Lords Sitting of 11 December 1917

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, before the business of the House begins this afternoon I should like to make a personal explanation. Last Thursday I am afraid I inadvertently caused your Lordships' House very great inconvenience, and I hope your Lordships will believe that I was not guilty of any intentional disrespect. What happened was this. On Tuesday last I had a Question on the Paper regarding Persian affairs, and at the instance of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who said he had had insufficient notice to give a reply on that day, I postponed the Question, and after consideration I intended to put it down for Thursday of this week. I cannot have made myself clear at the Table, and apparently it was put down for last Thursday. Meanwhile I had left for Scotland, and I was quite unaware of the mistake until Friday morning, when, of course, it was too late to rectify it. I only wish to say that I am extremely sorry if any negligence on my part should have caused your Lordships inconvenience, and more, particularly to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, whose time is already so much occupied by the responsibilities of his office. At the same time I hope your Lordships will believe that it was no intentional discourtesy that led to the occurrence, which has greatly annoyed me.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I am sorry I did not hear the whole of my noble friend's remarks, but what I did hear was sufficient to give me an idea of the general character of his observations, and I think I need say no more than this, that on my own behalf I fully accept—and I am sure I may also accept on behalf of your Lordships—his very courteous explanation of the incident that happened on Thursday last.

CHEQUERS ESTATE BILL.
COAL MINES CONTROL AGREEMENT (CONFIRMATION) BILL.
EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, in moving the First Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, I understand that it is the general desire of the House that I should take the rather unusual course on such an occasion of making a somewhat full statement. I believe it was agreed that this statement should be explanatory rather than defensive. I will, of course, follow the desire of the House, and I will add only so much by way of defence as is necessary to render the explanation as clear as I can make it.
This measure, if it becomes law, will be the fourth Reform Act since 1832. Between the first and the second Acts 35 years elapsed; 17 years elapsed between the second and third Acts; and from 32 to 33 years elapsed between the third and the fourth Acts. The present Bill is far more comprehensive than any of its predecessors. Closely packed as it is in five Parts and eight Schedules, it deals with franchise, with registration, and with redistribution—questions which in 1867 and in 1884 were dealt with in several separate Bills. It also comprises a vast variety of changes as regards methods of conducting elections, voting, and other matters. Further, it is a consolidating and simplifying Bill, as will be seen from the Repeal Schedule. It is a destroyer as well as a creator. It cuts great slices out of the imposing mass of our Statutes, and I believe I am right in saying that it destroys more previous Acts, or portions of Acts, than any other measure that has ever been presented to your Lordships' House.
It is notorious that Parliaments mar the work of draftsmen, but from one point of view I think it interesting to your Lordships to state that this measure may be regarded as the crowning work of a very distinguished public servant who has now been translated to another sphere, and who, like Prospero, may say—
"I'll break my staff,…
And deeper than did ever plummet sound
I'll drown my book."
Before I attack the details of the Bill I should like to make one general statement. The Bill is founded, as your Lordships well know, upon the findings of the Speaker's Conference, on the theory that if a body so

87
variously composed and so representative of different Parties could agree upon a series of propositions, such an agreement would probably commend itself to Parliament and also to the country. Speaking generally, the Government adopted and carried out in their Bill the unanimous findings of that Conference, with, of course, a very notable exception announced at an early stage—namely, proportional representation. Findings by a majority of that Conference were as a rule left open questions in another place; and any serious divergences from the Speaker's Conference, such as in the case of the Poor Law disqualification or the extension of the local government franchise to women, were inserted in the Pill only with the general assent of the other House. I introduce this specially for one purpose. This Bill is a measure of compromise, and if I may say so, it must he regarded not only as a measure of compromise but criticised as such. Compromise and logic are old opponents, and I think that their historic antagonism is well illustrated through the pages of the present Bill.
I come now to the details of the Bill. I will deal first with the franchise for men, and then with the franchise for women. The principles on which the new franchises are based are two—they are an extension and a simplification of the existing franchises. The general result of the franchise for men is that some 2,000,000 more men will be added to the Register. This must necessarily be a rough estimate, because it is not merely due to the extension of the franchise but it is the general resultant of a number of changes in the course of the Bill which I shall detail. At the present moment there are seven existing alternative franchises. All these disappear. There is, first of all, the household franchise, dating as regards boroughs from the year 1867, and as regards counties from the year 1884—the historic battleground of our fathers and grandfathers. Then there are the £10 occupiers of land and tenements; the £50 rental class, or, rather, the few survivors from the Act of 1884; the lodgers; the service voters; the ownership voters; and the University voters. I do not think that in another place many tears were shed over the disappearance of the ownership voter; but with reference at least to the 40 s. freeholder, your Lordships, with your greater sense of historic tradition, may regret his disappearance. The 40 s. freeholder has survived three Reform Bills, and
88
his history strikes back through Stuarts and Tudors to the Wars of the Roses and the eighth of Henry VI.
For these seven alternative qualifications three are substituted. The first, and infinitely the most important—one might call it the dominating vote—is that of residence. This new vote will include a great many persons who would have come under previous franchises, such as householders, lodgers, service voters, and many persons who now obtain the franchise for the first time. The next vote is called, for briefness, the business vote. The qualification there is the occupation of premises of an annual value of £10 and upwards. Lastly, there is the University vote, which is enlarged to extend to all those who have taken degrees at a University, always excepting, of course, honorary degrees. Not only are these franchises different, but the period of qualification has been shortened from one year to six months. There are two periods of qualification during the year—one ending on January 15, and the other on July 15.
The next point with which I have to deal is how far, and within what limits of area, can a man change either his residence or his occupation during this qualifying period of six months and yet retain his vote. The provisions in the Bill are a compromise between those who maintain that a man should not move beyond the limits of the constituency, and those who maintain that he ought to move freely over the whole country, carrying, as it were, his vote on his back. During these six months persons—I must allude to them as "persons" because, of course, they include women as well as men, although it is an ugly word—must have been resident either in the constituency or in any constituency within the same Parliamentary borough or county or in a contiguous borough or county. "Contiguous" implies touching, but in order to meet the case of much-indented Scotland and other places where water intervenes, an intervening six miles of water is held not to break contact. Thus a very much wider definition than has hitherto obtained is given to the technical words "successive occupation." I will give an instance to make my meaning clear. A resident voter in London may move his residence quite freely during the six months in any constituency in London, London for this purpose, and for this purpose only, being treated as a single borough. He may move

89
also, and yet keep his vote, into any county constituency in Essex or in Kent; but, of course, he could not move into a Parliamentary borough in Essex or in Kent unless that Parliamentary borough at some point or other touched the boundaries of London.
I would now like to deal with two important subsidiary points, one to the disadvantage and one to the advantage of the voter. The first one, contained in the first clause, is to this effect, that if a person comes into residence, let us say, within less than 30 days before the end of the qualifying period, he must remain at that place, either as occupier or as resident, for 30 days after the time at which he first comes into residence, even though that period overlaps the end of the qualifying period; otherwise he may lose his title to be registered. This provision was inserted in order to control the activity of persons known in Ireland as "swallow" voters, from the migratory habits of that bird, and to prevent active agents from moving groups of voters across boundaries in view of a coming General Election or a by-election. The second proviso is to the advantage of the voter—that is to say, he may let his house up to four months within the six months qualifying period and yet not lose his vote, and so also with the business vote.
With the business vote I can deal a little more briefly. I have said already that it represents a qualification of £10 a year, defined as gross valuation in a later stage of the Bill, and the premises must be occupied for the business, profession, or trade of the persons so registered. Therefore, it is a Very limited vote as compared with the general or residence vote, as I have called it.
As regards joint occupation, more than one person can be registered for the same premises if the figure of the annual value, divided by the number of occupiers, gives a quotient of £10 or more. There is no limit in the Bill to the number of joint occupiers in boroughs, but in counties the number is restricted to two for every joint occupation, unless the persons so occupying are partners bona fide carrying on business. So much for the business vote.
I pass to the University vote. Every one can be registered for a University who has taken a degree. He need not, of course, take the M.A. degree, as at present; and in Scotland he must come under the Act of 1868, which I believe included not only those who have
90
taken a degree but also resident professors and others connected with the University. To sum up the position as regards the Parliamentary vote for men, you may say it is not manhood suffrage, although it approaches very near to it, because manhood suffrage implies a shorter qualification than six months and also a continuous Register.
I now pass to the local government franchise. The connection between the Parliamentary and the local government vote for men is a very close one. There is at present for all local government elections the £10 occupying qualification and the old burgess qualification, and in addition to that, in all elections for district and parish councils, and also for the London County Council and metropolitan boroughs, the Parliamentary voters are added; thus it becomes obvious that in proposing these changes of the Parliamentary vote it is necessary also to change the basis of the local government vote. The new local government voter must occupy land or premises in the area either jointly or severally, as owner or tenant, but a notable thing about the new vote is this—there is no monetary qualification attached. As regards successive qualification, the voter can move freely within the area, if the area is a county borough or a county; and if the unit for which he is going to vote is a smaller area than a county or county borough, he can move freely within the area of the larger unit in which the smaller unit is contained. Of course, he must be on the last day of the qualifying period in the smaller area in which he is going to vote. Of course, also, the other provisions as regards "swallow" voting apply. There is just one provision as regards qualifications for election. Now that ownership and leasehold voters have disappeared, it is necessary to enact that persons owning land or leasehold within the area should be qualified to stand as candidates for the local government authority. Let me mention two classes of voters who are included in the new local government vote. First of all, there is the old service voter, who, of course, occupies his house merely by virtue of his employment, and is not a tenant. He is now treated as a tenant, and therefore gets the local government vote. Then as regards the old lodger. The old lodger is, so to speak, cut in halves. If he inhabits unfurnished lodgings he is treated as a tenant and gets a vote, but if he occupies furnished lodgings he does not.

91
Now, as there is no monetary qualification it becomes important to fix a limit to joint occupiers, and that is fixed at two joint occupiers, except in the case of bona fide partners.
I pass to what is by far the larger and most important provision in the Bill, and that is, of course, the franchise for women. I am not going to argue that now. There are as we know, a great many converts to franchise for women. Many have been converted by the services rendered by women during the war; and a great many others think it rather paradoxical that you should extend it so largely to women at a time when the defence of our liberties is shown so clearly to depend upon the use of force. The basis of the qualification for women is wholly different from that for men. In order to be registered as a Parliamentary voter a woman must either be the wife of a man entitled to be registered as a local government voter, or she must be entitled in her own right to be so registered. She must have no legal incapacity and must he of the mature age of thirty. Thus for the most part in these electoral matters we follow the ancient precedent of Genesis. The newly-enfranchised woman springs from the rib of electoral man. Or, again, you may say that a local government voter has this great advantage over other suitors, that he can offer as a nuptial gift not only the honourable estate of matrimony but also the Parliamentary vote. It is estimated that some six million women will be enfranchised under the Bill five millions as wives of voters, and one million in their own right. This is a far larger number of voters than in the whole history of our representative legislation has ever been added to the Register by one single Bill. As regards the University vote, a woman of thirty can be registered on the same terms as a man; and as regards the local government vote a woman can be registered on the same terms as a man. There is here no discriminating limit of age, but a great change from the provisions of the Speaker's Conference was introduced into the Bill as far as local government voters are concerned. The wives of local government voters can now, under the Bill, not only get the Parliamentary franchise, but also the local government franchise in respect of premises in which they both reside. The old rule is abrogated and they can now both be registered in respect of the same premises. One curious result of
92
these provisions is that a single woman of twenty-one who has qualified can vote in a local government election in her own right, but if she has not got a qualification of her own and she marries at twenty-one she has to wait nine years (until she is thirty) before she can exercise the vote. So much for the woman's vote.
I now deal with another class of persons who come upon the Register—the naval and military voters. The position of naval and military voters has been very much canvassed in this House, notably by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who brought in a Bill upon the subject. You may say that a new class is created in the case of naval and military voters, and special privileges are accorded to these voters under Clause 5 of the Bill. They are entitled to be registered for any constituency where they would have been registered but for their naval or military service, and the registration officer, if he finds that a man in his area has joined either Service, must put that man on the Register, as it were, of his own right. Of course, the registration officer tries to discover whether a man who has left either for military or naval service was residing in the constituency or had business there. If he finds that he had, the man is entitled to be put on the Register as if he were still living there. Moreover, if he is not put on by the registration officer, and if he himself claims, the making of the claim is rendered very easy for him, because his statement, duly attested, is accepted unless any special evidence is brought to the contrary. This right is in addition to, and not in diminution of, the other rights he possesses under the Bill; but there is this limitation, that if he wishes himself to claim for an actual residence—that is to say, for a real and not a constructive residence under the Bill—he has then to make it quite clear that, so far as he knows, he has not been registered under the special provisions of the Bill to which I have already alluded.
Who are these naval and military voters and to whom do these provisions extend? First of all, to members of the Naval and Military Services of the Crown on full pay; and of course, one must now add the Air Service. Whenever one mentions naval and military voters one must understand that the members of the Air Service are included. It applies also to those who are doing service in connection with the war of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided

93
by Parliament, such as the mine-sweepers and others. It also applies to persons serving with the British Red Cross, the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and other similar bodies. These provisions apply generally. There is, however, a special provision limited to this war in the case of young men. Members of the Naval and Military Services, if they are over nineteen years of age, are entitled to be registered as naval and military voters. The feeling is that those who have taken part in this war at the age of nineteen or twenty will have had probably an experience equal to that of most young men of twenty-one or twenty-two years of age. There is one other advantage which naval and military voters have, and it is this. If they finish their military service during any qualifying period, one month instead of six months is sufficient to put them upon the Register.
Having got them on the Register, I now come to the question as to how often they can vote—the much-discussed question of plural voting. It is clearly laid down in the Bill that a man may be placed on the Register any number of times; that is to say, wherever he is qualified either as a resident or as having an occupation vote. He cannot, however, use all these votes, and at a General Election he is allowed to vote only twice—once for his residential qualification in one constituency, and once for any other qualification. "Any other qualification" means either a University vote or an occupation vote, He cannot use both of these. He could not vote, for instance, for a University and in respect of his occupation vote, and also for his residential vote. Similarly, a woman can vote in respect of her husband's or her own local government qualification, and also as a University voter. Under one of the Schedules are set out the questions asked of a man or a woman when the vote is given. Thus plural voting is rigidly cut down to two votes. But it follows from the fact that persons can be registered in respect of all their qualifications that at a by-election they may be able to make use of votes that they could not use at a General Election. Under Clause 20 very heavy penalties are provided for people who infringe any of these provisions. Just one further point about the local government vote. A person can vote only once for a local government area, and if that area is divided into wards or other electoral divisions he can vote only in one of those wards or electoral divisions.
94
Now as to the question of disqualification. Two disqualifications are removed, one is re-enacted, and another is added. One of the removed disqualifications is very important, first of all because it departs from the Speaker's Conference—the Poor Law disqualification. The Speaker's Conference suggested that residence in a poor house for over thirty days should disqualify a man from voting. That disqualification is entirely removed under the Bill, both for persons who are themselves in the poor-house and in respect of the maintenance of persons for whom they are responsible. But there is this limitation introduced into the definition clause, if a person is in a poor-house—and it extends to a prison or lunatic asylum as well—residence in that building shall not count as residence for the purpose of the vote. It comes to this. If persons go into a poor-house for two months during the qualifying period and have retained their home they will still be able to be registered for their home; but if the home is broken up, then they would be disqualified for that place of residence and would not get a new qualification by reason of the building of which they were inmates. The second disqualification removed is not an important one—it is for persons employed by candidates at elections. Two disqualifications are first, as to British subjects—nobody but British subjects are qualified; the other applies to a small body of persons called conscientious objectors.
Conscientious objectors are disqualified, generally, from being registered or voting during the present war and for five years after, and they include persons who have been exempted from all military service, combatant or otherwise, and those who, having been convicted for offences under the Military Law, pleaded conscientious objection, and were sentenced to imprisonment instead of detention. The class who are exempted are those who have done non-combatant service. But in addition to that they can purge themselves. They can appear within a year after the end of the war before a Central Tribunal, continued for this purpose after the, war, and if they can show that they have done service in one of the four categories set out in Clause 8 they can recover their vote. Those who, having been exempted from military service on condition of doing work of national importance, can show they have done that work to the satisfaction of the appropriate Tribunal, will be able to recover their vote.

95
You will see that, if conscientious objectors are to be disqualified at all, their disqualification is being reduced to the smallest possible limits. There is just one more point on this matter. The wives of conscientious objectors are not, as they might otherwise be, disqualified. They are considered already to have been punished enough.
There are to be two Registers yearly; one in the spring and one in the autumn—excepting Ireland, where there is only one. The first is to be in operation from April 15 to October 15, coming into operation three months after the qualifying period instead of six months under the present law, and the second from October 15 to April 15. Thus the whole year is covered. The registration officers will be, speaking generally, the clerks of the county councils and the town clerks of the boroughs. In some cases they will be the clerks of the urban district councils, while in London the clerks of metropolitan boroughs will act. On these gentlemen and their assistants is cast the full responsibility for making up the Register, and their zeal is stimulated by a penalty of £100 if they do not do their duty. There are appeals from them on questions of law and fact to the County Courts, and, on questions of law, to the Court of Appeal, but no further. Information is sent to the registration officers by the County Court and Court of Appeal of the decisions at which they arrive. In some cases, though the old revising hamsters have been abolished, the Lord Chancellor can appoint a barrister to assist the County Court Judge. Clause 14 deals with the expenses of registration. They are borne in the first instance by the local authorities, and based on a scale settled by the Treasury. Half the cost is refunded by the Treasury, so that the cost of registration is borne in equal proportions by the State and local authorities. Thus for really the first time the State takes upon itself the duty of being responsible for placing voters on the Register. Clause 16 I need not dwell upon, as it contains questions of compensation to existing officers. Clause 17 deals with University registration, and there the duty of registering is cast on the governing bodies, who can charge up to £1 for every registered voter. I will not deal further with the details of a University vote, because I propose to introduce a Schedule later covering all these points.
I now come to the construction of the Register and the important question of the
96
absent voters list. These rules are mostly contained in the First Schedule, and the rules there are very elaborate and, I think, very clear. There are to be separate parts of the Register for each registration unit, separate divisions of Parliamentary and local government electors, and elaborate rules are set forth, which I need not dwell upon, for electoral lists, claims, notices of objection, preparation of lists, correction of lists, and the publication of the Register. There are also set forth the application of these particular rules to Scotland and Ireland. The point I wish specially to dwell upon, because it is entirely novel in our franchise law, is the question of the absent voters list. On the absent voters list must be placed, as a right by the registration officer, all those people I have referred to as naval and military voters, and in addition any person who can satisfy the registration officer that, by reason of his employment or business he may not be able to go to the poll himself and vote at the election. If he satisfies the officer, he is then to be placed on the absent voters list. Obviously merchant seamen and other persons of that kind will be included in this list. Addresses, of course, will be kept by the registration officer, and the Admiralty and the War Office will supply such information as they can get, as prescribed by the rules, so that the ballot papers may be sent to all these gentlemen.
The next question is, when you have them on the absent voters list, how are they going to record their votes who can vote, by proxy—military and naval voters, and others such as merchant seamen, pilots, or fishermen who can satisfy the registration officer that they will be at sea during the Election? In their case physical presence—the old rule—at the polling booth will be dispensed with, and as soon as possible after nomination day the ballot paper will be sent to them. They will have to return a declaration, duly signed and witnessed, and the ballot paper filled up, before the close of the poll, and these votes will be counted like any other votes. I think it must be obvious, these votes being sent say to France, that the nine days which elapse between nomination day and the polling may not be long enough for all the voting papers to be returned, and there is a provision that by an Order in Council the counting of the votes may be postponed for eight days after the polling day. In that case any of these ballot papers received during the

97
eight days and before the counting may be numbered among the competent votes. But this period, of course, would not be long enough to include all the naval and military voters. Take the voters who are now in Jerusalem or in Mesopotamia. They are too far distant to be able to vote in this way, and another device is resorted to—that is, vote by proxy. It will be the duty of the Home Secretary by Order in Council to prescribe what these proxy areas are to be, and those within the proxy areas will be able to vote by proxy. Schedule 3 contains an elaborate set of rules governing the vote by proxy. This is a provision that may be permanent. As a rule the life of the proxy will be during the particular qualifying period when the proxy vote was taken out, but for the temporary arrangements of the present war the proxy will last during the war and for twelve months afterwards. The persons who can be proxies are either an elector in the constituency or the husbands, wives, brothers, or sisters, if of full age, of the electors themselves. No proxy can vote for more than two absent voters unless a husband, wife, brother, or sister of the elector is concerned. The registration officer will have a special list, not only of those who can vote by proxy, but of the proxies who so vote, and these lists will be open to inspection.
One of the probable methods of voting by proxy will be as follows. The applications for proxy voting will be sent, say, to some commanding officer in India. The men will apply to him for their proxy votes, will fill them up—they will be properly attested—will state who they wish to act as proxy, will send the vote on to the registration officer, and if that officer is satisfied that it is in order, he will send the documents authorising the persons entitled to vote by proxy to the proxies concerned. That is the vote by proxy. The man, of course, cannot also vote by ballot. Thus to the old method of voting there are added two other methods one is voting by post, and the other is the method of voting by proxy. But I think your Lordships will see that by the method of extending the period of counting care has been taken to limit the use of the proxy vote to the smallest possible proportions.
I come next to the question of the method of voting at elections. Some of your Lordships will note with satisfaction, and others with regret, that the original provisions of the Kill, based on the
98
Speaker's Conference, as regards the creation of large three or four-Member constituencies and the application to them of proportional representation by means of the single transferable, vote, dropped out of the Bill by majorities increasing in another place until they reached a majority of seventy-six. It is only in University constituencies with two or more Members that this particular experiment will be made.
As for the alternative vote, its history in another place is rather more interesting. The alternative vote is simply the application of the method of the single transferable vote to single-Member constituencies with more than two candidates. For one brief, fiftul moment an elaborate and interesting Schedule describing the way in which votes should be counted under the alternative vote was in the Bill. It was based upon the idea of an ingenious professor in Australia, Professor Nansen, but I do not think that it was very fully understood; and finally the other House, with notable modesty admitting its incapacity to deal with this problem, left the details to be decided by Order in Council. Orders in Council also settle the method for counting the transferable vote for University elections.
I can deal with the remaining methods of election far more briefly. All the polls take place on the same day, and your Lordships will notice the effect this has not only upon the people voting, but also upon the activities of proxies who may have to vote themselves as well as exercise votes for other persons. By an innovation which would have terrified our ancestors, a writ need no longer be sent by post but can actually be transmitted by the use of the electric telegraph, and twenty days must elapse after the Proclamation before the new Parliament meets. The returning officers will be the sheriffs or mayors, as the case may be, but their functions will be mainly honorary, because almost all their actual functions will be discharged by the registration officers acting as returning officers, and they will have laid upon them all the powers and liabilities which are assigned to the returning officers. Persons in the employment of returning officers—this is a small point—may have special advantages as to the place at which they may vote. Elementary schools can be used for holding public meetings if proper arrangements are made and payment is tendered for any damage done, but this particular provision applies to Great Britain and not to Ireland.

99
I next come to the very important question, as concerning another place, of candidates' expenses. The scales are set out in the Fourth Schedule. They are 7d. a head for each elector in a county election, and 5d. in a borough election. This would work out at about £500 in boroughs and between £600 and £700 for the counties. The candidates are also assisted, because they are allowed free postal communication of no less than 2 ozs. This 2 oz. communication must be confined to the political aspect of affairs, and an enterprising commercial man who wishes for a little advertisement is not allowed to advertise his wares in this way. Candidates on the nomination day have to deposi- a sum of £150, and unless they are fortunate enough to secure one-eighth of the votes they lose their deposit, while if they get more than one-eighth of the votes the money will be returned to them. These provisions will appear to those familiar with elections very necessary in order to limit the number of candidates. The services of a Member of Parliament are valued at £400 a year, and it is obvious that it is quite worth while some enterprising person to risk £300 or £400 at an election in order to secure £2,000 paid in instalments over a period of five years.
Clause 30 is an important one. Its object is to limit the activities of outside associations who are apt at election times to flood constituencies with their oratory and their literature, and thus to make ample reparation for the severe limits that are cast upon the expenditure of the candidates themselves. If these gentlemen come in with the assent of the candidate, then their expenditure becomes part of his expenses, and he can spend less on other things.
I should like to refer to Clause 31, under which several Acts that have been renewed from year to year are to be made permanent. Most notable among them is the Ballot Act of 1872. This Act has been renewed every year for forty-four years and after having done its long service in a temporary capacity it now at last, if your Lordships will permit, is to obtain its full position on the permanent statutory staff.
The general lines which redistribution has followed are pretty familiar to your Lordships. I think that you are aware that 70,000 inhabitants are taken as a general unit of population for each constituency, with an additional Member for the remainder that is not less than 50,000.
100
Existing boroughs of 50,000 and upwards are also retained, and—which is interesting from an historical point of view—the old double-Member constituencies, like Brighton, for instance, are left undivided. I think it must be admitted that the Commissioners have interpreted rather liberally the rule that they should not add substantially to the numbers of Members of Parliament, because they have added 34 altogether to the existing numbers, and have increased further the rather unenviable reputation of another place as being already by far the largest representative body in the world.
But I want to call attention, and rather special attention, to one particular provision, empowering the Commissioners to depart from the strict rules and strict numbers, where they would, by following these rules, create constituencies which were inconvenient in size or in character. Under a strict system of redistribution based on numbers it is, I suppose, inevitable that the country districts should suffer in comparison with the towns; and I suppose it would be impossible to give that representation to the country districts which they would desire unless you took definitely a lower unit for country districts than for the towns, and that is a matter on which the townsmen no doubt would have a great deal to say. But owing to this particular qualifying provision your Lordships will see in the Report of the Commissioners that country constituencies have gained some twelve additional Members. Redistribution, of course, does not apply to Ireland. Ireland, I understand, is to be redistributed, but the same number of Members is to be retained, and the actual constituencies to be settled upon are to be decided by a conference meeting under the presidency of the Speaker. An agreed Bill as the result of that Conference will be introduced, and it will become law, I understand, about the same time as this Bill.
Now as to Part 5, which deals with general matters upon which I need not dwell very long. There is a new punishment for electoral offences committed outside the United Kingdom, this being rendered necessary by the large number of voters who are outside the United Kingdom. Clause 34 deals with the number of polling districts; and Clause 35 with the laving on the Table of Regulations, of which there will be a good number made under Order

101
in Council. Clause 36 consists of definitions, including the definitions of the transferable and alternative votes. Clause 38 and Clause 39 apply the provisions of this Bill, with certain modifications, to Scotland and Ireland. I will mention only one modification referring to Scotland. There they prefer to retain their present local government franchise, which is rather wider than the franchise in this country, but, of course, as the women's vote is so closely connected with the local government vote the latter had to be modified in Scotland for the purpose of creating woman voters, otherwise there would have been one standard in Scotland and another standard in England. In Clause 41, because of the novelties and difficulties, certain powers are given by Orders in Council to extend the, time-table or the period when the new Registers come into effect, if it has been shown that the periods for hearing claims and objections and for putting people on the Register is not quite long enough.
I am afraid now, as regards the details of the Bill, I have deluged your Lordships with details. I have given perhaps enough for the First Reading of the Bill. If you will allow me I will make only one general observation and answer one question before I sit down. On the First Reading of the Bill I think I ought to do what I Can to answer the question, How is it that, in the middle of a great war, the Government have brought in so comprehensive a measure of electoral reform and enfranchisement? I believe that your Lordships and those who perhaps dissent from this action will admit that it was absolutely necessary to have some Register. We could not go on longer on the old Register. And public opinion, both here and elsewhere, was, I think, equally determined that upon that Register those who were serving their country abroad must be placed, and must have an opportunity also of voting. When these questions came to be examined it was found almost impossible to separate the different problems making up the questions that are dealt with in this Bill. Moreover, it was gravely to be considered whether it was worth while to deal as it were with half of those things to-day and reserve it for a later stage after the war to deal with the rest of the questions—to deal with them at a tim when Parliament must be fully occupied with a vast number of other questions that would necessarily
102
engage its attention. And I think there is this further advantage, that at a time like this, when against the gigantic background of the war the ordinary peace problems take perhaps their proper and rather smaller proportions, there was a great advantage in dealing with matters of this kind, matters of political machinery which are apt to, and certainly do, engender in time of peace much heat, suspicion, and controversy. These reasons, speaking generally, may justify the introduction of the Bill. I can deal with them mere at length, if necessary, at a later stage.
I am quite certain that none of your Lordships will fall into the error committed after previous Reform Bills of underestimating the enormous changes that must result from this Bill if it passes into law, if not to-day, yet in the time to come, both as regards the policy, administration, and the composition of the House of Commons. And whatever view you take of the particular provisions of this Bill, I feel sure that on this point there will be general agreement—that, whatever the Parliament may be that springs from this Bill, it will need indeed a full measure of courage and capacity in order to cope successfully with the rebuilding of this country and with that vast and complex range of questions, industrial, financial, and social, which must necessarily raise their clamorous voices outside the gates of Parliament when this long era of devastation is over and the star of peace returns. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not propose to examine the various subjects so skilfully dealt with by the noble Viscount in his speech on the First Reading, and still less to discuss them on their merits. I only rise because I think it is suitable that somebody from this Bench should pay a tribute to the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has discharged his task. Even when a man has been in political life for a number of years it is something of a milestone in his career when for the first time he finds himself in charge of a first-class Government Bill; more particularly may that be the case with someone like my noble friend opposite when, almost for the first time, he departs

103
from the office of criticism which for many years and in both Houses he has exercised with great skill and capacity, not always, perhaps, with an abundance of mercy in the case of measures introduced by other Governments to which he was opposed. But we all feel, I am sure, from the manner in which the noble Viscount has made his opening statement to-day—so lucid, so complete, and yet at the same time composed as to hold the attention of the House on a multiplication of different points without wearying any of your Lordships at any moment in any degree—that when he comes to take the Bill in Committee and to consider the various criticisms and Amendments which I conceive will be put forward in your Lordships' House, he will fulfil that duty with no less capacity and with no less acceptability than he has performed his task to-day.
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AIRCRAFT PRECISION TOOLS OUTPUT.
LORD TENTERDEN LORD TENTERDEN rose (1) to ask His Majesty's Government and the Air Ministry to afford greater facilities for the construction of small tools of precision indispensable to aircraft; to inquire whether the Minister for Air has now decided who are to be the members of the Air Council; and, if so who will be entrusted with the speeding up of the output of precision tools essential to the construction of a big Air Force; (2) to inquire whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Government contemplate taking control of the whole output of precision tools, and the effect of such a measure upon the output of aircraft; (3) to inquire into the conditions of the small tool trade generally, and the present position of the machine tool trade.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord (Lord Rothermere) will absolve me from any desire to embarrass him by putting these Questions at such a comparatively early stage in his appointment as Air Minister. The noble Earl who leads the House, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Air Force Bill, alluded in particular to the undesirability of stating the amount of the anticipated increase of output of aircraft, but he did not allude to the particular object of my remarks—namely, greater co-ordination
104
between the Government and the factories. It is in connection with this want of greater co-ordination that I have brought these Questions forward to-day.
So long ago as July 10 I asked His Majesty's Government to give greater facilities for the construction of aircraft. In that demand I was strongly supported not only by the technical papers but by some of the leading London newspapers: and letters from manufacturers have appeared in the Press corroborating my remarks with regard to the difficulty experienced in getting certain materials manufactured. On the last occasion on which I spoke upon this matter I alluded more particularly to reamers, and small tools of that description, without which it is impossible to construct any part of an aeroplane. I cannot say that the result has brought forth very satisfactory results, and that the difficulties in connection with extensions and the supply of machinery have been overcome to the extent to which I hoped they would have been. It is an unfortunate fact that very little encouragement has been given in respect of this tool industry. I should like to ask the Government whether it is true that upon the importation of these tools from America the importers are allowed a profit of 15 per cent. as against a profit of 10 per cent. allowed to home manufacturers. If that is the case it is obvious that there is more inducement to import these things from America than to have them manufactured at home.
A good deal has been said about the labour difficulty, which I have no desire to minimise in the slightest degree. But I must congratulate the Government upon the introduction of women labour, which has achieved marvellous results. It is extraordinary, as I have, seen with my own eyes, what women can do in the way of helping to build essential machines connected with the output of aircraft. Further men recruited from the Polytechnic, the Battersea Training School, and from the Brixton Training School (of which I have personal experience)—semi-skilled men—have, after two or three months' training in a factory, accomplished most excellent work. Therefore in my opinion the obstacle is not the labour difficulty, but is, or was, the lack of encouragement given by the late Air Ministry to factories engaged upon this important work. It has been made almost a hardship to endeavour to get any

105
machinery at all. Manufacturers have complained that they have had to give up the attempt as a bad job. Personally I did not give up. My persistence has been rewarded by success, and as far as my own factory goes I have nothing of which I can complain. But I do not know how other people have come off; yet it is not so much a question of that as a question of how the country is coming off under such a régime.
This question has become so acute that I am in a position to tell your Lordships—I wish I were not—that manufacturers of tools and things of that nature are being asked not only to work at the highest possible pressure, but to build up reserves of supplies of standardised parts and small tools. Such a proposal means, as far as I can see, asking manufacturers to turn themselves into retail houses. In my opinion that is not a businesslike proposition. Who is going to pay the overhead charges; who is going to pay for the steel, for the labour, for the rent, rates, and taxes, and so forth, whilst this accumulation of small parts is taking place—I do not know where—to meet all possible requirements of the Air Ministry? I should like to be told whether the Air Ministry will ever want these things, for it is quite possible, on account of the every varying designs of aircraft, that they may not be required at all. They may say, "We are very sorry; we have changed our designs, and we will scrap your material and make the best of them." I do not call that a business proposition. But there is one business proposition, and this I had the honour and pleasure of putting before you on July 10, and it is to encourage home industries and afford the facilities necessary for extensions and for manufacturing, without manufacturers being asked to do the impossible.
My second Question on the Paper deals with a rumour—it is a very strong rumour, or I should not have alluded to it—that the Government contemplate commandeering the whole output of precision tools, apparently on the suggested idea of a 10 per cent. profit all round. Now, this may look very well on paper, and it may theoretically be splendid, but when it comes to practice I doubt the feasibility of it. What represents a profit of 10 per cent. to one firm may represent ruin to another. There are certain factories, to my knowledge, which before the war and at the outset were equipped with very special plant. How is
106
any ordinary firm which has been forced from another trade to go on with this war work to compete in price with firms equipped with special plant? Then, again, you have large factories and small factories; the large factories command probably more money and certainly more machinery, and money, particularly at the present moment, means much higher skilled labour. Therefore you would stop the whole of the smaller factories. You may say, "Let them go," but if you do the greater part of the trade goes. The larger factories are engaged in manufacturing engines and all the large parts of aeroplanes, and they have not the time to make their own small tools. They depend upon a vast number of small factories, distributed throughout the country, to supply them. Without these implements they are unable to do their own business. They cannot make engines without these implements, and they cannot themselves make the implements.
With regard to the provision of machine tools, unfortunately the position here is also in a very unsatisfactory state. I have a letter from the Chairman of the Engineering Employers' Federation, and I will read one or two passages from it. He says—
"At the commencement of the war the output, of machine tools for the production of munitions was far below the requirements of the country, and a Machine Tool Department was set up by the Ministry for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient number of machine tools. This Department immediately went to the United States and placed large orders with American manufacturers of machine tools, and were thus enabled to get an increased supply. Unfortunately, they omitted to lake any steps to encourage the British manufacturer to increase his output."
Now that America has come into the war and needs her own output of machine tools for the production of her own war materials, it is impossible for her to export to the same extent as she had arranged to do before the war. Then the letter goes on to say—
"The facilities for the production of machine tools are now very little greater than they were, at the beginning of the war."
For my own part, I think that the Government did perfectly right to obtain from America what they could not get here and which they needed to have here; but why they did not at the same time take a wider view and pursue a safer policy, from my point of view, and encourage, home industries to produce what they

107
found they had to import, I am unable to understand. The import of these goods cost a great deal more money, because of the cost of freight, and it must also be remembered that it was money going out of the country for the improvement of the trade of other countries instead of remaining in this country for the improvement of our own trade. If the money had been kept in the country we should have had much greater developments of home industries, and probably should not have been in the position in which we are now. It is a matter which I thought it my duty again to bring to the notice of your Lordships, although I have already drawn your attention to it before. In fact, I am aware that in bringing forward the matter again I may incur the displeasure of the Government at a time when, in view of the possible reform of your Lordships' House, they may be in a position to deal drastically with offenders. The question is, Are you going to have what we all earnestly desire, a large and powerful Air Fleet which will command the world? What depends upon such an Air Fleet? Upon it depends victory and fair fighting conditions for the men at the Front, and the prevention of invasion, because a powerful offensive is the best defence you can possibly have.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has raised this question from the standpoint of one who is intimately concerned with and interested in the manufacture of aeroplanes, and it is quite unnecessary for me to add anything to the force of his concluding sentences, in which he urged the necessity for all activity in this particular direction. I only desire to make one or two general observations on the subject, feeling at the same time the doubt which, I think, must afflict most of us in these times, as to whether it is worth while in either House of Parliament, at any moment, to make general observations on any subject whatever.
The position of the machine tool industry or trade is one of extreme importance to the country. Many of us have lately fallen into the habit of speaking of trade rivalry of all kinds as though Germany were the only country concerned, and as though we had only to think in the future of putting economic pressure upon Germany, or of engaging in educational methods, many of them, as some desire, borrowed from Germany herself, in order to check that competition. But in this particular matter,
108
as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, the fact that the machine tool trade is so dormant as it is in this country, and as it has been for so long, in comparison with the trade in America, is due to the greater activity which for many years past has been exercised in it in the United States. That goes back many years. It goes back to the days after the Civil War, when the United States advanced a very large sum of Federal money for the foundation in every State of a college, of which the main purpose was to be the encouragement of agriculture and of the mechanical arts—that is to say, engineering. Those colleges were founded in every State. In all cases, so far as I know, they flourished and in many cases reached the most important dimensions. One of the best known of them before very long, by a private benefaction, developed into the famous Cornell University, and now in every State these great colleges exist. In some year in the 'nineties, another quarter of million a year was added, again from Federal funds, as a subvention to such colleges. The result is that in America there does exist an atmosphere of encouragement for engineering in its different forms which has led to the practical absorption by American industry of various branches of manufacture, of which that of machine tools is by no means the least. It has also happened from the existence of this atmosphere that manufacturers as a class have been more interested in the scientific development of their manufactures than has been the case in most countries of Europe, including this.
From this also has grown the fact that it is the custom in most of the great manufactories in the United States to settle down and specialise upon one particular development, instead of, as has happened almost invariably here, trying to make every type. Take machine tools as an instance. Those who make them here have tried to make a vast number of different types, whereas you will find in the United States that a firm adheres almost exclusively to the manufacture and the perfecting of a single type. I have been told that of late in the North of England attempts have been made to follow this example, and that it is now becoming a custom among groups of firms to unite for scientific purposes, as for instance in working by and through one engineering laboratory, while each firm concentrates upon one single kind of manufacture. I have not the least doubt

109
that this will tend to produce the right kind of competition with the manufacturers of the United States which we desire to see exercised. Of course, as the noble Lord opposite said, the Government were perfectly right in importing into this country in the crisis of the war every machine tool that they could possibly obtain. Some unluckily, as we all know, must have gone to the bottom of the ocean in company with other losses through enemy attack, but those who have been—as many of your Lordships undoubtedly have—round some of those institutions where fine work is going on, in gauge-making and the like, will have noted that almost without exception the best machine tools that are at work have come from America, and most grateful we are to our American cousins for having been able to provide us in this respect. As the noble Lord also said with equal truth, now that they are in the war themselves and manufacturing on an enormous scale, it obviously cannot be so easy for them to send tools here.
As regards the point of the second Question, as to whether the Government intend to take control of the whole output of precision tools, the word "control," of course, is a somewhat uncertain one. It is used now in Government utterances in more than one sense. But if thereby is merely meant that the supply and use of such tools is still to be under Government supervision, I can hardly suppose that anybody is likely to object. That the Government should endeavour now or in the future to become either the principal manufacturer or the principal user of machine tools would be, in my humble judgment, the greatest possible misfortune. There is no subject, as I think any competent engineer will tell you, in which the play of individual minds—the tendency towards particular small improvements, sometimes almost daily and weekly carried out—is more prominent than in this business of machine tool making and machine tool using. Therefore I hope that any further Government control which it is intended to apply will be of a loose and elastic sort, and not such as in any way to interfere with enterprise and invention, either of firms or of individuals.
LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to this Question, as it relates to the Ministry of Munitions to a very much greater extent than it does to the Air Ministry. When I first read the
110
Question as the noble Lord put it on the Paper I could not help feeling that there might possibly be some slight misconception in his mind when he asks, as he does, that the Air Ministry should "afford greater facilities for the construction of small tools of precision indispensable for aircraft." The facts of the situation are that the whole output of small tools is and has been dealt with by the Ministry of Munitions alone, and that a special section of the Machine Tools Department of the Ministry was set up for that purpose some time ago. It is the function of that section to increase supplies, to accelerate deliveries, and generally to control the distribution of the small tools required by the Aeronautical and other Government Departments. When the noble Lord asks that greater facilities should be given for the construction of small tools, I can only say that every possible facility is being given now for that purpose. I can assure your Lordships that the, Ministry of Munitions are fully alive to the importance of this question, and to the necessity for increasing the output from every possible available source. I would add, however, that, equally with that, the Ministry of Munitions are bound, before affording heavy financial assistance or providing machine tools which are urgently required elsewhere, to satisfy themselves that there is, at any rate, a reasonable prospect that this assistance will be made use of to its fullest extent, and that the maximum advantage will be obtained from the financial assistance or from the machine tools. The noble Lord then asks who are to be the members of the Air Council and what their respective duties are. That, of course, is outside my province entirely, and I understand that my noble friend Lord Rothermere has a word to say on the point if the House desires.
The noble Lord, in his second Question, asks whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Government contemplates taking control of the whole output of precision tools, and the effect of such a measure upon the output of aircraft. This was also referred to by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe. The Government, through the Small Tools Section of the Machine Tools Department, has controlled the supply of machine tools for a period now of over two years. The Small Tools Section was established in September, 1915, and deals with small tools of all descriptions, whether of home origin or imported. It is their function to deal with any question of

111
shortage experienced by any Department of the Government or by any contractor who holds a contract for Government work, and there is no intention of altering that procedure in any way. It is found to work very satisfactorily. That applies also to the question of machine tools, which are equally controlled in the same way and have been for two years.
The noble Lord inquires also as to the condition of the small tool trade and the machine tool trade. I am unable to give any figures, but I can say that the position generally is considered to be satisfactory. The output has increased very largely since 1915, and so far as can be seen at present it seems possible that all the demands can be dealt with by the Ministry of Munitions. I am unable to give any financial figures, but there has been a very large, increase over those of the preceeding year; and what is more satisfactory still is that during the six months, the average time which has elapsed since the last financial year closed, the increase has been on an even larger scale than the year before. As regards the machine tool trade, that also is in exactly the same condition. The output has increased to an enormous extent since the beginning of the war, and everything is being done to increase the dilution of labour so that the skilled men employed may be utilised to the best advantage. I trust that this answer will be considered satisfactory by the noble Lord.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE AIR BOARD (LORD ROTHERMERE): My Lords, I can inform the noble Lord (Lord Tenterden) as regards the composition of the Air Council, that an Order in Council—under Section 8, subsection (1), of the Air Force Act—will be issued at a very early date. This Order will define the constitution of the Air Council, and it is contemplated that it will provide for a representative of the Ministry of Munitions to be associated with the Council. That is all I can say at present.

STATUE OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Works have given a site in London for the erection of a replica of the statue of President Abraham Lincoln, by Mr. Barnard, of
112
which the original is in Cincinnati; whether any further steps have been taken, or are about to be taken, towards the erection of this replica; and what steps have been taken, or will be taken, before it is actually set up in London, to make sure that the statue in question commends itself to competent American opinion as a worthy representation of its subject.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, without overrating the importance of this subject, I think I may say that it is a matter of international good taste and good feeling. I admit that I have raised the question with a good deal of reluctance, but the representations that have been made to me, and I think to other noble Lords, by a great many of our American friends in London have convinced me that on the whole it is rather better that this subject of controversy should be talked about frankly. In itself the proposition of erecting in London a statue to President Lincoln, assuming it to be in any way a worthy statue, is one that we should all welcome very heartily indeed. Such a thing would be most acceptable to English people generally, so manifestly acceptable that it is not necessary for me to say a single word upon it.
But I think your Lordships will agree with me that the rather unusual step of setting up here a public monument to a statesman of a foreign country is the sort of thing which, if it is to be done at all, ought to be done well and with judgment. As your Lordships will have noticed in the newspapers, there is considerable controversy as to the good judgment that has been exercised in this matter. Your Lordships have seen enough representations of Abraham Lincoln to be aware that he was a man of a marked and in some ways singular, appearance; that his frame was long, gaunt, and angular. At the same time there is abundant testimony that when roused and on occasions he could bear himself with very impressive dignity indeed. His features, again, were also somewhat haggard in character; but, on the other hand, there is abundant testimony, ranging from Walt Whitman to the late Mr. Henry James, of the remarkable beauty not only of expression but of feature which impressed the observant eye. Consequently there have been few public men, few subjects for statues, who demanded such careful treatment on the part of the sculptor, or who

113
were both so capable of worthy and striking representation, and lent themselves so singularly to displeasing caricatures such as we should he sorry to perpetuate.
As to the position in which this question now stands, I need not say very much. I want to make it clear that I am not blaming any one. What I believe has happened is this. Your Lordships know there was a Joint International British-American Peace Centenary Committee which was constituted some time before the war with a view of celebrating the centenary of peace between the two countries, and I understand that at the meetings of that Committee there was a good deal of talk about somebody giving a statue of Lincoln to this country, and that the statue originally considered was not the statue by Mr. Barnard, but one by the well-known sculptor Mr. St. Gaudens. I want to make it clear, because there has been some misapprehension in the matter, that no definite offer was ever made by any person of this St. Gaudens statue which has been so much admired.
After a good deal of discussion on the subject, which remained in the air, I understand that Mr. Charles Taft, brother of ex-President Taft, very generously came forward with the offer of a replica of a statue by Mr. Barnard, and, there having been all this talk, since this statue had been set up in America and was admired by a good many people the, English members of the Committee very naturally accepted the offered gift, as I understand, at once. I do not wish to criticise their action. I, of course, fully recognise, as we all shall, the generosity of Mr. Charles Taft's offer, and the difficult position in which that Committee was placed upon discovering, after having accepted it, that their acceptance caused rather marked feelings of regret in various quarters. I quite sympathise with their views, but I do say that the delicacy of the situation that was caused does not get rid of this; His Majesty's Government who are asked to offer a permanent site in London for this statue of a great American statesman cannot, it seems to me, consider the gratitude due to a generous individual donor, or any personal matter of that kind. It is, I submit, their duty to be sure that the representation is prima facie a worthy one, and one which will be recognised as such by the compatriots of Lincoln, and one which shall express our very warm feelings.
The statue has been the subject of a good deal of protest of a sort to which I think the Government ought to pay serious attention. I am not going to read many quotations from the protests that have been made on the subject, but there are two that I must read. Mr. Robert Lincoln, lately American Ambassador of this country, the son and only surviving descendant of President Lincoln, said this—
"When the statue was exhibited in the early winter, I was deeply grieved by the result of the commission which Taft had given Barnard. The result is a monstrous figure, grotesque as a likeness of President Lincoln, and defamatory as an effigy. That my father should be represented in London or Paris by a statue such as that of which I am writing to you would be a cause of sorrow to me personally, the greatness of which I will net attempt to describe."
There is other testimony given by persons whose names are less well known, who knew President Lincoln in life and who all declare that the statue is very unlike him, and makes a distinctly disagreeable impression. The only one that I will quote is that of the late Mr. Choate, who was well known in this country. He says, giving an account of the advice he has given to some other person—
"I told him I had seen the statue and regarded it as a horrible tiling and a gross libel upon President Lincoln. I do not think it was ever submitted to our Committee or the Executive Committee of which I am a member to consider the subject. I said I thought it very deplorable that this horrible thing should be selected and set up right at the entrance of the House of Lords, where every American for all time would see it."
That is the rather weighty opinion of Mr. Choate.
I am aware that there are opinions on the other side, but the only expressions that I happen to have received on the other side myself—though I doubt not we shall hear more—have come from two letters in The Times, one of which is a brief letter by a gentleman I do not know. He states that millions admire the statue, which may be true. The other letter is in some respects so interesting that I am going to read to your Lordships a single sentence from it—
"The model for the figure was a man named C. A. Thomas, who was born, as his father and grandfather had been, on a farm only 15 miles from where Lincoln was born."
I do not know whether my noble friend opposite will agree with me, but a more insufficient recommendation for a portrait I can hardly conceive.
Your Lordships—and least of all myself—are not going to enter into a question of art criticism, but I think that, without setting up to be an art critic, and quite conceding that a statue which the public at large do not much like may have certain artistic qualities, we should all say that it was very undesirable to set up a big public statue of a great man which to the ordinary eye had the appearance of a violent caricature; and the representations which I happen to have seen of this statue, though in many respects they may be misrepresentations, do make it quite unmistakable that this figure has some of the attributes of a tremendous caricature. The feet, for instance, are colossal, and there is no reason to suppose that Lincoln had feet of very extraordinary size. On the other side, the shoulders are narrow and rapidly sloping, and are not the shoulders of a man of any great physical vigour or power; whereas, as everybody knows, Abraham Lincoln was a man of quite extraordinary physical strength and energy. So far as his photographs show, the main outlines of his figure bore no sort of resemblance to those of this statue. Anybody getting a representation of it and comparing it with a photograph of Lincoln would see for himself the differences.
I am very far from laying down the law and saving that this statue may not have countervailing artistic merits, or that there may not be a volume of opinion which would outweigh the strong feelings even of Lincoln's only surviving son, but I do say that when we have these very strong expressions of dissatisfaction at the existing proposal the Government would show good judgment and good feeling if, before committing themselves finally to giving a public site for the erection of this statue, they made, as they very easily can make, careful inquiry as to what really is the judgment of those most competent to express a view on this matter. The opinion of sculptors in London who know a good deal about the work of their colleagues in America might be considered
I ought to have mentioned that recently a rather weighty and highly reputable body in the United States, the National Academy of Design, passed through their Council a strong protest against the erection of this statue—a very marked step for a body of this kind to take in the case of the work of a living artist, their colleague. The Government with a little, care in the matter
116
could, I think, easily ascertain the prevailing opinion of competent art critics in America, and they might take the advice of representative sculptors in this country.
I ask this Question only for the purpose of urging that no final decision in the matter should be made until such careful consideration as I have suggested has been given to it by the Government. Before I sit down let me repeat again as earnestly as I can that I cannot agree with the suggestion which has been made that the Government are bound or that they would even be justified in permitting the erection of this statue merely because an individual generous American has come forward with the gift.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Earl replies I may be permitted, as chairman of the British Committee connected with this movement, to make a few observations respecting it. What is the history of this statue and of the controversy to which it has apparently given rise? When the British Committee, in concert and co-operation with a similar Committee in America (presided over by Mr. John Stewart) and a Committee in Canada, agreed, among their various objects in celebration of the centenary of peace between Great Britain and the United States, to the erection in London of statues of Washington and Lincoln, it was suggested at the time that probably a statue by Augustus St. Gaudens would be a suitable one for erection in this country, and an application was accordingly made to the Board of Works to know whether the Government would grant us a site for that purpose. I was not chairman of the Committee at that time, nor was I at the time when the Barnard statue was accepted, but I am only too willing to share full responsibility for what the Committee did. When, therefore, this proposal was made, the Board of Works replied—and I think the noble Earl below me (Lord Beauchamp) will explain the grounds on which they did it—that they would be pleased to afford a site at a suitable point in Westminster for the erection of a statue of Lincoln.
Time passed, and for one reason or another no statement was forthcoming from the American Committee who were to provide the statue. It was perfectly true, as anybody who has gone into the matter at all will agree, that there were objections to the St. Gaudens statue, which is part of a group and unsuited for the particular

117
position in which it was intended to place it. That, after all, was a matter more for the judgment of the American Committee than for ourselves, and we allowed time to pass, until we had received a communication from the chairman of the American Committee that a generous citizen, Mr. Charles P. Taft, was good enough to present to them for erection in London a replica of a statue by Barnard which, he said, was one very widely admired by many people in America. It had been already erected in Cincinnati, and although this is a form of art which perhaps does not particularly appeal to myself and I do not pretend to pass any judgment upon it, some rather ridiculous caricatures of the statue have been sent over here for publication in this controversy. Of course, in a matter of this sort the opponents have taken the greatest advantage of their case by taking a side view of the statue, which naturally represents its somewhat rough features in a very unfortunate manner. But I am not going to discuss whether it is or is not of the artistic merit which some people suggest it is. What I say is that many people of authority, and of much higher authority than those quoted by the noble Lord, have declared it to be a work of great ability indeed, and I think it is my duty to defend the generous donor and the accomplished artist who have been so good as to provide this replica for this country. Now that same replica has been presented by the same donor to the French Government and accepted by them, and it is to be erected in Paris.
I am going to quote only two authorities, but they are considerable ones, as to the merits of this statue. I will first of all quote someone who, I will not say is in the same category as the statesman's son, Mr. Robert Lincoln, but who at all events is a man of considerable weight. What does ex-President Roosevelt say in this matter? He says—
"At last we have the Lincoln of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. How long we have been waiting for this Lincoln. I feared with the passing of years it would never come; but here it is the living Lincoln, the great Democrat, The statue is unique; I know of no other so full of life. The greatest statue of our age has revealed the greatest soul of our age. One is worthy of the other. I congratulate Barnard with all my heart. He has given us Lincoln, the Lincoln we all know and love."
I am going to quote one other authority, because I shall be told that ex-President Roosevelt is no artistic authority of great
118
distinction. That may or may not be the case. But I do not think that anybody will deny that the other authority is one who is recognised as a great artist—that is, Mr. John S. Sargent, the eminent painter. The editor of a paper called the Touchstone says—
"I am at liberty to quote Mr. Sargent [John S. Sargent, one of the greatest portrait painters that America has ever produced] as paying to Mr. Barnard I have no words with which to tell you how much I like your work.'"
Here are two authorities, one representative, if you like, of the "man in the street," and the other representative of the artistic world. I quote them only because I wish the House to understand that there are two sides to this question. This work may not be a work of great artistic genius. I am not prepared to discuss that. All I say is that the Committee, in my opinion, have taken the very proper step of delaying any action in this matter until the end of the war, and in that way we are co-operating with the. Board of Works and the Government, who, I understand, have explained that no shipping facilities can be given at the present time for any statue to be sent to this country. In the interval I sincerely trust that American friends will agree among themselves as to the particular statue which they desire to be erected on this site at Westminster. I am not going to offer an opinion as to whose work that statue is likely to be, but I did think it my duty here to protest against the very strong and unjust criticism which has been passed upon a distinguished artist who has many friends on the other side of the Atlantic, and indirectly upon the generous donor, Mr. Charles P. Taft, who I think ought to be remembered with some gratitude for what he has offered to do.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanmore is indisposed, and I have been asked to communicate to the House the views of the First Commissioner of Works. In February, 1914, Lord Beau-champ, the then First Commissioner of Works, was approached by the British Committee for the Celebration of the One-hundredth Anniversary of Peace among English-Speaking Peoples with a request for a site for a statue of Abraham Lincoln, which was to be presented to the British nation by the American National Committee. It was suggested at that time that the gift should be a replica of the statue by

119
the well-known sculptor Augustus St. Gaudens. The Committee made a request for a site for this statue at the south-east corner of the Canning Enclosure, fronting Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square. Lord Beauchamp gave the matter careful and personal consideration, and decided that the site in question was appropriate for the proposed statue and offered it to the Committee. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury agreed to the, statue of Lincoln being transferred to the charge of the Office of Works under the Public Statues (Metropolis) Act, 1854.
Nothing further was heard, either from the American or British Committees, until March of this year, when the present First Commissioner received a letter from one of the honorary secretaries of the British Committee saying that the American Committee had recently expressed their desire to substitute for the St. Gaudens monument of Lincoln previously offered, what they considered to be a superior monument—namely, that by Mr. George Gray Barnard, an eminent sculptor, which had recently been erected and unveiled in the city of Cincinnati. The statue in question was considered to be a speaking likeness of the, great President. The First Commissioner has since learnt that the Barnard statue is the only one that the American Committee has to offer, as it has been provided by the generosity of Mr. Taft, brother of the ex-President, and the casting has actually been made and the plinth prepared. The First Commissioner took all the steps that he could to ascertain the general feeling of artists as to these rival works, but found, as is usual, a wide divergence of opinion, In view, however, of the strong backing of the Barnard statue by many eminent men, both artistic and political, he agreed to accept the Barnard replica instead of the St. Gaudens.
Considerable controversy as to the rival merits of the two statues began to appear in the Press both here and in America, and Questions were asked on the matter in another place. The First Commissioner took the line that, inasmuch as this was a gift from the American people to this nation, it was not possible for him to question the artistic selection of the donors, who comprise men of well-known artistic standing. He felt, as I am sure your Lordships will feel, that His Majesty's Government and the country would warmly welcome a representation worthy
120
of so illustrious an American statesman in the capital of the Empire. No protest of any kind has reached him from America, and only within the last few days he has received a telegram giving a long list of names of distinguished men of the political world, men of letters and art, and editors of important newspapers, who consider that the statue in question has high artistic merit and is entirely worthy of the two countries and of Abraham Lincoln. This indicates the disparity of judgment which these matters excite. It is necessary only to compare the view taken by my noble friend behind me and the view expressed by Lord Weardale as to the merits of this figure. These are matters which can be settled only by a personal examination of the work of art concerned; and I question whether Lord Charnwood is better able to judge of the merits of this statue than ex-President Roosevelt, who was nine years of age only when President Lincoln died.
In this telegram to which I have referred the First Commissioner was asked to grant a permit of tonnage for the immediate shipment of the Lincoln statue by Mr. Barnard, which has been cast and is ready with its pedestal. The First Commissioner, after consultation with other Ministers, decided that it would not be right to allow tonnage for any work of art to be, conveyed across the seas at this time, and he communicated this by telegram to the American Committee. Meanwhile the First Commissioner has recently heard from the American Society in London that they consider there is a paramount necessity, before finally selecting any design, to consider the position and surroundings in which the statue of Lincoln will be placed, and they have generously offered to contribute substantially towards the cost of the statue which may ultimately be erected on the basis of these conditions.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords. I do not rise to take any part in the discussion of the artistic merits of the statue but I should like to suggest to the First Commissioner of Works, through the noble Earl who has just spoken, that noble Lords-might have an opportunity of seeing the photographs of the actual statue at Cincinnati, which, I believe, are in his possession. If the photographs were placed in the Library of this House they would probably be illuminating to those of your Lordships who have not at present seer any representation of the statue.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned in connection with this statue I ought, perhaps, to say a few words upon the subject. I have not been able to refer to the Papers from which the noble Earl quoted, but I am sure that the statement which he read to your Lordships adequately and accurately represented what took place at that time. For my own part, I confess that I should be most unwilling to join in a censorship of any sort or kind, even a censorship of taste; and if the American Committee decided upon offering this statue by Mr. Barnard. I am sure that the attitude which was indicated by the noble Earl as that of the First Commissioner of Works is a proper attitude to take, and that he will be well justified in accepting it.
I confess that it was with some alarm that I heard one of the suggestions of the noble Lord (Lord Charnwood) when he put forward the idea that we should ask representative sculptors in this country to express their opinions upon the merits of the statue. We are notoriously behind other countries in the art; of sculpture, with the exception, of course, of two or three men of outstanding and high merit; but I should indeed deprecate the idea that a statue of this kind should be judged by the same criterion of taste as that which dictated the erection of the Queen Victoria Memorial. I venture to impress upon your Lordships the fact that this statue has found no critics, apparently, in Paris, and that the French people seem willing to accept it.
I wish to put forward a suggestion in regard to the excellent idea of my noble friend Lord Harcourt. He suggested that photographs should be placed in the Library of this House; but I trust, if this is done, that care will be taken to see that the photographs represent the statue from every point of view. There is no difficulty at all in misrepresenting most statues. From certain points of view the statue even of Nelson in Trafalgar Square lends itself to misrepresentation; and I think it would be a great misfortune if we were obliged to come to a conclusion with regard to the statue in question after having seen only one or two aspects of it.
In conclusion, I may perhaps be allowed to say as one who has ventured to dabble in the art himself, that I am not so alarmed as the noble Lord opposite by his sugges-
122
tion that a model was used by Mr. Barnard to help him in modelling his statue. It seems to me that it was almost inevitable that he should call in the help of somebody in order that he might represent naturally, not the face, nor, probably, the hands, but the finish of the statue, and the way in which the dress would hang upon the figure. That Mr. Barnard in this matter should have called in the help of a man who was brought up in much the same way as President Lincoln, and who was probably, in the opinion of some people, well qualified to judge of tin; appearance of the deceased President, seems to me no unwise step on his part, but, indeed, one which it was inevitable for him to take. In these matters it is generally exceedingly difficult to come to a judgment: it is merely a matter of taste, upon which every opinion differs. I would venture again to say that it seems to me that the First Commissioner of Works is indeed acting wisely in withholding action at the present time and abstaining from taking either one side or the other in this controversy.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, before this controversy ends I desire to say a word, because I should like to support the view taken by Lord Charnwood. I have had conversations with representatives of America in this country, and I am bound to admit that the views they have expressed are very much against the Barnard statue. I do not, like others, dabble in works of art, being more or less of a Philistine, and I am bound to admit that what appears to the artistic eye, like a work of art very often appears to me to be a caricature. However, I think it should be made perfectly clear—and Lord Charnwood took care to emphasise the point—that there was nothing whatever to be said against the generous offer of Mr. Charles Taft. There is no desire to minimise that generous offer, but I own I have not been convinced by the quotations that have been made. The noble Lord (Lord Weardale) quoted Mr. Sargent, who said "I have no words with which to tell you how much I like it." That suggests to me a rather two-edged compliment, because while many of us have no words in which to say how much we like a particular thing, we often have plenty in which to say how much we do not. The point which we have to bear in mind is the effect which this is going to have upon the family and upon the American public.

123
One of the representations made to me about this particular statue by a man who knew Lincoln was that it seemed to embody in his mind all the nasty things and spiteful attacks made against Lincoln when a boy: and if that is the impression which it is going to convey to the ordinary American mind, then we should be very careful before we accept it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I should like to intervene after what has fallen from Lord Beauchamp, but I do not do so except to enter a strong protest against his statement that this country has no standing in the art of sculpture. He is wrong; and I think if he will appeal to those who have made a study of plastic art here and abroad, he will find that his own view is not shared by persons who are qualified to form a judgment. That he should have expressed this view with so much freedom and such confidence casts very well-merited doubt to my mind upon the aphorisms which he put forward about this statue. He said it was merely a question of taste. It is not merely a question of taste. A work of art may be good or bad, whether it appeals to the taste of this man or of that; but he did not strengthen the case for this statue by saying that a model was necessary in order to represent the finish, and that as the model was a man brought up in the same sort of way as President Lincoln he was a suitable person from whom to take a personal likeness. I will certainly do what the noble Viscount
124
Lord Harcourt, suggested, and lay the matter before my friend Sir Alfred Mond. I have not the slightest doubt that we shall be able to place photographs, if they exist, in the Library, and I hope they will not be photographs which seriously misrepresent the statue. There is no reason why they should. They will presumably be taken under the direction of the Committee and by a responsible photographer, who will have taken them from every point of view.
LORD WEARDALE: The only representations of this statue that we have had in any newspaper in this country give simply a side view. I therefore sincerely trust that the noble Earl will take steps to secure a full-face view of the statue.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will certainly do my best to get views of the whole of the statue; but, of course, for every person who looks at a statue in the full face at least two look at it from the profile, one way or the other.

SOUTH STAFFORUSHIRE MOND GAS POWER AND HEATING) (No. 2) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I move that the House do adjourn until Thursday.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before seven o'clock.