Lords Sitting of 5 June 1918

Preamble
The Earl of ELLESMERE—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Debate upon the Motion for the Third Reading resumed (according to Order).
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, when this Bill was before the House in the earlier stages of the debate I took exception to its going forward until there should be a clear statement from the Board of Trade as to policy. I drew attention to the fact that the waste of coal under the existing systems is enormous, and that after the war it will be vital that we should save very large sums indeed, which might be saved if a proper system of national electrical supply were adopted. Since the previous debate the Board of Trade have published a very important Report upon electrical supplies, following up the Report of the Coal Conservation Committee of which I was Chairman. That new Report is so far-reaching and so important, containing, as I gather it does, the broad principles of which the Board of Trade approve, that it makes a great difference in my view about this Bill. I object to any Bills going forward that are not in accordance with the general policy laid down by the Board of Trade. I think that we are in sight of something like a general policy as evidenced by the publication of this Report; and this Bill had put into it in the Committee over which Lord Muir Mackenzie presided Clause 40, which is a sterilisation clause, and which will enable the District Electrical Councils which the Report proposes to set up to purchase the undertaking proposed to be established by this Bill in such a fashion as will lead to no public loss. In these circumstances I think that the Board of Trade have taken the right course, and that I should have no justification at all, nor have I any desire, to put any further difficulty in the way of this Bill passing.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, on behalf of the Board of Trade I will, with the permission of the House, say a word on this stage of the Bill. The point on which the Lord Chairman moved the adjournment
86
of the debate on the last occasion has, I understand, been met by the Amendments which were moved by the promoters, and which the Lord Chairman will presently indicate. The only other point is that referred to by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, and I am glad to understand that the insertion of the sterilisation clause (Clause 40) is satisfactory to the noble and learned Viscount and meets the objections which he previously indicated. The Report of the Electric Power Supply Committee is now being received, and is being presented to both Houses of Parliament. It is under consideration at this moment by the Board of Trade, but the problems involved are of great magnitude, and it is not yet possible for the Government to formulate any statement of general policy. The proposals contained in the Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, do not, however, conflict with any of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Electric Power Supply Committee or of the Coal Conservation Sub-Committee; nor do they appear likely to conflict with any action that is likely to be taken as the result of those Reports. The Board of Trade understand that the additional facilities under the Bill in question are urgently requited, and they accordingly do not desire to raise any question as to the further progress of tills Bill.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, as it was on my Motion that there was further consideration of this Bill on Third Reading, perhaps I ought to say a word. Your Lordships may, perhaps, remember that upon that occasion I expressly stated that I had no desire that there should be any delay in the progress of the Bill, and that the action taken was not on account of any objection that I entertained myself or had to mention on behalf of the Committee; but by the promoters themselves it had been pointed out that very important national interests were affected by the proposals in the Bill, and the Committee were of opinion—although they approved of the Bill. with the Amendments and limitations which they put into it. and in the usual way reported to the House that they thought with these Amendments the Bill might proceed—that it was not right that they should deal with a subject which appeared to raise questions of exceptional importance affecting large pro ects which were understood to be under the consideration of the Government. The Com-

87
mittee therefore decided to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill was not one which should simply go through as a matter of course, without the House, which on Third Reading becomes responsible for the Bill, being acquainted with what it was and how it might affect those great interests to which I have referred. I am very glad to hear—and I am sure I may speak on behalf of the Committee—that this subject has now been fully considered, and that the Government and the House are aware of the scope of the Bill; and certainly I may say, on behalf of the Committee, that we wish to see the Bill go down to the other House in due course.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE CHAIRMAN OF. COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, there are two Amendments with regard to which I do not desire to detain your Lordships. They have been referred to already by my noble friend. They are printed and before your Lordships. Their object is to bring the Bill into harmony with the Act of 1899; and I therefore, in accordance with the usual custom, formally move that the Amendments be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, after Clause 1, insert the following clause:—
"This Act shall be deemed to be a special Act within the meaning of the Electric Lighting Acts 1882 to 1909 and the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 but Sections 2 and 3 of the Electric Lighting Act 1888 shall not apply to the Company or the undertaking."
Page 4, Clause 2, at the end add:—
"And the provisions of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 except the following provisions that is to say Section 2 subsection (2) Sections 3, 5, 7 to 9, 21 to 29, 30 (so far as regards a supply to authorised undertakers) 31 to 37, 41, 48, 75 and 78 and any provisions (other than those of Section 69) with respect to the revocation of the special order and the sections and provisions so excepted from incorporation shall not apply to the Company or the undertaking and Section 81 of the said Schedule shall not apply to any generating station or works erected on any of the lands described in the First Schedule to this Act."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

GLASGOW CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONFIRMATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 1a, and to be printed

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the words used by Lord Curzon of Kedleston in the House of Lords on 6th February, when the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Franchise Bill were under consideration, in respect of the appointment of Commissioners to select constituencies for an experiment in Proportional Representation—
"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";
and to ask how it was that, when the Motion to approve the Report of the Commissioners came before the House of Commons on the 13th May, the Government did not take charge of the Motion in the usual acceptation of that term, and that a Whip was issued from the office of the National Unionist Association, which is under the control of a member of the Government, against it.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for an echo of a past controversy, but I think there are some things that want saying and some points that want clearing up. It was with a view of putting my noble friend the Leader of the House in possession of the case as I could make it that I wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph yesterday, which I hope he has seen, because if he has not I should have failed of my purpose.
What I have to say to-day, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the merits of proportional representation. This is not the occasion on which to go into that question in any degree whatever, but I wish to say without any hesitation that it is a subject on which this House has a right to have its own opinion. It is necessary for me to say that, because, greatly to my surprise, one of my oldest and best political friends, Mr. Austell Chamberlain, undoubtedly took up the position in the House of Commons that this was not a matter in which, in his opinion, this House should have interfered. I challenge that doctrine on the threshold. I say that if a Second Chamber is not to have an opinion

89
on such a subject as proportional representation there is no use of a Second Chamber at all; and, indeed, I think some of my political friends in the House of Commons have not altogether realised the effect of their zeal against proportional representation It is quite one thing to do all you can to oppose a proposal which you believe to be bad; it is quite another thing to use as an instrument of your opposition arguments which undermine the whole position of a Second Chamber. Some of my political friends took up the familiar Radical position "So long as it agrees with us, a Second Chamber is an admirable institution; the moment it disagrees with us, it is an institution to be denounced." I think that those friends of mine who took up that line will hereafter be sorry for having done so, because, in my judgment, it certainly does not become the Unionist Party to seize any occasion to attack this House when it is doing its simple duty in a manner which is purely constitutional.
What is the history of the case as to which Iask this question of my noble friend? The majority of your Lordships' House took a definite position in respect of the introduction of the principle of proportional representation into the Franchise Bill, and as a result His Majesty's Government were in a position of considerable embarrassment. They were naturally anxious for the Bill to pass, and they wanted to find some way of accommodating the difference between the majority of this House and the majority of the other House. Now the majority of this House were—as I maintain they have been throughout this war—desirous of not embarrassing His Majesty's Government. Owing to the peculiar conditions of the case the provisions of the Parliament Act have been suspended during this war except in respect of financial Bills, but your Lordships have never used your power, whether Mr. Asquith or Mr. Lloyd George has been Prime Minister, in order to embarrass the Government. Noble Lords have quite invariably considered it their duty to do all they could to support the Government of the day so long as they were engaged in that tremendous task with which they are still confronted. Therefore, the majority of your Lordships' House were sincerely desirous of finding some way to help the Government to escape from the embarrassment into which a difference of opinion between the two Houses had placed them; and, as a result of the course of business in
90
this House in consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, we received certain assurances from my noble friend the Leader of the House which satisfied us, and we came to what I think I can correctly describe as an honourable understanding. That was on February 6.
Let me remind Your Lordships exactly what that understanding was. I have Hansard by my side, and I can quote if you wish it, but unless my account of what took place is challenged I do not propose to trouble your Lordships by reacting actual extracts from Hansard. My noble friend the Leader of the Government in this House had himself been the first to suggest the appointment of Commissioners to select constituencies for the experiment in proportional representation, and in the debate on February 6 the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, offered to accept this suggestion. but only on condition that the Government would see the result of the experiment safely through the House of Commons. The noble Earl said, in reply, that the Government would submit the Report of the Commissioners to the House of Commons in the same way that they had submitted the Report of the Speaker's Conference. This undertaking was not accepted by the majority of your Lordships' House as wholly satisfactory, and many of your Lordships joined in pressing the Government to make itself responsible for the principle in the House of Commons.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne asked the Leader of the House two definite questions. The first was—
"May we assume that the Government are in favour of the policy of trying proportional representation as an experiment?"
To that the noble Earl replied—
"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."
That answer was accepted as wholly satisfactory in respect to the first question. My noble friend's second question was—
"May we understand that 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."
The reply of the noble Earl to this was—
"I repeat the assurance given—that a minister would be placed in charge of the Bill. Everyone knows what that means. It means that the

91
Government is anxious that the Bill, subject to the modifications winch may be made in its passage through the House of Commons, should be passed into law."
This, again, was not accepted by the majority of your Lordships' House as wholly satisfactory; and after some debate I asked the noble Earl this question—
"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 approve of this Report in a form in which they themselves approve?"
To that the noble Earl replied—
"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."
That was accepted by the majority of your Lordships' House as satisfactory. The Bill was passed, and the Government were rescued from the embarrassing position in which circumstances had placed them. We certainly though that there could be no room for misunderstanding.
What subsequently took place? The Commissioners were duly appointed, and they issued a Report which I venture to think was a very good one. It showed that there was very considerable support for the principle of proportional representation in places where no such support had previously been known to exist. In many of the local inquiries which the Commissioners held they received very hearty support from public bodies of many different kinds, from county and town councils, in support of the principle. In others they met with hostility and objection. The only bodies which consistently opposed the principle everywhere were the two central offices of the great political Parties. You may say that the machine, whether Liberal or Unionist, is consistently against this principle, but when once you get outside the machine there is in many parts of the country a very real and convinced support for the principle. That is quite enough to say to-day about the Report itself. It came to us with all the authority of the Speaker and his colleagues.
Now I come to the proceedings in the House of Commons on May 13. A Minister was placed in charge of the Resolution according to the promise of my noble friend Earl Curzon, but not quite on the footing
92
which I certainly had expected. In answer to a Question the same day, Mr. Bonar Law took pains to explain that Mr. Fisher was only in charge of the Motion because he happened to be in favour of the Resolution, and that his position was not to be taken as in any way an official position. That is not quite what I meant when I asked for a Minister to be placed in charge of the Bill, nor do I think it is what your Lordships generally understood. Then one speech was made in favour of the Report, and it was made, of course, by Mr. Fisher, no other members of the Government speaking for it. Mr. Austen Chamberlain—who had since joined the Government, and I admit was therefore in a different position from those who were members of the Government at the time the transactions took place—spoke against it with his accustomed extremity of opposition When it came to a Division no Government Tellers were put on; but few members of the Government voted for it, more voted against it; and the majority of the members of the Government in the House of Commons, headed by the Prime Minister, did not vote at all.
But last, and not least, a very strong, Whip against the Resolution was issued from the Unionist Central Office, signed by my friend Sir George Younger. Sir George Younger has, of course, the same right to his opinion as any of your Lordships, but I submit that it was a very strong thing for the Unionist Central Office, which is under the direct control of Mr. Bonar Law, the Leader of the House of Commons and a member of the War Cabinet, to send out this Whip against a measure which the Government had undertaken in advance to do all they could by persuasion and authority to get the House of Commons to accept. My noble friend the Leader of the House was careful, as he always is when giving us his assurance. He said—
"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, I see no difficulty in giving such an assurance."
What was the attitude of the Government towards that Report after they had considered it? Did it impress them unfavourably? Were they opposed to the Report? If so, they did not say so. Of course, if they had come forward and said, "We have considered this Report, and are

93
unfavourably disposed towards it, then my noble friend and his colleagues had safeguarded themselves. They were in a position to adapt their conduct accordingly. But they said nothing of the kind. They put a Minister in charge, though unofficially, but they let the measure be defeated in the manner that I have described.
I cannot reconcile what took place in the House of Commons and the attitude of the Prime Minister and his colleagues with the impression that I have myself, and I think most of my noble friends, of the true nature of assurances given us in this House. Therefore, my Lords, I have put down this Question to my noble friend. I wished in the first place to assert in the strongest and most emphatic way possible my repudiation of Mr. Austen Chamberlain's doctrine that this was not a matter on which this House should have concerned itself; and in the second place I wanted to ask my noble friend how he reconciled the action of his colleagues in the House of Commons with the pledges that he had given on their behalf in your Lordships' House.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, my noble friend, in the remarks that he has just addressed to your Lordships, appears to think that he has serious ground of grievance against His Majesty's Government for their conduct in this matter, and against myself in particular as their spokesman in this House on the occasion of February 6 to which he referred. I shall hope, my Lords, to show you without difficulty that there is no ground for that belief. There is an excellent and well-accredited axiom in public life that you should verify your quotations, but there is another axiom equally good and in my judgment even more important in this context, and that is that you should complete your quotations. My noble friend has, for the purposes of his speech, selected from the various remarks that I was called upon to address to your Lordships on February 6 one passage and one passage only, and that passage, as I shall show your Lordships presently, does not give in its complete form what I said. Further, while in the course of his remarks selecting a sentence here or a sentence there from different things that I said in the course of the discussion, he has not given, as it will be
94
my duty to give, a connected impression of what I said as a whole.
I am making no undue claim when I say that a Minister speaking as I was called upon to do three or four times in the course of a single afternoon must be judged, not by a sentence taken here or there from this or that portion of his observations, but from the general tenor of his entire remarks. I claim to be so judged. I suppose that I ought to regard it as a compliment that the House should have been so anxious to hear me on that occasion. Ordinarily speaking, I can say with truth that I am not very desirous to interfere in debate, but your Lordships on that occasion insisted on hearing me no less than three times in the course of an hour; and if that was the duty or the burden that you placed upon me, I am entitled in reply to point to what I said, not on one of those occasions only, but on the whole.
If it does not weary your Lordships to hear what I said on those various occasions in this context—and my quotations shall be brief—I will read them in the order of their delivery. In the course of my first speech, on column 419 of Hansard, in reply to my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. I spoke as follows (and a portion of this quotation was read by my noble friend)—
"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."
The quotation which I have just read is the fourth amongst those to which I intended to refer. I will begin at the beginning, but will omit to read that again when I come to it.
My first quotation is at the bottom of column 406. This was in reply to the, first speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. I said
"He does not mean that it would be possible for the Government to pledge themselves to accept in advance a scheme drawn up by Commissioners who have not yet been appointed, and of the

95
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.
That is the first extract. The second one occurs in the same speech lower down in the same page—
"When this Commission has reported … the Government will … submit the Report 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."
The third extract is in the next column, 408, in the upper part of the page—
"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."
The fourth extract was the passage in column 419 which I by mistake detached from its place and read to your Lordships just now. I need not repeat that. The fifth extract is that which appears in the Question of my noble friend on the Paper. This its n column 42]. I said—
"As far as I understand Lord Selborne's question it was this. Supposing the Commissioners give a Report, and supposing the Government, after due consideration of that Report—"
I call attention to these words because they are very material—
"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."
I think, my Lords, that these are the directly relevant extracts from what I said.
What did the Government undertake to do? What did I, on behalf of the Government—because I was speaking for the
96
Government—pledge them to do in those extracts? They undertook in the first place to set up a body of Commissioners to drawup a scheme experimentally for the application of proportional representation to something like 100 constituencies. They undertook. when that scheme should be presented, to give due consideration to it. They further undertook, if they found themselves in favour of it, to support it in the House of Commons. They undertook in any case to submit it to the judgment of the House of Commons, which obviously was entitled to express its views, and, in the event of the House expressing those views in a sense generally favourable to the scheme, they undertook to put a Minister in charge and to do their best in assisting the House of Commons to pass it into law. Those—and I challenge contradiction—are the exact pledges, neither more nor less, that I gave on behalf of the Government.
Now was there any doubt in your Lordships' minds or in the mind of the public as to what those pledges involved? I think not. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred just now to the fact that only two days ago he addressed a letter (which was in the nature of a rehearsal of his speech this afternoon) to the Daily Telegraph, and I am grateful for his civility in calling my attention to the matter this afternoon. It is obvious that his having sent the letter to the Daily Telegraph is an evidence of the confidence that he reposes in the judgment of that organ of public opinion, which throughout, under the able guidance of my noble friend Lord Burnham, has lent consistent support to the cause of proportional representation in your Lordships' House, and to the battle that the noble Earl was fighting on its behalf three or four months ago. Now I happen to have a copy of the Daily Telegraph published on the morning after those assurances by myself were given. If there had been any ambiguity, if there had even been in them the implications that the noble Earl now finds, surely the Daily Telegraph, under the inspiration of my noble friend Lord Burnham, would have been the first to find it out. This is what the Daily Telegraph said on February 7. It did me the favour of giving a general summary of my observations in no less than two places. In the first place, in the account of the proceedings of Parliament in your Lordships' House, the paper wrote as follows—

97
"Lord Curzon was compelled by the sustained pressure of Lord Salisbury, Lord Burnham, Lord Sheffield, and Lord Selborne to rise and give his assurance three times over. He put the matter very clearly—
I am delighted to know it—
"and explained that the Government were sincerely desirous that a reasonable experiment in proportional representation should be made. and would loyally do their best to carry a Bill framed on the Report if that Report were approved by the House of Commons. if the Commons rejected it, then the whole thing fell to the ground."
That was the account given in the summary of the Parliamentary proceedings. Then the leading article, which I think carries even greater weight, because I hope I do not an injustice to my noble friend Lord Burnham if I see traces in it of his Roman hand spoke as follows—
"When the Commissioners have carried out then task their Report is to be laid on the Table in both Houses for discussion, to be amended. accepted, or rejected as they may decide, and at this stage the Government will in a limited sense take charge of the matter. They will, as Lord Curzon put it yesterday in declaring their intention, treat the Report of the Commissioners in the same way as they treated the Report of the Speaker's Conference. They will submit the Report as a whole to the House of Commons, and if the House assents to it as a whole" [that is the, condition] "a Minister will take charge of it, and will use his best offices to secure the passage of the measure into law. The Government, in other words, is favourable to an experiment being made, but it will not take up the scheme when produced as a Government measure and will not put on the Government Whips unless and until the House of Commons has expressed its acceptance of the Report as a whole."
In the course of that controversy I did not from day to day find much consolation in the utterances of my noble friend either in this House or from Fleet-street, but I entirely accept his description of the part that I myself had taken in the discussion to which reference has been made.
May I add another testimony? The Commissioners had reported. The matter was coming before the House of Commons. I received a letter from a noble Lord who has since, to our universal regret, disappeared from our midst—I mean Lord Courtney. And here let me take the opportunity—inasmuch as none has previously occurred, at any rate to me, in your Lordships' House—of saying what a gap has, in my judgment, been left by the disappearance of that noble Lord not only from your Lordships' House but from public life in this country. Lord Courtney was a man of great intellectual powers, of
98
intense moral conviction, and of a fierce and passionate and almost unbending independence. Only a day and a half before Lord Courtney died, with a view to this discussion which was coming on upon the scheme of the Commissioners, he favoured me with a, letter in which he expressed a hope that "the influence of the Upper House may be expressed by yourself"—that was me "in any consultations that may precede the debate of next Monday." "Pray forgive," he added, "this intrusion, which may even appear impertinent, but you yourself have been uniformly fair in steering an even keel in this controversy, and it is my recognition of this fact that emboldens me to take the step I am taking." I am very proud of that testimony from Lord Courtney to the general fairness and correctness of the attitude that I have assumed in your Lordships' House, and which is now impugned.
I gave just now a summary of the undertakings that, on behalf of the Government, I had given. Now let me state exactly how and in what degree they were carried out. When the Report of the Commissioners had been received it was taken to the Cabinet. I asked that that due consideration should be given to it there for which Lord Courtney pleaded and which I had promised in your Lordships' House. That consideration was given, and I was not the least active of those who did their best to make your Lordships' case upon that occasion. The noble Earl has said, Were the Government opposed to the scheme? No. As often happens in any body, and perhaps not least often in Cabinets, the Government were divided upon the matter: some were in favour of the scheme and some were against it—there was a fairly even division of opinion. In these circumstances, how was it possible—the noble Earl himself has been a Cabinet 'Minister and can answer my question—for the Cabinet to give their united support to a scheme of which about one-half of their number disapproved?
Well, they gave the Report the consideration, the result of which I have described. They then laid it before the House, and they allowed the measure to be explained and introduced and the adoption of the Report to be moved by one of their own number. If they showed any partiality in the matter, if they strained a point, it was clearly in favour of proportional representation, and not the reverse. I imagine that Mr. Austen Chamber-

99
lain as a Minister might equally have claimed to be the first to speak; but, as a matter of fact, so anxious were we that the scheme should have a good start in the House of Commons that we instructed a Minister to make the first speech, although, being divided as we were, it was obviously impossible at that stage to place a Minister in charge of the Bill. Even after that, if the House of Commons had, according to the terms which I have more than once quoted, expressed themselves strongly in favour of the scheme, the Government would then have taken it up: they would have placed a Minister in charge of the Bill they would have followed the precedent that was adopted in the case of the Speaker's Conference. But as your Lordships have been told this afternoon, the House of Commons rejected the scheme by a majority of fifty-six. The noble Earl in his remarks just now said, Why did we let it be defeated? What does the noble Earl mean?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Do what?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Why did we let it be defeated? Those were your words—that the Government let it be defeated. Really, the House of Commons is not a football that can be kicked about in any direction the Government like; and if the House of Commons, after a full examination of the proposal, turned it down by a large majority, I think it is fair to assume that the House of Commons acted in the exercise of their judgment and not because the Government put on pressure in any one way or another.
Now, on the subject of this pressure I come to the second part of my noble friend's Question. He asks me how it was that when the Report came before the House of Commons on May 13 a Whip was issued from the office of the National Unionist Association, which is under the control of a member of the Government, against it. What are the facts? Sir George Younger, to whom my noble friend referred, was the author of this Whip. He is, it is true, the chairman of the Committee of this Unionist Association, but he is not, as my noble friend states in his Question, a member of the Government; he has no official connection with the Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: But he has with Mr. Bonar Law
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Earl has allowed to appear upon the Order Paper for at least a week the statement that the National Unionist Association is under the control of a member of the Government. Sir George Younger is not a member of the Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I mean Mr. Bonar Law, not Sir George Younger.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Very well. I thought when the noble Earl said that the Association was under the control of a member of the Government—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Mr. Bonar Law.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Surely not.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is. That is what I meant.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I accept, of course, the noble Earl's correction; but I am bound to say that neither I nor any one else read this reference to mean anything else than that the Whip was issued by a member of the Government.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I want to make that perfectly plain. My English may be faulty—it often is—but I had only Mr. Bonar Law in my mind. I knew Sir George Younger signed the Whip, but my complaint was that it was under the influence of Mr Bonar Law.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I fully accept the explanation of my noble friend. The new form of the charge is that the Whip was issued by an Association which is under the control of a member of the Government, and it turns out that the member of the Government concerned is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To that I have to reply that the National Unionist Association is not under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not consulted about this matter; that this Whip was issued without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without any reference to him whatsoever, and without any reference even to the Government Whips in the House of Commons, who never heard of it until the Whip

101
went into circulation. Further—and I think the noble Earl admitted this fact—this was not the only Whip that was issued upon the matter. The National Unionist Association was not the only Party involved. I have myself seen a strong Whip issued by an organisation on the other side—by the London Liberal Association who addressed a circular to Members of the House of Commons. And, really, my Lords, does the noble Earl take up the position that in a matter of this sort, on which opinion is so divided, on which the Government themselves even were disagreed, no Party Association is to be at liberty to "whip" its followers in the House of Commons? I should have thought that this was the last charge which could emanate from my noble friend, because a more conspicuous instance of active, energetic, and successful whipping than that shown by himself and his friends in your Lordships' House on the many occasions when this subject came before us, I have never seen. I have myself congratulated him upon it; and it seems to me that my noble friend is the last person, after such a successful display of those arts himself, to object to a relatively minor performance on the part of those who sit in the other House.
What is the long and short of the whole matter? It is this. I am sorry that the House of Commons decided, rightly or wrongly—I do not. personally agree with the decision—not on one occasion alone but on four occasions in the course of these discussions, not to allow a scheme of proportional representation to be tried in the new Franchise Bill. The noble Earl admitted just now that the Government were sharply divided upon the matter, and in his letter to the Daily Telegraph he gave the numbers of the Government why voted for and voted against; he there stated that in the debate on the Report of the Commissioners nine members of the Government voted for the Report and twenty against. That is a proof of how divided the Government were. And would he really have had those twenty, who were opposed to proportional representation, vote against their convictions? Would he have had the Government put pressure upon them not to vote upon that occasion? No one would have repudiated such a suggestion more eagerly than my noble friend.
In conclusion, I come to the one point in my noble friend's speech in respect of
102
which I was in warm sympathy with him He was right, if I may say so, to claim for the House of Lords in a matter of this sort a definite, legitimate, and honourable place in the Constitution of this country. No one has been, and no one I can assure your Lordships intends to be, more strenuous in the defence of those prerogatives than I myself; and I think that on a previous occasion I dissociated myself altogether from that conception of the duties of your Lordships' House which was put forward by our common friend Mr. Austen Chamberlain in the House of Commons at a time when he enjoyed a position of greater freedom and less responsibility. But even so, my Lords, the House of Lords cannot compel a Government to accept and to push forward a scheme of which quite half of its members disapprove. Still less can the House of Lords compel the House of Commons to adopt a measure, about which it is true your Lordships are perfectly entitled to express an opinion, but which, be it remembered, directly affects the composition and election of that House—you cannot compel the House of Commons to adopt a measure of that sort which the large majority of the House of Commons appear to dislike. That is altogether beyond the maximum conception if our powers, and I submit it is also beyond reason itself.
Therefore, although I greatly sympathise with my noble friend in many respects, although I myself should have liked to see an experiment in proportional representation made, and although I think it would have been possible, had the matter been rather differently handled, that an opportunity should have occurred for making that experiment, I do not think that my noble friend has any right to vent his disappointment upon us; while I hope I have shown grounds to your Lordships for thinking, as regards what I myself said on the occasions to which reference has been made, that my own withers are unwrung.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned once or twice during this conversation I should like to say a few words with regard to the subject we are discussing. I am not going to take up the time of the House by considering whether or not the question of proportional representation is one which concerns your Lordships' House, or again, by considering whether proportional representation is or is not a desirable thing.

103
As to the latter of those questions, I should be the first to admit that there is room for difference of opinion. As to the former of them, I do not admit that there is any room for difference of opinion; and I was glad to hear the noble Earl the Leader of the House say categorically that he claims for this House the fullest right to discuss and to examine any question of this kind.
The noble Earl dealt, with his usual ability, and, I thought, with a good deal of ingenuity, with the case which he had to make. I am afraid I must tell him that it seemed to me still to remain at the end of his argument a very indifferent case. I cannot help think that the conclusion which has been arrived at in regard to this business is a very deplorable conclusion. It is one, of course, entirely welcome to the opponents of proportional representation, who are as a rule, upon that subject at any rate, people with a very fanatical turn of mind. They, I have no doubt, greatly rejoice that the reasonable compromise which we thought was within reach the other day has come to naught, but I think if you look beyond the limits of that particular class you will find that there is a general feeling of deep regret that the opportunity should have been missed of trying the experiment which your Lordships' House was so anxious to see tried. That feeling is probably that not only of those who, when the Franchise Bill was in Committee, voted in favour of proportional representation, but will be shared by many who are not in favour of proportional representation but who nevertheless greatly desire that when differences of this kind arise between the two Houses of Parliament they should be dealt with in a temperate and considerate spirit; and I doubt whether any member of the House more regrets the outcome of this controversy than my noble friend who leads the House.
I must say that it does seem to me that there was an overwhelming case in favour of the arrangement which has been turned down in so high-handed a manner by the House of Commons. There are, one may say, three milestones in the history of the case. The Speaker's Conference was the first. I believe it is matter of common knowledge that the Speaker's Conference would not have arrived at the amount of unanimity which it did in effect reach unless the Report had been so drawn as
104
to leave room for a trial of proportional representation. The next milestone was the overwhelming success of the Amendment in favour of proportional representation which was carried in your Lordships' House when the Bill was in the Committee stage. I do not remember any House of Lords' majority more impressive, both by its dimensions and by its composition—for it represented no particular Party, class, or cleavage—than that remarkable Division.
When the Bill came back to us from the House of Commons we seemed to be on the verge of a serious crisis—a serious difference—between the two Houses of Parliament, and it was the desire of every member of this House to find some means of averting that crisis. We thought we had found it. We approached the subject in a spirit of moderation and good temper, and we arrived at the compromise of February 6. My Lords, we must not allow ourselves to forget that the terms of that compromise were suggested by the noble Earl who leads the House: they were merely adopted by me because I thought I discovered in them the material for a reasonable solution of the difficulty. I believe the compromise was welcomed by your Lordships, and so far as we could judge it was accepted by His Majesty's Government cordially and gratefully.
Some question has arisen as to the extent to which the noble Earl who leads the House was committed by the speeches which he delivered on that occasion. I am well aware that the noble Earl guarded himself very carefully at certain points. I am well aware that he told the House that he had no. official authority for accepting the proposal that was offered to him. I am well aware that he warned us—it was a perfectly reasonable warning—that he could not undertake to force any proposal of the kind which had been made upon a reluctant House of Commons; and I am also well aware that he guarded himself carefully against accepting or appearing to accept a scheme which had at that moment not yet seen the light. But, after all, what matters in a case of this kind is not so much the ipsissima verba of this or that sentence, but the general tenor of what is said by the responsible statesman who is addressing the House. As to that, my Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Earl left the House under the impression that His Majesty's Government were anxious to

105
have an experiment of this kind in proportional representation given a fair trial. I do not think there was any doubt as to that: nor does, I know, the noble Earl dispute it. In the next place, we all understood him to give us a very definite assurance that if His Majesty's Government found themselves favourably disposed to the project prepared by the Commissioners, they would put a Minister in charge of the measure. I do not think there is any doubt as to that.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend—"after the House of Commons had expressed itself also in favour." I was quite clear upon that.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think that that was the impression left upon our minds. That would mean that the liability of His Majesty's Government began only after the House of Commons had given its imprimatur to the measure. What we understood was that the Government would make it their business so to handle the measure when it came before the House as to obtain for it from the House the support which was indispensable if it were ever to become law.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Does the noble Marquess mean that I pledged the Government at that date to take that attitude whether the Government were or were not in favour of a Report which had not yet been drawn up and which they had not seen?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No, if they approved of the Report when seen.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is exactly what they did not do. When we did consider the scheme, and when the case for and against it was most carefully and anxiously put before the Cabinet, the Government were so divided upon the matter that they could not give it the support to which the noble Marquess refers.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think what emerges from this discussion is that His Majesty's Government, under the present dispensation, are not able to give the kind of pledge of Cabinet support which would have been given under the old system of Cabinet Government. I
106
believe that under the old system of Cabinet Government, after what passed in your Lordships' House, the Minister who had made the statement would have gone to his colleagues in the Cabinet and have said, "In order to avoid a serious Parliamentary crisis I have undertaken that the Government will do what they can to obtain a fair trial for proportional representation as an experiment." and I believe that in a case of that kind the Government would have supported the Minister. At any rate, your Lordships' House parted with the Bill upon the understanding that if the proposal elaborated by the Commissioners found their favour the Government would put a Minister in charge of the Bill and endeavour to navigate it into port. They did put a Minister in charge of the Bill, though, according to my noble friend's argument, they would not have put a Minister in charge of the Bill—
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Marquess is under a misapprehension. There was no Bill whatever.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: A Resolution.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: There was a Report of the Commissioners, and Mr. Fisher moved the adoption of the Report. The stage had not arrived for a Minister to be put in charge of the Bill; and, as the noble Marquess said—he made it a matter of complaint—the Minister who was allowed to move the adoption of the Report did so in his capacity as a private Member in favour of the scheme and not as a Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But he was in charge of the Resolution, and I think he was regarded by the House of Commons as having been put in charge of it by His Majesty's Government. That is how we Who read the newspapers regarded the whole matter. At any rate, the actual performance fell far short of what most of us looked forward to when the matter was debated here.
I said that a Minister had been put in charge of the Resolution. It now appears that Mr. Fisher's connection with it was of an accidental and informal kind, and not as most of us understood it. And we have the Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, going into the Lobby against the Resolution; and

107
then we have that, to my mini, most extraordinary occurrence—the issue of a Whip from the Central Office in opposition to the Resolution. I heard that the Whip was out before the debate took place, and some of my House of Commons friends told me that the Resolution was doomed because they said the Whip had gone out from the Central Office. I still venture to think that, even upon the moderate assumption that His Majesty's Government, after what had been said here, were going to maintain an attitude of neutrality towards the Resolution, the issue of such a Whip does seem a somewhat startling departure from that attitude of neutrality. I am afraid that in spite of all the ingenuity of my noble friend's argument many of us still remain under the impression that we have not been treated in this matter as well as we had a right to expect, and I must say that I think the termination of this business is one which is altogether deplorable both in the eyes of those who desire to see a great question like proportional representation dealt with in a reasonable and accommodating spirit, and still more in the eyes of all those who desire that in Parliamentary controversies of this kind your Lordships' House should be treated with fairness and consideration.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, I naturally feel flattered that the noble Earl the Leader of the House has based his justification here upon written words of which he says I have been the inspiring spirit. I do not deny the impeachment, but I warn him that he is risking his reputation. The Government to which he belongs has been called a "Press-ridden" Government, and he is risking his reputation, I think, by quoting the Press too much in justification of his attitude. He may himself be called a "Press-ridden" Minister.
So far as I am concerned I cannot say that I ever attributed the same importance as my noble friend who put the Question to the pledges which the noble Earl gave during the last stage of the Representation of the People Bill in this House. I did not think at the time that they amounted to very much. I saw that they allowed of a great width of interpretation. In fact, I think they were what we used to call "Gladstonian" in their ingenuity; and, looking back to the days when my noble friend also was in the House of Commons, he will recollect answers of the same sort to which that criticism applied. I think
108
they were "Gladstonian" in their indefiniteness. I did not think myself that they committed the Government to more than the introduction by a Minister in the other House of the Resolution embodying the Report of the Commission. On the other hand, I did think that the Minister would have been the Minister who had been in charge of the original Bill and not one of the latest recruits of the Government; and I did not expect that the Government, either directly or indirectly, or even through a Party organisation which, after all, as my noble friend says, is in the hands of the Leader of the House—we must put aside all pretence in this matter—would have issued a Whip of the sort which made it impossible that the question could have been decided without Party considerations being brought in. I do not say for a moment that in that way ally pledges were violated, but I do say that an atmosphere was created in the House of Commons which was unfavourable to fair consideration of the Report of the Commission.
I complain more of the attitude of the House of Commons. I ask your Lordships, What has become of the old courtesy of Parliament which was supposed to regulate the relations between the two Houses? Perhaps it is unfair to cast a brick at this House of Commons, of which there are few who ever say anything that is good; but at the same time I did think there would have been a spirit of cooperation at such a time between the two Houses which would have allowed the House of Commons to pay more respect to the oft-repeated decision of your Lordships on an organic law on which they had every right not only to express themselves but to have an equal and co-ordinate voice. As it is, the sons of Zeruiah are too strong for us, and the political "bosses" have had their way. It is not a very satisfactory solution. Instead of having a national settlement you have made it certain that the whole subject of the franchise in this country must come up before long for reconsideration. The Speaker's Conference aimed at a national settlement, and I know that a great majority of that Conference—I believe the Chairman also—deplore the fact that proportional representation has not been tried on a sufficient scale to make it easy without much controversy to widen the scheme and comprehend the country. As it is, you are face to face with the fact that at the next Election, with the extended

109
suffrage being used for the first tim eby 8,000,000 new voters, You are quite likely to have a minority majority. If you think that, it becomes a positive danger from the point of view of public opinion, and the authority of the Parliament thus elected will be constantly called in question. without dealing with the broad and vexed problem of political values we all know that Parliamentary methods are now called in question in a manner and to an extent which would have sounded strange a few years go. Yet Parliament has now deliberately ensured that there is a grave risk of the minority ruling through the faulty methods of representative Government that have been enacted SO recently by the two Houses.
I do not believe for a moment that this state of things can continue. It is brought about simply by Party intrigue. In one constituency the Unionist Party thought they had something to gain in a three-cornered election; in another the Radicals had the same opinion. In London the Liberal Federation protested against the introduction of proportional representation because they thought they would have a better chance in single-Member areas. Elsewhere the boot was on the other leg. You have to face the fact that you are now going to convene a Parliament the majority of which will represent the minority of the people. I think that is a dangerous condition of things, and I am certain it is one which cannot be regarded as permanent. The only satisfaction one can get out of this debate, and the miserable fiasco of which it is the record, is that proportional representation, being discussed so widely, is certain to come up again—I think phœnixlike it will rise again—and dominate, as I believe it ought to do, because it is the only true and faithful mirror. I know the political system of the country.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: MY Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has put forward very forcibly the dangers into which we may be led by the unfortunate results of this attempt at a compromise. I hold as strongly as he does the view that there is a great danger, but I think it would have been fairer if your Lordships had realised the immense difficulties which had been in the way of the Government. There is no doubt that my noble friend Lord Selborne challenged a decision on account of the convictions he holds on the subject, but from my point of view he did
110
so on far too wide an area. The plan, if it was to have any effect, was extremely difficult to enforce over wide stretches of country, and I think your Lordships ought to make some allowance for the immense pressure which was brought to bear on the Government by public opinion in the constitutencies which it was proposed to affect. I believe great injustice will be done to minorities in the large industrial centres in the North, but I believe also that the attempt to impose proportional representation on county constituencies was proved by the public opinion of those in the localities affected to be almost impossible. I happened to be here, in the intervals of being in Ireland, at the time when the Commissioners were going to sit, and I had an immediate demand made upon me by the whole of the county of Surrey to call a meeting—a demand not by the machine, but by impartial individuals who desired to express the opinion that it was impossible to apply this to the county of Surrey. And for the best and most practical of reasons, that it was impossible to select one candidate for three constituencies at a time when the difficulties of locomotion were trebled.
I believe that the Commissioners, though they were able to find county constituencies in which the experiment might be made, found that the proposal was received with the greatest reluctance, except by a certain number of convinced supporters of proportional representation. I must challenge in that respect one remark of my noble friend Lord Selborne. The opposition to the proposal may have come from the central machine, but it certainly did come from individual persons who felt about it with a degree of strength and feeling which one would hardly have credited them with on the question of representation. I should have been glad if my noble friend Earl Curzon of Kedleston had been able to show, not merely that the Government had taken account of that feeling, but that so far as they had the power of influencing it they did not allow the sort of circulation to be sent out which was sent out. We all accept, of course, the noble Earl's assurance that no influence was used on either side. At the same time there is no doubt that the National Unionist Association is not accustomed, as a rule to act contrary to the wishes of the Whips and of those in control of time destinies of the Party.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I must repeat that the Whip was issued without any reference to, or knowledge of, the Party Whips or the Leader of the House of Commons. Really why, after that explanation, we should be taunted with responsibility for that of which we knew nothing I am at a loss to understand.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am suggesting that they could have used their influence, and it would have left a greater opportunity for a fair decision. I think the result is disastrous, and that no experiment will be tried. So far from leaving the matter in the melting pot, I am much afraid that once the opportunity has been lost it is not likely to recur. I know there is a feeling on the part of the "machine" that proportional representation should not he tried in the large towns. I believe London is the very place where it ought to be tried; and in the large towns, where you can get over three constituencies in ten minutes, the system is much more feasible than when you come to try it over a great extent of country.
The noble Earl paid a high tribute to Lord Courtney, and I think that if Lord Courtney's view was the correct one—if the ordinary elector had given that amount of time and thought to the political future of his country which Lord Courtney credited him with—it might have been possible to try proportional representation universally. We all know that the opposite is the fact, and that it is as much as you can do in any county division to get the ordinary elector to take an interest in those who are seeking his suffrage and who are in his midst. If this question is raised again I earnestly hope that my noble friend will try to confine it to constituencies which are approximate to each other, and where it would be possible to make it a practicable proposal. I rose only because I somewhat sympathise with the difficulties in which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has found himself. He knows the reluctance there was to put this system in motion at the time we discussed it in February and the difficulties had been enormously increased before the House of Commons decided upon it on the last occasion.
LORD PARMOOR:My Lords, I should like to correct a misapprehension which has come into the debate owing to what was said by the last speaker. I do not know
112
whether he has taken the trouble to analyse the results of the voting in the House of Commons in reference to the constituencies which were suggested as suitable for proportional representation by the Commissioners who were appointed. If he had done so he would have seen that, so far from the recommendations of the Commissioners being found out of accordance with local feeling or the feelings of the representatives, the proposals of the Commissioners would have been carried by a considerable majority; in other words, the majority of those affected by the proposals supported them. whereas it was only a minority of those Members affected who voted on the other side.
Let me go a step further if I may. I do not want to enter into the general question except to remove a misapprehension. I will take three illustrations to show how this matter really stands. I will take first the case of my own county of Buckinghamshire, which was one of the counties included in the recommendation. Opinion was practically unanimous there. In the criticism a mistake was made, because it was said that ray noble friend Lord Anslow, Chairman of our County Council, was not in favour of proportional representation. As a matter of fact, he appeared at the hearing before the Local Commissioner and gave very strong evidence, not only that he was in favour of it, but that he spoke also as Chairman of the Liberal Association in South Bucks, and that that Association were unanimously in favour of proportional representation being adopted in the country. At the same time all the three Members were in favour—namely, Colonel Sir Harry Verney, Major Rothschild, and Major Du Pre.
Let me give another illustration to show how easily there may be misapprehension. It is an illustration from an entirely different constituency—Bristol. Bristol was unanimously in favour. The various political associations in Bristol met and a common representation was sent from those associations in favour of proportional representation. If you have facts of that kind, and if you have recommendations made as they were in this case by the Commissioners appointed under the promise in the Bill, what further evidence can you obtain as to the desire of special localities to put into operation what they consider a fair method of electoral representation? What was said

113
by the noble Lord shows that those who are not at any rate much in favour of this proposal have entirely disregarded what really have been the recommendations of the Commissioners. I think that was the reason for the defeat of the proposal in the House of Commons itself.
Let me give a further illustration to show the other side? I have been a good deal mixed up in this question with the Proportional Representation Society. Where did we have some of the strongest recommendations from? From the minority in Birmingham—from the Liberal and Labour Associations in Birmingham. It is quite true that you do not get that side represented in the House of commons because those who at the present time have managed to disfranchise the minority in Birmingham wish to keep the monopoly of their power. But directly you went under the surface there was no body from which claims came in more urgent terms for consideration by the Commissioners than from the Liberal and Labour Associations of Birmingham.
As regards the attitude of this House and the other House, one is obliged to consider what is the position of the House of Commons. It is a case of beati possidentes, and the objections came from those who thought that under the existing system of single representation they could maintain their seats and their position, although by that means they disfranchise, and purposely disfranchise, a very large number of voters to whom the intention of Parliament was that an effective vote should be given. That is really how the matter stands.
I will say one word only with reference to what was stated by the noble Earl opposite in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I do not want to find fault with what the noble Earl said, but surely you come to this—either Mr. Fisher in the House of Commons was to be in charge of the Bill as a Minister, or, being a Minister, was nevertheless only in the position of a private Member. What was the truth? Certainly I understood from what the noble Earl said in this House on the occasion to which reference has been made that a Minister would be put in charge of the Resolution as a Minister.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Of the Bill, if it came to the stage of a Bill?
LORD PARMOOR: Was not the noble Earl at that time talking of the Resolution?
114
That could not be a Bill. There was no question of a Bill. If a Resolution was Passed in the House of Commons, then proportional representation passed ipso facto and came into operation in the constituencies to which the proposals of the Commissioners related.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I thought I had explained that at the time I spoke the ultimate Report of the Commissioners was not foreseen, and it was contemplated that a Bill would be required.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, never.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: May I be allowed to speak for myself?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry; I do not want to be rude. but that, is not So.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I must be allowed to speak for myself. At that moment it was in contemplation by me and members of the Government that a Bill would be required. and it was with that prospect in view that I gave the assurance of the Bill being placed in charge of a Minister.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not wish to speak harshly of what the noble Earl said at the time. I agree that you must look at the whole context. You must look not only at special passages, but at the whole of the observations which the noble Earl made, as he said, on three different occasions during that evening. But surely it is a fact, is it not, that we were dealing at that time with the Amendment proposed by Lord Lansdowne? That was the subject-matter with which the noble Earl was dealing at that time. Now the Amendment of Lord Lansdowne did not suggest the introduction of any Bill. Lord Lansdowne's Amendment suggested that the Bill itself should stand; that a new clause should be inserted providing that a Commission should be appointed, and that if a favourable recommendation was made and we know it was made—and that recommendation was subsequently adopted in the House of Commons and in your Lordships' House, it should become incorporated with and form part of the Act already passed. No further step of any

115
kind was to he necessary. Ipso facto proportional representation would come into operation in the paticular constituencies scheduled by the Special Commissioners. The whole point was not a subsequent Bill, but the dealing with the Resolution itself, and it was in connection with that Resolution, if I recollect aright—I have not Hansard by me—and not with any Bill founded upon it that the undertaking was given to Lord Lansdowne when he brought his Amendment forward.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Oh, no !
LORD PARMOOR: I do not want to controvert the matter further. That was my impression. No further Bill was necessary; that is what I am putting. The determining factor was the adoption or not of the Resolution. That is certainly my recollection, and I followed the matter very closely at the time.
On the general question, I agree that this is not the time to discuss it. But I concur to a great extent in what was said by Lord Burnham, that the matter cannot be regarded as finally settled, and the result will almost certainly be that in many respects you will get in the House of Commons, not a representation of a majority, but really a minority representation. By the method of single-Member constituencies and without proportional representation you disfranchise a large number of voters to whom you purport in the Franchise Bill to give a vote.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I rise only to correct Lord Parmoor. My noble friend seems to be under the impression that I stated that in all these cases the Commissioners were reporting against the opinions of those who were involved. That was not so. What I meant to convey was that those who favour proportional representation presented their case with great vigour, and, as all other political associations have been dormant for a long period, the full extent of the objections to it was not made known in some places. while in others it was made known in the most unmistakable manner.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl the Lord President has left the House, but it is necessary, all the same, that I should say in his absence what I should have said in his presence about this unfortunate mis-
116
understanding. We do not for a moment suggest that it arises from the noble Earl not having in the most loyal way acted up to what he conceived to be the undertakings that he had given. But a deplorable misunderstanding has arisen, and it is much too late now for anything in the nature of recrimination to be in the least degree profitable.
It seems to me that the misunderstanding arose entirely about two things. The noble Earl made two conditions. He said, first, "We must be favourably disposed towards the Report." This condition was understood by the House in the only possible way in which it could be understood, and that was that the Government would be favourably disposed to the Report as an application of the principle of proportional representation, and it was not open to them at that stage to plead that a majority of them were opposed to that principle. Secondly, it is alleged that the condition was that there should be a free vote of the House of Commons at the earliest stage, and before any other obligation began to arise. It is unfortunate that we did not understand that to be the nature of the obligation entered into. The noble Earl falls back upon words used at an earlier period of the evening in an earlier speech—and he had to make many speeches by the necessity of the case. We are also entitled to fall back upon other words which he used in which he said, speaking for the Government as a whole, that the Government were anxious for an experiment to be made.
Taking into consideration that general position, the fact that no Bill would be necessary—and no Bill is necessary—and the mere fact that the expression "place a Minister in charge of the Bill" was used did not make it necessary for this House to take any other view of the pledges given than that which, in fact, it unfortunately did. What we conceived was going to be done, after what was said, was that the Government. would say to the House of Commons, "This is an arrangement under which the House of Lords has given value in the highest form that it could—it gave you the rest of the Bill; and the rest of the undertakings as part of the arrangement ought to be interpreted in the most liberal form, and the experiment ought to be made and honestly tried." That has, unfortunately, not been the sequel, and all I can say is that I hope that on future occasions greater clearness will be observed.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): I would direct the attention of my noble friend to the remarks which fell from Lord Curzon. I merely wish to say that the noble Earl expressed his regret before leaving that he had a very urgent and old-standing appointment at six o'clock; otherwise he would have attended to hear the noble Lord.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I quite realise that.

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask the Secretary of State for War—
Whether the military authorities are still opposed to the exchange of prisoners of war with particular reference to the case of interned civilians; and if so, whether he can state clearly the reasons so that the public may understand how our military interests would be prejudiced.
Whether the Government of India and the Governments of those Dominions who hold enemy civilian prisoners have been consulted in this matter; and if so, whether it has been made clear to there that, in the opinion of those responsible for the conduct of the war, it would be distinctly disadvantageous to our military interests that an exchange of some 30,000 German civilians for 4,000 British should be made: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not going over the whole ground, as the matter was very recently debated, nor and I going to ask the Government. to give any declaration about what is going to take place in Holland at the Conference. It was stated in another place that our representatives at The Hague would have free and unfettered power of negotiation in the matter of the exchange of prisoners, and nobody wants to interfere with Unit for a moment. Still, I do not see why the people of this country should not realise exactly what are the principles at stake. Although the matter has been so frequently discussed in this House, there has at no time been a clear statement made by His Majesty's Government of the very strong objections
118
held by the military in respect to this question of an exchange of prisoners. And it is not only in this country. The noble Earl the Leader of the House alluded to the fact that the surprise Agreement that has been arrived at between the French and the Germans was really due to the French Government having kept the matter secret so that it should not come within the purview of the military authorities in France, who equally hold very strong views about the objection to the exchange of prisoners. It therefore seemed to me that for the mere information of the public it would be very desirable if the Government would clearly indicate what are these objections, and would show that they are not merely due to lack of sympathy on the part of those who control the War Office and the Admiralty. That has been the suggestion made by those who have brought forward this question from time to time—that those who are responsible for the carrying on of the war have not sufficient feelings of humanity to let them enter into negotiations for the exchange of prisoners. That, I think is an unfounded accusation.
So much for the first part of my Question, The rest of it deals with the number of civilian prisoners concerned. Up till now, making deductions for those who would not come under the negotiations, it has been held that 3,000 or 1,000 British would be exchanged for 15,000 Gentians: but I believe the numbers are far larger than that. You have to calculate those who have been interned in the Dominions and in India, and I understand that the total number would be quite 30,000 Germans to 4,000 British. I an] taking the large totals, and not making any allowance for those who, for one reason or another, would be exempted from the operation of the negotiations. As that is a very considerable increase in the number of those who would be concerned in the exchange, I desire to know whether the authorities in Australia, India, and other parts of the Empire have had I he matter clearly brought before them. I do not know what their feelings and views are. But in the discussions which have taken place have they been consulted, and has it been clearly explained to then what are the objections to this large and unequal exchange of interned civilians? Even the mere question of how their transport would be affected under present conditions is one of extreme, importance.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords. I suffer under the disadvantage that I have heard only the last two of the recent debates in this House on the question of the exchange of prisoners of war, and therefore, perhaps, I am not as well posted as I might otherwise be on what has been said here before. My noble friend asks whether the military authorities are still opposed to an exchange. Yes. the reasons against an exchange of prisoners hold good as much to-day as they ever did. There is no military objection whatever against an exchange which interns prisoners of both sides in neutral countries; but there are, of course, grave military objections against repatriation of prisoners between ourselves and enemy Powers.
The duty of the military forces of the Crown is obviously to put out of action as many Germans as possible and to keep them out of action for the period of the war. Every fit German we send hack to Germany is naturally an increase to the power of that country. It is true that we get back an Englishman in exchange; but, if I might use the analogy of a game of chess, supposing I were playing a game with one of your Lordships, and at intervals, we will say of half an hour, put hack on to the board, piece for piece, every piece that we had taken, although I should no doubt he beaten, because I was against a better player, my opponent would probably take a great deal longer to win than if there were no arrangement for restoring pieces after they had been taken. I think that is a fair analogy to make in regard to war. If we put back a large number of prisoners into Germans, the opinion of the military authorities is that it must tend to prolong the war.
There are, naturally, arguments which modify this to a very large extent, and which the Government have taken into consideration: therefore they have come to the arrangement of which your Lordships are aware. For instance, we have the question that the British milicary prisoners are being engaged in Germany on work of obvious military importance. That work will have to be done by somebody. Consequently when we send back Germans to take the place of our released British prisoners a very large number of those Germans will be engaged in the work now being done by our own men. But, on the other hand, our prisoners are, naturally
120
and rightly, doing as little work as possible for Germany. That is the patriotic attitude to take up, and it is the attitude which I am sure they are taking up as far as they can. It is possible, therefore, that a smaller number of Germans would be able to do the work which is now being done by the total number of our prisoners.
Then there comes the question of whether an arrangement could not be made with Germany by which released prisoners should not be employed in the battle from or on the lines of communication. The view of the military authorities is that although, so ar as I know, no released prisoners have so far been found fighting again on the battle front, if the Central Powers were pressed to a very large extent there is no reason to suppose that they would stick to the agreement not to employ released prisoners on the from any more than they have stuck to any other agreement which has been made with them in the past. We hope that we shall get some proof that the enemy Powers propose to stick to an arrangement if it is come to on those lines by putting to them the case of exchanging civilians for military prisoners. It is obvious that, if neither side proposes to employ released prisoners on a battle front, there is no particular advantage in getting a released militaryindividual instead of a released civilian; and, therefore, if Germany really intends not to employ released prisoners on the battle from she ought, I think, to be prepared to accept a German civilian in place of somebody who has served in His Majesty's Forces at the Front. There is this additional difficulty. Even if we come to an arrangement by which released prisoners should not be employed on the battle front, the Central Powers have now announced that they no longer consider Russia as a theatre of war; consequently, unless some arrangement is come to, Germany would be at liberty to employ released prisoners on her Eastern From and to send back to the Western From all those men whose places have been taken by prisoners sent from England.
For these reasons the military authorities are naturally against an exchange of prisoners. The question is not as serious as perhaps it might sound, because, as the noble Lord knows, the difficulties for an exchange between ourselves and the Central Powers are far greater than they are for any of our European Allies. In regard to France and Italy it is only a question of putting the prisoners into a

121
train and sending them across the frontier through Switzerland; but in regard to the United Kingdom and the British Empire the question of shipping at once arises. We hope that we shall be able to come to an arrangement for an exchange of prisoners with Germany, and that it will be carried through to the great advantage of our own prisoners; but we cannot hold out great hopes that the exchange will take place with rapidity, for the obvious reason that it must mean diverting shipping from other necessary objects, such as bringing over our Allies from the United States and the provision of food and other necessaries for this country.
I now come to the second part of the noble Lord's Question. As he knows, no action would ever be taken by His Majesty's Government without entering into full consultation with the Government of India and the Governments of the Dominions. No actual arrangement has yet been come to in regard to an exchange of prisoners; therefore I understand that no actual consultation has taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Governments overseas. As the noble Lord sees, the question is one even more intimately connected with shipping than the question of exchange between this country and Germany. It has always been opposed by the naval authorities and by the shipping authorities for reasons into which I am sure it is not necessary to enter; and probably their opposition still holds good. But if it is found that any arrangement is possible—which I doubt—for the exchange of prisoners between the Dominions or India and the Central Powers, that arrangement will not be ratified, of course, until it has been submitted to, and approved by, the Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions when they attend the forthcoming Imperial Conference which is about to be held in London.
The War Office, as the noble Lord said, has been accused on more than one occasion of lack of sympathy for our prisoners in Germany. I think that this is an extraordinarily unfair accusation, and, if it is considered for one moment, a very absurd one. Practically every officer who is employed at the War Office has at some time or another served at the Front. It is not amongst those who have served at the from that there is any feeling that the Germans are kind to those who fall into their hands, or that they do not exercise the utmost brutality and cruelty
122
towards them. Therefore all officers, at any rate, realise what it must mean to fall into the hands of Germany as a prisoner. Most of them have friends, or old brother officers, or rank and file from their old regiments, who have been in the hands of our enemies, possibly wounded, for a considerable period. It is obvious, I think, how anxious every individual must be who knows how our prisoners are treated, to get these brother officers and the rank and file released at the earliest opportunity. There is this further reason. Every soldier is only too anxious to get rid of every German out of 'this country, and then, having got the Germans out, to keep them out. There is no question about this at the Front, and I have heard some very forcible views expressed, on more than one occasion, as to the advisability of kicking every German out and keeping him out. Therefore every opportunity of getting our own people back and at the same time getting rid of the Germans will obviously be welcomed by every one at the Front.
As far as sentiment is concerned, the feeling is entirely in favour of exchange. But it is not only a question of sentiment, but also of duty—the duty of keeping as many of the enemy out of action as possible, and for the whole period of the war. Now, even as regards sentiment there is an argument against exchange. Let me put it in this way: A father has one son who is a prisoner in Germany, and he has another son who is, say, nineteen years of age. If we are correct in thinking that any release of German prisoners is likely to prolong the war, that second son will be called up for duty in the trenches. If during his term of duty in' the trenches he is killed, the effect of releasing prisoners and getting the first son home will be that the second son is killed. You will say that this is rather an absurd dilemma, and that it is very improbable. It is not only not improbable but absolutely certain, because England is the mother of all her sons, whether in captivity or about to be called up for service at the Front. Therefore from an entirely sentimental point of view any increase in the strength of Germany must mean more casualties if we agree that increase in strength means a prolongation of the war.
It might be said that, the military authorities having strong views upon the military disadvantages of exchange, His Majesty's Government should not have taken the steps which they have taken with

123
a view of effecting an exchange of prisoners. His Majesty's Government feel that it is worth while to suffer some military disadvantage in order to release our unfortunate officers and men from the great hardships and the miseries and brutalities which they suffer at the hands of the Germans. That being so, it is proposed to make an arrangement with the Germans for an exchange, and I feel sure that I need not tell your Lordships that, strong as are the views of the military authorities against an exchange, they will most loyally and fully carry out the wishes of the Government in any arrangement which is made. I have seen it suggested that this or that officer should not be sent on Missions because of his known opposition to exchange. Soldiers are accustomed to obey orders, and if the Government come to the conclusion that an exchange is desirable I am sure your Lordships may rely upon every officer doing his utmost to carry that decision into effect.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I have listened to the most extraordinary speech that it has ever been my privilege to hear, and one of a most unconstitutional kind. We have had the representative of a great Government Department getting up and for a great number of minutes denouncing the policy accepted by the Government on matter affecting British prisoners of war.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Question is On the Paper.
LORD GAINFORD: It is usual, when a Question is on the Paper drawing attention to a possible difference of views among members of His Majesty's Government, that the Minister who replies does not argue against the policy which His Majesty's Government have accepted after weighing every argument for or against that particular policy; but this evening we have had the policy of His Majesty's Government, in regard to the exchange of prisoners repudiated by the War Office. Arguments have been placed before us why it is undesirable that this exchange should take place, and, of course, the argument has not been advanced by the noble Earl to justify in any way the course which the Government and Ministers have thought fit to pursue. I think it is right that I should draw attention to a speech of that kind, because I think it does prejudice a policy which, after the matter has been fully thrashed out, has been reached by the Government.
124
I acknowledge that in the closing sentence of the noble Earl's speech there was an attempt at some little desire to be loyal to the decision at which the Government have arrived. He did say that officers were under discipline and it was their custom to obey orders. But I also desire to say before I sit down, that having taken part in a large number of the debates in connection with the exchange of prisoners of war I have never heard in this House, and certainly have never made, any such charge that there was lack of sympathy on the part of the War Office with British prisoners of war in Germany. They have realised the sufferings which our prisoners have had to endure, and I have not suggested, and I am sure no other noble Lord has suggested, that the action of the War Office in advising the Government up to a recent period not to permit any exchange of prisoners has been influenced by any lack of humanity. Far from that, I believe that the soldiers realise the sufferings of British prisoners of war as much as any member of the civil population. They have argued it upon grounds referred to this afternoon. When all those arguments have been taken into consideration it has been found on the whole advantageous, in the interests of humanity and even of the war itself, that some step should be taken to commence an exchange of prisoners, and I think it is a pity that we should disturb this decision just at the very moment when the representatives of the two great Powers are to meet in conference at The Hague in connection with this matter.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, the last thing I wish to do is to intervene again in debate, but the Parliamentary Secretary of the War Office has made a grave statement of the military policy which will be misunderstood outside this House unless it is cleared up this afternoon. Like my noble friend who spoke last, I was astounded to hear the representative of the Government criticising in such unmeasured language from the military point of view the decision of the Government and the War Cabinet. I am the last person in the world to suspect General Officers at the War Office, or any other officers, of being lacking in sympathy for those who have been so cruelly afflicted as prisoners of war in Germany. On the contrary, I know it to be a gross libel on them to insinuate anything of the kind. They have, of course,

125
not only the common feelings of humanity, but also the peculiar affection which I am glad to say binds officers and men in every British force and every British regiment.
But that is not the point. If the military considerations are to be held valid, not in the exclusion of any arrangement carried out, but in the negotiation of this instrument, then the whole value of the debates which have taken place here and the answers given in another place go by the board. There have been two or three debates in this House, one of which I had the honour to initiate not long ago, and the ground on which the case was put was perfectly simple. We admitted—all of us without exception, I think—that the military considerations were very likely against a system of free and unconditional exchange of prisoners. That not only applied to this country, but equally, or even in greater measure, to France and Italy; yet the Governments of both these countries had negotiated with Germany arrangements for the free and unconditional exchange of prisoners of war. We asked that considerations of humanity, and, more than that, the moral issues involved in public opinion in this country and in the Empire, should also be taken into account, anti that the example set by those two countries should be followed practically in the letter. We were told that the Government would certainly have dune a great deal if they had known that anything of the sort was going on, but that they had been kept in a state of uter ignorance by our Allies as to the negotiations and as to their result. However, they were now seized of the facts, and we have understood that Lord Newton, Who no doubt has been constantly snubbed in days gone by when he put the case forward, is going to Holland with General Belfield and the Home Secretary to negotiate exactly the same sort of arrangement between Germany and ourselves as has already been made between Germany and our Allies.
I want to have it quite clear this afternoon, not only for the information of your Lordships but for the information of the public outside, that the General Officer who is going as a member of this Mission will not go in the spirit which has been explained by the noble Earl here this afternoon. The noble Earl said that the soldiers would loyally carry out their orders. That is not the point. General Belfield does not go as a subordinate of
126
Lord Newton or of the Home Secretary, but, as I understand, he goes as their colleague equally charged with them to negotiate an arrangement on the terms which have been agreed in this House and in the House of Commons. I cannot think that it has been a wise performance of my noble friend this afternoon—I have no doubt he was not in the least responsible—to make a declaration of this nature on the very eve of the opening of negotiations. Nobody has forgotten the gravity of the military issue. I do not suppose it is forgotten abroad either, especially at such a time, and now that Parliament has accepted the terms and it is understood from the representatives of the Government that they were determined, after weighing the case in all its bearings, to negotiate on the same terms in regard to our prisoners of war as has been done by the other Powers, we want also the assurance that the military opinion which has been so forcibly expressed shall not be allowed to go any further than the War Cabinet. The responsibility has been with the War Cabinet, weighing entirely the balance of advantage and of humanity involved. The War Cabinet came to their decision, and I do not think it was for the War Office or its representatives here or in the. House of Commons to protest against what the War Cabinet have done. I am bound to say that that was my feeling while I listened to my noble friend's powerful indictment of their policy, and I very much regret that it has been necessary to carry on this debate at all.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, if I may address the House again I would like to say that I think the two noble Lords who have spoken have done the greatest disservice to the very cause they represent. This is an attack on the Government.
LORD BURNITAM: On the contrary
LORD LAMINGTON: You say our representatives ought to go on the plea of humane considerations only. The noble Earl has made, I think, a careful, reasoned, and clear statement, which, had it been made two or three months ago, would have placed us in a far better position to negotiate than we are in now. Now you practically upset the whole of these considerations and prevent our representatives from taking such a strong line as they might have taken and from getting

127
better terms from the Germans, who no doubt will press them very hard indeed. The frequent debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House have, I believe. from time to time weakened our position in regard to any possible exchange that may take place. It is not my business to defend the Government, but as the author of the Question I must say that nothing could have been more remote from my mind than the thought that I was going to upset the negotiations. I said it had been clearly stated in the House of Commons that those who represent this country have at absolutely free hand. I wished that the country should know the reasons that have in the past dictated our police. The military authorities have been accused of lack of humanity and sympathy. I cannot conceive for a moment that a statement of the reasons for our policy should preclude their cooling to, as far as possible, satisfactory arrangement in Holland with our enemies.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, as you are aware, I am not in a position to give any authoritative statement upon this subject. I am not connected with any of the Departments concerned, but I wish to remind the noble Lord opposite that the statement made by my noble friend was really in answer to a specific Question put upon the Paper by Lord Lamington. Lord Burnham asks for assurances about the General Officer who is going or is likely to go to The Hague. I can merely refer him to the statement made by Lord Newton to your Lordships a short time ago that a decision had been come to by the Government. I do not pretend exactly to quote his words, but they were, broadly speaking I think, that every effort would be made to carry into agreement some arrangement similar or analogous to that achieved by the French. No assurances are required about the officers concerned when a pledge so specific has been given and when an envoy of special status and responsibility has been, or is shortly going to be, despatched to a neutral country to discuss it, and I should hope also that the very clear assurance given by my noble friend beside me as to the loyalty with which the War Office and its officials will carry out the instructions that may reach them will be a
128
sufficient pledge to your Lordships and to the country that no obstacle will be put in the way of carrying out as large and as satisfactory an Agreement as circumstances will permit.

JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PRIVATE BILLS, &c.
[From Minutes of June 4.]
MILES DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
BRITISH GAS LIGHT COMPANY (NORWICH) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MOTHERWELL WATER (SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
LONDONDERRY CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BRIXHAM GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Viscount Sandhurst).

LAW AGENTS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before seven o'clock.