Lords Sitting of 6 February 1918

ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK had the following Questions on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether under the Order in Council now in force "alternative pensions" may in certain cases be granted to widows of men who have lost their lives during the war, such alternative pensions being computed on the pre-war earnings of the deceased men; whether the pre-war earnings on which the alternative pension is to be based are defined to be the average weekly earnings during the twelve months preceding the outbreak of war; whether under the Instructions for the Assessment of Alternative Pensions issued by the Ministry of Pensions, the average weekly earnings in the ease of sailors serving before August, 1914, are to be computed from the actual pay drawn by the man as ascertained from the Admiralty ; whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the Admiralty refuse to give to War Pensions Local Committees the information necessary to enable them to compute alternative pensions on this basis, and that consequently in some cases widows of sailors do not receive the alternative pension to which they are entitled under the terms of the Order; and whether they will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view of remedying this hardship.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put these Questions on the Paper at the request of the War Pensions Local Committee of the county of Hampshire, of which I happen to be the Chairman. I believe that the Questions on the Paper accurately represent the provisions as to the assessment of alternative pensions that are contained in the Order in Council now in force; therefore, it is unnecessary for me to trouble your Lordships with any further remarks upon that matter. But the Hampshire War Pensions Local Committee are having a difficulty in obtaining a statement of the pre-war earnings of the men when they were in the service of the Admiralty prior to the outbreak of the war. The Admiralty apparently decline to do more than supply particulars of the rate of pay
394
and allowances for the men in force at the date of mobilisation. Moreover, the instructions of the Ministry of Pensions to War Pensions Local Committees with regard to the assessment of alternative pensions purpose to limit the applicant to such information as the Admiralty supply on a prescribed form, and that prescribed form provides for particulars of the pay at the date of the outbreak of war only.
I do not know whether the Government will be prepared to say what authority the Ministry of Pensions has for varying the rate of pension from the scale that is laid down in the Order in Council now in force. I will admit, however, that in the majority of cases a man's position gradually improves with his service, and that it may be an advantage to the man to take 1914 as the standard rather than the average over the preceding twelve months. But there must be a considerable number of cases when that is not so, and I venture to give your Lordships an instance to the point which has come before the notice of the Hampshire War Pensions Local Committee. A certain Mrs. Wade, the widow of A. E. Wade, acting chief engine-room artificer, who served in the Navy from March 26, 1903, until his death on August 22, 1916, applied to the Comity War Pensions Local Committee for an alternative pension. It is the duty of the Local Committee first of all to decide whether the applicant, who is receiving a minimum pension, is entitled to receive an alternative pension, which in some respects is a little more beneficial to the recipient. Secondly, it is the duty of the Local Committee to recommend the assessment on which that pension shall be made. Now the Committee came to the conclusion that Mrs. Wade was, under the Reglations, entitled to receive an alternative pension. The information before the Local Committee went to show that Wade had previous to the outbreak of war, served several Years in a submarine, that he was recalled to the submarine after the war was declared, but that on August 4, 1914, which was the date for the assessment of the pension by the Admiralty, he was serving on a battleship at a considerably lower pay and allowances than he had been receiving during a considerable part of the preceding twelve months; and therefore for the Committee to have assessed the widow's pension on the basis of the man's pay on August 4, 1914, instead of on his average earnings for the twelve months preceding mobilisation, would have considerably

395
reduced the amount of the pension which the Committee contend the widow is entitled to receive under the Order in Council. We consequently made a representation of the case to the Ministry of Pensions, which elicited a reply acknowledging the receipt of the letter re A. E. Wade, and stating that for the purpose of an alternative pension the pre-war earnings of a sailor serving at the outbreak of war might be computed from the actual pay which he was receiving at the date of mobilisation, with an addition representing the value of emoluments as set out in Schedule I of the Instructions, and that an application for an additional pension in the case of Mrs. Wade should therefore be submitted on that basis.
The Secretary of the Local War Pensions Committee was then instructed to write to the Ministry of Pensions to the effect that it appeared to the Local Committee that this method of computation might in some cases be inequitable, and that in the case of Mrs. Wade it was understood that until a few months prior to the outbreak of war the deceased served in submarines and was then in receipt of higher pay than at the date of mobilisation, and that moreover the method of computation now proposed did not appear to accord with the pre-war earnings as defined in the Royal Warrant and Order in Council, that definition being a man's average weekly earnings during the twelve months preceding the outbreak of war. The reply which the Committee received to that letter was that at the present time it was impossible for the Admiralty to compile the particulars from which the exact average weekly earnings were to be calculated, and they were of opinion that the method now in use as an alternative to such calculation afforded in the great majority of cases an equitable assessment of the man's actual pre-war income; but that if in the case of the late Mr. Wade there were grounds for thinking his actual earnings would show an average materially higher than the figure furnished by the Admiralty, if the information supporting that view could be supplied they would endeavour to verify the particulars. It must be understood, however, that such verification must involve considerable delay, and it was quite out of the question to take similar action in all cases of naval officers' pensions.
My comment on that letter is that it is obviously impossible for the widow to
396
furnish the War Pensions Local Committee with evidence as to the actual amounts that her husband received in each week during the year ended August 4, 1914. The Admiralty alone has access to that information. My Lords, I would submit that the principle of dealing with pensions on a calculation which affords in the great majority of cases an inequitable settlement, or in other words a system of averaging, and so computing pensions that while one applicant may receive too little another may receive more than he is strictly entitled to, is an absolutely wrong one; and I would contend that all persons in very humble circumstances of life should receive the actual pensions to which they are entitled. I hope that His Majesty's Government may be able to give an assurance that the Ministry of Pensions will in future furnish to War Pensions Local Committees the information which is necessary to enable them to assess alternative pensions in accordance with the scale laid down in the Order in Council which is now in force. I beg to put the Questions standing in my name.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I am afraid I cannot reply to the case of Mrs. Wade, to which the noble Earl has referred, as I had no warning that this particular instance was to be mentioned; but my reply, I think, will cover a general definition of the pre-war earnings and the method adopted by the Ministry. An alternative pension may be granted to a sailor or soldier disabled in the war if he can show that his minimum pension, with children's allowances (if any), together with the average earnings of which he remains capable, are less than his pre-war earnings. Under the Warrant pre-war earnings are to be taken as the whole of the pre-war earnings up to 50s. a week and one half of any such earnings between 50s. and 100s. a week. The widow of a sailor or soldier who is in receipt of a minimum pension may be granted an alternative pension equal to half the alternative pension which might have been awarded to her husband had he survived and been incapable of supplementing his pension by earnings. The widow's alternative pension represents, therefore, one-half of her husband's pre-war earnings up to 50s. a week, and one quarter of any such earnings between 50s. and 100s. a week. A widow is only entitled to an alternative pension if it exceeds the amount

397
of her minimum pension and children's allowances. The main factor in the assessment of an alternative pension is thus the pro-war earnings of the man. The Royal Warrant and Order in Council provide that "pre-war earnings" shall, in the case of men who were in employment, be the average weekly earnings for the twelve months ending August 4, 1914, computed generally in the same manner as for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.
It will be recognised that, owing to the lapse of time, the verification of pre-war earnings is, in many cases, a matter of considerable difficulty. In the case of small businesses time sheets have often been destroyed for the whole or part of the year before the war, or insufficient records were kept. In large businesses records are available in most instances, but the depletion of staff renders it a matter of extreme difficulty for the employer to work out what is often a complicated calculation. And the circumstances which make it difficult for employers of men in civil life to give accurate particulars of pre-war earnings are present to a much larger degree in the case of men who were serving in the Navy or Army at the outbreak of war. The much larger numbers of men concerned in relation to the individual employer and the pressure of work on the staff of the Admiralty and War Office are factors which must be taken into consideration.
The Ministry recognised at the outset that it would be desirable, if possible, for the pre-war earnings of serving sailors and soldiers to be assessed in a precise manner. They conferred with the Departments concerned, and on the urgent representation of the Admiralty and War Office a certain procedure was adopted, which forms, as I presume, the basis of the views expressed in the noble Earl's Question. It was impressed upon the Ministry that it would be practically impossible for the Admiralty or the War Office to compile particulars which would enable the actual average weekly earnings over the twelve months to be computed, and it was urged that an equitable assessment could be obtained by reference to the pay drawn on mobilisation. The Ministry have agreed to adopt this method as providing a working rule for Service cases. It may not be theoretically accurate, but it is thought to be not unfair. In fact, it is in very many cases actually favourable to the pensioner by
398
reason of the sailor or soldier having earned a progressive increment or promotion during the year previous to mobilisation.
The Ministry do not, however, desire that the method of computation which they have had to adopt and which the consider forms an equitable basis in the vast majority of cases, should cause hardship in an individual case. Where, therefore, an applicant for an alternative pension has good grounds for considering that the average earnings calculated over the whole twelve months would show a figure materially higher than that furnished by the Admiralty under the present procedure, the Minister is prepared to ask the Admiralty, as an exceptional measure, to endeavour to furnish a complete statement of the man's earnings for that period.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I thank the noble Earl for Ins reply. I do not know whether he has quite met the point which I endeavoured to put. I gave the case of Mrs. Wade only as an illustration of what may happen. Had this woman's husband joined the Navy after the outbreak of war, there would have been no difficulty in assessing her pension on the average weekly earnings of her husband. We have had no difficulty in those cases in obtaining information, and this seems to me rather a hard case. Because of the fact that this man happened to be for some years serving in the Navy this woman seems to be in a position in which she is likely to receive a lower scale of pension than she is entitled to under the terms of the Order in Council.

GERMAN PRISONERS.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether a statement can be made as to the number of German prisoners in the United Kingdom, the number employed, and nature of their employment, particularly of those engaged in agriculture.
THE ASSISTANT UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, according to the latest figures supplied to me, there are now 49,817 combatant prisoners in the United Kingdom, and of this number 28,050 are at present employed and 3,491 have been allocated for various forms of labour, arrangements for which have not yet been completed. The balance consists of officers, non-commissioned

399
officers, men in hospital, men who are unfit for work, and men who are entitled to exchange and repatriation. Under a recent arrangement the prisoners are employed on constructional and other work, such as road-making, under the Admiralty and the War Office. A large number are engaged in felling timber and 4,280 are employed in agriculture. Four thousand additional prisoners are expected shortly from France, and will be put on agricultural work. In addition to these combatant prisoners, as the noble Lord is probably aware, there are about 29,000 civilian interned prisoners here consisting of about 25,000 German and 4,000 Austrian subjects. Of these between 1,500 and 2,000 are out on licence for various forms of work, chiefly agriculture. I do not know whether my noble friend will be satisfied with the figures that I have given, but to my mind they are profoundly unsatisfactory, and it must be obvious to everybody that the Germans represent nothing but a useless and expensive incubus so far as we are concerned.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the last Amendments made by the Lords, and Commons Amendments to certain of the last Amendments made by the Lords.
[The page and line refer to Bill No. 113.]
The Commons disagree to the Amendments proposed by the Lords in lieu of the first Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:—
Because they consider the partial application of proportional representation as now proposed by the Lords is open to at least as much objection as the original proposal, and they are therefore unwilling to adopt it, especially in view of the strong objections which have been expressed by the representatives of some of the principal constituencies affected.
The Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 139, line 25 (to leave out paragraph 6), but in lieu thereof propose the following Amendment:
Page 139, line 24, at the end insert:
"6. Subsection (4) of section forty of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall have effect as if the words "for the time being" were substituted for the words "at the passing of this Act"; and, in order to meet any difficulty (consequent on the change of boundaries under this provision) in filling casual vacancies by election in the London County Council, any such casual vacancy shall
400
until the first election of the whole number of councillors which takes place after the passing of this Act, be filled by means of the choice by the Council of a person to fill the vacancy, and the councillor so chosen shall hold office in such manner and in all respects as if he had been elected to fill the vacancy.
"The Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15 (to leave out subsection (1), but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:"
Page 14, line 15, at beginning insert:
".—(1) If at an election for one member of Parliament in any parliamentary borough there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act."
And they make the following consequential Amendments in the Bill.
Page 14, line 33, after ("transferable") insert ("or the alternative").
Page 19, line 41, after (" of ") insert (" the alternative or of ").
Page 26, line 5, insert :
"(7) The expression 'alternative vote' means a vote—

"(a) capable of being so given as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order ; and

"(b) capable of being transferred to a subsequent choice in case no one candidate has a clear majority of the total number of votes counted at any count:"

Page 51, line 17, paragraph 32, in the footnote, after ("transferable") insert ("or alternative")
Page 51, line 17, paragraph 39, in the footnote, after ("transferable") insert ("or alternative").
The Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 51, line 7, with the following Amendment:
Leave out ("mentioned above") and insert ("first above mentioned")
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be considered forthwith.— (Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, if I am not out of order I should like to say two or three words in reference to the communication we have just received from the House of Commons. It seems to me, if I may say so without disrespect, to be a very deplorable and a very discouraging communication. It confronts this House with a grave situation—grave in so far as it affects the relations of the two Houses, grave also in so far as it affects the prospects of this Bill, which, although it contains provisions that to some of us are very distasteful, I believe we should all

401
desire to see placed on the Statute Book before this session comes to an end.
I rise for the purpose of asking the House, whether even now, it may not be possible to construct a bridge which can be crossed without loss of self-respect by all of us whatever our opinions, and which may be found to load the way to a solution which all of us might be ready to accept. I am bold enough to say that I believe this question ought to be capable of an affirmative answer, always assuming that there is a reasonable amount of good will on all sides; and I, for one, am prepared to assume that that good will does exist, and not on one side of the House alone. If I had to give an illustration of the kind of good will which I have in mind, I should refer to the speech delivered the night before last by my noble friend who leads the House. Your Lordships will recollect that in the course of that speech Lord Curzon inquired whether some scheme could not be thought of, even now, which would reconcile all these conflicting interests and secure the necessary amount of support. Then he proceeded to develop—not as a suggestion of his own, but as a hypothetical question which might have occurred to some other member of the House—a plan of which the following was the outline. He suggested that we might have got what we wanted with a little less speed, but with equal certainty in the long run—I dwell upon the words "with equal certainty in the long run" and with more fair and logical representation of interests. The noble Earl went on—
"You might have been willing to insert something into the Bill before it passed, appointing a body of Commissioners † to deal with this subject."
These Commissioners might, he thought, have been instructed to frame a scheme applicable to a certain number of constituencies, or a certain number of seats in the House of Commons, including a fair proportion both of urban and agricultural interests—a very important point. The noble Earl suggested one hundred as an appropriate number for inclusion in such a scheme.
Then he went on with the suggestion that, under a proposal of this kind, the Report of the Commissioners would be laid on the Table of Parliament and discussed and amended, if Parliament so desired, or rejected if Parliament so desired, or
402
accepted. Then With Very proper and natural caution he guarded himself by saying—
"Whether it would have been acceptable to the House of Commons I cannot say, but at any rate it would have appealed to me, and to some of those with whom I act, as being more practical, and I think, on the whole, a fairer method of approaching this difficult problem than that which the noble Earl has suggested."
This proposal of the noble Earl impressed me very favourably, and I think the House generally recognised the sincerity with which it was made.
But I think the House also remained under the impression that there was a weak point "in the heel" of the argument I mean this—that under the scheme, the hypothetical scheme which the noble Earl outlined to us, the Government would no doubt have had a share of responsibility for the original procedure to be followed in dealing with the Bill now before Parliament, but the scheme once lodged would have been left to take its chance in the hurly burly of the next session of Parliament. It must have been present to all our minds that in those circumstances it was by no means impossible that the scheme, however much it might have been blessed at the outset, might subsequently have been done to death in another place by the kind of destructive criticism to which any partial scheme of proportional representation is so readily exposed. Under a proposal of that kind—if I may summarise it in a sentence—His Majesty's Government would have taken a conspicuous part, and a willing part, in the launching of the ship, but they would have taken no responsibility whatever for navigating it into port. Everything depends upon that. What we desire is that they should assume a share of responsibility, not only for launching the ship on its voyage, but for seeing it through the shoals and quicksands which it will have to traverse before it arrives at its destination.
Our position is this. By "our" position I mean the position of a good many noble Lords with whom I have had the privilege of conferring on this question. I think we are quite ready to catch the ball which the noble Earl who leads the House threw to us the other night. I, at any rate, am here to say that I am willing this evening to move an Amendment which has been drawn upon the general lines indicated by the noble

403
Earl—but he will, I know, allow me to speak quite frankly to him. I do not think it will be worth my while to do so unless he is able to give us, on the part of ins colleagues, an assurance that, in the event of the Amendment becoming part of the Act, His Majesty's Government will adopt, as a Government proposal, the Report of the Commissioners and do their utmost to see it carried into law. I know, of course, that I am asking the noble Earl to abandon that position of neutrality which he and his colleagues have throughout assumed towards this Bill, but I do venture to suggest that the time has come when it is scarcely possible for a strong Government to maintain an attitude of mere neutrality in the face of the grave constitutional issues which confront us to-day. To do so, I cannot help thinking, would be an abdication of the position which any Government should be prepared to assume when a great crisis is in progress.
I am quite aware that, even if His Majesty's Government were to signify their readiness to give us the assurance for which I ask, we who are in favour of proportional representation will still be left with something falling considerably short of absolute security. I grant that. But I say on the other hand that we should have a kind of security which I, for one, should never under-rate—I mean the security of an assurance given by honourable men that they would do their best to carry this business through. I venture to say, therefore, my Lords, that if my noble friend is able to tell me that he can give us an assurance of that kind, I am quite ready to move my Amendment. I believe he has been made, unofficially, aware of the terms in which it is couched. I do not conceal my feelings that a solution on these lines would be eminently desirable. It would have the effect of extricating us from a serious crisis; it would have the effect of saving this House from a rebuff, which I do not think we have deserved; and last, but not least, it would save this Bill, which, as I have said, I for one cordially desire to see on the Statute Book.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in his opening sentences the noble Marquess described the constitutional position with which we are faced as grave. I do not think that that language was too strong to employ, and I hope, for my part, that nothing that I shall say will add to the
404
gravity. Rather do I hope that it may proceed some distance in diminishing the gravity of the situation, just as indeed the conciliatory and courteous tones adopted by the noble Marquess will, in my opinion, have facilitated this way of approaching the case this afternoon. The noble Marquess accompanied his prefatory remarks by a further declaration, very welcome from him, and, I am sure, expressing the sentiments of the whole House, when he hoped that nothing which is now done would have the effect of retarding the passage into law of a Bill which, whatever may be the individual opinions of members of this House or of the other House of Parliament upon the different portions of it, it is the broad, general, and unanimous desire of the community to place upon the Statute Book with as little delay as possible.
The noble Marquess then dealt with the situation which has now arisen. The position is this. In another place the Amendment which was carried by a substantial majority on the Motion of Lord Selborne in your Lordships' House on Monday evening has been rejected, and rejected by a majority which can hardly be described as otherwise than overwhelming. I confess, my Lords, that that decision caused no great surprise to me; indeed, I ventured to predict it to your Lordships' House. It was, I think, hardly to be expected that the House of Commons would accept at this stage a solution of this difficult problem which they had certainly twice, if not three times, previously repudiated. It was certain, as I ventured to point on that occasion, that the Members for the constituencies to whom it was proposed to apply this scheme would in several cases protest strongly against it. That was the attitude that was at once assumed, as might have been anticipated, by the London Members, and by the leading Member for Birmingham, followed by a Division in another place in which this attitude of protest was supported by a considerable majority of the House of Commons.
Again, I think that it was hardly to be expected that the House of Commons, in the expiring hours of the session and in the last stages of this Bill, should be willing to accept what was described in that House, I think by the Home Secretary, as a great revolutionary change, in deference to the pressure which it is in the power of your Lordships, by the exercise of your constitutional rights, to apply. But may I say,

405
in using the words "constitutional rights," that while it is open to any one in this House of Parliament or outside to dispute the wisdom or the expediency of the conduct which the majority of your Lordships' House have on more than one occasion during the last fortnight seen fit to adopt, I for one am strongly of opinion that to accuse you of having departed in any degree from the exercise of your legitimate constitutional right is an attack not merely upon the conduct but upon the constitutional prerogatives of this House, which, as its Leader, I should feel bound to resent. I have no sympathy myself with language that was employed, I think by more than one speaker, in another place which seemed to dispute your Lordships' rights in this matter. I have differed from the majority of your Lordships as to the method and the occasion on which you have chosen to exercise those rights, but, if anybody challenges the exercise of those rights on constitutional grounds, on behalf of this House I must take leave to repudiate his action altogether.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Marquess, in tones of admirable conciliation, has said that he was anxious to construct a bridge between opposing parties with reference to this matter, and he appealed with perfect fairness for the exercise of good will on both sides. I think that my speech the other evening showed a sufficiency of good will upon my part. I think that the noble Marquess's speech this afternoon shows that I can rely upon a similar spirit from himself and those for whom he speaks. He referred to that speech of mine, and to the hypothetical suggestion which I then threw out. It did not, if my memory is quite accurate, meet with a very favourable reception at the moment that it was made; in fact, I recall one or two speeches in which it was received with a certain amount of suspicion, if not open hostility. But I am prepared to believe that on reflection some noble Lords at any rate have found in that speech and in that suggestion merits of which I myself was hardly conscious, and which they themselves did not appear to recognise at the time. It was certainly a sincere suggestion on my part, and although it carried with it no official or Government authority, it was intended by me as a definite and practical contribution, for
406
what it was worth, to the solution of this question.
The noble Marquess, I understand, is prepared to move an Amendment embodying in correct Parliamentary form the substance of that suggestion, and I do not imagine, if he carries out that intention, that there will be any difficulty in arriving at an agreement as to the actual terms in which the suggestion is embodied. But the noble Marquess went on to say that there was a weak point in the scheme—the "vulnerable heel of Achilles." I gather that what he asked for was some assurance from the Government that not merely would they accept responsibility for the starting of this vessel, if it be launched on to the waters of political controversy, but that they would assume a share of responsibility for its passage through the difficult shoals which it might have to navigate. I was interested to note that the noble Marquess used the words "a share of responsibility," because, had he asked me to take up the position that the Government should accept full and complete responsibility, it would have been a position which I could not on behalf of the Government have assumed. Indeed, your Lordships must remember, as I must remember, that in anything that I am now saying I have no right whatever to speak for what may be thought of this proposal, or for the action that may be taken upon it, in another place. I am concerned primarily with what passes in this House; and I am concerned undoubtedly, in response to an appeal such as that to which we have just listened, to give my impression of what the attitude of the Government towards such a proposal as this both in this House and in the other House might be. My Lords, as regards the kind of assurance for which the noble Marquess asks, these I think were the words that he used. He invited an assurance that, in the event of this Amendment becoming part of the Act, the Government will adopt, as a Government proposal, the Report of the Commissioners, and do their utmost to see it carried into effect. Are those the exact words?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Those were the exact words that the noble Marquess used. I am sure that by those words he does not mean one thing. He does not mean that it would be possible for the

407
Government to pledge themselves to accept in advance a scheme drawn up by Commissioners who have not yet been appointed, and of the nature of which they cannot, therefore, possibly at this stage have any idea. No one, least of all a statesman of the experience of the noble Marquess, would dream of asking any Government to give such a pledge, and no Government which had any sense of its own responsibility and its duty to both Houses of Parliament would dream of giving a pledge in that particular form. I may put it in this way. It is possible—though I do not say it is at all likely—that the Commissioners might draw up a scheme which would be repudiated by public opinion, which would excite very general criticism and hostility in the country, and it would obviously be a ridiculous position if the Government in advance found themselves committed to the absolute support of a scheme of which they knew nothing, and which might, when it was prepared, excite more public criticism than it would receive public approval. Therefore I think I am justified in assuming that no pledge of that sort is what the noble Marquess asks or expects me to give.
He may, then, very fairly go on to say, In the event of this Amendment being accepted in your Lordships' House and finding favour in another place, what will be the attitude of the Government towards it? That I will endeavour to explain. What the Government, I think, in the event of this support in both Houses being given, will be prepared to do, is this. When this Commission has reported—and I do not think that any very long time need be occupied in its labours—the Government will be prepared to treat the Report in the same way as they treated the Report of the Speaker's Conference. Let me explain what I mean. They will submit it to the House of Commons as a whole. The House of Commons must have the right to determine whether the Report as a whole shall or shall not be adopted as the basis of discussion. That is a right which the House of Commons could never be expected to surrender, and I am sure will not surrender in the present case. And, apart from the question of right, it is obviously the most convenient and the regular method of procedure to adopt. It is exactly what was done in the case of the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference. When that Report had been delivered—I think it was addressed to
408
the Prime Minister in the form of a Letter from Mr. Speaker a Resolution was moved in another place by Mr. Asquith, asking the general assent of the House of Commons to the scheme. That assent was unhesitatingly given by a majority which I have not in my mind at the moment but which I think was something over 300. The same procedure would, I take it, be adopted in the present instance. And if the House of Commons at that stage thought it right and proper to express their assent to the scheme as a whole, I think we might fairly assume that it was a good and reasonable scheme, which it was generally desired should pursue its further stages towards the Statute Book. In that case, assuming another place to have acted—as I certainly hope myself that they would act—in the manner that I have suggested, the Government would undertake to put a Minister in charge of the measure, and he would use his best offices to secure the passage of a good and reasonable measure into law. Further than that I do not think the noble Marquess or his friends can expect me to go.
I will only say in conclusion that, while the noble Marquess assured me with obvious sincerity of the good faith with which he and his friends are approaching the latter stages of this anxious and momentous controversy, I hope he will believe that I and those for whom I speak, in making this suggestion and in declaring our willingness, subject to what I have said, to accept his Amendment, are actuated by a sincerity and shall continue to act with a bona fides as great as those of himself and his friends.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am sure it will be felt by the whole House that a recommendation coming from the noble Marquess sitting below the gangway (Lord Lansdowne) is certain to receive the fullest consideration at the hands of Your Lordships. Owing to the time that the noble Marquess has sat in this House and the long period during which he has acted as its Leader, there can be no question that he is the most prominent and important figure in your Lordships' House, and any suggestion coming from him at a crisis of this kind cannot be dismissed until after the fullest consideration and examination by your Lordships. Certainly I, for one, have no desire whatever to put aside the recommendation of the noble Marquess

409
When the possibility of some such arrangement as he has suggested was mooted by the noble Earl who leads the House it is quite true that it did not receive anything like art enthusiastic welcome from those who are specially interested on the side of proportional representation. The noble Earl considered it wise, and I do not doubt that he may have been right, to state the case in a purely hypothetical form. He at the time was prepared to take no responsibility whatever for the suggestion, and he merely indicated what might have been his attitude if it had been put forward by others at an earlier stage. Even thus, I confess I thought that the reception given to it was somewhat damping, and that it might have been a little warmer; and I feared that the whole matter might drop, assuming that the House Commons took the course which it was likely to take after the Amendments were returned to it.
Now, however, the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) has put forward the proposal in a positive form. I had no conception until I came down to the House what was likely to be proposed, and I can therefore only deal with it in the light of the two speeches that have just been made. So far as I am concerned, I think that your Lordships will be wise to adopt it, and to see whether the House of Commons is willing—although it was thoroughly loath to apply the principal of proportional representation on anything like a general scale—to apply it in this tentative manner to a limited number of constituencies.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I entirely agree with what has just fallen from the noble Earl, that it would be altogether impossible to expect the Government, in another place or here, to adopt without having seen them, the actual proposals which a set of Boundary Commissioners—not yet appointed, as the noble Earl points out—may suggest for the purpose of the experiment. To give an instance. It is quite clear that if the Commissioners, for reasons of their own, suggested that the experiment should be tried at Liverpool and not tried at Manchester, or that it should be tried at Manchester and not tried at Liverpool, it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to pledge themselves beforehand to support the particular proposals, assuming that the body of the House were opposed to the particular application. I am certain that the noble Marquess
410
cannot have intended that His Majesty's Government should pledge themselves in that way; and I think that in saying, as the noble Earl has, that His Majesty's Government will be willing to give precedence to the measure, and to place a Minister in charge of it, they have gone as far as any Administration could be expected to go. It also must be remembered that the adoption by His Majesty's Government of a proposal of this kind does not mean exactly the same now as it does in ordinary times. his Majesty's Government do not pretend to have the command of the House of Commons in the sense in which former Governments had ; and, correspondingly, the defeat or loss of a particular proposal backed by them has no effect on their existence as a Government; and I think it is important not to confuse the issue by allowing it to be supposed that the adoption of a particular proposal by His Majesty's Government necessarily means its passing into law in both Houses, with the corresponding result to the Government of their having to resign their offices if it should be defeated.
There is one other point only on which I wish to say a word to your Lordships. If a compromise on this measure is to be brought about affecting both Houses, I think that it will have to be applied to the Bill as a whole. It is not altogether a light matter to ask the House of Commons to nullify action which they have taken by considerable majorities in more than once rejecting proportional representation as it has so far been presented to them. It will mean that a considerable number of Members in the other House will have to reverse the policy which they have adopted within the last few days. But there is another Amendment to follow—on which, of course, I do not intend to say a word—but I am obliged to mention it by way of illustration—namely, that which deals with the principle of the alternative vote. Without discussing the merits of that Amendment, it is common knowledge to your Lordships that in the other House hon. Members are almost equally divided upon the merits or demerits of the proposal. I think that, unless that topic can also be made the subject of some compromise similar to that which your Lordships are asked to engage in with relation to proportional representation, the prospect of getting agreement to the proposal of the noble Marquess in another place will become far more remote. And although

411
your Lordships—wrongly, as I think—believe that any adoption of the principle of the alternative vote will necessarily have an effect adverse to the views entertained by the majority of your Lordships, I ask whether it will not be possible to apply similarly some experimental form of the alternative vote when sending down—if your Lordships do—the Bill in the form which my noble friend opposite proposes. I feel that some such general attempt to satisfy experimentally divergent opinions on the various leading points in this Bill will have a good chance of succeeding if it is generally applied. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not be indisposed to adopt a similar method with regard to the alternative vote if—as I think is likely after the appeals made by the two noble Lords who have spoken—you agree to adopt it in relation to proportional representation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships on this occasion with all the feeling of deep responsibility which has been shown by the speakers who have preceded me this afternoon. Those members of your Lordships' House who have addressed us to-day have spoken moderately and with an evident and sincere desire to arrive at some accommodation, if that be possible; and I am sure that the noble Earl who leads the House does not suspect for a moment that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne would ask for anything from the Government which was in its nature unreasonable as an engagement for them to undertake. Many of us, I am sorry to say, have several years experience of Parliament and its conventions, and we are aware of the limits beyond which any Government can be expected to go in making public engagements to Parliament. None of us—least of all the noble Marquess, I am sure—is going to ask the Government to do that which, by tradition and precedent, it would be improper for them to do. But having said so much, I am sure that your Lordships will permit me to say that it is no good entering into an arrangement about which there is a great element of obscurity. We must enter into these matters with our eyes open. There is no advantage in glossing over by a dexterous phrase an obscurity which may have the seeds of fatal mistake hereafter. I believe that the House generally will agree with me when I say that.
412
Having said that, and having expressed my desire to address this subject with every sense of responsibility, no doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House will allow me to analyse for a moment the speech which he just now delivered. My noble friend was anxious to reassure your Lordships, but he seemed very averse from speaking in the name of his colleagues. I put these points to the noble Earl for the purpose of clearing the matter up. The first thing that I should like to ask is this. When he speaks of what the Government will do and what they will not do, do I understand that he means that that is a decision which he is authorised to make on behalf of the Government?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I think I can relieve the noble Marquess of the necessity of pursuing this portion of his speech. If, as a member of the Government and as Leader of this House, I rise in my place and say that the Government will do this or will not do that, the noble Marquess must assume that I am speaking with a full sense of responsibility and with authority for what I say.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged. I was anxious to draw that from the noble Earl. But I am sure he will allow me to note that he used the phrase "I think," and I feel that we must have it absolutely decided that in what we agree to the Government enter into a certain engagement, by the mouth of my noble friend—that it is not his anticipation of what will happen, but that the Government intend, and as far as they can bring it about, it shall happen.
Then the noble Earl said that this arrangement which has been proposed by the noble Marquess, and to which he assented under certain conditions, would be in the same position as the Speaker's Conference Report itself. MY Lords, that does not altogether reassure me, because I am aware that on this very issue the Speaker's Conference has been thrown over. If it had been a matter of historic fact that the Report of the Speaker's Conference had been followed in all respects, if even it had been the fact that in the matter of proportional representation it had been followed, we might have been more satisfied; but to be told that this is going to be treated as the Speaker's Conference Report was treated, and to be aware that in the matter of proportional representation the House

413
of Commons has decided in the teeth of the Speaker's Conference, does, I must say, diminish the value of the assurance in our eyes.
Let me try and follow what the noble Earl anticipated. He said that these Commissioners would sit, and that they would make a Report. Then he went on to say "if the House of Commons accepted that Report as a whole." Well, I should like to ask him, Will the Government do their utmost, if they approve of the Report, to get the House of Commons to accept it? I agree that the noble Earl cannot pledge the Government to use their kill authority in order to carry a Report of which they totally disapprove. That would be unreasonable, and I do not imagine that the noble Marquess ever intended that the form of words which he put to the Government should include that. But supposing the Government approve of the Report? Will they make it a Government question? That is the point. That really is not at all an unreasonable suggestion. That is a pledge which the Government give continually—that they will make themselves responsible for certain measures upon the condition that they approve of such legislation. What we want to avoid, of course, is that the Government shall in the face of this Report adopt the same attitude of neutrality which they have adopted upon several clauses of the Bill now under discussion—even if they approve of them. My Lords, may I say that the country would have far greater confidence in the Government if they would give it a lead, if they would indicate their opinion on countless occasions, and if instead of throwing the reins upon the neck of the horse they would guide it in the way it ought to go. We ask them, if they approve of the Report of these Commissioners, will they make the Report a Government question?
Going a step further, when the Report as a whole has been read a second time, as it were—if I may use a Parliamentary metaphor—what will the attitude of the Government be towards the details? I do not ask them to approve every word in the Commissioners' Report; but will they take charge of the Resolution and amend it according to their opinion? Your Lordships will see how very reasonable I am trying to be. Will the Government, having prepared Amendments which meet their views, make themselves responsible for those Amendments? That seems to me to be an attitude which any
414
Government might be proud to adopt, and my merely asking them to do so indicates not any suspicion of the Government but a most touching confidence not only in their integrity, which is above suspicion, but in their intelligence as well.
My Lords, I ask the Government, as my noble friend asked them, at this late stage of the proceedings on this measure of first importance, to abandon their attitude of neutrality. I understand quite well the reason why they have adopted the attitude of neutrality up till now. They are a Coalition Government, and in their own bosom they represent divergent views. I do not desire to presume upon the difficulties in which they stand, but, after all, there is a limit to all these things, and when it is the Government of the country, and when we are dealing with an organic Statute of first importance and have reached a critical point in it, no country in the world could be expected to go right without the leadership of the Government, and it is not too much to ask them to assume the rôle which belongs to a Government as of right. Supposing the Government did not give the pledge which Lord Lansdowne has asked them to give in the sense and spirit in which I have interpreted it, it is clear that the proposal of the Commissioners may be brought before the House of Commons and the House of Commons may express the dissent which is sure to arise upon particular proposals and particular constituencies, and the whole thing may be overthrown at once or gradually disintegrated stone by stone, constituency by constituency, until there is nothing left of any value. Surely, my Lords, the Government cannot wish us to accept a situation which must inevitably lead to such a result. That would not be treating your Lordships or Parliament generally with that consideration with which I am sure it is the first wish of my noble friend to treat it. We are not children. We want to do business. We know quite well the pressure which is exercised upon a Government, not because of the opinion of the country as a whole, but because of the local opinion of those who take an interest in politics in special constituencies. They are not really the people. They are sometimes called—though I do not wish to use phrases which seem to be invidious—they are sometimes called wire-pullers. These are the gentlemen whose pressure is exercised in respect of particular constituencies, and they will

415
inevitably press the Government to go step by step away from the plain intention of your Lordships' House and of Parliament, and gradually disintegrate the proposal which is now being made until nothing is left. Unless the noble Earl, speaking in the name of the Government, will be so very good as to assure us that lie accepts the pledge which my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has asked him to accept—I do not say with any pedantic literalness, but in the broad, reasonable spirit of honourable men such as I have tried to suggest—I do not see how your Lordships' House would be very far advanced by adopting the course proposed.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, as the Report of the Speaker's Conference has been so much in question this afternoon, may I be allowed to add a few words in order to avoid ambiguities and misunderstandings which may breed infinite mischief between the two Houses of Parliament in future? The Report of the Speaker's Conference was drafted and presented in the spirit of national reconciliation, and if that is the spirit in which the Government will treat this matter in another place—in the spirit of the Speaker's Conference—then all may yet be well.
This afternoon there has been none of the heat and prejudice imported into our proceedings which were so noticeable in another place, and which were far from the spirit in which the national settlement was arrived at by the Speaker's Conference upstairs. Every Member who questioned the wisdom of your Lordships' House in insisting on your Amendment spoke of his constituency as if he had some private and proprietorial right in it, as if lie were to be expropriated from his favourite rabbit-warren. That is not the spirit in which conciliation can be reached, and I venture to ask your Lordships to recollect the circumstances in which a settlement was arrived in the Speaker's Conference. There can be no question that the Report of that Conference would not have been accepted in regard to its main issue had it not been conditioned by proportional representation, and certainly not accepted with the virtual unanimity which was the case. Of the recommendations of that Conference the only one that was unanimously accepted upstairs and afterwards was not supported by the Government in another place was that which was meant to secure a fair system of representation. That was the only one. I
416
would ask the noble Earl whether the question will be treated in the same manner at a later stage. Certainly nothing could have been nore unfortunate than the war in which the Government in the House of Commons washed its hands of all responsibility for the proposal for proportional representation. It was left to the House of Commons, and the result of it being left in that way has been the crucial and grave situation which has now arisen. All the other recommendations that were adopted unanimously upstairs were pressed with the whole weight of the prestige of the Government in another place.
Now what I should like to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House is this. Nobody can expect that the Government can pledge itself to adopt and support in detail the recommendations of a Commission which has not even yet been appointed. But supposing the Boundary Commission brings up a scheme, will the Government support it in principle? The meaning of that is, Will they put on the Government Whips in the Division Lobby? If they do not, I venture to say that all these proceedings are the mere camouflage of surrender. The whole thing turns upon procedure. To adopt the old language of Parliament, it is not a question of fundamentals but of circumstantials, and the circumstantials are all-important in this matter. Is it unreasonable to ask the noble Earl that if the Commission be appointed, the Government will make themselves responsible for the principle, without in the least committing themselves to the particulars of the scheme? The details may be found unacceptable, and they may be altered.
We know already there are several great urban constituencies in which the majority of the representatives are in favour of the principle of proportional representation. I take Glasgow for example. We know that the experiment can be tried, and I ask that the Government should declare themselves in favour of making the experiment. I take it that that is done by the assurance of the noble Earl, but I only want to make assurance doubly sure. I venture to think that only those who seek a quarrel on constitutional matters can question the right or even the expediency of your Lordships' House in having a hand in drafting a great fundamental law which is going to change vitally the whole conditions of popular government in this country and indirectly in this Empire.

417
In must countries, as your Lordships know, where Constitutions are rigid or even where they are written, alterations or this sort, vital and organic amendments, are made the subject of peculiar procedure. Only the other day in the United States the Federal Amendment adopting woman suffrage had to be carried by a two-thirds majority before it was remitted to the Legislatures of the various States. This is an organic question of the first magnitude, and all I would say is that in parting with it now we ought to have a definite, clear, and unequivocal understanding with the Government which will not only protect our rights, but confirm us in the resolve we have taken—that is to say, to secure that this great change in democratic government shall be made under decent and equitable terms.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I hope that somebody will give us a definite assurance, because the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House was no assurance at all. He said he thought that if the Amendment indicated by the noble Marquess were carried it would go to the other House, and then he took the analogy of what happened before, when nobody on behalf of the Government but Mr. Asquith proposed the general proposal to accept it. He indicated, I think very clearly, that the responsibility of the Government would only begin after the House as a whole had voted independently and accepted the principle of proportional representation. It is quite clear to me—I do not care to say what are the motives of the other House; I am not making imputations; I am content to say what are the facts—it is clear to me that the personal disposition of the members of the other House is largely hostile to proportional representation, and therefore we have a right to ask, before we can consider that any pledge from the Treasury Bench is worth a halfpenny, that the Treasury Bench shall go to this extent: that the Government as a whole recognise the necessity of embodying some element of proportional representation in this Bill, and that they pledge themselves to support the principle—not to support the individual recommendations of any Boundary Commission, but to support the principle of proportional representation on the lines indicated for about 100 Members, divided between town and county. If the Government say only that after the House, voting
418
independently, have adopted the principle, they will take it up on what I may call the Committee stage, they offer something which is apparently worthless.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether I have any right to address your Lordships again, but I should like to say one or two words in an endeavour to clear up a situation which I think has become a little involved. First of all, let me assure the noble Earl who leads the House that nothing is further front my thoughts than to endeavour to extract front him and his colleagues an unconditional engagement that they would adopt the Report of the proposed Commissioners whatever may be contained in it. It would obviously be unfair of any Government to ask them to give an unqualified assurance in respect of a proposal which they have not yet seen. In the next place, let me also assure the noble Earl that it had never occurred to me that any of us in this House could ask the House of Commons to part with its right of revising any proposal that comes to it hereafter, dealing with this or any other question. But there are, I think, two points upon which we might be reassured by a rather more explicit statement than any that has vet been made to us. The first is this. May we assume that the Government are in favour of the policy of trying proportional representation as an experiment upon a scale sufficient to instruct the public as to its value for practical purposes? Do they adopt the policy? If that is so—and I believe they do—then may we understand that when the Commissioners have reported, and laid their Report before His Majesty's Government, the Government will place a Minister in charge of the measure, and make it their business to conduct that measure through both Houses of Parliament, using their utmost efforts, in the ordinary plain sense of the words, to carry it to a successful issue? If we could get a clear statement on these two points I, for one, would be greatly reassured.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am somewhat disconcerted to discover that my reply to the noble Marquess a few minutes ago, which I had thought was explicit and clear, has been found by some of your Lordships to be obscure. Many as are my faults in speaking, that is not a charge which is generally brought against me, and I cannot help suspecting that the

419
noble Lord did not really find obscurity in my remarks but that he was anxious to get me to go a little further than I have so far gone.
Instead of following the particular and detailed questions of the noble Marquess, I think it would be much safer for me to deal, and to deal only, with the general questions which the noble Marquess put to me about two minutes ago. To these I think it is quite possible, and quite easy, to give a definite reply. In reply to his first question I can say this. Clearly the Government is anxious for an experiment of proportional representation on suitable areas, subject to the consent of Parliament; otherwise I should not have made the suggestion the other evening, and I should not have been willing to support the noble Marquess if he moves his Amendment this afternoon. The further question he put was as to the conduct of the Government when the Report of the Commissioners comes before the House of Commons. The noble Marquess would not wish, and no noble Lord in this House would wish, me for a moment to commit myself to the decision that the Government is to make itself, from the start, responsible for forcing through a measure which might be distasteful to the majority of the House of Commons. Then the noble Marquess asked the question whether the Government would accept responsibility. I did say, and I repeat the assurance given, that a Minister would be placed in charge of the Bill. Every one knows what that means. It means that the Government is anxious that the Bill, subject to the modifications which may be made in its passing through the House, should be passed into law. In the case of the last Bill, the Home Secretary was placed in charge. Certain matters were of course excepted, because the Speaker's Conference had not been agreed upon them, or because it was decided in advance, as in the case of proportional representation, that they should be left to the judgment of the House. As regards the rest of the Bill, of course the Minister in charge must be left with a certain discretion as to his own conduct. He will decide, in the best interests of the Bill, with regard to what passes in the House, and from the responsible position he occupies, what should be done to give the measure, of which he is in charge, the best chance of passing into law. More than that I do not think you ought to ask from me, and
420
with that I venture to think your Lordships ought to be content.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, it may be my fault—because I quite agree that the noble Earl is perfectly clear—but there is still a gap in the scheme which I do not entirely comprehend. The noble Earl has reserved the complete liberty of the Government to judge of the merits of the Report of the Commissioners when it has been presented. That is conceded as the natural prerogative of the Government. The noble Earl, when he spoke first, said that a Minister will be in charge of the conduct of the Bill front the moment it is laid on the Table of the House of Commons; and he said, quite rightly, that, the Government desiring to see the Report given effect to in the best form, the Minister will exercise his discretion and judgment in conducting it through the House of Commons. My noble friend said, further, that it was not in the power of the Government to force on the House of Commons a Report that they would not have. I entirely agree with that I quite admit it ; and that is the risk, and the great risk, we shall be running if the noble Marquess moves his Amendment and this House accepts it. The one thing which I do ask my noble friend, for the sake of a settlement, to tell us is this. Will the Government exercise all its powers of persuasion and authority to get the House of Commons to accept this Report in a form of which they themselves approve? That is my one question.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers the last question—I have no desire to add to his embarrassments—I would like to call his attention once more to the case of the alternative vote. It appears, to me that it is quite impossible to separate these two questions. It may well be that an arrangement might be reached on the lines suggested by the noble Marquess, if there is associated with it some concession with regard to the alternative vote. There is very little use, however, accepting the proposals of the noble Marquess if the whole matter is to be shipwrecked on that obvious rock.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I hesitate to address your Lordships for the third time, and I am not clear that I am altogether in order in doing so. With regard to the remarks of the noble and

421
learned Lord, I must respectfully decline to follow his lead. I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than that there should be any element of bargaining between the cases of proportional representation and the alternative vote. No such element of bargaining entered into the discussion or the settlement of this matter, so far as I know, in another place, and whatever your Lordships' decision may be upon these two matters this afternoon, I hope they will be kept entirely separate in your consideration, just as they will be in my conduct and vote.
There remains the one final question which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, asked me. As far as I understand it—I did not actually take down his words—it was this. Supposing the Commissioners give a Report and supposing the Government, after due consideration of that Report, feel that they are favourably disposed towards the Report, will they, as a Government, do their best to support it in the House of Commons? Yes, my Lords, I see no difficulty whatever in giving such an assurance. Whether they would be successful or not, of course I cannot say. The House of Commons must be the judge. But naturally, as a Government, if we agree with a thing we do our best to support it.
On Question, Motion that the Commons Reason be considered forthwith, agreed to.
The Commons disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the first Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:
Because they consider the partial application of proportional representation as now proposed by the Lords is open to at least as much objection as the original proposal, and they are therefore unwilling to adopt it, especially in view of the strong objections which have been expressed by the representatives of some of the principal constituencies affected.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I now beg to move the Amendment which I have handed in.
Moved, That the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed be not insisted on, but that the following Amendment be made in lieu thereof:—
(1) His Majesty may appoint Commissioners to prepare as soon as may be after the passing of this Act a scheme
422
under which as nearly as possible 100 members shall be elected to the House of Commons at a General Election on the principle of proportional representation for constituencies in Great Britain returning three or more Members.
(2) The number of members of the House of Commons as fixed under this Act shall not be increased by any such scheme. For the purpose of such scheme the Commissioners shall (after holding such local enquiries as they may deem necessary) combine into single constituencies returning not less than three nor more than seven Members such of the areas fixed as constituencies in the Fifth Schedule to this Act as they may select, but in selecting these areas they shall have regard to the advisability of applying the principle of proportional representation both to town and country.
(3) The scheme so prepared by the Commissioners shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if both Houses by Resolution adopt the scheme, the scheme shall, with any modifications or additions which may be agreed to by both Houses, take effect as if it were enacted in this Act, and the constituencies fixed under the scheme shall be substituted, so far as necessary, for the constituencies fixed under the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
(4) In any such constituency any contested election of the full number of Members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by the Act.
(5) His Majesty may by Order in Council make any adaptation of the provisions of this Act as to the machinery of registration or election which may appear to him to be necessary in consequence of the adoption of the scheme.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think that the position is perfectly plain. His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to both Houses of Parliament the acceptance of this Amendment. If Parliament accepts it they are prepared to appoint Boundary Commissioners. The Boundary Commissioners will make their Report. On that Report His Majesty's Government, of course and necessarily, reserve their judgment, but if they approve

423
of the Report they will then do their best to persuade the House of Commons to adopt it, with or without Amendment, according as they judge best. I do not pretend, if Parliament accepts this proposal, that it comes up to my ideal, or to what I believe to be necessary not only for giving a fair chance to this tremendous experiment in democracy on which we are now embarking, but, as I have said, believing it from the bottom of my heart, to be essential to the safety of this realm and to the stability of our institutions.
The House of Commons would not listen to a complete scheme, and I would remind your Lordships again of what I said a short time ago, that nothing short of a complete scheme really remedies the cruel injustice under which, I submit, agriculture suffers under this Bill. But I bow respectfully to the decision of the House of Commons. When that was settled, what we had to try for was to get the assent of our co-legislators—as Mr. Asquith called us the other day, and as I would call my hon. friends in the House of Commons—to an experiment on a sufficient scale to enable public opinion and all parties concerned really to come to the conclusion as to who were right or who were wrong—whether my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham and those who believe with him that this is a pernicious system and only the idea of faddists and cranks are right and whether it cannot really be applied to the conditions of an English constituency and of an English Member of Parliament, or whether we who hold the exactly contrary opinion are right that this is a system which will do more than anything else to bring equilibrium and strength to our Government, and stability to our institutions. That cannot be decided by argument. We may talk to each other year in and year out, and neither will convince the other. It is only experiment that will decide it.
Therefore we have tried here for the experiment. As the Speaker's Conference Amendment—if I may call it that—would have operated, about 140 seats would have been affected, but of those twenty-eight were London constituencies, and if the House of Commons had thought fit to accept the Speaker's Conference decision without the London constituencies I, for one, would certainly have advised your Lordships to accept that result. That
424
would have reduced the number of constituencies on which the trial was to be made to about 112. There is no material difference between 100 and 112, and therefore in point of view of the size and reality of the experiment, there is nothing between this Amendment and the Amendment which I had the honour to move two days ago, as it would have been if London had been taken out of it. The weak point of this Amendment—and we all recognise it—is that although His Majesty's Government may approve of the Report of the Commissioners, and although they may do their best to get the House of Commons to accept it, yet the House of Commons may refuse to accept it.
In parting from this Bill we know that we are running that risk, and it is a tremendous concession that we make in being willing to run that risk. Because I repeat here what I said the other day, that if this Bill were lost over this question it would not be lost by your Lordships' House, but by the House of Commons. Therefore it is a great concession we are making in parting with this Bill and running that risk. But, on the other hand, there is a great advantage in this Amendment over the Amendment which I moved the other day, because the experiment of the Speaker's Conference would apply only to boroughs. This Amendment, if adopted by Parliament, would enable the experiment to be tried in counties as well, as in boroughs. And, as one of my principal contentions all through and as one of the motives, I think, most influencing your Lordships' House has been the case of agriculture, it is a very great compensation to me, and I think to the House and to the public opinion which supports us, that, under this Amendment, agriculture and the counties would have their fair share in the experiment. Therefore, so far as I am entitled to express an opinion, I hope that you will accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, but proposes instead the clause moved by Lord Lansdowne.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 139, line 25 (to leave out paragraph 6), but in lieu thereof propose the following Amendment:
Page 139, line 24, at the end insert:
" 6. Subsection (4) of section forty of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall have effect as if the words 'for the time being' were substituted for the words 'at the passing of tins Act'; and, in order to meet any difficulty (consequent on the change of boundaries under this provision) in filling casual vacancies by election in the London County Council, any such casual vacancy shall, until the first election of the whole number of councillors which takes place after the passing of this Act, be filled by means of the choice by the Council of a person to fill the vacancy, and the councillor so chosen shall hold office in such manner and in all respects as if he had been elected to fill the vacancy."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that your Lordships agree to this additional Amendment to the Bill. It deals with the connection between the Parliamentary areas and the areas returning members to the London County Council.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15 (to leave out subsection (1)), but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof
Page 14, line 15, at beginning insert:
".—(1) If at an election for one member of Parliament in any parliamentary borough there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act."
And they make the following consequential Amendments in the Bill.
Page 14, line 33, after ("transferable") insert ("or the alternative").
Page 19, line 41, after (" of ") insert (" the alternative or of ").
Page 26, line 5, insert:
"(7) The expression 'alternative vote' means a vote—

"(a) capable of being so given as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order; and

(b) capable of being transferred to a subsequent choice in case no one candidate has a clear majority of the total number of votes counted at any count:"

Page 51, line 17, paragraph 32, in the footnote, after ("transferable") insert ("or alternative")
Page 51, line 17, paragraph 39, in the footnote, after "transferable") insert ("or alternative" )
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I do not propose to enter into the merits or demerits of the alternative vote, but I wish to point out that this is a new subsection
426
that is brought up from the House of Commons, and even supposing your Lordships approved of it, it would still leave the whole scheme of the alternative vote as it was when the Bill first came up to this House, because to enable this alternative vote to be carried out a large number of Orders in Council would still be demanded, and I do not think it is worthy of either House that the whole system by which an Election is conducted should be left to Orders in Council. We have no knowledge and no information as to whether the boroughs themselves, to whom it is proposed that this subsection should especially apply, are willing that this experiment should be tried upon them With regard to what fell from the noble Marquess opposite, I think he can hardly ask your Lordships to believe, when proportional representation has been carried by such large majorities as it did secure—over ninety, and over 100—that the same feeling could be supposed to exist in the House of Commons in cases where the majorities were, first one, then eight, and last night one. If the Press correctly reports what occurred, the Division last night was received not only with cheers but with laughter. That does not look as if there was any very strong feeling about it, or that we need hesitate to exercise that discretion which this House is always justified in exercising with regard to any measure submitted to it. Therefore I would ask this House now to disagree with this new subsection brought from the Commons.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Galway.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Earl who leads the House, referring to some observations which I had made and some made by my noble and learned friend behind me (Lord Buckmaster), explained that he thought it improper to enter into anything in the nature of a Parliamentary bargain on this subject, the other part of the bargain having reference to proportional representation. I do not know that there is anything to be ashamed of in a Parliamentary bargain, as such. I have no doubt that most, noble Lords who have held official positions have at different times been parties to Parliamentary bargains of one kind or another. But in this case there is no question of a bargain, because it is not by any means true that

427
all members of the House of Commons or of your Lordships' House who are in favour of the alternative vote are opposed to proportional representation, or cice versa. There is no question of a bargain in that sense. What I desire to point out again is that there is a project of trying experiments in the one case which was approved of by a large number of persons. But the ardent wish to try proportional representation experiments has not been shared by a very large number of Members in another place. They could only be induced to try the experiment because your Lordships' House by a large majority asked them to try it, and offered a modified proposal with that object. Here is another experiment which a large number of Members in another place are quite as anxious to try as noble Lords here who are in favour of proportional representation are anxious to try that experiment. They desired to be given on opportunity of trying that experiment also on a greatly reduced scale. The proposal which is comprised hi the Amendment does not involve the universal application of the alternative vote, but a decidedly modified application to a comparatively small proportion of the Members in another place—at the outside 150, I think; but I am not certain of the figure. Without any idea of bargaining, I pointed out that I believed it to be a matter of fact that the reception of the one proposal for an experiment is likely to be affected (and there is no use in concealing the fact, if it is so) by the willingness of your Lordships to sanction the trying of the other experiment. I see nothing surprising in that, or anything for which anybody need apologise. I think, therefore, that your Lordships would be wise to accept the proposal in the greatly modified form in which it is now before the House.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I hope that the House will support the Motion made by Lord Galway. The noble Marquess who has just sat down says that he does not see any harm in Parliamentary bargains. These two matters of proportional representation and the alternative vote have no more to do with one another than have chalk and cheese. There are many who are in favour of proportional representation, and that is a question which stands by itself and upon its own merits. The question of the alternative vote also stands by itself and upon its own merits. But the difference
428
in this latter case is that it is a matter which, from the very first, has been treated as a Party question. There was a strong division of opinion about it in the Speaker's Conference, and there have been no less than six Divisions upon it since then; and the Division taken last night in the House of Commons resulted in its being carried by a majority of one only. It is now proposed to make a much smaller application of this system than on the previous occasion. The object of those who move this is perfectly plain. They want to get this principle of the alternative vote into the Act; and, if they get it into the Act, they think that they will then be able to increase its application hereafter. I hope that your Lordships will disagree with the new clause—for that is what it really is—which is proposed by the House of Commons.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I wish to support the appeal in the speech made by the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe). I believe, as a mere matter of fairness, that the principle of the alternative vote ought to be adopted; and although it is true that there is no direct connection between the alternative vote and proportional representation, I think that the alternative vote scheme is supplemental to the other and ought to go along with it. But I appeal to your Lordships principally on the matter of fairness. I admit that the illustration may not appeal to the House, but when I had the honour of being made a member of this Assembly there was a three-cornered fight in the constituency which I previously represented. It so happened that the Conservative was returned, but by a number of votes less, of course, than half of the total number polled. It has always seemed fair to me that at any rate a chance ought to have been given to an alternative vote system in a case like that—that those who did not support the Member who happened to receive the greatest number of votes ought to have a chance of saying whether they wished him to be returned or the candidate who received the number of votes nearest approximating to his.
But it is not on that account that I address your Lordships this afternoon. I say—and I hope I may make this remark with all diffidence—that in this matter I believe the majority of your Lordships are acting in a somewhat short-sighted way. It may be that at the next Election it may help (as a Party matter) the Party

429
with which the majority of your Lordships are connected; but after the next Election I do not think it will help that Party. It may be a matter of very great importance that there should be an alternative vote system in single-Member constituencies; and after the next Election I am of opinion that the effect of that vote in all probability will be one not inimical to the feelings of the majority of this House. I apologise for intervening at this late stage of the proceedings, but this is a matter upon which I feel very keenly, and I felt impelled to say these few words.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord made one remark at the beginning of his speech which tempts me to rise to define my position towards the alternative vote. He said that if proportional representation were to be given, the alternative vote ought to go along with it. I am very much inclined to agree; but I want to be quite sure that I get proportional representation before I give the alternative vote. The position of the matter is this. We have a tentative proposal for proportional representation.
May I say that I thought the noble Earl the Leader of the House spoke frankly and fully in a very difficult situation, and went as far as we could expect him to go? I accept the assurance that he gave in the spirit in which I know it was given—namely, with a real intention to carry it out, if it is possible consistently with all other considerations to do it. But we are not certain yet of proportional representation
If this Amendment which was put in last night by the other House to apply the alternative vote to the borough constituencies were to be agreed to now, we should be giving the alternative vote without an assurance of getting the other thing in exchange.
I think there is a great deal of logical force in the contentions on behalf of the alternative vote. I believe it will be a very real calamity if any large proportion of the Members were returned to the House of Commons by a minority vote. That would be a very serious state of affairs, and would detract from the natural position which the House of Commons ought to occupy, considering its great powers and its great position as an Assembly. Therefore I should be extremely sorry to see any large proportion of the Members of that ancient and honourable body returned by a, minority vote. How that should be provided against—whether by a transferable vote, or by a second ballot—seems to me to be a matter for very grave consideration. I want to say this in conclusion. If the experiment of proportional representation is tried and is at all successful, I think I may say that I, for one, shall be very anxious to take care that no proportion of Members elected to the other House shall be returned by a minority vote.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 74; Not-contents, 33.

CONTENTS.

Einlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selborne E.

Dinevor, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.)

Strafford, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Verulam, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Waldegrave, E.

Faringdon, L.

Westmeath, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sutherland, D.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Wellington, D.

Chaplin, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Bath. M.

Churchill, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Falkland, V.

Lamington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hardinge, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Peel, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Armaghdale, L.

Monteagle, (M. Sligo.)

Clarendon, E.

Avebury, L.

Newton, L.

Derby, E.

Balfour, L.

Northbourne, L.

Eldon, E.

Barrymore, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Howe, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Queen borough, L.

Lichfield, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Saltoun, L.

Lindsay, E.

Burnham, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Lindsey, E.

Carnock, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Lucan, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sudeley, L.

Lytton, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Suffield, L.

Morton, E.

De Mauley, L.

Sumner, L.

Northbrook, E.

Desborough, L.

Sydenham, L.

Plymouth, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Sandwich, E.

Digby, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Aberconway, L.

Lyell, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Blyth, L.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Charnwood, L.

Ranksboroungh, L.

Cole brooke, L.

Southwark, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Denman, L.

Emmott, L.

Stanmore, L.

Haldane, V.

Faber, L.

Strachie, L.

Harcourt, V. [Teller.]

Farrer, L.

Weardale, L.

Knollys, V.

Islington, L.

Wren bury, L.

Mersey, V.

Kinnaird, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Commons Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move to disagree with the Commons consequential Amendments, and to make the following further consequential Amendments in the new Schedule inserted by Your Lordships on page 51, line 17, after the Fourth Schedule—namely:
Paragraph 24 (page 30 of the original Lords Amendments), leave out "neither the transferable nor alternative vote is" and insert "the transferable vote is not."
Paragraph 29 (page 37 of the original Lords Amendments) leave out "neither the transfer able nor alternative vote is "and insert" the transferable vote is not."
The Commons agree to the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 51, line 7, with the following Amendment:—
Leave out ("mentioned above") and insert ("first above mentioned")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendment. It is merely drafting, to make sure that the expenses referred to are not personal expenses.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords disagreeing to certain Amendments made by the Commons; the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report made front the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons for
432
the Lords disagreeing to certain Amendments made by the Commons, and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the said Reasons.
NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes past four, and resumed at ten minutes before eight o'clock.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments last made by the Lords agreed to without amendment, and with the Commons disagreement to the Lords Amendment not insisted upon.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following thirteen Bills received the Royal Assent—

Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation)

Bishoprics of Bradford and Coventry.

Wills (Soldiers and Sailors).

Metropolitan Police.

Midwives (Ireland).

National Registration (Amendment).

National Health Insurance.

National Insurance (Unemployment).

Representation of the People.

Non-ferrous Metal Industry.

Redistribution of Seats (Ireland).

Military Service.

Port Glasgow Water Order Confirmation.

And afterwards his Majesty's most gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"Since last I addressed you great events have happened. Within a few weeks of that occasion, the United States of America decided to take their stand by the side of this Country and Our Allies in defence of the principles of Liberty and Justice. Their entry into the War, followed by that of other neutral States, has united practically the whole civilised world in a League of Nations against unscrupulous aggression, has lent additional strength to Our arms, and inspires fresh confidence in the ultimate triumph of Our cause.
"On the other hand, Russia, distracted by internal dissensions, has not been able to persevere in the struggle until the fruits of her great sacrifices could have been reaped; and for the present has ceased to bear her part in the Allied task. The negotiations opened by her with the enemy have, however, served but to prove that the ambitions which provoked this unhappy war are as yet unabated.
"These tragic events have added to the burdens of the other Allies, but have not impaired the vigour and the loyalty with which one and all continue to pursue the common aim. Amid the confusion of changing events the determination of the democracies of the world to secure a just and enduring peace stands out ever more clearly.
"In all the theatres of war, My Naval and Military Forces have displayed throughout the year a noble courage, a high constancy, and a fixed determination, which have won for them the admiration of My people. In France, the enemy has been repeatedly and successfully thrown back, and I await with assurance the further progress of the conflict. In Palestine and Mesopotamia the most revered and famous cities of the Orient have been wrested from the Turk; while in Africa the enemy has lost the last remnant of his Colonial possessions. In all these fields, the forces of My Dominions and of the Indian Empire have borne their full share in the toil and in the glory of the day.
"During the year the representatives of My Dominions and of the Indian Empire were summoned for the first time to the sessions of an Imperial War Cabinet.
"Their deliberations have been of the utmost, value, both in the prosecution of the War and in the promotion of Imperial Unity.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the liberality with which you have made provision for the heavy expenditure of the War.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I have been pleased to give My consent to your proposals for the better Representation of the People. I trust that this measure will ensure to a much larger number of My subjects in the United King dom an effective voice in the government of the country, and will enable the National Unity, which has been so marked a characteristic of the War, to continue in the not less arduous work of reconstruction in times of peace.
"The settlement of this difficult question by agreement leads me still to hope that, in spite of all the complexities of the problem, a solution may be possible in regard to the government of Ireland, upon which a Convention of representatives of My Irish people is now deliberating.
"The successful prosecution of the War is still our first aim and endeavour. I have watched with a proud and grateful heart the unvarying enthusiasm with which all sections of My people have responded to every demand made upon them for this purpose, and, as they face the final tests which may yet be required to carry our efforts to fruition, I pray that Almighty God may vouchsafe to us His Blessing"
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN,MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name

435
and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this. Parliament to Tuesday, the twelfth instant, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the twelfth instant.
End of the Seventh Session of the Thirtieth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in the eighth year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.