House. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give further consideration to the suggestion which I have made that control should be removed from the 1920 harvest as well as the harvest of 1921. I was hoping when this Bill was introduced that the guaranteed price and the guaranteed price alone would effect an increase in the food supply of the country. I do believe if the farmer has confidence that he will be allowed to take advantage of the world's market, when in his favour, and guaranteed against financial loss when they go against him, that this will go a long way to encourage him to put his capital and labour into the land in order to provide the food necessary for this country.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: No doubt the proposal made will have a considerable effect in giving confidence to farmers that it will be worth their while to grow wheat in the future, but I do not want to make too much of that, because the fact is that a very large number of farmers are discouraged by the suggestion that the minimum should be taken at the figure of 68s. It may be to a certain extent mitigated, but it is not met by saying that there shall be decontrol. I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would have given us full figures in dealing with the method by which he and the Commissioners arrived at the datum line of 68s. Perhaps he will do so at some future time, though I am afraid that this is the last occasion on which this particular subject can be discussed. The hon. Gentleman (Mr.

  1125
  Hogge) talked as if enormous sums were going to be paid to the farmers, and said that the farmers should not have it both ways; but the hon. Gentleman should remember that before the minimum price is put in operation the world's price has got to fall, and that if it is simply a case of the farmer benefitting by the higher world price this country will pay nothing, and it is to the advantage of the country generally to get it one way, and that is what this Bill proposes to do. As the hon. Member who has just spoken (Captain Fitzroy) has said, it is absolutely necessary for this country that wheat growing should be encouraged, and this is the only possible suggestion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hogge) made no suggestion as to any other means by which wheat growing can be encouraged. On the other hand, if his suggestion were carried out, in all probability no wheat would be grown in this country and proper wages paid to the labourers, because we do not see why agricultural labourers should be worse paid, when they are just as valuable as the workers in any of the other industries.
  The right hon. Gentleman repeated the statement that the guarantee was not intended to be a guarantee of profit. I still think that the Government are making a mistake in that. I think that by merely giving a guarantee which will not do more than save serious loss, they are not going to give the encouragement to which the farmer is entitled, and which would induce him to put more money into the growing of wheat. With regard to barley, the right hon. Gentleman said that if barley were included we should have to include a great many other things. I think that there is a great deal to be said about including other things. Market gardeners are not encouraged. Forestry is one of the things which are affected by the Agricultural Wages Board. Nobody is going to put any money or effort into it in present conditions. The same thing may be said of various forms of food production, but in view of the very large acreage of which barley is the main cereal crop in this country, it would have been a very encouraging thing if the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to include barley. I know that the argument is that barley is not absolutely necessary in every rotation, and that there is no rotation which does not include wheat or
  1126
  oats. That, of course, is true, and by securing a sufficiently good price for each of those two things you do also secure that there shall be some inducement for growing them.
  The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hogge) gave a description of what has happened in the way of decreased production, but it is a mistake to think that wheat decreased merely in the conditions to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The real reason is that a great deal of unsuitable land was ploughed up for wheat, and while so much wheat was grown during the War the farmers got out of the old rotation. Now they are all busy trying to get back to it. There has been so much wheat grown during the last two years that, obviously, in the rotation there is less wheat grown now, and it is not a matter of the guarantee having failed. It is a matter of production by the ordinary rotation of crops. I believe that these guarantees will have a considerable effect. I do not believe that the farmer will fail to respond to appeals of this sort. I believe that they will have considerable effect, and that the announcement which has just been made will have more effect, but I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not given the process by which he arrived at those figures.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) has said that the guaranteee of a minimum wage carries with it as an essential consequence a guarantee of minimum prices. I do not admit it. I never have admitted it and I never shall admit it. I think that any industry ought to pay reasonable rates of wages or disappear. I do not think that it has any claim, because it is required to pay reasonable rates of wages, that the taxpayer should step in with a subvention. It that had been admitted the country would be brimming over with industries getting subventions, which would disappear in five minutes if those subventions were withdrawn. I think the necessity of stimulating production from the land, from the point of view of the State, is sufficiently great that it becomes, as in this case, in return for value received, namely, extra production, necessary to guarantee a certain minimum price. But I do not admit that because the State has, at long last, through the

  1127
  Wages Board, tried to see that the agricultural labourer gets a decent rate of wages, the industry has a right to demand that high prices should be given to it out of the National Exchequer. With regard to the finance of the Bill, let me say at once that I am much more afraid of the bill the nation may have to pay in respect of oats than I am in regard to wheat. The point arises at once that you are not only giving a guarantee which will, to some extent, one hopes, encourage the production of oats as a feeding stuff for human beings, but you are giving the advantage of a guarantee to thousands of farmers who very probably never had sold, and never will sell, a single bushel of oats, and who use it as a feeding stuff for their stock, and reckon to make a profit out of the sale of the stock, against which there is not any effective foreign competition. Those people who grow oats, and need it as a feeding stuff, will be given money on account of the oats they grow, and the lower the price of oats goes in the open market the cheaper feeding stuffs are to them for their stock. I do not think it has been explained to us why, with regard to stock production, into which oats goes, we need give guarantees, when the real object of the Bill is to keep up the arable area. I agree that you have to give guarantees with regard to wheat and oats as crops entering into all arable rotation. But I want the Government to consider whether it is necessary, not only to give a guarantee on account of all oats and wheat that come into the market, but also to give a guarantee on all oats which are grown simply in the course of the ordinary man's business of turning out stock, on which he reckons to get his profit.
  I think it not unlikely that there may be a rise in 1921 of 25 per cent. in excess of 1919. As is stated, the minimum price would be for oats 53s. 4d. The world price of oats may not unlikely fall to what it was in 1918, namely, 46s. 8d. There is a difference of 6s. 8d., but the bill would be, if the area remains practically what it was last year, five times five million acres; that is to say, 25 million acres at 6s. 8d. per acre, giving a guarantee which would fall on the taxpayer of over £8,000,000. That is a pretty large sum to have to face for oats if the price goes back, as I think it may, to
  1128
  46s. 8d., and the cost of production rises, as is here more or less anticipated, to 53s. 4d. Will the money be well spent, and is it necessary to spend it with regard to that very large class of farmers who never dream of putting their oats on the open market and are not affected by the fall in the price of oats? It seems to me that with regard to those people, you are offering them money just when they want it least, and that it is quite unnecessary to offer them any money at all because we are not supposed by this Bill to be doing anything to guarantee secondary profits to farmers on account of stock raising. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered before we finally part with the Bill, because very serious charges to the taxpayer are clearly involved in it.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: The right hon. Member who has just spoken has made an interesting point, but I cannot help thinking that there is a serious objection to the proposal he makes, because if you differentiate between oats grown for consumption on the farm and oats sold in the open market, it will be necessary to have a very large number of inspectors to see how the oats are grown and to check the figures given.
  Mr. ACLAND: I know there is a difficulty, but the amount involved is very large.
  Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: The right hon. Gentleman recognises the difficulty. Personally I do not consider there is likely to be a fall in world prices. But supposing there is, surely the net loss to the country would not be so great as would appear at first sight. I would like to express my gratification at the announcement made by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon with regard to the removal of the maximum price. It is a psychological fact that there was a grievance felt by farmers because they were not allowed to have the play of the open market. I am sure the announcement will do more than anything else to increase the acreage under wheat. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) objects to subsidies. Most people object to them. He asked, Why not subsidise the herring industry? I would reply that, desirable as herrings may be for the breakfast table, they are not a necessity. All those who have studied the question are at

  1129
  this moment in considerable anxiety as to where the wheat is to come from in the near future. Much as we dislike the proposal to subsidise any article whatsoever, still we recognise that it is very poor economy to risk starvation and to go so far as to oppose a financial resolution such as this. The hon. Member said that the farmers would grow wheat in any case. I hope that the hon. Member will never have any power of control in the agricultural world, because he does not seem to realise that the farmer will grow what pays him and will not grow wheat if it does not pay him, unless it is a case, as during the War, of a vital necessity for the safety of the nation. Then his patriotism leads him to do things that he would not do at ordinary times. I am sure that all of us on this side of the Committee are most anxious that there should not be an increase in the number of officials. I think that, with the guarantee promised and the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, there is a prospect of an increased acreage of wheat which will do away with or reduce the risk of a shortage of feeding-stuff.
  Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary asked me why I made a certain interruption during his speech. I will apologise to him for having interrupted him. The only reason I did so was that we might save time and that I might gain some information. I understand my right hon. Friend says that the controlled price for this year's wheat will remain at 95s., but that the price for the 1921 wheat will be uncontrolled. I asked him under what authority he has any power to control wheat. Of course, I was perfectly well aware that under the Defence of the Realm Act certain powers were given, but those powers come to an end when peace is declared, or on 31st August this year, whichever is the sooner. I should think it will not be very long before peace will be declared. The object of my question was to find out whether there was any intention of continuing the control in another form. My right hon. Friend says that in 1921 the control will be taken off, but I did not understand that there is any guarantee that in 1922 a Bill will not be brought in which will reimpose control. I know quite well it would be impossible now to give an undertaking that no Bill will be brought in with that object in view, but I would like to warn farmers
  1130
  who may think they are going to get a great deal out of this Bill that what I have indicated is always a possibility. An hon. Member has pointed out that the price of wheat is too high to enable the ordinary person to obtain bread at a reasonable price. There is this possibility of control being reimposed, and in that case the farmer will have the whole of the disadvantage. That is why I interrupted my right hon. Friend. I thoroughly agree with the remark that there has been a good deal of nonsense written in the papers and talked about the diminution of the wheat area. An hon. Member opposite said that it was owing to the failure of certain undertakings given by the Government. My own belief is that one very considerable cause was the amount of wages paid to the agricultural labourer and the short hours worked. I think the main cause is that the rotation of crops went wrong during the War, when a large number of farmers grew wheat two years running on the same ground and sometimes three times in the four years' rotation. The farmers are now trying to get the rotation back. That is my own case, and I feel sure it is so in other cases.
  There is also the statement always made whenever an Agricultural Bill is introduced that there is going to be a famine and that it is absolutely necessary that something should be done. The Parliamentary Secretary used that argument on the Second Reading. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) secured the Adjournment of the House subsequently, and the Prime Minister produced a telegram from some friend of his in Poland pointing out that in the Ukraine wheat was overflowing. Which of the two authorities is correct? I have been a Protectionist all my life, but I think subsidies are the very worst form of Protection you could possibly have. We embarked on that method in the case of the railways with very little success either to the public or the shareholders, and the same remark applies to coal. Now we are trying it with regard to agriculture. I quite recognise that it would be impossible to oppose this Resolution if control in the various forms, and especially as to the Wages Board, is to continue. My own belief is, if you did away with control, including the Wages Board, and left the farmers to make their own arrangements as to the terms and conditions of work, you would have a great

  1131
  deal more food produced in the country than you will have in this particular way. That is not proposed, and the only thing that is left is this Resolution. There is in the Resolution a very extraordinary change from the majority of Resolutions which have been brought in during the years I have sat here. In the old days Resolutions were unlimited in amount. I have often endeavoured to limit them, sometimes successfully, but more often not. I have never seen a Resolution which prevents any alteration whatever in the Billl. Where the Resolution has been limited it has been done in such a way that an increase might be made in the Bill. During the Second Reading Debate Members who represent agriculture complained that 68s. was too low a basis, and apparently they have now acquiesced in a finance Resolution which will prevent any Amendment being moved in Committee to increase that amount. I do not say the Government should have proposed a Resolution which would have committed the country to an unknown expenditure, but when Members representing what I may call the agricultural interests objected to 68s. as too low, I am rather surprised the Government did not put in a larger figure, say 78s., with a corresponding increase for oats, in order that there might be an opportunity in Committee for those Members to give their reasons and endeavour to obtain some reasonable increase in that basis. I presume that the undertaking of the Government to take away control in 1921 is the reason why no arguments to that effect have been brought forward. I am rather afraid that the mere fact that in 1921 there is not going to be control will not be sufficient to make up for limiting the basis price to 68s. I do not want to prophesy, but agriculturists hold the view that we shall have a repetition of what we had in the Eighties and Nineties, and if that were to happen the guarantee of 68s. would not be of very much use unless there was a very large reduction in wages and other expenses. As to the question of oats, there are many cases where the farmer does not sell his oats, but there are cases also where they do sell. If we are to embark on this slippery slope then let us do it whole-heartedly and let us have a good slide and do it pretty quickly, and if we do so we may beat somebody else who is on another slope.
  Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) looked on this White Paper and Finance Resolution with a microscopic eye. He found fault with the results achieved by the Corn Production Act, which was purely a war measure. That Act resulted in an increase of over one-fourth in the wheat acreage between 1917 and 1918, which was the most important period of the War as regards the submarine menace. That increase achieved its object and saved the situation. The hon. Member has also a short memory as to why the Government are endeavouring to increase the amount of arable land in this country. The War revealed that we were vitally dependent on imported food. This increased cultivation saved the situation, together with the British Navy, and I do not think either could have achieved it alone. Thereupon the Government made up their minds that that situation must never recur, but naturally the Corn Production Act introduced during the War did not fit in with the present peace situation. I confess, if I had been a Member of the Government introducing the Agricultural Bill, I would have confined myself absolutely and entirely to the vital necessity of increasing the arable land of this country. I would not have ventured on any forecast as my right hon. Friend did to-day when he said that we have every reason to suppose that prices will continue a great deal above the guaranteed prices for some time to come. That meant beyond April, 1922. Nearly all agricultural prophesies have a way of going wrong. I think every single forecast of importance that Cobden made went wrong. So far as the vital necessities of the case were concerned when he demanded the repeal of the Corn Laws he was on sure ground. My hon. Friend was wrong in saying that no subsidies are given to other industries. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City has just now mentioned the case of railways and the coal mines. There is a great difference between agriculture and other industries. The manufacturer can slow down, reduce his output and discharge his workmen. The farmer cannot do that, but has got to keep his land in a state of good cultivation. He cannot let the land run down, and that is a vital difference. I referred just now to forecasts. In the White Paper there is a similar forecast to

  1133
  that of the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech:
  "There seems no likelihood of prices falling at any time to anything approaching the pre-War figures. The earliest date at which any payments could become due under the Bill will be April, 1922, and assuming that the costs of production in 1921 are found to be 25 per cent. in excess of those of 1919, the minimum prices per statutory quarter would then be for wheat, 80s. 11d., and for oats 53s. 4d."
  The reasons why I think it is unsafe for us to make any forecast in the matter are several. There are negative reasons and positive reasons. The negative reasons are these. On the destructive side in this War and in connection with this War, we first got in the Argentine a prohibitive export tariff. The available Argentine supply is reckoned as one-fifth of the total import requirements of Europe. That export duty will not last for ever, and it will probably not last more than another twelve months. We then have Rumania refusing to export. The Rumanians are dependent for their main industry, apart from oil, on their agricultural exports, and that again cannot last. Hungary at present is out of the question. Russia used to produce one-fifth of the wheat supply of the world. No one doubts that the Russian situation will improve, and that Russia will once more enter the wheat export market. Then there is the reduced purchasing power of the sovereign. I think most believe that the sovereign will recover its full purchasing power within a very short period of years. We have seen its relation to the dollar go up considerably in the last six months. As regards the United States of America, there has been a great shortage of labour there, and farmers have been unable to obtain farm workers because of the way the workers have flocked to the towns, but the latest immigration reports from the United States of America are very favourable, so that that factor will soon be eliminated too. The submarine war resulted in high freights. The shipping that is being turned out throughout the world now is phenomenal, and the shipowners themselves, I believe, think there will be a slump in shipping, which, of course, means a reduction in freights. There has been a great destruction of land transport which is being replaced.
  1134
  On the positive or constructive side, there is naturally a tendency, owing to the demand for food, to a larger production of wheat per acre throughout the world. Every Member will acknowledge that the average of 13 bushels per acre, which is the average for the world, is a very small production indeed, and European experience shows that to be a very small yield. The other reason why I think production throughout the world is going to be considerably stimulated is that invention has been greatly increased by the War, especially in economies in agriculture, and the result will be that transport will be cheaper. My right hon. Friend when he pointed out that agriculture has suffered a diminution in capital value of £800,000,000—a figure which does not agree with Sir Reginald Palgrave's Estimate before the War of £1,700,000,000, but I take it my right hon. Friend's Estimates were based on present-day values—
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That was the figure given by the Eversley Commission which inquired into the condition of agriculture in the 'eighties and 'nineties.
  Commander BELLAIRS: I accept the figure of £800,000,000. He at the same time referred to what the causes were and stated that the break in agriculture took place from 1879 onwards. That break in our agriculture took place following an enormous stimulation of transport both by land and by sea. It was then that the steamer began to supplant on a large scale the sailing vessel, it was then that we got the compound and triple expansion engines succeeding each other, and there is no earthly reason why a similar and perhaps very much increased development should not take place in regard to transport to-day. At any rate, I think the farming industry were wise in regarding with suspicion anything that did not give them a guarantee for a number of years to come. The Government took a long time to consider their position, and found that they could not induce the farmers to cultivate more land unless they brought in a Bill of this character. When my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London talks of this Bill as being protective, of course it is protective, but it is vital to get the food supply of the country. What other means would he suggest? You may sub-

  1135
  sidise according to the acreage you lay down, you may give a bounty on production, or you may introduce what most of the countries of the world have, and that is protection by taxing food. Those are the three alternatives.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A duty at the ports?
  Commander BELLAIRS: That is the simplest form of protection. That is a reasonable proposal, but my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hogge) would accept that less than ever, and it is obvious that the Government have taken the course of least resistance in endeavouring to obtain what is vitally necessary, a similar industry to what Adam Smith regarded as vitally necessary when he said he would take any measures to preserve our shipping, so that we in this House, with the lessons of the War behind us, will take any measures to preserve the cultivation of the land and raise as much food as possible for the country.
  Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking earlier, said that the expenses, as far as management was concerned, were limited to £2,000.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It was only an estimate.
  Lieut. - Colonel WILLOUGHBY: If that is all that the control and management are going to cost, it is a very pleasant surprise to me, and I only say that I hope the estimate will prove right and is not going to be the enormous sum which food control has cost us in the past. We know that the expenditure that has been laid out to force people to grow corn, if it had been expended in other ways, would have produced far more corn, and it has been my view of this Bill from the very first that the expenditure which is likely to be incurred by the Government to see that we are all farming properly is never going to bring what we all hoped would be the result, the greater production of corn. Figures were given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who said what the guaranteed price for corn last year cost. If those are the lines on which this guarantee is going to be given, I maintain that we are not going to get a greater production of corn. The increased production would have been far
  1136
  better obtained if the announcement made to-day had been made a year ago, but now I am afraid it comes too late. This Bill may or may not get an increased production of wheat, but if the announcement made to-day had been made a year ago, I am convinced that this year a vast deal more wheat would have been grown in England, and also there would have been more likelihood of its being grown next year. The longer that has been put off the less the profits are likely to be to the farmer, and what the farmer farms for is profit. I think that when we have the guarantee that we are getting now, I can see no encouragement to the farmer to grow more corn.
  I am certain that the rich land in this country will always grow what pays best. The best land will produce the most paying crops. That land, if other crops fall away very much, will no doubt produce wheat, because it is good land and will always produce a good crop. The difficulty is, and what I am afraid this Bill will not fulfil is, the growing of wheat on those lands which cannot now afford to grow it. If you want more wheat grown you want to give encouragement to the bad land, that is, to the farmer who has to farm bad land. That is the man who suffers big losses when the prices fall away, and I do not believe the guarantee in this Bill is any real assistance to him. I shall, of course, support the financial resolution, but I am afraid from what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has said that it is not going to be possible in Committee to improve the Bill, so that it should give more assistance to the man who farms bad land against the man who farms good land, and who does not require any assistance.
  Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: I feel that the agriculturists in this country have waited at least eight months for this financial resolution which is now before this Committee, and I think that the only reason why it has come now is because of that extraordinary statement that was made in this House only the other night by the Minister for Food, which I think was very little noticed in the country, that we only had wheat in this country that we could put our hands on up to Christmas of this year. That is a very serious statement that was made from that box. We know very well there is a shortage of wheat, but I go further than

  1137
  that, and I say here exactly what I said when the Corn Production Bill was being argued in this House, and that is that the Corn Production Act never increased the wheat supply of this country by a single bushel, nor I believe will this Bill if it is carried out in the same way. The increase in the acreage of the wheat supply of this country was through the patriotism of the farmers, and certainly not through the Corn Production Act, because those who do not fathom this Bill do not understand that this 68s., which we contend is absolutely insufficient at the present time, is only 68s. on the first four quarters that are grown on the land. The rest of the crop is thrown away to the farmer to market in the best way he can. That is the reason why to-day we see the area of wheat in this country less by 330,000 acres in England and Wales. If you really want wheat in this country, follow the example of what the right hon. Gentleman has just told us the Cabinet have done for 1921—sweep it away now immediately, and you will get the land prepared this autumn for wheat being sown which will be put on to the market in 1921. I thought it was very interesting, if I may say so with all respect, to hear the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) use the ingenious argument that this should not be done because the farmers were not being taxed under the Excess Profits Duty. His memory is very short when he likes to have it short, and it is very long when he likes to go the other way. If he was a business man, would he go into a business that, though there was no Excess Profits Duty, had all its profits curtailed by a maximum, and that over and above that had to pay double Income Tax on it for doing it?
  We are told that this proposal that is made is taken out of the Royal Commission's figures that they produced sometime in 1919. The date of the Majority Report is 10th December, 1919, but what we as farmers want to know is, what is the exact week in 1919 at which these figures were arrived? It is only fair that we should know, because during 1919 wages varied, rates varied, labour varied, the price of manure varied, and the prices of seeds varied. It is on the rate that was guaranteed in some week in 1919 for rates, labour, manure and seeds that this figure of 68 was arrived at, and if that is so, it is only fair and businesslike that we
  1138
  should have that statement made to us before we either agree or disagree with this figure of 68. I think this House will agree that is only fair that we in Committee should demand it, and, in all seriousness, I ask for it, because if we do not have it, we cannot arrive at what 68 now means. We were told that 68 means about 85. I have been told that it means a lesser figure than that, and I have been told also that it means a larger figure. There ought not to be any doubt at all about it. We ought to be told so that we can work it out for ourselves.
  I should also like to answer the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland). He complained that only the oats which were put on the market should be paid for in this way, but, again, the whole crop is not being guaranteed. It is only the first forty bushels of the crop. It is this first forty bushels that are generally put on the market, and the rest are used for feeding the cattle, horses and chickens which usually come along. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this will not agree, but I tell him that where land is suitable for wheat, and where it is growing oats, that that is so. You cannot grow wheat every time, nor can you grow oats every time. You get oat sickness in the land just the same as you get wheat sickness in the land. Because of the old pernicious arrangement—an arrangement which I have always denounced in the Corn Production Act—of having all your payments on acreage, and not on the crop, you will continue to have these anomalies in everything that passes along in this direction. I am one of those who deplore that barley is not mentioned, because it is the barley crop that indirectly helps the wheat crop. It is the barley on a great many farms that is grown and used for cattle food, which creates a high-class manure, which is always put on the clover land and ploughed in for the wheat crop that follows it—at least, that is so in the four-course rotation in the Midlands, which I chiefly know, and we want that manure to be of good quality in order to produce a high standard of wheat.
  At the present moment, I think every Member of this House will agree that all land in this country has diminished in its quality. One of several reasons is the very high price of cake, and another is the very high price of artificial manure, and the farmers put into the market corn which they ought to have put through the

  1139
  beasts and into manure for the succeeding crops. We believe that if barley had been helped along, it would take the place on land which is oat-sick. It is required for feeding the animals for making this manure, and you would have gained in the quantity of wheat which is grown on that land by a tremendous amount, which is exactly what we are asking for to-day. Barley will not affect the area of wheat, because wheat is either sown in the autumn, when it ought to be sown, or to a lesser extent in the spring, and barley is sown at a later period in the spring than you could put in either wheat or oats. I think that the Ministry of Agriculture, not being practical men, and not being farmers, but being scientific gentlemen, might look into these matters, and see for once if they cannot go more deeply into these questions. I contend that we are to-day in a far more serious position than perhaps we even know of a great shortage in the wheat supply, not only of this country, but of the world, and I am one of those who believe that if you could only sweep away that maximum, and allow the farmer free play, because you have got it in many other ways, you would gain the object you have in view; but, so long as you stick to these maxima and stick to the pernicious way in which these guarantees are arranged on acreage, and not on the quantity that is grown by the crop, I believe I am right in saying you will not add to the quantity of wheat grown in this country. You say that this Bill is brought in for the production of wheat for the people of this country, and not for the farmers. We know it is not for the farmers, because it says straight out in the Report that it is at a sum less than the actual cost. Paragraph 20 of the Majority Report says:
  "We are of opinion that the principle of guarantees is somewhat below the bare costs of production (i.e., not including interest on capital or remuneration for the farmer himself)."
  It is neither one nor the other, and yet it is below, and I believe you will not get the wheat, but you will get the farmers looking at all this in a businesslike way, and not being humbugged with a Bill which is only to hoodwink the farmers and people of this country.
  Lieut-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: A large majority of Members of this House, I think, approve the principles of the Bill
  1140
  on which this Financial Resolution is founded, but I think equally a very large majority of Members of this House are not satisfied that the application of those principles in the Bill as regards details will effect the object desired and aimed at, namely, to increase the acreage of arable cultivation and food production throughout this country. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture has already expressed his intention to consider every reasonable Amendment in Committee, and, as far as possible, meet the views of those interested in agriculture; but I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, and also the House, that he is not an entirely free agent. He is bound by the rules of procedure, and I am somewhat afraid that, as it has been found in Committee on Bills before, when we come to certain Amendments, they are ruled out of order by reason of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill depends. To my mind, it is vital that in Committee there should be an opportunity of putting forward and discussing all Amendments dealing with this Bill. Part I, of course, is the only part that is affected. Part II, no doubt, provides security for the capital of the occupier, but the responsibility for providing that security is placed on the owner, and if the occupier and owner—as is often the case, and we hope will be more so in the future—happens to be the same man, you are offering the agriculturist a dinner off his own tail.
  Part II will not be interfered with by this Financial Resolution, but the whole essence of Part I depends on this Financial Resolution, and it seems to me that much of the effect of this Part I, and the question as to whether the amount of guarantee suggested is sufficient to induce the farmer to increase cultivation, will depend on the exact means by which the cost of production is to be ascertained. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in answer to questions, has said that this is a Committee point. Yes, but I should like to know whether, when that question is discussed in Committee, it will be possible to move Amendments laying down the method and rules by which this cost of production is to be ascertained. I wish specially to raise the question with regard to agricultural housing, and to find out whether the largely increased cost in the last few months of agricultural housing will be

  1141
  included in the cost of production. I suggest it is a very important matter. Unless it is taken as a substantial item of the cost of production, I am somewhat apprehensive that this whole Bill will even adversely affect agricultural houses and the standard of comfort which this House rightly desires to give to all those engaged in agriculture. Agricultural housing is still far from satisfactory, especially in Scotland.
  6.0 P.M.
  I should like to remind hon. Members that agriculture is almost the only industry which in the past has borne the whole burden of housing the workers engaged in that industry. Recent Housing Acts have done nothing to assist the agricultural housing matter. Recent Housing Acts, I suggest, subsidise every other industry but agriculture when providing at the public expense houses at uneconomic rents for those engaged in them. This question will become more acute every day. On some farms where the houses—I am not speaking of the buildings, but the houses for the workers—were built shortly before the War, the position is not so serious, but there are many farms in which the enlargement of houses to meet the new standard which this House insists upon urgently requires to be done; and in many other farms it is impossible to enlarge or to reconstruct the houses to bring them up to the standard. New houses will, therefore, have to be put up. Take the average farm of 120 acres, bringing in about £120 rent. Obviously, when rates and the ordinary current expenses are paid, the owner is very fortunate if he gets £60 a year. Two farm workers' houses will have to be provided on such a farm. Before the War these two houses could have been provided for £500, and they could have been enlarged and improved, if necessary, for £150. Now the building of two such houses for farm workers would cost £1,800, and enlargement or improvement would cost £500. Will this Bill encourage an owner to expend, say, £1,800 capital on a property which only brings him in, at the present moment, £60 a year? I submit, in connection with this Bill, that this problem must be met. The Parliamentary Secretary, speaking the other day, said the Bill does not touch new buildings or improvements. Does he mean—
  The CHAIRMAN: We are not, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member, discussing any other part of the Bill than that which comes up in this Resolution, namely, the guarantee.
  Sir J. HOPE: Would I not be in Order in asking from the Minister whether the building of houses for farm workers is, in fact, to be included in the cost of production, which is mentioned in this Resolution?
  The CHAIRMAN: Quite!
  Sir J. HOPE: That is the only point I want to put. I suggest that these questions must be dealt with by another series of measures giving liberal assistance to agricultural housing, or, if the standard of comfort for workers is to be maintained under this Bill, the cost of production must include a substantial additional amount for the farm workers to enable them to pay an economic rent for their houses. This is a point which must be considered in the interests of the farm workers engaged in agriculture, especially in Scotland. There is only one other point that I desire to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, and that refers to the second proviso of this Resolution, which states the limits of compensation which may be paid for actions done in the past under the Corn Production Act, 1917. I gather that for actions done in the past by this Bill compensation may be paid, but there are certain cases in which compensation would have been provided, and will be provided for actions taken under the Corn Production Act, 1917, by the passing of the present Bill into law, and after that it will not be paid. I should like to know the practical object of proviso (b) of this Resolution? I hope, however, that the Parliamentary Secretary will seriously consider whether he cannot complete the concessions which have already been commenced in regard to giving world prices for the 1921 crop. I am sure it would not cost the country or the Government very much to give the farmers at once the benefit of world prices. It would have the very substantial effect of giving the farmers absolute confidence that the Government, and the country, meant to stand by them and see that they did not suffer loss. It would give them confidence and a sense of security which I believe would

  1143
  have more effect in the sowing of more arable land this autumn than almost any other part of this Bill.
  Major BARNES: After all, there does not seem to be very much difference of opinion in hon. Members on this side and the opposite side as to the value of this Bill. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) did not think it would do very much to advance the objects sought, and so far as I can gather, hon. Members opposite are of the same opinion: that the Bill qua Bill is not going to do anything to increase production, and carry out the object for which it was brought in. My hon. Friend here on my left said that the Corn Production Bill did not add a single bushel to the crops of the country, neither was this one likely in the way it is to be administered or as the hon. Gentleman expects it to be administered. That certainly seems to support the hon. Member for East Edinburgh in his opposition; because if this Bill is not going to do what it is intended and hoped to do, why should we waste the time of the House upon it? I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh did not command the language of the hon. Members on my left, for he could not have found a better phrase to describe the Bill than that which was employed by the hon. Member who described it as a "scientific whirligig of a Bill, designed to hoodwink the farmers." The hon. Member for East Edinburgh must have been consumed with envy that he had not thought of that phrase himself and employed it to describe the Bill. What has really cheered up hon. Members opposite is the fact that the Minister in charge of the Bill has promised the English farmer access to the world's markets. It is that, not this Bill at all, that encourages them to look hopefully to the future. I do not wondr at it. The right hon. Gentleman is going to put the British farmer in a position that all of us would like to be put in. As the hon. Member for the Daventry Division (Captain Fitzroy) said: "If the British farmer could take advantage of the world-market when it is in his favour, and can be guaranted against loss when it is against him, it would stimulate production." I quite agree! I am quite sure that the same process applied to every
  1144
  other industry in the country would also stimulate production. It is a method which is described roughly and briefly as: "Heads I win, tails you lose." That is the sort of policy or position in which the British farmer is to be placed.
  There was one thing said by the Minister in charge with which I profoundly agree, and it was that if the country determined that the land was to be cultivated in a certain way that guarantees must be given to those who have to cultivate it. I entirely agree with him. I agree if we go and say to the farmers of this country, "you must cultivate your land as we desire, and grow on the land that which we think should be grown," then the farmer is entitled to ask for guarantees. What, however, I am not at all sure about is that the country is asking that? When I look to the quarters from which I might get information I find nothing to convince me that this is the case. Take the people engaged in the industry itself. Take the agricultural labourer. The President of the Agricultural Labourers' Union sits in this House. He is not in favour of this Bill. He thinks this Bill is wrong, and wrong because it is going to put the interests of agriculture on an uneconomic basis. Let us come to the farmers. We have been told over and over again in the course of this Debate that this is not a farmers' Bill. I think one hon. Member said it was the death-knell of the tenant farmer. So far as the farmers' opinions were gathered up by the Royal Commission on Agriculture, they are not in favour. The President of the National Farmers' Union and other leading members of that Union were pressed before the Commission on this point. They were asked whether they wanted this Bill. What did they say? They said: "If the country wants the land to be cultivated in this way, we are prepared to subordinate ourselves to the wishes of the country." But they said further: "If the country says that we have got to till the land in the way the country thinks best, then the country must give us guarantees." They were further pressed as to whether they really chose to have the Bill or be left alone, and they said they would prefer to be left alone. If they had to choose, they said, between guarantees on the one hand and having people appointed by, heaven knows who, to go and tell them

  1145
  how to cultivate their land, they would rather be rid of the Bill, although, and nobody can blame them, as patriots, if they were forced to take control and they were forced to carry out what others thought best, then they must have these guarantees. That is a perfectly sound position to take up.
  What do we arrive at? The agricultural labourers do not want the Bill. The farmers do not want the Bill. The landlords do not want the Bill, because they are not going to get any economic advantage out of it, for rents are not to be raised. The net result is that, so far as the industry itself is concerned, they do not want this Bill. Then who does want the Bill? I should be very much surprised if the great urban populations of the country want the Bill. They do not want a measure passed which in any event is bound to increase the cost of food stuffs. What the people want in the country is good bread and cheaper, not dearer. When one comes, therefore, really to the question as to who is behind this Bill, the only conclusion one can come to is that those who are behind the Bill are those who are preparing for the next war. That is the class behind this Bill. Here we have an agricultural policy which is prepared by the War Office. That is the real position. All I will say in regard to that is that, if this policy is going to be developed, there is no reason why it should be confined to agriculture. As a matter of fact, it is not, because we have got another Bill before the House dealing with such matters, and in which I think the House will come to see that the same hand is at work. If we are going to pursue this policy of preparing for the next war by making the great industries of this country to be carried on in particular ways, then we are going to pay for the next war long years before ever we arrive at it.
  It is suggested that there is some inconsistency on our part in voting against this Resolution. We have been told plainly, however, that this is a protective measure, and I say the very worst form of protection. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London is not here, but that is what he said. He said that subsidies were the very worst form of protection. It is frankly said, and it is all the better for being frankly said. Something further was said about subsidies, and the extraordinary plea was
  1146
  made that this particular subsidy was not the only one. That was put forward, I think, by the hon. Member for Daventry against my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge). He said that it is true that this is a subsidy, and subsidies were bad things; but he said: "We are not the only people who have taken subsidies. There have been railway subsidies, and coal subsidies. There would not be much in adding this one." But the very people who are supporting it opposed the others!
  We have been asked what our constructive policy is and what we suggest ought to be done to increase our food supply. We say that reports ought to be kept, and every effort should be made in every direction to bring about a settled state of affairs in Europe, so that the great wheat producing country of Russia may come once more into the market, and in order that we may get more food supplies from the Central Empire. Why are they putting on an extra duty on the exports from the Argentine? Either they fear that their own supply is not going to be sufficient, or else it is being done with the object of forcing up prices.
  This is a memorable Session, because we are repealing a great deal of our past policy, but of all the memorable things we have done, I think this is the most memorable, and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon the position which he occupies. It is now 76 years ago since Sir Robert Peel repealed the Corn Laws, and it is left for the Minister in charge of this Bill to take the first step in the direction of substituting a corn law. I see that the minimum price fixed is to be 80s. 11d., which is not so far from the figure fixed under the old Corn Laws. I understand that the price of wheat cannot go below that.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Apparently, the hon. and gallant Member has not studied either this Bill or the Corn Production Acts, in fact, he does not appear to know the A B C of those measures. If he did, he would realise that wheat would be sold at the market price, and if that is less than the guaranteed price, then the State makes it up, and this does not affect the market price in any way whatsoever.
  Major BARNES: At any rate, it affects the price to the British consumer.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No.
  Major BARNES: Supposing the price is 50s. in the market, the producer gets another 30s. 11d. from the State, and the cost to the British consumer is 80s. 11d.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down said one thing with which I think everybody will agree, and that is that what we really want is to get bread cheap. I should like to ask how the hon. Member thinks that without these proposals we are going to get bread at any price. Something has been said about world conditions of wheat production, but this is not a question of getting bread cheaply but of getting it at all, and that is the main object for which I understand this Bill has been brought forward. The hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Barnes) thinks it will not have that effect, but at all events, if he thinks it is not likely to produce that effect at any rate he did not make any suggestion of his own which woud be more likely to have that effect. Therefore we are driven to the conclusion that he does not regard it as either necessary or desirable to do anything in this country to produce a greater supply of necessary food stuffs. That is a very clear dividing line between the hon. and gallant Member and those who agree with him, and those of us who recognise that it is not a question of preparing for the next war, but of preparing for the coming peace, and having got rid of one of these we may not in the coming years be reduced to war conditions permanently, and have famine largely due to the war conditions of the past. It is in order that we may not be brought to that state of things that it is necessary for us to do something, and until some hon. Member brings forward a proposal more likely to promote that object, I think the Government proposal holds the field and deserves the support of this House.
  The hon. Member, so far as I can see, left entirely out of account another object which this Bill has in view. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Resolution was very thorough-going, and he said boldly he was opposed to all guarantees, and I think that is a perfectly logical position. He is opposed to guaranteeing prices and wages; in fact, he wants us to go back to the free trade position. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House is the only one who has addressed us who boldly referred to
  1148
  Sir Robert Peel and the Corn Laws and those old matters of controversy. Does anybody imagine that however much we may desire to go back to free trade conditions, it is impossible to do so at the present time either with regard to agriculture or any other industry in this country? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) made a speech the other day, and I understand that he is a stalwart defender of free trade principles. What did he say? He said, referring to the guaranteeing of wages with an air of relief, that at long last the State has stepped in to secure decent wages for agricultural workers. I agree that that has been done, but it is absolutely subversive of free trade principles, and when the right hon. Gentleman expressed his satisfaction with that principle, I repeat that it is absolutely subversive of free trade principles. (Laughter.) The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) laughs, and I have often wondered if he really has any familiarity with the history of free trade or not, for if he had any knowledge of the subject upon which he poses as an authority he would have known perfectly well that all the great writers on the free trade movement denounced the State interfering with wages or prices. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman laid down that he would not consent to regarding a guaranteed price as a necessary corollary of a guaranteed wage.
  Mr. ACLAND: In this case the machinery exists for fixing wages, and, if the wages are such that the industry is not profitable, the State must guarantee the price.
  Mr. McNEILL: If you do not accept our proposition with regard to any industry, then you must allow that industry to disappear. Are you prepared to allow agriculture to disappear?
  Mr. ACLAND: It is because I think that the State has a peculiar interest in seeing that agriculture should not disappear and in stimulating production from the land, that I am a supporter of this Bill on the whole, and it is not because of the wages.
  Mr. McNEILL: Then so far as that economic proposition is concerned the right hon. Gentleman is merely an

  1149
  academic defender of it, and to that extent we all agree. But what about the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) beside him? He challenges the whole policy of this Resolution because he objects to having either a guaranteed wage or a guaranteed price, and that is perfectly consistent. The hon. Member opposite is prepared to give free trade to the farmer, allow the whole agriculture of this country to revert to grass, and to see the progress of unemployment on the land which would be the necessary consequence of his policy. I think my hon. Friend opposite is rather like a voice crying in the wilderness in that respect, and I do not think he will find many supporters. If the consequences of free trade are the gradual disappearance of labour from the land and a surrender of all our efforts that there should be a return of labour to the land, and at the same time that we should recognise, in face of the prospect of a world shortage in the food supply, that we should make no attempt whatever in this country to increase our food supplies by the cultivation of our own soil, if that is the contention of the hon. Member opposite, then I agree he is consistent, and I recognise him as a free trader. I cannot believe that those who realise that the circumstances are such as I think they are, and which I have endeavoured to describe will follow my hon. Friend into the lobby in the face of the very great danger from food shortage with which we are confronted at the present moment.
  Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: We all recognise the extraordinary and difficult position in which the Minister for Agriculture finds himself placed in regard to this particular Bill. Very few of us like the idea of fixing prices in this way, and there are still fewer farmers who like the idea of any form of control at all as regards their own business. The fact remains, and it is a fact which cannot be got over, that during the last few years there has grown up in this country a very strong determination that the land which during the War was brought back into tillage should not return to grass if it can possibly be avoided. Realising as we do to-day that we are faced, not merely with a shortage of corn due to the War, but also with a permanent shortage of corn because many nations which used to be rice-eating nations are now wheat-eating nations, it is up to this Government to do something to stabilise
  1150
  the position of that part of the country which is at present under wheat. I have listened to a certain amount of criticism of this Bill. I have listened to the hon. Member for Newcastle - under - Lyne (Colonel Wedgwood), who makes many speeches in this House, many that are interesting, and who seems in every speech to be possessed by a determination to drag in the word "war" in relation to every kind of subject. I do not know why he should have so peculiarly bloodthirsty a nature as to find it necessary to bring this word "war" into connection with every topic of which he speaks. No doubt he has his own ideas on the subject, but his speeches really do not help us forward in dealing with agricultural or any other problem.
  The point I would like to put to the opponents of this Bill is this: I am willing if they can find a better policy to adopt that better policy. But what other policy could possibly be arrived at? You guarantee to the farmer, if you interfere with his business, as you are going to do under this Bill, that you will not allow his losses to exceed a certain amount, or, indeed, that you will prevent, if possible, any loss at all. You force his business into certain channels, and, consequently, he must be guaranteed the actual cost of growing the wheat. That is the whole substance of this Bill. Another point has been raised by the Amendment, which has been much more ably supported than I can hope to do, and that is that it would be advisable in the interests of agriculture and of the nation, and of good farming as well, that barley should be added to this list. I would like to urge again on the Government that if they would place barley on the list as well as wheat and oatsȔand I am not certain that barley is not almost as important as oats—it would be an enormous benefit to the land. It would encourage cultivation. Therefore, I think the Government should endeavour to add barley, and thereby do something to make the Bill rather more popular than it is to-day.
  Mr. C. PALMER: As one representing in large measure an agricultural constituency, I want to give my hearty support to this Resolution, and at the same time to thank the Government for the Bill to which it gives financial sanction and stability. I entirely disagree with the hon. Member who said that this Bill

  1151
  was to prepare for the next war. I should rather say it is to prepare against the next war if such a war should come upon us. We know perfectly well that during the great struggle through which we have just passed one of the gravest dangers of this country was the failure of its food supply. Any Government would be lacking in its duty if at the earliest opportunity it did not bring in some measure such as this—and I wish this had been brought in a year ago—to protect the country against what is and would be a grave national emergency. As one who believes solidly in the agricultural labourer, I hold that this Bill, primarily intended as it is to safeguard the nation against trouble and danger in the future, will also give security to the farmer and security to the workers on the land. If the State guarantees wages it must take some responsibility towards those who have to pay the wages. I am of opinion that this Bill, although I possibly may object to some of its details, is in its broad principles one for which the country has waited long and one which, in spite of the political opposition of certain hon. Members, will receive the unanimous support of the country. To-day we are unconcerned with politics in these great national matters. We care nothing for Tariff Reform or Free Trade. We say that this is a Measure which is in the interests of the whole nation, and we who are here as independent Members ready to support the Government in any right policy, are heartily and enthusiastically in support of this proposal.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I should like to appeal to the Committee to come to a decision as soon as possible, and I will only keep it a very few minutes while I reply to one or two of the points which have been made in the course of the Debate. I entirely agree with the remark which has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer) that this is not in any sense a war measure. It is brought in in order to establish a better peace by getting over our immediate food difficulties which are likely to be serious in the near future, and by showing that consideration for the agricultural population which I believe is necessary to the stability of the country.
  1152
  With reference to the criticisms which have been offered, I think the most serious was that made by the hon. Member for Barkston-Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), and other Members, that we have taken too low a minimum. I can only say this, that the Royal Commission of 1919 was appointed for the express purpose of trying to find a figure which would be sufficient in the case of cereals to give a guarantee to the farmer against serious loss in the event of a break in prices. A large minority of the Committee reported against guaranteed prices altogether. The majority reported in favour of guaranteed prices and gave this particular figure, and I do not see how, having appointed that Royal Commission for that express purpose, and having enabled it to take a great deal of evidence, their principal object having been to establish this very figure, I do not see how at this stage the Government could be expected to throw them over.
  Let me point out another thing. The eleven members of the Royal Commission who recommended this figure included every single agriculturist on the Commission, with the solitary exception of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley). [An HON. MEMBER: "They said it was too low a figure."] No, they did not say it was too low; they said it was just below the full cost of production, the object being to guarantee the farmer against serious loss in the case of a break in prices. I have said time and again that we do not propose by this Bill to guarantee a profit to the farmer. We propose to ensure him against a serious break in prices such as occurred in the 'Eighties and 'Nineties. The Royal Commission fixed on these figures, and the eleven members who adopted those figures included, as I have said, every agricultural member with one exception on the Commission; there was also a chartered accountant, a member described as an economist, a banker, and a representative of Labour. Of the rest, three were agriculturists, and in some cases land agents, and four were tenant farmers. How on earth, in view of that recommendation, can we go back on these particular figures?
  Perhaps I should tell the Committee something as to the method pursued by this Commission. I am given to understand that they took certain items which have been already mentioned, such as

  1153
  rent, rates, manures, cleaning, labour. etc. The evidence before them was evidence of cost in the year 1918. I am given to understand that on that basis they brought out a figure of 60s. for wheat. They then applied the necessary corrections due to changes in cost in the year 1919. They made certain additions, especially in regard to labour, and for the year 1919 they raised the 60s. for wheat up to 68s. We must take their figures. We do take them. There is no other figure we are justified in taking. No hon. Member could suggest any other figure, and that being so, we authorise the Commissioners who are to be appointed under this Bill to vary these figures from year to year in subsequent years, in the same way as the Royal Commission varied them from the year 1918 to the year 1919, and having done that, we shall have for each year a certain guarantee which will safeguard the farmer against loss.
  I should like to say one word with reference to the point made by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) in regard to oats. He took the point that in different parts of the country a considerable percentage of the oats grown on the farm are not sold off the farm, but are fed to stock on the farm, and he suggested that we ought not to give a guarantee in respect of that proportion of the oats which are not actually sold off. There are reasons why we cannot adopt that course. In the first place, administratively it would be almost impossible to carry it out. We are proceeding on an acreage basis. What we want to do is to secure, in the case of all arable land in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, that there shall be a guarantee in respect of one of the crops in rotation. If we left oats out, or if we limited the guarantee in respect of the oats, a very large part of the arable land in this country, particularly in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and in the North of England, would be deprived of the guarantee, and probably we should not get the amount pf arable land under cultivation which we wish to secure. That is not all. The guarantee that we give represents only the bare cost of production, and whether the oats are subsequently sold in the market or whether they are fed to stock on the farm, the cost is just the same to the farmer. Surely it is only fair to him that we should pay on what is produced, whether he sells
  1154
  it or uses it for his own purposes. It is a question of the greater production of food generally, and not merely these two crops, a greater production of potatoes consequent upon having a larger amount of arable land or a greater production of meat or milk, for which purpose the production of oats for the stock will be a very valuable matter. Having regard to that fact, I do not see how we can with justice discriminate between those oats which are sold and those which are kept for the stock. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut. - Colonel Willoughby) objected to the Bill because he said we were assisting the good land and doing nothing for the poorer land, and he said, quite rightly, "What you want to do is to get cereal crops grown on the poorer land which will not, as a rule, grow them." By taking an acreage basis, by not paying for the actual amount grown in each case, but by saying, "We will pay on an average of four quarters of wheat to the acre, whether six quarters, four, or only three are grown," and, similarly, in regard to oats, "We will pay on an acreage basis of five quarters to the acre, whether you grow six quarters, as they do in some part of Ireland, or only three, as in some of the poorer land of England," you encourage the poorer land.
  Sir B. STANIER: Hear, hear.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend has always been an opponent.
  Sir B. STANIER: I quite agree with that point, but that will not produce a large amount of wheat. Playing into the hands of the poor land, which is not suitable for wheat, and which ought to grow barley or oats, is not the way to get a bulk supply for the people of the country.
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend. Good wheat land will always grow wheat, and the more wheat it will grow to the acre the more they will get for. On the other hand, if you encourage some of the poorer land to grow wheat you will add to the production. That is our argument, and it seems to be a sound one. In reply to the question put by my hon. Friend (Sir J. Hope) about the manner in which the variations were to be calculated by the Commissioners, though I cannot speak as to what precisely may be the ruling of the Chairman, I should think there could be no objection to the moving

  1155
  of an Amendment dealing with the manner in which the Commissioners should calculate the variations, that is to say, what items should be taken into account, provided always that no additional charge is thereby put upon the State. With regard to a further point, he asked as to the meaning of the second proviso of the Resolution. It is simply this: Under the Corn Production Act as under the D.O.R.A. Regulations before it, where a mistake had been made in a ploughing-up order, and where loss subsequently ensued, compensation was payable. But in this Bill we give an appeal in advance against the ploughing-up order, or whatever it may be, and the question to be decided is, is it reasonable, having regard to the pecuniary position of those interested in the land, to enforce the order? Having done this, there will be no compensation afterwards. The effect of the proviso is simply that, whereas it safeguards all claims made before the passing of the Bill, which have been perfectly properly made under the existing Corn Production Act, it makes it impossible to bring forward a claim after once this Bill has been passed into law. Having regard to the objects we have in this Bill, I think we shall have accomplished all we set out to accomplish without introducing barley, and I am sufficient of an economist to say I do not see why we should extend the liability of the State by including barley if we can accomplish what we want without doing so. I hope after these explanations the Committee will be willing to pass the Resolution.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I cannot allow this Resolution to go through without uttering my protest against it. It is perfectly clear that when the Resolution is passed the House gives up all power to consider the adequacy of the guarantee and the form in which it exists. It is common ground now that the Royal Commission, or at least 12 members of it, reported that barley should be included. The question whether or not it should be included is to be taken away from the purview of this House. The only possible value of this Bill at all is in its power to get corn grown in this country and no other. I warn the Committee that in my opinion the form of the guarantee and the limit of the guarantee are insufficient to induce one single acre of wheat to be added to the present production.
  1156
  On the front Bench one of the most knowledgeable agriculturists in the House sits and he agrees with me. I have dozens of letters from leading agriculturists all agreeing with that point of view, and yet we have the Government forcing the Bill through the House of Commons and depriving us of the one opportunity we should have of considering the adequacy both of the amount and of the form of the guarantee. It is playing with the subject, and I protest against it because to my mind, by due consideration and due care, the taxpayer would have been protected, the worker would have been protected, and the tenant farmer would have been protected. I firmly believe, from what I have learnt from the evidence we have taken before the Commission, that we should have induced an increase of arable land without undue cost and without really too great difficulty, without all this compulsion and interference that the Government thought fit to introduce. I had not the pleasure of listening to the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder of the rejection. I know perfectly well it was moved on totally different grounds from what I should have supported the rejection on, because I think this Resolution ought to be rejected. Let me ask them to read the voluminous evidence which was taken before the Royal Commission, and let them bear in mind that although we endeavoured to get witnesses, although we advertised for wit nesses, we could not get one single man, expert, layman, or practical person of any sort or kind, to come and give evidence before our Commission to show that the present rate of wages of agricultural workers could be paid without a permanent guarantee as to the price of corn.
  We are told we are transgressing Free Trade doctrine. Is not the institution of the Wages Board a big infraction of the Free Trade doctrine in itself? Yet there has been set up, and I approve of it, a Wages Board which fixes the wages of a particular industry absolutely regardless of the selling price of the article. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) to say if the industry cannot pay proper wages let it go under. So far as sweated industries are concerned, I should absolutely agree, but even he sees that the main industry we have in the country

  1157
  to-day, that is, the tilling of the land and growing what we can out of the land, cannot be treated on that footing. Is the Committee aware that, even at present, men are being discharged from agricultural employment because the industry at the present moment will not enable these wages to be paid? What is the outlook in the future when we have the Labour leaders demanding increased wages? I want Free Traders thoroughly to understand the position that we are in in agriculture. I understand and appreciate the objection that there is to subsidies. This is a subsidy, and there is no getting away from it, and I do not feel inclined to hide it or camouflage it. But the reason we want the subsidy is that we want to keep our men employed on the land. In East Sussex, with heavy, yellow clay, we can grow an average of three quarters of wheat to the acre. We struggle and strive, and our farmers have made small livelihoods and have kept going, but we are having these constant increases of wages put upon us. It is not that the labourers want it in the sense that they are not well maintained, well clothed and well paid, but they say rightly, and I sympathise with them, if the railway porter in a country village, who is the least skilled man in the village, gets £3 a week, does it not stand to reason that the skilled ploughman or carter—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is going really beyond the scope of a Money Resolution. The hon. Member is stating the relation of the cost of labour and the cost of production. He must not go into details.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: I do not want to go too far into it, but I submit that it is perfectly germane. My argument is that the Resolution ought to be rejected because it prevents us increasing the guarantee that is necessary to pay the wages given by the Wages Board, because even now the wages are insufficient. I was showing why the wages now are insufficient and are being raised.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may state the fact, but he must not go into details about the methods of the Wages Board.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: To continue shortly, the trouble has been created by the fact that there are men in village life who are receiving higher wages than skilled agri-
  1158
  cultural workers. We have seen it in almost every trade in the country. There is an immediate demand for higher wages by the skilled men on our farms. And yet by this financial resolution we are going to be prohibited from bringing forward these reasons why this guarantee that is being given is insufficient. I am rapidly being driven to the conclusion that this Bill is going to be of little use to agriculture. It is against my will, but I am rapidly being driven to the conclusion that we had very much better go on for a year and have the maximum prices removed altogether. Let us depend on the play of the market for a year and then let us come back to this House when it will more understand the position and understand the difficulty of agriculture.
  Question put, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of the remuneration and expenses of the Commissioners to be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend The Corn Production Act, 1917, and the enactments relating to agricultural holdings, and of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and by any other department in meeting payments in respect of wheat or oats of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one or any subsequent year under Part I. of The Corn Production Act, 1917, as amended and continued by such Act of the present Session, and any expenses incurred by such Minister or department or any other body under any other provision of the said Act as so amended and continued.
  Provided that—
  (a) for the purpose of the payments aforesaid the minimum prices of any year shall not exceed such sums as bear the same proportion in the case of wheat to sixty-eight shillings per customary quarter, and in the case of oats to forty-six shillings per customary quarter, as the cost of production of the wheat and oats respectively of that year bears to the cost of the production of the wheat and oats respectively of the year nineteen hundred and nineteen; and
  (b) without prejudice to the rights of any person in respect of anything done or suffered before the commencement of such Act of the

  1159
  present Session, compensation under section nine of The Corn Production Act, 1917, as amended and continued by such Act of the present Session, shall be payable only in
  respect of loss suffered by reason of the taking possession of land under that section."
  The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 18.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES.

  [7.2 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Morrison, Hugh

  Armitage, Robert

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Mount, William Arthur

  Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

  Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.

  Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

  Atkey, A. R.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Neal, Arthur

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)

  Nield, Sir Herbert

  Barker, Major Robert H.

  Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

  Oman, Charles William C.

  Barnett, Major R. W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Ormsby-Gore,Captain Hon. W.

  Barrand, A. R.

  Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

  Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

  Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)

  Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar

  Parker, James

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hancock, John George

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Hanna, George Boyle

  Pearce, Sir William

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

  Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

  Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

  Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Bennett, Thomas Jewell

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.

  Birchall, Major J. Dearman

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hinds, John

  Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Hirst, G. H.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Purchase, H. G.

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Hood, Joseph

  Rae, H. Norman

  Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

  Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

  Breese, Major Charles E.

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

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Reid, D. D.

  Britton, G. B.

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Remer, J. B.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Robertson, John

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Rodger, A. K.

  Campbell, J. D. G.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Jesson, C.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

  Royden, Sir Thomas

  Casey, T. W.

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Clough, Robert

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

  Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

  Keilaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

  Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Kidd, James

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

  Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

  Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

  Lawson, John J.

  Simm, M. T.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Dawes, Commander

  Lister, Sir R. Ashton

  Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

  Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.

  Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

  Dockrell, Sir Maurice

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Stevens, Marshall

  Donald, Thompson

  Lonsdale, James Rolston

  Stewart, Gershom

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Lorden, John William

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lynn, R. J.

  Sugden, W. H.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  M'Guffin, Samuel

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Swan, J. E.

  Elveden, Viscount

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

  Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Maddocks, Henry

  Taylor, J.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.

  Mallalieu, F. W.

  Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Martin, Captain A. E.

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Forrest, Walter

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Tootill, Robert

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

  Townley, Maximilian G.

  Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

  Mitchell, William Lane

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Gardiner, James

  Moles, Thomas

  Turton, E. R.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

  Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Waring, Major Walter

  Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

  Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)

  Younger, Sir George

  Wignall, James

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

  Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)

  Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  NOES.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Kiley, James D.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Williams, Col. P.(Middlesbrough, E.)

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Spoor, B. G.

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Mr. Hogge and Major Barnes.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee [SEVENTH DAY].
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    CLAUSE 11.—(Summoning, etc., of Parliaments.)

      PROVISIONS AS TO PARLIAMENTS OF SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.
      (1) There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Southern Ireland and of the Parliament of Northern Ireland once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of either Parliament in one Session and their first sitting in the next Session.
      (2) The Lord-Lieutenant shall, in His Majesty's name, summon, prorogue, and dissolve the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think something should be said from this side before this Clause passes through the Committee stage. This is one of very few Clauses in the Bill which has no Amendments down against it. If I had intended to put down any Amendment to this Bill, I should have put down an Amendment to leave out one word in Sub-clause (2), namely, the word "dissolved." Sub-section (2) reads:
      "The Lord Lieutenant shall, in His Majesty's name, summon, prorogue, and dissolve the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland."
      I consider this power of dissolution in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant to be obsolete and even dangerous. It gives power to the Lord-Lieutenant to get rid of any Parliament of which he does not approve, and I am afraid the spirit of
      1162
      the present Government would be that a Lord-Lieutenant should be chosen who would use that power exclusively against a Southern Parliament. Hon. Members may ask, Why should we not have that power? I would point out that the power of the Crown to dissolve Parliament has not been used in this country since 1831. I do not lay claim to a knowledge of constitutional procedure in this country, but I believe I am right in saying that, although Parliament is always dissolved in His Majesty's name, it is done with the advice of the Ministers of the day, and I am very sorry indeed that some words to the effect that these Parliaments, once summoned, should only be dissolved on the advice of their duly elected Ministers, are not included. It might be said that a disloyal Parliament in the South should be dissolved forthwith, but I would draw attention to the latest Amendment put down on behalf of the Government, in which all candidates for election in each constituency have to take the oath of allegiance. This will at once cut out the members of the present Sinn Fein party in Ireland. This Amendment has been put down as an after-thought of the Government, and appears on the Order Paper for the first time to-day. I do not think it makes much difference. Any Parliament you get in Southern Ireland now will be composed of Nationalists or Unionists, who have taken the oath of allegiance either as candidates or as former Members of Parliament, in which case they will not object to take it again. Then why put this power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant? Is it that the Government are afraid that the Parliament administering even the limited departments that are allowed may become too Nationalist? If that is the case it shows want of trust and confidence in the home measures and in the fellow-nation of Ireland across the

      1163
      sea. I am speaking in the name of the few Members on this side who take an interest in this Bill, and we believe that this power given to the Lord Lieutenant is obsolete, and if given at all it should be with the safeguard that Parliament can only be dissolved on the advice of Ministers. In regard to Sub-section (1), I shall be glad if the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us what is going to be the policy of the Government if the Southern Parliament does not meet.
      The CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order for the First Lord or anybody else to raise that question here. This Clause is simply the British constitution. It is purely formal, and does not raise any question of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the Dominions the Governor or High Commissioner has the same power of dissolution, but is it ever used? Was it ever intended to be used by him? It would be interesting to know. In case the Southern Parliament refuses to work the Bill, what situation would arise under this Clause, because Sub-section (1) says:
      "There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Southern Ireland and of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of either Parliament in one Session and their first sitting in the next Session."
      Considering the reception which this Bill has had in Ireland, and in this House from hon. Members representing Irish constituencies, the wording of this Subsection is extremely naive and ingenious. I am sorry I am not able to press the Government as to their policy. This Clause is an example of the whole atmosphere of unreality and make-believe in which this Bill is brought forward.
      The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that he is under a complete delusion. This is the ordinary Clause which is not only to be found in Dominion Acts of Parliament, but also in the State Governments. He says that the Sovereign has never dissolved Parliament. I can assure him that if he had gone up the steps of the Duke of York's Column as often as I have he would have seen many proclamations signed by the Sovereign dissolving Parliament. It happens invariably. He is very much dis-
      1164
      turbed about the Lord Lieutenant dissolving Parliament against the will of Ministers. There is a remedy against that in this one single fact that if such a thing happened, it is within the power of the country to re-elect the same Ministers and the same Government, so that all the fears he is conjuring up are imaginary.
      Lord H. CECIL: The Government will have to put in an Amendment to this Clause giving it effect, supposing they carry their new Clause.
      Mr. LONG: We cannot do that here.

      CLAUSE 12.—(Royal Assent to Bills.)
      The Lord Lieutenant shall give and withhold the assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, subject to the following limitations:—

      (1) He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill; and

      (2) He shall, if so directed by His Majesty, reserve any such Bill for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, and a Bill so reserved shall not have any force unless and until within one year from the day on which it was presented to the Lord Lieutenant for His Majesty's assent, the Lord Lieutenant makes known that it has received His Majesty's assent.

      Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, after the word "Ireland" ["Northern Ireland"] to insert the words "and to orders of the Council of Ireland."
      Mr. LONG: We will accept that.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In paragraph (1) after the word "Bill" insert the words "or order." In paragraph (2) after the word "Bill" ["such Bill"] insert the words "or order".
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 13.—(Constitution of the Parliaments.)
      "(1) The House of Commons of Southern Ireland shall consist of one hundred and twenty-eight Members returned by the constituencies in Ireland named in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the number of Members to be returned by each such constituency shall be the number mentioned in the second column of that Part.
      (2) The House of Commons of Northern Ireland shall consist of fifty-two Members returned by the constituencies in Ireland named in Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act, and the number of Members to be returned by each such constituency shall be the number mentioned in the second column of that Part.
      (3) The Members shall be elected by the same electors and in the same manner as Members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, except that at any contested election of the full number of Members the election shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote, as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and His Majesty in Council shall have the same power of making Regulations in respect thereto as he has under Sub-section (3) of Section Twenty of that Act, and that Sub-section shall apply accordingly.
      (4) The House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland when summoned shall, unless sooner dissolved, have continuance for five years from the day on which the summons directs the House to meet and no longer.
      (5) After three years from the day of the first meeting of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, that Parliament may alter the qualification and registration of the electors, the law relating to elections and the questioning of elections, the constituencies, and the distribution of the Members among the constituencies, provided that in any new distribution the number of the Members shall not be altered, and due regard shall be had to the population of the constituencies other than University constituencies."
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "twenty-eight" and to insert instead thereof the words "forty-five".
      This Amendment is intended to afford some opportunity for unpopular minorities in the initial conditions of self-government in the South of Ireland to get some representation. As the Bill is drawn, and in view of the unfortunate differences, it is most improbable that those who are now called Southern Unionists will have more than five representatives out of a total of 128. Their population, according to the census returns of 1911, would entitle them to about one-tenth of the total membership of the House of Commons, and that would mean about 12. I do not believe for one moment that the present grouping of parties in Ireland would persist very long if this Act were put into force; but everyone must admit that considerable time will inevitably elapse before the new
      1166
      parties crystallise, and before men of substance in the South of Ireland who are now associated with Unionist opinion get a fair opportunity of making themselves heard and felt. Although I agree that no paper safeguards really will be effective in the long-run, and that eventually the Southern Unionists must depend upon popular election and upon the opportunity of making themselves heard, I do think in the special circumstances, and in view of the bitterness of feeling in the South of Ireland, the Southern Unionists should be given an opportunity of representation by some special means.
      There are two alternative proposals on the Order Paper. One alternative would set up a franchise on a property basis of an annual value of £40 and upwards. In many ways that is a preferable method of allowing minorities to make their voice heard. In that way you would get more quickly the re-grouping which would unite what are now Southern Unionists and Moderate Nationalists. I think you would get men of stake in the country probably to work together, and they should get an opportunity of putting their views forward in the popular chamber and making out their case so that it should not be left entirely to the centre to look after their interests and save them from injustice. If it felt that this property franchise is undesirable, there is another alternative which stands in the name of the Noble Lord, the Member for Dover (Viscount Duncannon), which would give a religious franchise. The religious franchise has very few recommendations in the abstract, but, unfortunately, we must recognise that in Ireland there has been division on very clear religious lines in the past, and we have also the precedent of the religious franchise being adopted in the case of the constitution which has recently been passed for India. I do not look upon the religious franchise so favourably as I look upon the property franchise. I look on both these safeguards as merely transitory provisions. You must allow all sections in Ireland to make their opinions heard during the very liberal time that must inevitably elapse before the new Southern Parliament will settle down and people are feeling their feet, and while the future course of Irish government is being decided. I hope the Government will find a franchise to meet the case of these minorities in the south and the west, although I do not set any

      1167
      particular store by one against the other. In the report of the Irish Convention it is recognised by all the parties in the south that there must be special representation for the Southern Unionists during the initial stages, and the Convention suggested that this representation should be given by means or nomination. The hon. and gallant member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) has an Amendment down on the Paper to allow certain members to take their seats on the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant, but I understand he has decided not to move that Amendment, as he prefers one of the other alternatives which are on the Paper.
      Mr. LONG: I would like to say here and now that it has been the object of the Government, and of myself, in particular, to meet my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to some of the proposals which he has made. The last thing which we desire is to get into any form of controversy with him, because we recognise the extraordinary difficulties of his position. He is practically the only champion of Southern Unionists having connection with that part of the country, and those whom he represents have to face a situation which may be one of great peril. I should like to say, also, that we realise the force of these facts, and recognise the courage and ability and the great consideration for the Government with which he has put his case on different occasions. I would like to make a passing reference to something which fell from him yesterday. He charged the Government with constantly giving way to my hon. Friends who represent Ulster, and flouting suggestions made by those who speak for Southern Unionists. I think that he made that charge without careful consideration, because the two large concessions which we have made up to this point are with regard to the police and to the constitution of the Parliaments. The decision with regard to the police had nothing to do with Ulster. It is true that it was made at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), but it was made in the interests of the police themselves and general order in Ireland. The alteration was entirely in accordance with the structure of the Bill. It was only a matter of detail. It may be of great importance to the police, but it is in no way inconsistent with the
      1168
      general structure of the Bill as presented to the House.
      The great alteration which we have made in the Bill was in deference to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend, and was, indeed, contrary to the suggestion from the Ulster Members. That was the concession of a Second Chamber as a protection to the minority. That was by far the most important concession—one which alters the general structure of the Bill more than any other. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will see on reflection that there has been no descrimination as between North and South Ireland in the attitude which the Government have taken with regard to Amendments, and that if there has been any dropping of the balance on one side or the other it has been on his side. What my hon. and gallant Friend now asks is that we should incorporate in the Lower House certain Members who will not be elected by popular selection. He has expressed no precise preference for the two plans which are to be found in the Amendment—one nomination and the other the creation of certain special constituencies with a special franchise and the election of a fixed number of Members of the Lower House by special electors for particular constituencies, the electors to have a fixed rating qualification. We are entirely at one with my hon. and gallant Friend and those whom he represents in their desire, if possible, that there should be a representation of the minority in South Ireland, but we are anxious to face the facts as they present themselves to us. We have put on the Paper two new Clauses which stands in my name. One deals with the condition of things which may be found in Ireland when this Bill becomes law. There we propose that in certain circumstances very definite steps shall be taken, and we believe that that is the greatest protection which we can give against the election of a Parliament which would be sent there to defy the Constitution and the Crown and generally run amok.
      Assuming that this Parliament is not constituted as we contemplate, but is merely a Parliament composed entirely of persons of one set of political opinion, is it useful to introduce into that Parliament of 128 a small body of men who will be in a hopeless minority, and who would

      1169
      be flouted, I venture to say, by all the elected Members as coming there not through the ordinary channels, but by a special process of selection or election? What chance would there be for them to protect in any way the interests of the minority? My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right when he states that the Convention which sat in Dublin did draw up a constitution in which it was proposed to add some specially elected Members, but that was in one sense a different case. Special qualifications have been unknown in this country now for a very long time. They never were popular, and were always the object, by some people, of criticism and condemnation. I cannot help thinking that the best course for the minority to adopt in Ireland is to rely on the protection which they have asked for, and got, in specially constituting a Second Chamber.
      We have undertaken that the Amendment setting up that Chamber shall be placed on the Paper before we come to the Report stage. Without concerning ourselves now with what precise form that Second Chamber is to take, it is quite clear that if it is to be elected, not as a revising body, but as a real protection for minorities, then it must be constituted in some special form which will secure in that Chamber a body which will be different from those in the Lower House, and which would be able to protect the interests of the minority. We have given a very full consideration to this difficult question. We are as anxious as my hon. and gallant Friend that the minority should be protected, and I am rather hopeful that if our new Clause operates, as I believe it will, in a salutary way, it will probably result in a better state of things in Ireland, so that we shall see, sooner than my hon. and gallant Friends hope for, such a reconstruction of parties in Ireland as will avoid the great danger that he fears—that the minority will find no representation in the House of Commons. For these reasons the Government do not feel justified in accepting either of these two alternatives.
      Lord H. CECIL: I wish to make a suggestion which I think is relevant to this Amendment. The Government have adopted, I think very wisely, the principle of proportional representation in this Bill, but if you apply proportional
      1170
      representation and you have to deal with the case, as you have in Southern Ireland, of very small minorities, the only way that you can get representation of those small minorities is by having a large number of representatives returned by each constituency. Speaking broadly, if you want to have representation of one-eighth of the population you must have a constituency returning eight Members. Then one of the eight Members will be representative of that one-eighth. If, therefore, you somewhat enlarge the Chamber, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, or as I would suggest a great deal more than he, to a considerably larger number, and use those additional Members so to enlarge the constituencies in the schedule—that you would have a considerable number of constituencies returning from six to ten Members—you would in that way secure a considerable number of Unionist representatives. Of course, they would be only a very small minority, but you would get more or less representation in proportion to the population. I ventured to put forward a plan for a Convention, and I contemplated in that plan having double the number of representatives in the Parliament, with constituencies returning from seven to ten representatives, thus getting representation of small minorities. I think that that would give a more encouraging prospect. Therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend's new Clause will deal with the matter. I hardly think that it will, unless by allowing minorities to be the only persons who will take the oath of allegiance, and therefore the only persons before the constituents. It would not be a satisfactory plan if only the minority sits in the Irish Parliament. I do submit that the schedule might be re-cast, and that the constituencies may be so enlarged in representation as to enable small minorities to be represented.
      Major HILLS: I plead for some further consideration of the position of Southern Unionists. I believe that a large majority of this House wishes something done to give them representation in the Parliament of Southern Ireland. Various ways have been suggested. The First Lord of the Admiralty did not dissent from the advisability of giving some representation to the scattered minority of Southern Unionists. All he did was to say that it would be very difficult, and that certain

      1171
      provisions which are to be inserted in the Bill would meet the case to a certain extent. My Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil) made the very interesting suggestion that you might meet this difficulty, partly by grouping constituencies and partly by the simple process of arithmetically doubling their numbers. Thereby you would reduce the unit, which could return at least one Member. I am told that the objection to that is that the units are too much standardised, and that you would have to group constituencies to such an extent that you would get a geographical area rather too big for a single constituency that it would be hard to get about and communication would be difficult. I think the Government ought not to dismiss the suggestion entirely, for it contains the germ of a possible settlement. Ruling out Proportional Representation, we are left either with a system of special and fancy franchises or with simple nomination by the Crown. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut-Colonel Guinness) put forward a scheme for the election of a certain number of Members of high property qualifications, and there has been another suggestion for a religious plebiscite. Equally with him I want to see some representation of Southern Unionists in the Parliament. I do not much like fancy franchises, and unless we can secure the object by some kind of Proportional Representation—I do not think we can—I would rather see nomination by the Crown.
      The First Lord of the Admiralty has raised two objections to nominations by the Crown, and of course they are forcible objections. The first is that these Members would come in with no sort of authority behind them, and the second is that they would be in a hopeless minority. I have been long enough in this House to know that it is not always numbers that count. I need not point to the innumerable examples in our political history of the great authority that a small minority can exercise. My right hon. Friend's main reason for rejecting the Amendment was that the Second Chamber was a sufficient protection. In passing, I should like to deal with the new Clauses that appear to-day. I am quite unable to realise how they protect Southern Unionists at all. All they say is that in certain contingencies these Southern Parliaments shall not operate.
      1172
      It is a curious sort of protection for the Southern Unionists to abolish the Parliament altogether. The only real protection they have got is the Second Chamber. I grant that it is a very real protection. Surely the decision of the Second Chamber is immensely strengthened if in the First Chamber there has been a body of Members who in debate can argue the case and begin to form public opinion on it. If the Second Chamber has merely to come down and start to veto what the First Chamber has done, they are not in nearly as strong a position as they woud be in if there had been a powerful and well-instructed minority able to put the case. I appeal to the Government in the matter. We have to meet quite exceptional circumstances. We must look on the one hand to the dark and difficult situation in Ireland and on the other hand to the fact that scattered among a population which now is hostile are small bodies of Unionist opinion, that they are one-tenth of the voters, and that if they have their numerical rights they would secure at least twelve to fourteen seats in the Parliament. It is a case that calls for exceptional remedies. All doctrines about representation, about government by majorities, and the authority that attaches to elected representatives are perfectly true, and no one respects them more than I do, but I hope that even now the Government will try to find some means of meeting the situation.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: I would like to join with the last speaker in appealing to the Government to extend sympathy to the demand for the protection of the minority in Southern Ireland. I say that, not only because I am a Southern Irish Unionist, but because I represent a constituency in England which shares with a great many other constituencies grave fears for the position of their Protestant co-religionists in Southern Ireland under a Parliament such as we may expect to be elected under this Bill. I am not going to say anything calculated to arouse hostility on any religious question, but there is no use blinking the fact that the great majority of the Unionists in Southern Ireland are Protestants. They are a very scattered minority, and therefore it is extremely difficult for them, by Proportional Representation or by any other means, to get adequate representation in the Lower Chamber. I agree as to the importance of having a few men

      1173
      in a Southern Parliament who can at least state the case in order that it may not by default go to the Upper House without having been properly debated. As showing how scattered is the minority, let me quote some figures. In Leinster there are 989,000 Catholics and 152,000 non-Catholics; in Munster 972,000 Catholics and 54,000 non-Catholics; in Connaught 587,000 Catholics and 20,000 non-Catholics; in County Cavan there are 74,000 Catholics and 15,000 non-Catholics; in Donegal there are 132,000 Catholics and 33,000 non-Catholics; in County Monaghan 53,000 Catholics and 17,000 non-Catholics. The total is 2,808,000 Catholics and only 293,000 non-Catholics. In other words, the proportion is ten to one. Unfortunately, it is not an even proportion throughout the country, and it could not be exercised in an even manner under Proportional Representation. That must mean that in many cases those who have been, and are, most loyal, men of the highest position and the best education, will be unable to secure any representation in the Southern Parliament. I think those are matters which require the consideration of the Government, and I think there will be a very strong feeling in the country that we have abandoned our friends unless we do something to give them at least a fighting chance in the Southern Parliament.
      Sir H. CRAIK: I think my right hon. Friend the First Lord must recognise that there is very considerable sympathy with the proposal put forward by the Mover of the Amendment. I am rather surprised that amongst the various suggestions put forward one particular method of obtaining representation of the minority has not been mentioned. These fancy franchises are hardly possible. I hope that no Member will do anything to encourage anything like religious franchise. It is rather surprising that this House, which only some two or three months ago passed a Bill affecting India, seems to have forgotten entirely the device which we who sat on the Joint Committee, following the recommendations of Lord Southborough's Committee, adopted, namely, the device of communal representation of special constituencies which were reserved for a minority. Surely, when the House has adopted what is a perfectly simple and often suggested remedy for the repre-
      1174
      sentation of minorities by means of communal representation, it is worth while thinking of some such means of establishing what they all desire to have, namely, the presence of a small representation of this very weak minority now liable to have its rights and aspirations set aside. I throw that out only as a suggestion, because I think the House might do well to consider whether it could apply its own action in regard to a Bill so recently passed for one of our Dependencies to the exigencies of the case in Ireland.
      Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make communal election operate in Ireland?
      Captain ELLIOT: Is it not true that it is very largely a religious distinction in India?
      Mr. LONG: Caste.
      Captain ELLIOT: Caste and religion.
      Sir H. CRAIK: That comes into it, also social position.
      8.0 P.M.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not know whether the Mover of the Amendment intends to divide the Committee upon it. For personal reasons, I should like to say that on several occasions I and some of my Friends have felt ourselves compelled to differ from him. We have always done so with the very greatest reluctance, and only for reasons which appeared to us absolutely imperative in the interest of Northern Ireland. I am inclined to agree with what fell from the First Lord, that the proposal of this Amendment would not be a very effective safeguard for the Southern Unionists. At the same time, if my hon. Friend who speaks for them considers that those whom he represents would really feel any satisfaction or greater sense of security if these provisions were put into the Bill, I cannot find any such imperative reason for voting against it as have separated me and my hon. Friend on other occasions. Therefore, speaking for myself alone, I do not know what my Friends may do if my hon. Friend is unable to prevail on the Government to accept his Amendment, and if he chooses to take a Division I will go into the Lobby with him.
      Mr. LONG: I hope I may be able to make a suggestion which will relieve my hon. Friend who has just spoken from the agonising process of voting against the Government. In one of the speeches which the Prime Minister made referring to this Bill—I forget which it was and I am not quite sure whether it was made in this House or outside—he stated on behalf of the Government, of course, that while we had done our best to draw this Bill on what we believed to be sound and fair working lines, at the same time the subject is so difficult and there are so many different issues concerned that we did not pretend that this Bill was to be taken as the last word in a new constitution for Ireland, and that we should welcome the views of the House and welcome suggestions. It has been for that reason that those members of the Government who are charged with dealing with these Amendments have on some occasions held back when an Amendment has been moved, bcause we hoped that the House would voice their views and give us some guidance as to the general feeling of the House upon those questions in regard to which we often find ourselves, as in this particular one, in entire sympathy with the Mover of the Amendment, with the object he has in view, and only differ from him as to the means by which that object can be achieved. I am old enough to remember all the Home Rule Debates in this House since the '80's, and I must with shame confess that I have taken part in all of them. My position to-day is not precisely similar to that which I occupied on previous occasions when I spoke from the opposite Benches. I am not the only person who finds the situation changed. I am thankful to say even in the sparse attendance we have in the House, but an attendance which is very representative of the different parties in the House, with one exception or two exceptions, the small Irish party and the Labour party, that I find there is an entire absence of that old feeling of bitterness and rancour which made the Home Rule Debates of the old days so difficult, and, may I say quite honestly and frankly, so painful to many Members of the House.
      Among the most fervent supporters of Home Rule I believe that there is a strong desire as there is amongst the friends of those in the South of Ireland that if possible there should be some measure of protection given to those
      1176
      people of the South which will secure for them a voice in the new assembly. It is, of course, desirable that that should be so, because a Parliament composed solely of one political opinion would obviously not be the kind of Parliament to legislate satisfactorily for the general interests of the country. Having said so much I would venture to make this suggestion. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to make a definite promise on this occasion. What I am willing to do is on behalf of the Government between now and Report stage to consider, of course after consultation with the Prime Minister in a matter of this importance, whether it is not possible to devise a method which will secure representation in the lower house of the Southern Parliament for those who are in a very small minority. Whether it would be necessary to adopt any suggestion of a similar character for the North I do not know. No representations have been made on the subject. I do not think the minority there is in the same parlous condition or anything approaching it as it is in the South. On the whole, I think the general opinion expressed in this Debate has been adverse to fancy franchises. I think that method has found general condemnation. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) indicated a preference for the system which has been adopted in India. I do not think that would work in Ireland for this reason, that it is based on a set of conditions which are to be found in existence in India and for which it would be very hard to find anything similar in Ireland. We are all agreed that we want, without too wide a departure from general democratic principles, to find some method of giving representation to the minority in the South. I think it comes to this, that there are only two alternative suggestions. One is the very attractive suggestion made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) as to the rearrangement of the schedule of the constituencies, so as to secure full opportunity for proportional representation to work. The other is pure nomination. I confess I am more attracted by the suggestion as to proportional representation, though I am not myself an advocate of proportional representation. I hope my hon. Friend will be content with the assurance that before we come to Report, this matter

      1177
      shall be most earnestly considered by the Government, and that we will endeavour to find a scheme, which we will put on the Paper, to meet his views. I have no hesitation in making that declaration.
      Major BARNES: I do not think there has been or that there could be any opposition from any part of the House to any proper proposal that might be made to give the minority in the South proper representation in the Southern House of Parliament. As a young Member I took the greatest interest in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the old controversy, and I think we all regard it as a happy matter that these Debates are free from the bitterness of the past. I hope when the Government are considering this question of giving the minority in the South adequate representation in the Southern Parliament, they will also go very carefully into the question as to whether some such provision ought not to be made as to the Parliament of Northern Ireland as well. Up to the present there has been no discrimination drawn between the two Parliaments. It would be a serious matter, and one which would aggravate the controversy, if the Government introduced a provision as to the Southern Parliament, which would make a discrimination. Therefore, I trust they will give this question their most serious consideration.
      Captain ELLIOT: The Government, in considering the question of the representation of the minority in the Southern Parliament, must be very careful to consider also the position of the minority in the Northern Parliament. It is all very well to say that minorities are more concentrated in the North and will therefore secure representation, but these Parliaments are the real bodies under the Bill, and anything which would injure their amour propre must be carefully avoided. We suffer very much from having no representatives from Southern Ireland in this House, and therefore there is a tendency to consider that this House is bullying the Southern Parliament to an unlimited extent. I am sure the Ulster Members would be the last to wish that impression to get about, but they must recognise the necessity even to avoid the suspicion of injustice in this case, that special representation for the protection of minorities is being put into the constitution of the Southern Parliament with
      1178
      no such corresponding provision in the case of the Northern Parliament. It is certainly claimed by the Southern Irish that they have been quite as tolerant of the Protestant minority in their midst as the Ulstermen have been of the Roman Catholic minority in their midst. I am not going to judge in any way between the two, because I have not the necessary information, but I beg the First Lord most earnestly that he should consider whether any proposal put in this Bill to safeguard the minority in the South should not also have a parallel provision to safeguard the minority in the North, even though he considers it unnecessary.
      Mr. LONG: I did not say "unnecessary."
      Captain ELLIOT: The First Lord also said, what I thought was rather rash, that the atmosphere of calm was a great advantage in this Debate. I think it is the most terrible and appalling thing that we should be debating this Bill in such an atmosphere of calm. It is the difference between an operation and a post mortem. There is an atmosphere of strain and interest in the one which is absent from the other, but that is not to say that the post mortem is the more advantageous transaction, and if we could get a little more interest taken in this Bill I think it would be all to the good. I venture to throw out this suggestion, that the question of an occupational representation as against a geographical representation might well be considered in this case. It has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) that some sort of communal representation might be adopted, but we do not have communities corresponding in this country to what there are in India. The question, however, of an occupational representation might surely get in some of the Southern Unionists, the loyalists who are, we are assured, in many cases the leaders or, at any rate, take a very high place in the communities to which they belong. If that is so, any such business as getting in possibly trade union leaders, and possibly representatives of the doctors, and the various occupations in an area might get over the difficulty without, on the one hand, a fancy franchise and, on the other, hand nomination. Undoubtedly nomination would be regarded as a direct insult by

      1179
      the Southern Parliament and, I very much fear, by the Northern Parliament also. I can imagine nothing more unpopular than the position in the Northern Parliament of some person specially nominated to represent what this country might consider to be a down-trodden minority in Ulster. Therefore, I ask the First Lord to consider the two points I have made, namely, that the Northern Parliament must have a parallel restriction to the Southern Parliament, and that the question of an occupational franchise to bring the minority in in a democratic way might well be considered.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I regret that the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down did not develop his theme of vocational representation a little further. I feel a great deal of satisfaction that the Government are going to consider the question of representing minorities, and while not advocating any fancy franchise, I commend most earnestly to the right hon. Gentleman that consideration should be given to this great question. I call it a great question because without a doubt it is very much to the fore to-day in all European countries. We have in our own country this sovereign Parliament, and yet the most important discussions, and in fact, decisions are taken by consultation between the Prime Minister or the heads of the great Government Departments and representative bodies elected on a vocational basis. I am not talking, of course—I hope I never will in this House—from a class bias, but might I point out that to-day in England you have these great bodies, elected on a representative basis, wielding enormous power, and playing in most cases a very useful part in the social and political life of the country. They have no representation as such here, except in the very limited case of the few members representing the Universities. There is a great opportunity here for the Government to show for once in this respect a great deal of imagination. I believe they could introduce on this proposal a great advance in democratic government in the British Isles, and I believe that just as they have experimented on Ireland with regard to proportional representation, with very good results indeed, as anyone who has seen the results of the recent local elections in Ireland
      1180
      will admit, so in the same way I believe they could make an experiment which might lead more than anything else to political and industrial peace as regards the internal government of Ireland.
      The proposal I make is this, that this Amendment should be accepted, or something like it, and that we should deliberately increase the numbers in both the Northern and Southern Parliaments of Ireland. I will not dogmatise about the numbers, but I suggest that a substantial extra number of Members should be provided for these two Parliaments, and that in both Northern and Southern Ireland they should be elected by the great professional organisations, such as the great learned professions, the lawyers, doctors, architects, and so on, which are already self-governing and used to electing their own Members, and also the great trade unions. The Union of Agricultural Labourers should have a representative or two as such in both Parliaments, and the railwaymen, the seafarers, and other great unions in the North and in the South should elect a few Members. I think it would be extremely valuable as an experiment, and I believe it would be conducive of the most excellent results in Ireland. This is not a far-fetched proposal. Many hon. Members on this side are here representing certain professional organisations, although in theory they are elected for geographical constituencies. I refer in particular to the miners' representatives, many of whom, it will be admitted, are most valuable Members in this House. They are elected by miners; they represent above all things the mining industry. I do not think that is an unhealthy thing. I wish we had more of that in this House. It is a most excellent outlet for a great professional organisation. Of course, if it is carried to its uttermost limit it is what is known as the Soviet. I am not advocating the Soviet. I am taking what seems to me really sound and democratic in that system. We cannot blink it. In many parts of Europe to-day, in one form or another, it has got a hold of large masses of people, and you have to recognise it, and I think there is some good in it. You have got to take the best in that system and combine it with the geographical system.
      To-day we have the great example of constitution-making on the other side of

      1181
      the North Sea. The Germans, with all their faults, are a very methodical, careful people, fond of minute detail, and of thinking out things beforehand. Perhaps they are given a little too much to it, but in Germany they are trying to combine the two forms of democracy—the democracy which has been handed down for some centuries in this country and the new democracy which, willy-nilly, is rearing its head up in Eastern Europe. I most earnestly urge on the Government an unprejudiced consideration of the proposal put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is something in it. It is not put forward as a dream of anarchists or anything of that sort. It is to meet a need. People say they want a working man who knows working-class conditions to represent working-class people—a thoroughly unhealthy point of view, because the interests of one sort of working men are quite different from those of another. But if, for example, you can get the steel workers or the textile industry to elect men to represent them, that, I think, is a different matter. It is not unhealthy. I am not sure that it does not contain the germs of the new democracy, which, merged with the old democracy, may be the great solution of our problem.
      Mr. HANNA: I am satisfied with the undertaking that the First Lord has been good enough to give the Committee. I beg to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am just as anxious for protection for minorities as he himself could possibly be, but I recognise that the hon. and gallant Member who spoke from the other side said what was perfectly right, that whatever methods and whatever course you adopt in relation to the Southern Parliament will, of course, apply to the Northern Parliament. If there is to be anything in the way of a fancy franchise, or anything in the nature of nominees, I would protest against it and oppose it to the utmost of my ability.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I think that we are in some danger of exaggerating the difficulties with regard to the Unionist minority in the south and west of Ireland, and undervaluing altogether the Schedule which the Government have already introduced into their Bill for the purpose of representing minorities by means of proportional representation. In the Schedule
      1182
      you have already constituencies returning eight, seven and, in several cases, six Members. Now where you have a constituency returning eight Members, it is clear that eleven per cent. of the voters of any one way of thinking will be able to get a representative. I know that in many parts of Ireland the Unionists do not amount to eleven per cent. of the voters, but it is quite certain that there are other issues that are coming to the front very rapidly in Ireland, and it is not, I think, to be supposed that when Ireland has self-government it is always going to be the old issue of Unionists versus Nationalists. It does seem to me that the evidence derived from the late elections in Ireland is quite clear, that questions of labour and employers, and so on, are coming to the front there, and that where you have an eight member constituency under proportional representation, you may fully expect that, in addition to those who have hitherto been called Unionists, a considerable section of those people, who are interested in stable Government will vote the same way, and will give you a certain number of Members in the Southern Parliament, representing what you may call conservative ideas. It has been recognised that it is not so much the great numbers of a party that tell in a representative assembly, but, even if you have a smallish number there who are determined to do their duty and put forward their point of view, you will get considerable results. I do, therefore, suggest that the Schedule as it stands for the representation of the Southern Parliament of Ireland will give a much more considerable representation to the more stable and conservative elements in that country than might be thought, if you judged merely by the proportion of Unionists and of Nationalists in the old sense of the word.
      I do also suggest that this discussion to-day has rather gone wrong by forgetting the large constituencies which are already in the Schedule in the Bill. When you come to Ulster, the case is much stronger still. I do not object at all to the Government finding, if they can, some other way of representing minorities in Ireland. On the contrary, I have always had a most open mind on that point. I have always thought that, if you could get some other way of representing minorities than by ordinary proportional representation, it might be more suitable, at any rate, to the very scattered districts; but

      1183
      before you decide to do that, you have got to make up your mind that there is some feasible way which will not produce greater evils than those you are trying to avoid, and I do suggest that when you come to deal with Ulster you have to take into consideration the figures which were disclosed by the elections of January last as to the distribution of opinion in Ulster. You had there about 142,000 votes recorded, and very little more than half of them were Unionist in the old sense. The Labour vote was 25,000, the Nationalist vote 20,000 and there were Independents and Sinn Feiners. It is quite certain that if you had a Parliament elected for the whole of Ulster with anything like that number voting, the Unionists would have very little more than a majority of the elected assembly, and the other parties would be very strongly represented in it. When you come to the six counties only, of course the Unionists would have a larger share of representation, but it is quite certain the other parties would have a very considerable share of the representation. Therefore, I do hope that the Government will not undervalue their own Bill, and their own Schedule, and that, while considering whether anything better can be done, they will at the same time recognise that that which is already in the Bill is certain to give a considerable representation to the minorities in Ireland, especially under the new conditions which are arising, in which other issues and other parties are rapidly taking the place of the mere cleavage of Unionists and Nationalists that we have known in the past.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like to say a word of thanks to the Government for the sympathetic attitude which they have adopted towards this Amendment. The First Lord of the Admiralty certainly knows better than any other man in this Committee the cruel position in which the Southern Unionist may find himself. The remarks I made yesterday, to which he referred, applied to a very little part of the Bill—that applying to the Council—and were not meant to describe his attitude personally at all, or, indeed, the attitude of the Government on other matters than that which was then under discussion. I also very much welcome the words which have fallen from Ulster representatives. It is a
      1184
      great advantage to the Southern Unionists to know that hon. Members will help them to get some opportunities of voicing their rights and their difficulties. If I say one word about the speech of the First Lord it is only to reinforce him in his good intentions to try to deal with this question, and not from any sense of ingratitude.
      It was suggested by the First Lord that the new Clauses, which are of very great importance, and which are on the Paper in his name, are going to help the Southern Unionists. These two Clauses deal with the Oath of Allegiance to be imposed on candidates before their election, and provisions in case one or other House of Commons is not properly constituted. I do not think that is going to help the Southern Unionists in the very least degree. After all, it is inconceivable that if the mass of Southern electors abstain from taking any part in Parliamentary elections that the minority would find it worth while to send representatives elected by a handful of the electorate, or, indeed, that those so elected would find it worth while to attempt to take their seats. I also think that the Clause providing for a nominated Committee to carry on the Government of Ireland in the absence of a properly constituted House of Commons is perfectly useless as a permanent or effective safeguard for the Southern Unionists.
      Our real problem is: what is to happen when the Southern Parliament is a going concern? These two Clauses deal with a very different state of affairs, before the Southern Parliament really takes over control. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who is the greatest expert, perhaps, on the question of proportional representation, drew attention to the very valuable conditions this Bill contains in that direction, but unfortunately the population in the South of Ireland is such that those who have gone into it are convinced that the Southern Irish Unionists would have a very small representation indeed. The population is so scattered, and the constituencies are, generally speaking, so large that I do not think you could recreate the county constituencies to give effective representation to the minority, or to enable them to reach the necessary quota. The best chance of reaching the quota would, of course, be in the other constituencies. If you take the two constituencies returning eight

      1185
      Members, you would find that it is out of the question that the minority should obtain representation.
      Take the case of Kerry, which is to return eight Members. I see there are 155,000 Catholics against 4,000 non-Catholics. Therefore, the minority is only 1/40th, and the Noble Lord's very interesting suggestion that you should double the number of Members would not really give any effective representation to the minorities in those districts. I think, however, something might be done by making larger urban districts. I fail to understand why in the Bill it is proposed that Dublin should have three divisions. If Dublin voted in one division returning twelve Members instead of three divisions of four Members each, there might be a certainty that minorities would get representation. Of course, representation would be even more effective if the proposals of the Noble Lord were adopted and in the urban constituencies and county constituencies number of Members to be returned were doubled. Suggestions have been put forward, but I am inclined to think that the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) probably suggested what on the whole is the best solution. The hon. Member for Lanark suggested a vocational franchise. I think from the point of view of a safeguard that would prove very effective indeed, but I recognise that it would be a very large departure from our present electoral system, and I can well understand that the Government would feel great hesitation in putting so drastic a change in the framework and machinery of their Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member might perhaps more satisfactorily be applied to the Senate. That proposal was embodied in the Report of the Irish Convention with regard to the Second Chamber. It proposed that there should be representation for various learned and other professions in the Senate. They also proposed that there should be representation in the Chambers of Commerce. I am inclined to think that, valuable as this would be as a safeguard, the easier one would be to carry out the suggestion of the Bill, and to make your proportional representation more effective by increasing the size of the constituencies in the towns, and by re-arranging the number of Members these constituencies will return. In view, however, of the promise of the Government that they will not close the door to this question and
      1186
      will consider it, I hope, and bring forward some definite proposal on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. MOLES: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words
      "except that at any contested election of the full number of members the election shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote, as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and His Majesty in Council shall have the same power of making regulations in respect thereto as he has under Sub-section (3) of Section twenty of that Act, and that Sub-section shall apply accordingly."
      We are now beyond the stage of theory. We have passed into the realm of facts. What is the case to be made against proportional representation? We make out this case—there is no mandate for it! Nobody in Ireland has been consulted respecting it. Nobody in Ireland has asked for it—whether Nationalists, Unionists or Sinn Feiners. It proposes to set up for Ireland one standard, and a wholly different standard for the rest of the United Kingdom. This House, always by increasing majorities for Parliamentary elections, has rejected the principle of proportional representation. A Committee appointed to select one hundred constituencies for an experiment did so, and the proposal was chased out of every constituency. This principle enormously increases the cost of elections, and it means the death knell of labour representation, because the cost will be so heavy. I do not understand why the Government is always trying on Ireland nostrums which no other place will stand. I cannot conceive of any part of the United Kingdom upon which it is more dangerous to attempt these constitutional experiments than Ireland. When the ex-Attorney-General stated in this House the case for proportional representation for local government he was extremely eloquent, and he ventured far into the realm of prophecy. History has declared him entirely in the wrong. He claimed that this new system would obliterate the old line of cleavage. Has it? I say it has rather increased it. The dividing line between us before was Nationalist and Unionist, but to-day it is Sinn Fein and rank republicanism, which is a wider breach with Irish Nationalism than we have ever had.

      1187
      The case was made by the Attorney-General that the Government saw in this principle the one way of checking the ravages of Sinn Fein. Has it checked it? Is there anybody here, having looked at what has happened in Ireland, will suggest that for a moment? It is not Unionism that has been ruined by this proposal but official Nationalism. On the Mayo County Council every seat is held by Sinn Feiners, and Roscommon elected an absolutely Sinn Fein County Council. Of the 21 members of the West Meath County Council 19 are Sinn Feiners, and there is not one Nationalist. Athlone No. 1 is Sinn Fein, and so is Athlone No. 2. Louth is almost solid Sinn Fein. South Tipperary is exclusively Republic, and every official Nationalist was defeated. The whole case which was made out for proportional representation has been absolutely falsified by the facts, and so far from delivery from Sinn Fein proportional representation has delivered the country over to Sinn Fein hand and foot.
      The great test after all must be that of efficiency. I do not care whether you call it Labour or Captalistic if in civic government they give you really good civic management, that is as much as you are entitled to expect. Let us see how far proportional representation has brought that about, because it was one of the things most strongly claimed for it. I remember the Attorney-General saying that it would give us a type of man much needed in Ireland, and that it would produce men of real quality and substance, and make an end of that gross mismanagement which had occurred throughout Ireland. It was also claimed that this principle would bring down the rates, and he told us to view the spectacle of Dublin where, because of mismanagement and incompetence, the municipal rates had risen to 16s. 11d. May I point out that to-day, under the Sinn Fein Council, they are 20s. 6d. The old majority on the Derry Corporation was swept away. A Nationalist Corporation succeeded it, and almost its first act was to put 7s. in the £1 on the rates. In Waterford the rates are now 18s. 3d., in Limerick 19s. 6d., and in Cork 20s. 6d. That is the kind of transformation that has been accomplished in Ireland in civic affairs
      1188
      under proportional representation. That is what we were to be delivered from under this system, and it is just the sort of thing we have been really delivered to. What has happened to the old type of man? I will quote from one of the organs which staunchly espoused proportional representation. It is a leading Nationalist organ. It says:
      "Many of these bodies, or the great majority of them, have discharged their duty to the public and fulfilled their trust with ability and true patriotism. Taking them all in all, and allowing for difficulties, with a few exceptions the Irishmen who have administered affairs under the provisions of the Irish Local Government Act have acquitted themselves creditably. As a result of the elections a revolutionary change has been made in the personnel of these councils, and even in North-east Ulster there have been many changes. The dissolution of the old bodies was the signal for a clean sweep in other parts of Ireland, and now quite 80 per cent. of the members of the county councils and rural district councils are men or women who have had no actual administrative experience."
      You have swept away the whole body of experienced representatives. You have, by means of Proportional Representation, superseded them by a band of neophytes; you have sent the rates up, and you have swept out of public life the best type of men we had. Then I remember another triumph by the ex-Attorney-General who will be remembered in Ireland by two things. First, he was the main instrument of bringing the infliction of Proportional Representation upon Ireland, and, secondly, he effected a change in the Church hymn book and got recognised a hymn, the first line of which ran, "I was a wandering sheep; I did not love the fold." He said that the Scottish Proportional Representation elections were coming on, and he told us to have faith and to await the result. He warned us against prophesying what was going to happen in Scotland, and he told us that Proportional Representation would be triumphantly vindicated in the School Board elections throughout Scotland; he said that first-class men were coming forward and the whole public in the great Scottish cities were seething with excitement and were awaiting the opportunity to avail themselves of the opening of the poll. What did happen? I took the trouble to look into this, and the results came out before we had finished with the Committee stage of our Bill. It cannot be pretended that

      1189
      Scotland is illiterate, because there you have an educational system which has been a subject of world-wonder and admiration. But this highly-instructed public throughout Scotland somehow was not able to understand the system of Proportional Representation. It was Mr. Disraeli who once said in this House that he objected to putting into popular hands a system of election which required a senior wrangler in mathematics to work it out, and I think that was one of the finest descriptions ever given of Proportional Representation. But what occurred under it in Scotland? In Edinburgh, out of 130,000 odd electors, 24,000 only went to the poll—18 per cent. Out of 446,000 in Glasgow, 121,000 went to the poll—27 per cent. In Leith, the proportion of voters polling fell to 15·2 per cent., and in Aberdeen of all places it went down to 12·5 per cent. I think in the history of School Board elections in any one of these places the voting never fell so low; in some cases it is 50 per cent. less than the previous worst poll. That is what Proportional Representation does when you put it to the test.
      Let us look at the Irish results. An hon. Member opposite made, I think, a triumphant appeal to them. He does not know his Ireland. He would do well not to rely too confidently upon statistical tables prepared by officials whose interests in their job are at stake. There never was such an educational campaign carried on up and down all Ireland as in the case of the recent borough and urban council elections. Millions of documents of various kinds were sent out. Scores of hundreds of lectures were delivered at street corners, many of them by people who knew nothing about their subject. Great funds were opened. Philanthropists were appealed to to come forward and put their money down in order to help to emancipate Ireland from the slavery of the old system. The newspapers opened their columns to all kinds of correspondence, and the various parties did their best on the one side to alarm the people, on the other hand to incite them. Everybody was supposed to know everything about Proportional Representation, and then they voted. Then came the count. We counted from morning till noon, from noon till dewy eve, and from dewy eve till far into the night, and sometimes into the next day, and in some cases we had no fewer than fourteen
      1190
      counts before we elected anybody. We managed to get them home in penny numbers and the job was done.
      9.0 P.M.
      What is the result? There is not to-day a single body in Ireland elected under proportional representation which is not the poorer in personnel. Men of quality have largely disappeared. If you do not have real efficiency, if you do not have men with business qualities, with some sense of responsibility, with some capacity for the duties laid upon them, what can you expect? I have told the Committee what happened in Dublin, in Waterford, in Limerick, in Cork, and elsewhere. You would not have had these types of men elected under the old system at all. All our history proves that. Over and over again men, and in some cases 30 per cent. of those that were elected, were elected without having obtained the quota by reason of default on the part of others. Then came the elections of Boards of Guardians and other bodies. Again, what happened? Take the case of Belfast. Under this tremendous tidal wave of propaganda, some 67 per cent. of the available electors were polled, and with this splendid example before their eyes what occurred when we came to elect the poor law guardians? One illustration will be enough. The electorate fell to 20 per cent. You are going to apply the same principle to Parliamentary elections. Let us see what is going to happen. Have the Government thought anything about the size of the constituency? Let me take one case, that of the combined counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone. These will constitute one constituency under the Bill. They represent in size 1,197,000 acres, and the man who is going to contest one of the seats there will have at the scale of 78 per elector on that score alone to foot an expenses bill to the amount of £2,806. Are you going to attract Labour candidates in that way? Take Donegal, with its 1,093,000 acres, and practically the same total as Fermanagh and Tyrone for expenses. Come down to Cork, with 1,797,000 acres. The expenses at 7d. per head per elector is £3,602. Look again at Tyrone and Fermanagh, because there you have for the moment the Nationalist population predominant. At your General Election the Unionists get, roughly, four seats to five Nationalists. But suppose one of the Unionist Members dies. The candidate who comes forward to fill

      1191
      that vacancy must make his appeal to the whole constituency, so that the very notion of proportional representation hopelessly and completely breaks down in face of a situation like that. The thing goes on county after county—resignations for business reasons, death, and all these things—the minority, having been entrapped into the position by this specious theory, is put in this position, that its very representation is swept away in that way, and proportional representation cannot meet it. Its advocates admit that it breaks down there, and they have no remedy whatever.
      My hon. Friend thinks the old crystallisations in politics will disappear, and that you will get new crystallisations, and that Providence will come to the rescue of proportional representation, and everything will be right. I do not know what he knows about Ireland to make a prediction of that kind. I have been through seventy contested elections up and down the whole of the country, and I know it as well as my hon. and gallant Friend, and he is mistaken in his view. There will be no new crystallisation. Sinn Fein has swept away the old Nationalism, with which we could get along on some kind of terms. We may have led a cat and dog life, but we had many points of agreement, and I would go into the polling booth any day and vote for a Nationalist before I would for a Sinn Feiner. But we shall have no such choice. Even in the constituency of West Belfast, now the Falls Division, what has happened to the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin)? He was one of the advocates of this Bill. One-half of the representation of his party was swept out at the borough elections, and the four that it used to return are represented now by two. That is what has happened to him under proportional representation. An hon. Friend of mine who sits for one of the Divisions of Dublin also was an advocate of it. They had nine in Blackrock. They have got four to-day. That is the salvation that proportional representation brought to him. I could go on multiplying instances. There are scores of them up and down. I was glad to hear the admission that came so frankly from my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). It is clear now that the hopes of the minority in the South and West must no longer
      1192
      rest upon proportional representation. That has gone by the board. We looked into that question long ago. A body of the best experts, all of them Irishmen, drawn from the areas which were being specially considered, sat and formulated their views, as you will find in the Convention Report. I will read a section of it—
      "We are agreed that, having regard to the smallness of the Unionist electorate in many counties, the Proportional Representation system would give no representation to the Unionist minority."
      That was approved by every Member of the Convention and unanimously adopted. The Chairman of every county was there and scores of others who knew the case. That was their verdict upon proportional representation and it really will not do for anyone who does not know Ireland to pretend to the contrary. What is the good of telling the minority in Clare, only 1.86 of the population, "Put your trust in Providence and proportional representation?" The thing is humbug. What is the good of telling them in Kerry, where there are only 2.74, "proportional representation is coming. You will be all right." You can go to Limerick with 2.90, and so on, up and down. I make this statement with a full knowledge of the facts in every constituency in Ireland, that outside Dublin you could not elect one on proportional representation. That is a fact and you need not pretend to the contrary.
      I was glad, though somewhat amused, to hear the plea put in by someone who does not know Ireland, talking about the downtrodden Catholic minority in the north. Let me tell him something about the county councils. On the county councils they numbered under the old direct system, 112—one for less than each 6,000—and we numbered 123, one for more than each 6,000. That is the down-trodden minority. And although we were 200,000 in excess of them in numbers, in the last Parliament, such was the kind of performance that was carried on through under-representation here and over-representation there, that they had 17 Members and we had 16. That is what is called the down-trodden minority. The position to-day is that we are 22 and they are 14. I will defy proportional representation to repeat the experiment. I will defy it to improve upon it. It could not do it. I hope we shall have no more nonsense

      1193
      talked about the down-trodden minority in Ireland. There is no mandate for this proposal. No one has asked the Government to put it into the Bill. The only people in the House who are entitled to speak for Ireland protest against it. It will add enormously to the cost and in that way it will exclude the type of man we desire to get into Parliamentary life.
      Captain CRAIG: I hoped the Government would have given us their views in answer to my hon. Friend's remarks. As no one has risen, I am compelled to do so to put a few considerations to the Government. We do not desire that this discussion should drag on for any length of time. We want to come to a decision on it as soon as possible and get on with the Bill. We submit first of all that proportional representation should never have been applied to municipal elections by the Bill of last year for the reason that every representative of Ireland in this House with the exception of two was opposed to that experiment. Further, we object to the imposition of this system on Ireland for the reason that this Parliament has refused on six separate occasions to apply it to England, and we object very strongly to be the subject of these experiments, which my hon. Friend has I think clearly proved to be so futile to Ireland. We do not complain that we are very badly off under the Bill. It is quite true that both the Northern and the Southern Parliaments have the right after three years, if they think proper, to revert to the system of election which is in existence for this House of Commons, and we do not consider that we are under any serious hardship in that, because we are quite convinced that we shall be able to elect a working majority of our own way of thinking, and we are also pretty certain—I will not put it higher than that—that when that Parliament is elected and when these three years have elapsed that Parliament will put an end to this system of proportional representation and will go back to the system which exists here at present.
      We ask the Government whether it is a proper thing or a judicious thing to insist upon Proportional Representation with all its drawbacks. It is very unpopular and very expensive and will mean an enormous amount of trouble to carry it out. As we have heard, £20,000 is to be spent in one county alone on the municipal election. Is it worth while, I
      1194
      ask again, in view of the probability that the system will be reversed on the first opportunity, to insist on holding the first elections under the system of Proportional Representation? So far as the North is concerned—we do not propose in this matter to speak for the South—we desire that proportional representation should be changed. We see no reason why we should not be allowed to elect our first Parliament under the direct system of voting and let the South have Proportional Representation if it so wishes. I admit that there is no great hardship in the Bill, but it would give unnecessary trouble and expense having a system introduced which will be reversed in all human probability in a very short time. Therefore I hope the Government will see their way to strike this out of the Bill, at least so far as it applies to the Northern Parliament. If they cannot do that I hope they will reduce the period within which we will be allowed to decide the matter for ourselves. It is now three years and they might reduce it to one year. I see an hon. Gentleman opposite with a good deal of ammunition ready to fire off. I do not blame him; he must reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I do not think this is the time or the place for going fully into the merits or demerits of this question. We hate the system in the North, and so far as I know everybody is of opinion that we will reverse it and go back to the present system of election.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not think the Government would be wise if they acceded to the request made by hon. Gentlemen opposite because it is of a character and nature which are both retrogressive and reactionary. As to the account of the experience of it which has just been given, that in no way affects my judgment on the merits or Proportional Representation, and I can assure both him and my hon. and gallant Friend who sits near him that that is particularly so with regard to its operation in Scotland. There the effects have been entirely satisfactory. No doubt there have been low polls, but these are symptomatic of the state of the public mind with regard to elections of every kind and it is carried into all elections everywhere. I will not attempt to say what is the reason for that public apathy with regard to elections both for Members of Parliament and local bodies, but I do

      1195
      know that the fact exists. It is simply reacting in Ireland as it is in different parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. MOLES: It reacted in three months.
      Sir D. MACLEAN: It was a general proposition, and it was an argument which carried very little weight to me in the light of the general effect which I have described. As to the future of Proportional Representation, is it as certain, shall I say as that we are going to have another general election some time or other, that it will be extended; either we shall have the cumulative vote or some system of Proportional Representation. I ask the Government not to go back upon a scheme which has been adopted and approved in practice, and I think neither the Government nor its supporters will be inclined to accept the proposal notwithstanding the appeals just made to them from below the gangway.
      Mr. A. WILLIAMS: We have had from two representatives from Ulster a strong attack upon Proportional Representation as applied to municipal elections in Ireland and a strong plea for omitting it altogether from the Bill which is now before us to establish Home Rule. I should like to examine briefly the main arguments against the system especially with regard to Ireland. We have been told that it was introduced for Ireland without any mandate. Let us look at the reasons why it was introduced for municipal purposes. The late system of municipal elections in Ireland is completely broken down in one particular town. That was the town of Sligo. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they have no argument against Sligo.
      Mr. MOLES: Will you give the facts about Sligo?
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, the facts were these. Sligo had elected a municipal council under the old system, and the effect was that it had fallen down into bankruptcy. The municipal chairs and tables were sold by the auctioneer to pay the debts of the town. In the old days before the municipal vote was extended there was a Unionist's Council in Sligo; and then the other fellows were at their feet. Then the franchise was extended and the
      1196
      Unionists became the under dog and the other fellows got complete control, and the result was that Sligo was bankrupt municipally. Then there was an appeal made that we should put our shoulders to the wheel in order to get Sligo out of that rut. The gentleman who at that time was the representative of Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) brought in a Bill and carried it through, establishing a municipality in Sligo under a system by which all parties should be fairly represented. The elections were held. There were some Independent members, the Sinn Feiners were represented by one-third, I think, and the Unionists were well represented—I think they called themselves the Municipal party or something of that kind; and there were also Nationalists' representatives. All parties were represented and were thoroughly satisfied. So great a success was it that when the Government talked of re-establishing municipal elections in Ireland they came forward to ask that that system should be applied to all municipalities in Ireland, and practically every party in Ireland, and all the newspapers, approved it and acclaimed the result—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—except the Ulster dominant party, and they stood out against it, and I shall show very soon what good reason they had for doing so. That is what led to the introduction of municipal proportional representation in Ireland, and I say it is a gross misrepresentation of facts to say there was no mandate for it and that nobody asked for it. On the contrary, everybody asked for it, everybody was content with it, except the dominant party in Ulster, which is now opposing it. I do not wonder that they are opposing it. It has broken down their domination in Belfast. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It has broken their power in Tyrone and Fermanagh, and now they come forward in fear that it will break down their power in the Northern Parliament, and will show that there are a large number of people throughout Ulster who are interested in other things than the old bitter feud of Orangeman against Catholic. The hon. Gentleman tells us that it has sounded the death knell of labour representation.
      Mr. MOLES: I said "Would sound the death knell."
      Mr. WILLIAMS: There was no Labour representation in the old Belfast Council.

      1197
      The old Belfast Council consisted, with rare exceptions, of 52 Unionists and eight Nationalists.
      Mr. MOLES: There were once 12 Labour Members.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Now the Unionists number 37, the Labour men 12, the Nationalists and Sinn Feiners five each, and there is one Independent. It is the same story in many parts of Ireland. Under proportional representation Labour has for the first time been able to get real, independent representation. I do not mean a few Labour men put in by the grace of some other party, but I mean real Labour representatives, who go there because they represent real Labour organisations. To my mind that is a pretty clear reason why my friends from Ulster dislike the system; and yet they have the courage to come and tell us that this system sounds the death knell of Labour representation, and ridicule the idea that there are any new crystallisations or formations of parties and interests in Ireland. It is not necessary for a man to have spent his life in Ireland to be able to read the Irish newspapers. That can be learned even on this side of the water, and anybody who does so will see that all over Ireland there are strong bodies of Labour opinion which have been seeking, and to a considerable extent obtaining, representation on the local bodies in Ireland under proportional representation. And then our blood is made to curdle by reports of the Sinn Fein sweeps which have taken place in some of the council elections recently. I would ask the House to bear in mind the clear distinction between the town elections which took place in Ireland last January and the country elections which took place quite recently. In the town elections there was very good feeling among all parties, and there were excellent results. Unfortunately, in the interval between January and June there was a great exacerbation of feeling in Ireland. I am not going into the reasons for it, it has nothing to do with proportional representation, but there was undoubtedly a very great increase in bitterness of feeling, so much so, that during the country elections recently there were very large areas where practically nobody came forward except Sinn Feiners, or Sinn Feiners and Labour men. Therefore, it is perfectly true that there have been considerable areas in the
      1198
      recent county elections where Sinn Feiners, or Sinn Feiners and Labour men, have alone got representation. Would that have been any better under the old system of single-member representation? Not a bit. On the contrary, it would have been worse, because if you turn to the Parliamentary elections which took place in the single-member constituencies at the end of 1918 you see how Sinn Feiners were able to sweep the board over and over again. Take Dublin city, for instance. There were seven Sinn Fein Members returned; but when you came to the Dublin municipal elections in 1920 you found that the Sinn Feiners only got 42 of the seats, whereas the others together got very nearly the same number. That is a very considerable result. The Labour men got 15, Reform party 11, Nationalist 9, Independent 2, and the Unionists, in the name of Unionist, got one. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who try to make a cheap joke upon that know perfectly well that a large number of the others were Unionists—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and only stood under another name because they very rightly considered that in municipal affairs it was not a question whether a man was a Unionist or not, but what line he took on municipal matters. In the city of Belfast, in the Parliamentary election, there were eight Unionists and one Nationalist returned, and under Proportional Representation the representation of other parties in the municipal election was considerably improved. I have given the figures and am not going to state them again. This all shows that these sweeps of Sinn Fein in certain counties have not been in any sense due to Proportional Representation, but that they would have been more extensive and would have taken place in a larger number of areas under the old single-member system. We are told that there was a very small vote in Scotland under Proportional Representation. How about Ireland? In the January elections in Ireland, 70 per cent. of the electorate voted, practically 70 per cent., and in one ward in Londonderry 93½ per cent.
      Mr. MOLES: Ninety-eight per cent. under the old system.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: Very likely, but that is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should tell the House that only such very small numbers of the electors go to the

      1199
      poll when he knows very well that in the municipal elections last January in Ireland 70 per cent. of the electorate went to the poll. In London you very often have only 15 per cent., and, I believe, under 10 per cent., going to the poll, and that not under Proportional Representation at all. I have been twitted as if I had said that Proportional Representation was going to bring in a paradise and do away with all the evils of Ireland, give representation to the Unionists of Kerry, and all that sort of thing. I have never said anything of the sort.
      Mr. MOLES: The reference was to the Attorney-General for Ireland, and not to my hon. Friend, as he perfectly well knows.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: No, I do not perfectly well know it. I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. Of course, I apologise for it, but I certainly understood those remarks as referring to me. The results that have already been achieved in Ireland have been quite sufficient to show that under Proportional Representation you get an immense improvement upon anything that you can get in single-member areas. In Scotland, also, the same thing has been shown. You do get in a great many districts a representation of all parties. I ask the Committee to consider what is going to become of our representative system either in Ireland or in this country if we are going to face general elections with three or four parties contesting one against another, and with perhaps a majority of the seats going to minority voters. I believe our experience is already sufficient to indicate to us the direction in which we ought to look for a cure, and if we look in that direction we shall be joining with the great current which is now flowing in all the civilised countries of the world, with hardly an exception. In all the civilised countries you find that the population are being forced to recognise that if you want to make self-government real you must have a system which will give a fair share of representation to every section, which will not cut up the State simply by a fight between this faction and the other faction, but will give a logical and reasonable system by which every party and every opinion will be able to show their strength and to elect representatives of their
      1200
      opinions and of their interests in proportion to their real strength in the country.
      Mr. W. COOTE: The hon. Member has spoken about Proportional Representation, but he has left the financial side out of the question altogether. The election in the counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh will cost the individual member something like £2,500. He has not suggested any way out of that. He has used the old arguments that were heard here some years ago when Proportional Representation was originally before the House. He talks very much of Sligo, but he does not tell the Committee of the developments that have taken place there and in other parts of Ireland since the Sligo election. The Committee may not be aware that the people of Sligo had agreed on a joint representative council to be really a selected council before Proportional Representation was suggested to them. It was only when Proportional Representation was proposed by the Local Government Board that they agreed to it for the sake of getting some way out and getting help from the Local Government Board for the time being. They would not help them unless they adopted Proportional Representation. Therefore, they submitted to Proportional Representation, which accomplished for them what they had intended to do before the suggestion of Proportional Representation was made. It may not be known to the Committee that since the last election there the Council of Sligo, elected on Proportional Representation, has come to a deadlock on no less than five occasions, and have disbanded and adjourned their proceedings and resumed again. The hon. Member does not tell us of the increase of rates from 8s. 6d., which was the figure the Local Government Board said they ought to be to the figure at which they stand now. He admits that in the county councils and in the rural constituencies Proportional Representation has not worked so well as it did in the cities, and even in the cities he has not told us what has taken place in Cork, Waterford, and the urban centres, where ordinary constitutional nationalism has been driven out and where Sinn Fein holds the field practically entirely.
      Coming to the rural districts and the county councils, how can any proportional representation work well? Take

      1201
      the county of Monaghan, where the parties are almost equally divided between Nationalist and Sinn Fein, and where, when the Nationalist candidates were nominated, in the interval that took place between the nomination and the confirmation of the nomination, Sinn Feiners, with blackened faces, visited the homes of the nominated Nationalists and told them that their lives would be the penalty if they dared to go on with the nominations. Thereupon they withdrew the nominations, so that Sinn Fein held the field. What happened in Tyrone the other day? This is one of the blackest things we have against proportional representation. It tends to corruption and misrepresentation all along the line, because men who are unprincipled, as the Sinn Fein party are, are willing to do anything to accomplish their ends. There are districts which are Unionist districts, but five or six districts are bracketed together with areas that are intensely Sinn Fein and where there are very few Unionists or Protestant people. In the Omagh district, where there ought to be two Unionists and two Sinn Feiners, and where our quota was very fine, the Sinn Feiners, with whom electioneering is a fine art, in order to frustrate and keep Unionists from going to the poll, had threatening notices posted in districts in the mountains where there are only a few Protestant people, with the result that they were afraid to vote. In these cases, addressing the people in their homes and naming the individuals, whose names for obvious reasons I will not mention, because it might not be comfortable for them even in the North of Ireland, they issued notices such as this:
      "It is understood that you intend to vote Unionist to-morrow. Now, in voting Unionist, we take it you vote to keep Ireland in bondage. Therefore, if you go to vote to-morrow, be prepared to meet your God, for you shall not return. What has been done in the South can be done in the North. The time for humbug is over. Signed by the black hand of Glenelly."
      Is this a fair method of electioneering? It is only under Proportional Representation that this could be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Only under Proportional Representation?"] Yes, because it cuts down our quota. It links up five or six districts. Some of those districts would have their Nationalist or Sinn Fein representation, and very rightly, and there would be no harm if Unionists and Protestants did not vote. But when Unionist
      1202
      districts are linked up with other districts these steps are taken to destroy the representation of entirely Unionist districts, and they adopt these methods in scattered districts to destroy our quota. So that the very idea of Proportional Representation is defeated by its own friends. This could not happen under the ordinary system. Some parts are entirely Sinn Fein. In the Cookestown area it had on its register 305 voters, living and dead, and there would be that number of votes in the ballot box, because the dead people were impersonated. They brought in their children, their boys and girls for impersonation purposes in order that their quota should be higher than it ought to be and in order to destroy ours. It may be asked, Why does it happen; why do you permit it to happen? We cannot send an isolated Unionist as a personation agent into a remote district, where he does not know anybody and whence he may not return alive. When men can put out notices like the one I have read they will do anything in order to accomplish their ends. Proportional Representation is a humbug in Ireland It has destroyed the purity of elections. It has destroyed the object we have at heart, which is to get real representation for the people in all the communities of our municipal and rural life.
      Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I am glad to see that the President of the Board of Education (Mr. Fisher) has come in to help us to solve this wild form, as I call it, of mathematical mania that we know as Proportional Representation. I have always been rather inclined to believe that there was something in it, but I have never yet been able to discover what it means. I have asked many of my friends what they mean by Proportional Representation, and they always say, "It is so simple that everyone can understand it." I return to the point and say, "Yes, but what is the system?" and they always go on, "It is so simple that nobody can possibly fail to understand it and therefore it needs no explanation." We have heard this evening of the results of Proportional Representation in Scotland. We were told just now that the results of elections in Edinburgh meant that under this system only about 18 per cent. went to the poll. I do not happen to have the usual percentage of electors who poll in Edinburgh, but in a great highly educated city like the capital of

      1203
      Scotland I think that that is a proportion so low that it could hardly be cited as a real success of this system of which we have heard so much to-night and which I believe, if it were really explained and made clear to us, might have something in it.
      But voting myself under this system in Scotland, I have never quite discovered what the election was about, I am afraid because no one who was going into or coming out of the polling booth had the slightest knowledge of what was happening. Most of them, being Scotch, seemed rather pleased at the idea of getting three or four bites at their cherry, and, not being Scotch myself but having some knowledge of the race, I conclude that having a second or even a third try for their money, so to speak, and not necessarily losing because they do not back the winner every time naturally appeals strongly to Scotch shrewdness and their general desire to get there all the time. But when I had voted and endeavoured, even after the poll to discover exactly how the system was going to work out in getting the people who were well known in the district as shrewd administrators or known for their strength of character—how this queer mathematical problem which had to be worked out with each vote—and each representative was going to get a better type of man in the House of Commons or on the County Council, I found that it was entirely beyond my understanding.
      I can quite see if you have got an Opposition that, for example, is divided in its views and its leaders and is unable to promote or propose any policy, or even to get leaders who could attend to business in the House, they would jump at any form of election which might induce people to vote on a rather different system, but I cannot without such explanation realise what will take place if you are going to set up a Parliament in Ireland or set up a system which we have been told by every Irishmen in this House will hit them. I have heard the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast praise it mildly, but I have heard him do otherwise than praise it last year, when he said that you were applying proportional representation to Ireland on the system of trying it on the dog. I ask the Government to endeavour to explain it in such a way
      1204
      that the Irishmen opposite may understand it, like it and swallow it, but above all I ask the Government, unless they can get real support from Irish quarters, to have pity on the Irish nation and not be known as the Government who inflicted this last of all wrongs on the Irish people.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We should not allow this discussion to lapse so soon. One or two statements have been made by the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. Coote) which ought to be challenged. I have not the pleasure and happiness of living permanently in Ireland, but I am going to take the liberty of quoting from somewhat well-informed quarters very short extracts from leading Irish papers on the working of this system of proportional representation. The "Irish Times" of 19th January, 1920, said:
      "The system of Proportional Representation has come to stay. We believe that the early future will see its adoption in municipal and Parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom. The Irish elections establish all the virtues that were claimed for this scientific method of feeling the popular pulse."
      I suppose that even the hon. Member will admit that the "Irish Times" is an old-established and respectable journal. Take a paper of the opposite views, the "Irish Independent" of the following day, the 20th January, 1920, which, one would think, would have taken the opportunity of tearing to pieces the leader in the "Irish Times." They say:
      "The success of these elections naturally suggests the more extended application of the system."
      The "Dublin Evening Herald" said:
      "This Proportional Representation General Election was the most business-like proceeding that the general public have ever assisted at. The local government elections of 1920 will loom for all time as a historic milestone in the path of Ireland."
      A distinguished man of letters like the hon. Member for the Ormeau Division (Mr. Moles) must have read these papers, and how he can make the speech which he made this evening I do not understand. It is very important that we should look to these leading Irish papers for guidance in this matter. After all, they write to suit their readers. Their proprietors are business men and they are not going to give opinions hostile to the bulk of the people for whom they cater. The "Ulster

      1205
      Guardian," on the 24th January, 1920, said:
      "Proportional representation has demonstrated beyond the shadow of doubt its entire practicability and its justice to all sections of the different communities."
      There are many more extracts which I could quote, but those which I have quoted are sufficient to show that proportional representation has been a success in Ireland. I am astonished that even from the quarter from which this originated such an Amendment should be proposed. We, in this country, I am sorry to say, lag far behind other countries in Europe. The French and the Germans elect their representatives on the proportional representation system. I have heard hon. Members in this House continually bemoan the fact that there is not a constituent assembly in Russia. The first constituent assembly was elected there on proportional representation, and that, in a country with some 80 per cent. illiterates. Now, hon. Members from certain districts of the North-East of Ireland, because of proportional representation happens to have destroyed their caucus, come down and abuse the system. As to the argument about intimidation, I would ask what has that to do with proportional representation? We have had intimidation in England and in Ireland for many centuries, long before proportional representation was thought of seriously. There has been the same sort of thing in a much worse degree in other countries. In the Southern States of America, for many years after the War of Secession, no negro was allowed to vote. In some of the country districts of the Southern States to-day no negro dare vote for fear of his life. Do you propose to take away the rights of the American people to choose their representatives, because of that? It is no argument whatever. Presumably the argument is produced by the hon. Member in order still further to blacken his fellow countrymen. I am convinced that the system of proportional representation will come in this country, in spite of the arguments used by hon. Members who are the last remnant of those who lived in the bitterness and passion of the last century.
      Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS (Minister without Portfolio): I think the Committee is probably prepared to come to a decision on this Amendment. We have had a very in-
      1206
      teresting Debate on Proportional Representation, but as we had a full Debate last year on the application of the system to local elections, I do not suppose anyone wants to hear much from me on the general subject now. It is, however, due to the Committee that the Government should say why it was introduced into the Bill. It was introduced into the Bill as one of the safeguards by which it was intended to protect minorities. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment told us that under Proportional Representation certain things had happened, and he attributed them to Proportional Representation. I confess that while I very much regret any intimidation that may have occurred, or any untoward circumstances, I do not see why Proportional Representation should be saddled with the odium of what has occurred. For instance, under the old system we know that at this moment there are in this House for the South and West of Ireland only one Unionist and one Nationalist; the rest of the Members of Parliament are Sinn Feiners. That is not a result of Proportional Representation; on the contrary, it is a result of the old system. I cannot see that even my hon. Friend could suggest that minorities would be less represented under Proportional Representation than under the old system. What the Bill does is to provide that the first Parliament should be elected on a Proportional Representation system. After that self-government is given to the two Parliaments, and they can, if they choose, scrap the system of Proportional Representation and revert to the old system of election. The Government, therefore, cannot accept the Amendment.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. MOLES: The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has quoted to us a variety of newspaper extracts. One said that proportional representation had come to stay; another said that it had proved its practicability; and a third declared that it was a historic milestone. The hon. Member did not quote a single observation from any newspaper which said it had been a triumphant success and had given us the better type of civic representative that we were promised when it was put forward. That is the striking thing that is not found in these quotations. I not only know the quotations.

      1207
      I know the facts. He was good enough to adopt the attitude which has become characteristic with him. His attitude always, towards this Bench and towards all others, is one of studied offensiveness. I suggest to him, with very great respect, that the loud-mouthed and senseless clamour in which he indulges in this House is very far removed from sensible and restrained criticism. If he has any Friends sufficiently interested in him, they ought to take him to one side and tell him that he ought to desist from making a fool of himself here. My right hon. Friend who spoke last has told us that Sinn Fein swept the decks in the South and West of Ireland. That is perfectly true of the Parliamentary elections. It is just as true of the county council and municipal representation. Proportional representation was to have changed all this. That was the case made for it. It has failed to do it. This particular system the House has six times refused to adopt. You have given us no opportunity of guiding you in the matter. You are going, of course, to put your Whips on, and to march the battalions into the Lobby, not because you have convinced them. We can go into the Lobby, as we did yesterday, thirty or forty Members, and the big battalions would come along and swamp us. That would be futile and a waste of time. In view of these circumstances, there is no course open to me but to refrain from going to a Division, and I withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments on the Paper refer to matters already disposed of, and the following Amendment is the subject of a new Clause and there is a Clause on the Paper of which notice has been given by the Government.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5) to leave out the work "three" ["three years"] and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
      After three years the Irish Parliaments can sweep away any electoral safeguards for minorities in this Bill. I understand hon. Gentlemen on this side have suggested that three years is too long and that Ulster would want to sweep away
      1208
      proportional representation very much sooner. I am afraid I must on behalf of the scattered minorities in the South and West take, and necessarily take, the view that three years is too short and that the carefully-thought-out safeguards merit that they should be kept in force for ten years. I hope, as the result of the sympathetic speech of the First Lord this afternoon, that those scattered minorities will be given some effective representation. I agree that any safeguards of this kind, however close they may be to the present machinery of the Bill, cannot be a permanency in Ireland. I hope if the Southern Parliament functions at all that it will eventually work out its own salvation, but I feel that three years is too short for the development stage if the Southern Parliament is not to be tempted to sweep away safeguards and provisions which are put in for the interest of those who have been loyal to this country and who deserve some protection.
      Mr. LONG: Under a previous proposal my hon. Friends who come from the North said that they would like power placed in their hands to effect the change immediately, and would like to have no limit of time. My hon. and gallant Friend would prefer ten years. I am bound to say the Government regard ten years as a most unreasonable period during which to tie the hands of local Parliaments. I think that on the whole we have struck a happy medium in three years, and, after all, let the Committee remember what we are really doing. We are now in June, 1920. Supposing this Bill passes by the middle of this year and receives the Royal Assent in October or November. It will be another year at least from then before it will begin to operate, and are we not therefore allowing enough time for the influences of this measure and for other influences which are at work in Ireland to have their effect in that country and produce a condition of things in which, in five years' time, you will have a very different state of feelings from what you have now? If you have not got a different state of feelings by that time, then God help Ireland and this country, but my firm conviction is that between the exercise of strong Governmental powers on the one hand and the influences which will be at work as a result of the passing of this measure and of other things that are going on, on the

      1209
      other hand, in five years' time it will be perfectly safe to leave the Irish Parliaments to deal with their own affairs. If it is not, something much more drastic than this will be required.
      Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I rise to make a possible suggestion which might meet the two points which have been raised. I entirely agree that ten years seems to be too long, but if the three years is left, that appears to me to alter the whole basis on which the first Parliament is elected. Would it not be possible to arrive at a reasonable compromise, which would fix a term, say, of five or six years, which would cover the period of the first Parliament, and would leave the second Parliament free to deal with the position as they think fit?
      Captain C. COOTE: I am afraid I cannot quite agree with the Amendment, and I am very glad the Government are resisting it, and for this reason. It seems to me that if the danger which this Amendment is intended to guard against eventuates, and if, on the one hand, the Dublin Parliament makes electoral laws directed against the Southern Unionists, or, on the other hand, the Belfast Parliament makes laws directed against Roman Catholics, then the whole question of giving Home Rule to Ireland falls to the ground, because if the local Parliaments were, to use a colloquialism, playing the fool in that way, it is obviously inadvisable that the local Parliaments should exist at all. They would have to cease; the Act would have to be repealed, because it would reduce the whole matter of Home Rule to an absurdity. I think the general principle should be that this House should not interfere with the powers which are given to the local Parliaments under this Bill. You must trust them to a certain extent to be honest and play the Parliamentary game in an open-handed and generous manner; and if they do not do so, I cannot see how either three years or ten years will make any difference. If that is the spirit which is going to animate the proceedings of these Parliaments, they might as well not exist; and if they do exist, and show that spirit, the sooner they are done away with the better.
      Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has said that if the local Parliaments play the fool they can be done away with.
      1210
      It is all very well for him to stand up in this House and say that, but the actual operation of doing away with them would, I think, be extremely difficult. Let me point out to the hon. and gallant Member what would have to be done. First of all, there would have to be a Bill introduced into this House, and with the introduction of a Bill into this House what would take place in Ireland? The state of Ireland at the present moment is not extremely satisfactory, and if this Parliament, having granted Home Rule, were to say, "We think you are playing the fool, and we are going to take it away again," the difficulty, I think, would be tremendous. We should have to send an army of at least 100,000 men over there to enforce the repeal of the provisions of this Bill, even if we could get it through this House. I wonder what hon. Members opposite would say. I think my knowledge of them is sufficient to show that they would be strongly against the Bill, and there would be very great difficulty in enforcing the Bill, supposing it were passed. Therefore, with all due deference to the hon. Member, I think he is mistaken in thinking that when this Bill becomes an Act there will be an easy means of repealing it. What we want to do is to think a little before it becomes an Act and to consider whether it is advisable to allow certain safeguards to be introduced or not.
      As I understand it, these two Parliaments are to sit for five years, but at the end of three years they will have the opportunity of altering the safeguards, for what they are worth—and, personally, I do not think they are worth very much—which have been put into the Bill by this Parliament. I am inclined to think the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend is right. I do not know whether ten years is the right period which ought to be inserted, but I think the least period should be five. What is the use of setting up a Parliament to exist for five years, and providing certain safeguards, if, at the end of three years, that Parliament can wipe out those safeguards altogether? Before we give them the opportunity of altering and abolishing those safeguards, we really ought to know whether the Parliaments are going to work, and I do not think you can tell in three years whether those Parliaments are going to work satisfactorily or not. The Amendment would extend the time to ten years,

      1211
      which, after all, is only the life of two Parliaments, and is not a very long period in the history of a country, and if we are going to set up new Parliaments, which are to legislate for the two countries into which Ireland is going to be divided, we ought at least, before parting with our safeguards, to see whether those Parliaments are going to work satisfactorily. The only question which remains is how long it will be necessary to see whether those Parliaments are going to work satisfactorily. I believe we shall not know, certainly not in three years; and I very much doubt whether we shall know in five years. I am a strong supporter of the Ulster party, but, just as they have seen me make mistakes, so I have seen them make mistakes, and even in the case of the Northern Parliament we ought at least to have a little more than three years to see whether they will carry on the government of that part of Ireland properly. With regard to the southern part of Ireland, I do not ever remember that the inhabitants of that part ever did anything right. Ever since I have had the privilege of a seat in this House they have never done anything but make mistakes. I do not think there ever was a greater critic of them than my hon. Friend the First Lord—in the old days there was no greater critic—when I sat at his feet and listened to—
      Mr. LONG: I do not want to be misrepresented in that way. When my right hon. Friend talks of the people of the South of Ireland he falls into a very common English error. In that part of the country there is a considerable section of whom I am perhaps an unworthy but a consistent champion.
      Sir F. BANBURY: It is to protect the very people of whom my right hon. Friend says he has been an unworthy, but I should like to say a worthy, champion that I say we ought to substitute ten years for three years. It is for that very reason—that they happen to be in a minority, and have been unable to exercise the abilities they possess. For that reason I shall certainly support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend.
      Major HILLS: It is always a great pleasure to me to find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. On this occasion I am in very
      1212
      hearty agreement with him. I support the Amendment for the reasons he has given and also particularly in view of what passed earlier in the afternoon. I would not have called upon the Government but that they have promised to endeavour to find some means to give the Southern Unionists representation in the Parliament of Southern Ireland. If you are going to give this protection what use is it if the first Parliament elected can sweep it away? You cannot conceive of any sort of method of giving representation to the Southern Unionists that is not an elective method, and therefore liable to be changed by the first Parliament. Surely under the circumstances it is all the more necessary to make the safeguard effective, for it is perfectly clear to the whole Committee that the first Parliament returned in the present difficult situation in Ireland cannot be very favourable to the Southern Unionists. If the protection is held under the stress and friction that must occur during the first election, and in a Parliament returned almost entirely of Sinn Feiners, all these have to do is to pass an Act, and all these schemes go to the winds.
      The position would be quite different if one Parliament had run its course. All Parliaments make mistakes, and the electors that return the first one to power might return another the next time, for the small body of Unionists might make good—very good indeed—and you might have a second Parliament under fresh conditions, happier and better than now. I do not think that the Government can really defend the position to leave all this machinery in the hands of the first Parliament that is elected. If three years, why not three days? I do beg the Government most earnestly to postpone the date, at any rate, until the second Parliament is elected. They would not do any harm by it. If ten years is too much, accept six! If they do not do that, all the protections which were promised, and which we have accepted gladly, are quite illusory.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the suggestion that the first Parliament should not be empowered to make this alteration. I am sure he will agree that there is a risk that the first Parliament, at any rate, in the South, will be a very partisan body,

      1213
      and what we are anxious to ensure is that during the very critical time when partisan feeling will be running at its height after the first Parliament is summoned, there should be full security for the minority. I think this matter ought to wait until the second Parliament, when feeling will probably be more reasonable in both the South and the West. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he cannot take that point into consideration.
      Mr. LONG: There is no question of principle involved here. Of course, I have my view on this subject, and in this particular instance I can speak with some knowledge, particularly of the southern part of Ireland. I cannot help thinking, however, that we are fighting over an unreality. This Amendment is being urged from the point of view of to-day, and I believe that is a tremendous mistake. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the present condition of things in Ireland. I agree with him, and I think the state of things is both deplorable and abominable, and the Government is working with all its vigour and determination a policy which, I hope, will put an end to that state of things. This Bill is different from any other Bill which has yet been introduced dealing with this subject, because it is the measure of a Government which represents all parties as no Government has represented them before, and it is only resisted by those who are not represented in the Government because they would go further. This measure is quite different to any other Bill dealing with this subject. I believe that the limitation we have imposed is a right one. I admit that there is much to be said for the argument of the hon. Member for Chelsea, and the Government are quite willing to consider between now and the Report stage whether they cannot provide that before any change is made there shall be a new Parliament elected so that there will be an appeal to the country, and the opinion of the electors expressed, before any change is made in the safeguards of the Bill.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman has given a very sympathetic answer, for which I am grateful, but I think it would be well if we could get some of these Amendments accepted on the Committee stage, because we are
      1214
      piling up a tremendous number of promises for the Report stage. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should vary his practice by accepting this Amendment on the Committee stage, putting the period at six years, and, if necessary, modifying it to four years on the Report stage.
      Mr. LONG: I have made an offer to my hon. and gallant Friend, and if he is not prepared to accept it, I would rather abide by the decision of the Committee.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: My right hon. Friend is showing unnecessary irritation. I am not showing any ingratitude. I have not expressed any desire to divide. I put forward my proposal in all good faith, and I think it is quite reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should accept some of these Amendments in Committee. However, I will not press it further, as he seems to be so sensitive to criticism, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "altered" ["shall not be altered"], to insert the words "or any university deprived of its representation."
      The object of this Amendment is to make the representation of universities permanent in Ireland. Under the Bill it is provided that there shall be eight university Members, four for the national universities and four for the Government universities. In Southern Ireland the Members for Dublin University are a very valuable safeguard for the minority in the South. I think Dublin University has special claims to consideration in this respect, in view of the very distinguished Members she has from time to time sent to this House, including David Plunket, Lecky, and the present right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson). I do not put this Amendment forward in any sectional interest, because I believe it is of great importance to the Irish people that neither political nor sectarian bitterness should drive out of the councils of the nation representatives of the scientific and learned professions who would be chosen by university constituencies, and who would probably not only adorn the South of Ireland Parliament, as they

      1215
      do this, but would add very much to the practical wisdom of that body.
      Mr. LONG: This is a very difficult Amendment to meet. I have always been a strong advocate of university representation, not from the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend who suggested the desirability under the peculiar representative conditions of Ireland of having university representation, but I have always thought it was essential that, in this House, there should be university representation. On the other hand, is it not really difficult to say to these two Parliaments, "You shall have full power to deal with the constituencies in the great industrial centres in the North, or in big cities like Cork and Dublin, or in large agricultural areas like Mayo, Roscommon or Galway"—that you should say to them, "You can deal as you like with those great interests, but, under no circumstances, shall you deprive the universities of their representation?" It seemed to us that that is a very strong order. It seems to us either you should give these two Parliaments within a certain period power to deal with their own constitution or else you should give them no such power and say to them, "What this Parliament has enacted you must accept for all time." On the whole we came to the conclusion that after a certain period these two Parliaments ought to have power to arrange their own constitutions and vary them if they desire to do so, and anxious though I am that university representation should be maintained—and the Government propose at a later stage to accept an Amendment to extend the representation by including universities—we are very much impressed by the argument that you cannot distinguish in this Clause between one constituency and another. The logical and proper thing to do would be either to withhold all these powers and say you cannot trust these Parliaments or else give them, as they are given here, in respect of all constituencies, whether they are industrial, agricultural or university. That, I think, is the right course. I have great sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend, but the arguments against are stronger than those for.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to hear the views of the Minister for Education upon the Amendment. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it
      1216
      is that the Government have considered whether or not it is advisable to make any restrictions or give any directions after three years to the Parliaments as to the method of election and generally the qualifications and registration of electors. They have come to the conclusion that on the whole it is advisable, much as they would desire to preserve University representation, to leave these matters after three years, or perhaps six if the Amendment is inserted on Report, to the decision of the Parliaments. Then I want to know what is the meaning of these words:
      "And due regard shall be had to the population of the constituencies other than university constituencies."
      Are they put in to have any effect or are they merely camouflage which expresses a pious opinion?
      Mr. LONG: My right hon. Friend knows very well that population has nothing on earth to do with university representation whereas it has to do with every other constituency.
      Sir F. BANBURY: The words are these:
      "And due regard shall be had to the population of constituencies other than university constituencies."
      Mr. LONG: My right hon. Friend has been in the House many years and knows we have passed a good many Reform Bills.
      Sir F. BANBURY: Too many.
      Mr. LONG: They certainly have not reformed my right hon. Friend. What has led to the reforms? It has been the shifting of the population. One area becomes very crowded and is entitled on numbers to more Members than another, and you pass your Reform Bill to adjust your representation. You do not read just your university representation on anything to do with population. You give a university one member or two members: you do not count the number of its electors.
      Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my argument, I may be quite wrong, but I do not understand the meaning of these words: "And due regard shall be had to the population of constituencies, other than university constituencies." That would lead one to suppose that universities were to be excepted in some way. Does it apply to an ordinary constituency, and is a university constituency to be

      1217
      left out of it? This is not an easy Bill to understand, and I may be mistaken. Suppose a free hand is to be given to these two Parliaments to do what they like, can they do what they like with the universities? Or are the universities to be in an exceptional position. My hon. Friend near me (Mr. Marriott) who does not represent a university, but ought to—he represents Oxford—may be able to tell me. Certainly it requires some explanation.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 14.—(Application of election laws).
      (1) All existing election laws relating to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Members thereof shall, so far as applicable and subject to the provisions of this Act, and especially to any provision enabling the Parliaments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland to alter those laws as respects the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively, extend to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and the Members thereof.
      (2) His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provisions as may appear to him necessary or proper for making any provisions of the election laws applicable to elections of Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would like to ask a question about this Clause. Sub-section (1) refers to all existing election laws and Sub-section (2) to Orders in Council. The first Sub-section seems straightforward and reasonable, if there be anything reasonable in this Bill, but the second Sub-section requires some explanation from those who drafted it.
      Mr. LONG: We do not draft Bills.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You agree to them. I do not want to crab the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to know what is behind it all. What kind of Orders in Council are intended? It is a very wide Sub-section, and some explanation of it is due, so that the Committee may express its opinion.
      Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the question of
      1218
      the expenses of elections, which, it seems to me, would probably come under this Clause, has been considered by the Government. It will be remembered that under proportional representation the county will be the unit. If the expenses of candidates are calculated at so much per head of the electorate, as at present, these sums will be very heavy. In this country the expenses are not so large. If the expenses of every candidate in Ireland are calculated at the same rate as at present, they will be three or four times as high as in an ordinary constituency.
      Mr. LONG: My hon. and gallant Friend has really given the information for which the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked. This power was in the Act of 1914, and is intended to enable any ordinary alterations to be made that have to be made in order to make the law conform with the requirements in regard to elections. It is obvious that there will have to be some readjustment, and this enables an Order in Council to be issued making such ordinary readjustments as are necessary to make it applicable.

      CLAUSE 15.—(Money Bills.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: After the lucid explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has just given and which certainly satisfied me, I should like to ask what is the exact meaning of this Clause. We are told that these Houses of Commons must not adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill for the appropriation for any purpose of any part of the public revenue, and so on.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member is using the procedure of the House properly. This is the procedure of Standing Order 66, practically verbatim.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With great respect, I was not proposing to read the whole of it, but I was reading about the Votes, Resolutions, and Addresses, and it seemed to me very wide indeed. I have not attempted, purposely, at any rate, to abuse the procedure of the House. I would like to ask how far this is going to affect the control of the money

      1219
      by these two Parliaments. I think it will be agreed in this House that the more power we can give to these two Parliaments over their own revenues, without too much veto by the Lord Lieutenant, the better for them. I may be rather dull in understanding this part of the Bill, but it seems to me very important, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give us a short description of what this is going to meet.
      Mr. LONG: The answer is very simple. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the primary duty of this House is to vote money, having examined the demands for which it is made, and all this procedure which is set out in this Clause is on exactly the same lines as the procedure in this House. The Lord Lieutenant, as the representative of the sovereign power, has exactly the same power as is enjoyed here. It is the same system as we have here.
      Mr. REID: We have your authority, Sir, and that of the right hon. Gentleman, for saying that this reproduces, for the two Parliaments in Northern and Southern Ireland, the procedure of this House with regard to financial matters. I take it that no Government could go on for long unless all matters of ordinary expenditure were introduced at the instance of the Government. It is because it has control over finance that it knows how best to cut its coat according to its cloth. It is responsible for the money it has to spend. In this Bill there are three Legislatures established—the Parliament of Northern Ireland, the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and the Council of Ireland. The Council of Ireland has power to make laws in regard to certain matters, and the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question I put, told us that those matters might involve a charge on the Treasuries of Southern and Northern Ireland. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to how some similar procedure is to be applied to the Council of Ireland? If limitations are to be applied to the Northern and Southern legislative spending authorities it seems equally necessary in regard to the third legislative spending authority.
      Mr. LONG: It is not suggested in this Bill that the action of the Council should be subjected to the limitations which are imposed upon the elected bodies. I do
      1220
      not know whether my hon. Friend is prepared to accept the alternative. He wishes that the Council shall be under the same control as the Parliaments. What does that mean? It means setting up another elected body in Dublin charged with wide powers. That is exactly a thing which he and his friends have resolutely opposed. We have accepted their view and have not introduced into this Bill a separate authority except this Committee, composed as it is in the Bill, and we have admitted that the expenditure of the Committee will not be open to revision in the same way as the expenditure of the Parliaments.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid I do not quite understand what my right hon. Friend means. Clause 15, as I understand it, perpetuates the rule which regulates finance in this House. That rule is that no Bill or Motion imposing a charge upon the taxpayer can be moved except with the consent of the Crown. That is to say, unless the King gives his consent, and being a constitutional monarch he acts on the advice of a Minister of the Crown, no Motion imposing a charge upon the subject can be moved in this House. That I have always understood is the practice which for centuries has been followed, and I thought that Clause 15 merely perpetuates that practice, and that it was necessary to do it because Ireland was still to be a part of the United Kingdom. Therefore it was necessary that no taxation should be imposed except with the consent of His Majesty given through His Majesty's Ministers. I am in favour of perpetuating that rule, but now I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the Council in Ireland is apparently to impose taxation without having received the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant as the representative of His Majesty.
      Mr. LONG: No, no.
      Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member (Mr. Reid) seemed to think that the two Parliaments ought to have this power, and that it was going to be taken away from them, and he asked if the Council had that power, and I understood my right hon. Friend to say—I may have been wrong—that the Council would not be subject to the same limitation as the two Parliaments.
      Mr. LONG: Hear, hear!
      Sir F. BANBURY: That being so, the Council would be free from the liability of obtaining the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, as the representative of His Majesty, and they could impose taxation without limitation.
      Mr. LONG: No, no!
      Sir F. BANBURY: They have to get the money from somewhere. In order to get the money they must impose charges.
      Mr. LONG: No!
      Sir F. BANBURY: Then I give it up

      CLAUSE 16.—(Privileges, Qualifications, etc., of Members of the Parliaments.)
      (1) The powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and of the Members and of the Committees thereof, shall be such as may be defined by Act of the Parliament in question, but so that they shall never exceed those for the time being held and enjoyed by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its Members and Committees, and, until so defined, shall be those held and enjoyed by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its Members and Committees at the date of the passing of this Act.
      (2) The law for the time being in force relating to the qualification and disqualification of the Members of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the taking of any oath required to be taken by a Member of that House, shall apply to the Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and Members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
      (3) A person shall not be disqualified for being a Member of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland by reason only that he is a peer, whether of the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England, Scotland, or Ireland.
      (4) A Member of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland may resign his seat by giving notice of resignation to the person and in the manner directed by Standing Orders of the House, or, if there is no such direction, by notice in writing of resignation sent to the Lord Lieutenant, and his seat shall become vacant on notice of resignation being given.
      (5) The powers of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall not be affected by any vacancy therein, or by any defect in the nomination, election, or qualification of any Member thereof.
      (6) His Majesty may by Order in Council declare that the holders of the offices in the
      1222
      executive of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland named in the Order shall not be disqualified for being Members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively by reason of holding office under the Crown, and, except as otherwise provided by Act of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, the Order shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, but on acceptance of any such office the seat of any such person in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland shall, except so far as the Order may otherwise provide, be vacated unless he has accepted the office in succession to some other of the said offices to which he has been appointed since being returned as a Member of that House of Commons.
      Mr. INSKIP: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "but so that they shall never exceed those for the time being held and enjoyed by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and its Members and Committees." It is proposed that
      "The powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the House of Commons of Northern Ireland, and of the Members and of the Committees thereof, shall be such as may be defined by Act of the Parliament in question",
      and then follow the words which I propose to leave out. I apprehend that this will be a difficult matter for this House of Parliament to accomplish. They will have to put into a Bill, to begin with, matters which at present are not included in a Bill so far as this House is concerned, but which are matters of rule or custom which have been slowly evolved into the history of this Parliament. It means that they shall either be content to revert to our privileges here, or they may put privileges into their own Act of Parliament, but so that they shall never exceed those for the time being held and enjoyed by this House. That will require an exact knowledge of the Parliamentary procedure and history of this House, which it will be very difficult to have.
      Mr. LONG: Agreed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments which stand in the names of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) are both Amendments which should be in the form of new Clauses.
      Mr. REID: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words, "except so far as the Order may otherwise provide," and insert instead thereof the word "not."
      Mr. LONG: Agreed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Subsection (6), leave out the words:
      "unless he has accepted the office in succession to some other of the said offices to which he has been appointed since being returned as a Member of that House of Commons."—[Mr. Reid.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

      CLAUSE 17.—(Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.)
      Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
      This Clause is very important, and I should have thought it would have been more to the convenience of the Committee generally if we began our next Debate on the Bill with the discussion of this Clause. If the First Lord of the Admiralty will take that course, I shall be very short in moving my Amendment.
      Mr. LONG: I agree to report Progress.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES (PAYMENT OF EXPENSES, ETC.) BILL.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
      I hope the Motion will be carried, so that the Bill may go before a Committee.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): We do not object.
      Sir F. BANBURY: I do not gather that the hon. Member gave us a very detailed explanation of what is in the Bill, but I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir R. Sanders) is prepared to accept the Bill. For once in his life I think he has made a mistake. I do not think he ought to accept the Bill. I have read the Bill. Its object is—
      It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday, 30th June.
      The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
      ADJOURNMENT—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]
      Adjourned, accordingly, at One Minute after Eleven o'clock.