Lords Sitting of 20 March 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, as this Bill will come up for Second Reading to-morrow it may be interesting to your Lordships to know that copies of the Bill may be obtained now from the Printed Paper Office.

SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD ASRWITH: My Lords, I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the guardianship, maintenance, and custody of infants, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ALTERNATIVE VOTE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the story of the imperfections of our electoral system is no new one to your Lordships' House. It is a matter which has been
414
discussed very often, and not only here but also in another place. It has been the theme of speeches upon many public platforms for a good many years, and a number of philosophers have written about it, and produced very elaborate systems for overcoming its difficulties. To the old system I do not think there were ever so many objections as there are at the present time. New elements have been introduced into our political life by the advent of a new political Party, and a system which was excellent for the days when there were only two political Parties is not well suited for these days when we have three. And it is especially with regard to the fact that there are now three Parties that I have ventured to introduce a Bill for discussion.
I have said that it is not a new story. There have been curious incidents in the past. In 1886 the Government, which had a majority of 104 votes in another place, received 100,000 votes fewer than did their opponents. In 1895, when the majority was 150, the votes which were given to the two political Parties were about equal. And I do not suppose, though I have not the figures with me, that the vast majority which the Government enjoyed in 1906 was justified by the number of votes which were given. It is almost inevitable, when there is a considerable wave of opinion in this country, that there should be a larger number of Members of Parliament representing that wave than the exact number of recorded votes would allot. But the position now is very different. In those days it was the general wish of the country that one political Party should be in power, and the fact that that Party had a considerable majority was certainly very much for the convenience of public affairs. With that I do not think that there was any very serious ground of complaint.
But, as I have said, the position is different now, and the existence of the difference was to some extent recognised by the Speaker's Conference which reported at the beginning of 1917, after having sat for some time under the chairmanship of the then Speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. Some of your Lordships may remember that they recommended generally a system of Proportional Representation, and in places where Proportional Representa-

415
tion was not suitable there was to be a system of the alternative vote. Recommendation 63 says:
"At any election in a single-member constituency where there are more than two candidates the election shall be held on the system of voting known as the alternative vote."
Many of us remember the very interesting discussions which took place in this House, the Amendments which we embodied in the Representation of the People Bill, and the way in which at the last moment your Lordships' House did not insist upon the Amendments which were then inserted, so that the Bill passed practically in its original shape.
The principle of this Bill having been recommended by the Speaker's Conference, at any rate I may say for if that there is nothing in it of a very revolutionary character. I admit that I do not look forward to the alternative vote as solving all the difficulties and remedying all the defects in our electoral system to-day. It is only part of a general measure of reform. What system will ultimately be adopted it is impossible for us to say. A Royal Commission which was appointed something like fifteen years ago went very thoroughly into the matter and various systems were catalogued, so that when His Majesty's present Government, or any other Government, think it necessary to make some change they will find these schemes ready to their hands, and the task will not be a difficult one.
Now I turn to the General Election of last year in which, as I have already said, there was a very grave difference from any other General Election which has taken place in this country. His Majesty's Government now in office secured 5,474,000 votes, but they are in office as the result of a minority vote because no fewer than 8,863,000 votes were given to the other political Parties. Therefore, for the first time, we have in existence a Government which is elected only by a minority of the people of the country. I shall venture to quote one or two other figures bearing upon this matter. First, with regard to the number of votes per seat. The Labour Party, to secure their seats, had to get 30,800 votes for each seat: the Liberal Party. 37,000: and the Conservative Party only 17,900 votes. In the Midland
416
area in which I live there were thirty-three fights, and the Conservative Party, with 316,620 votes, secured seventeen Members, Labour, with 242,136 votes, got seven Members and the Liberals, with 333,615 votes, got nine Members. Your Lordships will see that in this case the Conservative Party, with 316,000 votes, obtained very nearly twice as many Members as the Liberal Party with 333,615 votes.
I do not look upon that result. with any resentment, but I think it is an important matter to be considered with regard to the future. It is not at all inconceivable—indeed, I suppose most noble Lords will admit that it is exceedingly likely—that there will be a swing of the pendulum upon the next occasion. It would not be very much to assume that there would be an addition of, say, ten per cent. in the Labour vote and a reduction of ten per cent. in the Conservative vote at the next General Election. Supposing that were to happen we should then find the Labour Party in office, with perhaps the same majority as that which is enjoyed by noble Lords opposite to-day. The difference between the number of votes received by the two Parties is about 20 per cent., and, therefore, if there was an increase of 10 per cent. in the Labour vote and a reduction of 10 per cent. in the Conservative vote there would be no reason why the Labour Party should not then be in office with the same majority as that which is enjoyed by the present Government. That is not a prospect which fills me with particular alarm, but it is an instance of the way in which the present electoral system does not necessarily represent the full opinion of the people of this country.
Of course, this Bill does not pretend to be in any sense a perfect Bill. I am afraid that I saw one or two misprints in it, when reading it over the other day, for which, no doubt, I am responsible. But I am anxious that your Lordships' House should have an opportunity of discussing this matter, and it seemed to me on the whole better that it should be discussed on a definite Bill than upon a somewhat abstract Resolution. We are familiar in this House with the criticism that what we say is purely destructive, and that we offer no constructive proposals in our turn. I venture to offer this constructive proposal, not as a complete remedy for

417
the disease, but as carrying out part of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. It is quite possible that the same result which we see at present would attend the adoption of this system, but, if it did, it would at any rate be more technically correct; and I feel that a number of people who otherwise might think that their views did not receive adequate representation in another place would have none of the grounds of complaint which they justly have at the present time. The really important thing is the need to alter our system for the new circumstances which have arisen. And now that there are large numbers added to our electorate it seems to me above all necessary and most important that the new voters should be fully persuaded that the votes which they cast have an equal effectiveness with those of others, and that they are adequately represented in the House of Commons. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words on this Bill as I have always taken part in the debates in another place both upon this proposal for the alternative vote and on the proposal for Proportional Representation. I have always been, and I am now, resolutely opposed to any such change as that indicated by the noble Earl in his speech. Oddly enough, the main reason which governs me is that which apparently has largely operated with the noble Earl himself in bringing this Bill forward. He has pointed out with unanswerable truth that in recent General Elections, and perhaps more conspicuously so in the last than in any of its predecessors, the Government of the day has been returned by a large mass vote but has not obtained what is called a majority of the electorate. I am not quite sure that the noble Earl is correct; in his general reference to the past. I had occasion the other day to examine the figures of Elections going back for a great many years, and I am not sure that it is correct to say that the Government of to-day is the first that has been elected by a minority of the electors as a whole.
Be that as it may, I submit that in seeking to get a majority of voters for the
418
Government of the day to represent one particular side or Party in politics we are trying after that which, in present conditions, is not to be attained. I think that the noble Earl and those who support this Bill fail to realise the tremendous change which has taken place in this country during the last ten or twelve years, and a Bill of this kind is, in my view, altogether uncalled for. As the noble Earl says there are three Parties. The other day we bad an election in which not only were three Parties represented, but one Party, that to which I have the honour to belong, was represented by two candidates. The noble Earl suggests, and in his Bill is good enough to give us an example, that where you have three candidates—of course, if there are more than three candidates it operates in the same way, with the necessary changes—with, we will say, a poll of 10,000 votes, and the first candidate only obtains between 3,000 and 4,000 votes and therefore is not elected by one group of the electors, there should be a recount and all the votes given to the third candidate at the bottom of the poll should be apportioned to the other two, according to the choice that the elector has male in voting.
I believe I am correct in stating the operation of the Bill. I do not believe in that principle; for this reason, first of all. I have said that I think the noble Earl is trying to secure a result which it is impossible to secure. I do not think one wants a majority of the electors as a whole. We have, political groups in this country and they have come to stay, at all events for some considerable time. Therefore, we ought to have a strong Government. It must of necessity be representative of the particular group which is in the majority. It is, I think, because that fact is not sufficiently recognised that these efforts are made to bring about some new system of recording your votes.
I am old enough to remember the days when we had two-member constituencies almost as a rule in county divisions, and each elector, of course, had two votes. There were frequently three or four candidates, and this was what went on in many instances in those days. The candidates wore selected from different parts of a division. The divisions were large and it was thought desirable, if possible, to choose

419
somebody from each end of a division so that the representation should be equally shared by the division as a whole. What happened? The canvassers went to the supporters of candidate A in the north of the county and said: "Now, look here, you want your man elected, of course. You live near your man, you know him, you like him, and you trust him; but you do not care about candidate B who comes from the other end of the county and whom you do not know. You may as well give your second vote to my man." To my knowledge that argument was used. I have taken part in more than one election under that system, and that method of canvassing went on almost universally. Nobody can pretend that such a system of distributing the second vote is likely to secure the return of the Party which has the majority of votes in that division. It certainly did not do so in the cases to which I refer. It often happened that the political power of a particular division was paralysed by the fact that it was represented by two members of different political views and, therefore, as often as one voted in the "Aye" Lobby the other voted in the "No" Lobby. That is not a result which any one wishes to bring about.
The noble Earl pointed out that the Party which was in an absolute minority obtained no representation. I do not think we want it to have representation. I do not in the least want to encourage fads or freaks, promoted by certain bodies who come together and command a number of votes. That, as your Lordships know, goes on to some extent now. Bodies representing particular interests—such as anti-vaccination, or anti-something or other—are formed and highly organised, and they decide to throw their votes on one side or the other, not because they have a predilection for Conservatives, or Liberals, or Labour, but because they intend to exert the whole of their energies in support of a particular fad. If they gave their second or alternative vote to the man whom they thought would be most likely to give effect to their particular views, I do not think it would strengthen our Parliamentary system.
I desire that the Government of the day should be a strong Government, supported by a strong and stable majority, so that it can govern here at home and speak with authority abroad. I believe
420
that can be brought about by the present system. It may be that the figures to which I referred a moment ago, and which I have not brought with me, show that a Government, whether Liberal, or Conservative, or Labour, was returned because it commanded certain groups in the country, and had not an actual majority of the electors behind it. But to quote, as the noble Earl did, the fact which is, of course, undisputed, that you have five millions on one side and eight millions against it, and to use it in condemnation of the present system is, I believe, to ignore the whole of the facts of the present political situation. The eight million voters that you are merging together differ from each other in their political views as much as they differ from those of the Party that has the majority.
In the recent General Election to which the noble Earl has referred, and on which he depends so much for his arguments in this particular case, there was as bitter a controversy between candidates belonging to the same Party as there was between Conservative and Labour candidates, and you had agreement upon several questions which, I suppose, were outside the ordinary controversies of political life, between the two old Parties as opposed to the third, or Labour Party. That is going to continue. It is worth noting that a do not know whether it was the same Bill or not; I believe it was somewhat different, but the principle was the same, that of the alternative vote—was introduced in the House of Commons which, of course, is more affected by it than your Lordships' House. The House of Commons rejected it by a sufficient majority, though not by a very big majority.
As everyone knows who has sat in the House of Commons, these questions are often regarded there as academic when they are brought forward by private Members. They do not then command the same amount of interest., and, therefore, the same number of votes as they do when they are brought forward with a great power behind them. At all events there was an emphatic rejection in the House of Commons of this proposal, and we know that, according to the Rules of the House of Commons, this Bill, were it to pass your Lordships' House, could rot be considered again in the House of Commons in the same session. Discussion is, therefore, rather academic. I

421
am sure the noble Earl felt that himself, because he was good enough to tell us in his speech that he desired a discussion in your Lordships' House and he thought—and I am sure we all agree with that that discussion would probably be more interesting and more effective if it took place upon a definite scheme such as that which he has put before us rather than upon an abstract Resolution. We are much indebted to the noble Earl, if I may venture to say so, for putting his scheme forward in a concrete form.
The question is: What do you want? Are we seeking, as the noble Earl is, to have such a system of voting as will give a candidate before he is elected a clear majority of the votes recorded. It may be said that the noble Earl's system is no worse than any other system of voting. If, however, what we want is a simple form of election, one that will be within the understanding of all those who are taking part in it, and if, above all, we do not want to do anything which is likely to tend to log-rolling and to the exercise of all that kind of machinery which is brought into play to a sufficient extent already, then I think the system we have at the present time is, on the whole, the best. It is well understood by the people of this country. It gives us a Government which, as a rule, has a strong majority behind it, and that, I think, is what we really desire and what the majority of the people want.
The noble Earl quoted the Report of the Royal Commission with which I am very familiar. There is one other argument which, with respect, I would advance to your Lordships. It is this. There is not the smallest evidence to be found anywhere that any section of the electors of this country is taking the smallest interest in this question or desires this reform. I am sure the noble Earl will acquit me of saying anything that is intended to be offensive, but it is true that certain eminent statesmen, Members of Parliament, have advocated this reform, and it is a remarkable fact that these proposals invariably come from those who represent particular Parties which have been beaten in recent elections. I am sure not one of us would suggest that the noble Earl brings this forward because he thinks it will aid any particular Party. He brings it forward because he thinks that it is necessary to have a change in our system, and that this is the best one.
422
It is interesting to remember that since the great Reform Bill of 1832 we have gradually swept away all those methods of voting which were, peculiar, and sonic of which were indefensible, and we have come down to the present plain system where you have, as a rule, single-member constituencies in which each elector his one vote that he can give to the man of his choice. He probably has four or Eve candidates to choose from, and at least three groups. I do not think you will strengthen this country, or secure a better result, by altering the system in the manner proposed by the noble Earl, and I certainly shall record my vote against it. I hope your Lordships will decide that a change is not desirable. If it were proved to be desirable to effect a change of this kind it would be inopportune to do so directly after a General Election when the country had hardly settled down from the effects of that Election and when, as we all know is the case, the effect of the immense change in the number of electors of the country has hardly been fully appreciated. Therefore, both as regards the merits of the Bill and the time of its introduction, I hope your Lordships will reject by a decisive majority the Motion of the noble Earl.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, it may be convenient if in a very few words—I do not intend to detain your Lordships at any length—I stated the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill. The noble Earl who introduced it stated, I thought with indefeasible accuracy, that this subject had frequently been discussed before both in this House and in other places. I had made, in fact, the same observation as my noble friend behind me that the subject was generally introduced after a General Election, and frequently by the Party which had not been victorious at the polls. I have seen enough of General Elections to have read an immense number of those extremely ingenious calculations which are invariably made after the declaration of the polls, and which seem to afford a great deal of consolation to those Parties that have not succeeded, because they generally prove that if there had been some change in the method by which those elections were conducted there would have been a large, or at least a substan-

423
tial, majority for some other Party than that which was successful. I gather from what the noble Earl has said that he is rather altruistic in his considerations. I think he indicated that possibly the Labour Party rather than the Liberal Party might have profited from an arrangement of this kind. I thought I detected also a possible inaccuracy in the statement of the noble Earl. He referred to the change from two Parties to three Parties. I was under the impression that there were four Parties, but on that point the noble Earl no doubt is far better informed than I am.
There was a slight lacuna in the observations of the noble Earl when he referred solely to the figures which had been recorded at the Elections, and drew from those figures a number of very ingenious and rather startling inferences. Surely he ought to have taken into account also the considerable number of constituencies which were uncontested. I do not think, in the figures he gave, that he made any allowance for the enormous, and probably overwhelming, majorities there would have been for certain Parties had the other Parties thought it worth while to contest those constituencies. I do not in the least wish to make a special claim for the Party to which I belong, but I believe it is a fact that at the last General Election the popularity of Conservative candidates in certain constituencies was such that a larger number of Conservatives were returned unopposed than was the case with the candidates of any other Party. That, of course, may be due, to a certain extent, to the qualifications of particular Members.
My noble friend behind me (Viscount Long of Wraxall) has made a very strong criticism upon this proposed system. It is not my business to-day to go fully into all the arguments that may be adduced for or against a Bill of this kind, but I am not altogether converted to the idea that there is anything so abominable as the noble Earl suggests in the fact that the candidate who is elected by a particular constituency does not get at least a bare majority of the votes cast in that constituency. I do not see that there is anything very wrong in that state of things. You can surely agree that it is the verdict of the constituency, and that it is the way in which the voters in that constituency choose to exercise
424
their vote. As a result, a man may be elected as a Member of Parliament who does not necessarily receive a majority of the total votes cast.
What, after all, is the assumption at the basis of some of these ingenious methods of electing Members of Parliament? It is that, though electors want to vote for some particular candidate, and prefer their own candidate to any other, yet they have in nice gradations a preference for second, third and fourth candidates. The result may be that the man elected is elected not because he is the particular choice of voters, or the man on whom the electors have set their hearts, but because they regard him as either secondly or thirdly less disadvantageous than others. Surely it is a difficult thing to examine closely the likings that people have for any particular candidates, and it is impossible to grade a second preference or third preference as equal to the full unqualified approval which is signified by giving a particular candidate your first vote.
If one went into the methods advocated by the noble Earl I should have something to say in criticism of them. Another Bill introduced into the House of Commons dealing with the same subject was rejected by a small majority. The method advocated by the noble Earl is this. Suppose there are three members standing for a single-member constituency. You select first for execution the particular man who gets the smallest number of first preference votes, and you distribute his second preference votes among the other candidates. It may perfectly well be that though this particular person got the smallest number of first preferences he might get a larger number of second preference votes than the other candidates, with the result that you would defeat. the whole object of electing the man on whom the mind of the electorate was most set and lead out to instant execution the very man who might have polled the largest number of votes had another system of voting been adopted.
The Bill which was introduced in another place proceeded on a different principle. It also had many objections. You had to take the first. preference votes and multiply them by two; take the second preference votes and multiply them

425
by one—not a very difficult mathematical calculation—add them together and find an average. If any of the particular candidates received less than the average you struck him out and proceeded to divide up his votes in a similar manner to that advocated by the noble Earl. There is the highest authority for this particular method of dealing with these preference votes. The noble Earl made no reference to it and I am interested to know why he refuses this particular formula in deference to the one he has adopted. The formula I am quoting was in the Bill introduced by Dr. Chapple and it received the imprimatur of Sir Joseph Larmoor, one of the greatest mathematicians of the day. I think the noble Earl should say why he rejects this formula in favour of one which is not so well grounded. This formula recommended itself to some of the highest mathematical intellects at Cambridge. Whether it would have had equal effect in recommending itself to the ordinary voter I leave those of your Lordships who are more familiar with elections to decide.
It. is quite true, and I should say so as part of the history of this question, that the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform did advise in favour of Proportional Representation, and also in favour of applying the alternative vote though they did not state the system that was to be followed in single-member constituencies. The history of this question is rather interesting. There was a good deal of difference of opinion between this House and another place in connection with the Franchise Bill. Proportional Representation was rejected by the House of Commons and the alternative vote retained after a Division, by 125 to 124 in Committee and, after a Division, by 150 to 121 on Report—not very large majorities. In this House Proportional Representation was reinstated, after all the defects had been pointed out, and your Lordships deleted the alternative vote—but the House of Commons disagreed with the Amendments. Eventually a compromise was arrived at. The alternative vote was dropped and provision was made for a scheme to be prepared under which, if approved by both Houses, one hundred Members would be elected by Proportional Representation. The scheme prepared after the passing of the Act was rejected
426
by the House of Commons, and the alternative vote as well as Proportional Representation then dropped.
I have no doubt that other noble Lords will discuss fully other aspects of this question, but one thing must be said, and said definitely, by all those who have experience of elections. It is this, that as regards canvassing, log rolling and arrangements of that kind, what has taken place in the past will be nothing to what must take place in the future when you have people not only asked for their first vote but for their second, third and fourth preference votes, and the complications and gradations that will go on as to whether you should give your votes to this man or that man, to this Party or the other, will be something prodigious.
It has been observed with great truth, and it was obvious when we were discussing the Franchise Bill in this House, that the whole movement from 1832 has been towards a complete simplification of the franchise. All those elaborate complications, which are a survival of the past dating from Henry VI, were swept away by your Lordships when you introduced this simpler system. This is a reversal of that process. You are introducing a number of complications which certainly have not been demanded by the country, and which would be forced on the country against its will if your Lordships tried to pass a measure of this kind. From what I have said I do not think your Lordships will suppose that I am a keen supporter of the measure. On behalf of the Government I have to say that in all the circumstances they would be unable to give time in another place for the discussion which a Bill of this kind requires. Your Lordships are, of course, free to deal as you like with any measure which comes before you, but I ask you to consider whether there would be any great advantage in discussing at great length through all its stages a Bill which could not be carried to discussion or properly dealt with in another place, and must inevitably die there.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has spoken on behalf of the Government has directed most of his speech towards a proposal that is not contained in the Bill. He has directed most of his remarks to an attack on the

427
principle of Proportional Representation; and Proportional Representation is not brought forward by this measure. As the noble Earl who introduced the Bill pointed out quite accurately, within the terms of the Report made by Mr. Lowther, as he then was, you find support for Proportional Representation in the larger industrial districts and support for the alternative vote in single-member constituencies where there are more than two candidates. There is nothing, therefore, in the proposal for the alternative vote brought forward by the noble Earl that directly affects the principle of Proportional Representation.
I wish to make that point quite clear, for this reason. I am a very strong advocate of Proportional Representation, and I should be extremely sorry if it were thought that the alternative vote proposal were in any way an alternative to the wider proposal involved in the principle of Proportional Representation. But I do not want to go into that question this afternoon. As the noble Viscount has said, it has been very fully discussed, and Proportional Representation was adopted in this House by a very large majority, while the alternative vote was rejected, although I admit that I personally voted in support of it because I thought that both proposals ought to be contained in the Bill.
I should like to say a few words in answer to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall. If I understood the underlying argument of his speech, it is that you must have a distorted representative system in order that you may have sufficient stability of government under representative institutions. That is not representing unfairly what the noble Viscount said. He says, in effect: "What you want to aim at is not to get in your House of Commons a representation of the electorate. That is not your aim and object. Your aim and object is to get a a governmental system, and in order to get a governmental system it is right, in fact it is an advantage, to have a distorted system of representation." It is against that doctrine in any form that I wish to make my protest in supporting the proposal of the noble Earl.
In listening to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, I could not help remembering what was once said by Pitt's Attorney-General in those old times for which, no
428
doubt, the noble Viscount has a great reverence. It was in 1797 that Pitt's Attorney-General said that it was high treason for anyone to agitate for a representative system in this country, and that as a matter of fact our Government was the direct antithesis of what was meant by a representative Government. If, of course, you want to maintain a principle of that kind, if you do not want to have a true system of representative Government then I can understand the non possumus attitude which the noble Viscount adopted. But surely that is a complete fallacy. What you mean by representative Government is a Government which is so fairly representative of all classes and opinions in the country as to escape, on the one side, the dangers of a too strong bureaucracy and, on the other side, those dangers which are summarised under the name and form of what is called direct action. I do not think you can get in the long run a body strong enough either to keep bureaucracy in control or to meet the claims of direct action unless it is really a representative Government, elected by means which give all classes and all modes of opinion a fair opportunity of expression.
In the second place, I would join issue with what the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said as to the effect of our present system. I agree largely with the letter which appeared in the newspapers the other clay under the signature of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, a letter which, in my view, entirely condemns the system which is in operation at the present time, because, as he says, the old two-party system is going by, and an educated electorate such as we have now demands some system by which it can express its own views in its own way.
I see that a great authority on these subjects is present this afternoon in the person of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and, since he is present, I should like to ask him whether the report in The Times of a speech made by Captain Guest a short while ago is accurate. If it is accurate, it explains to my mind in a much more practical way than what was said by the noble Viscount how Elections are carried out at the present day. As regards log-rolling, to which the noble Viscount referred, I can conceive no system of log-rolling which would be so unfortunate, in the light of

429
the true principles of representative government, as that which was brought forward in Captain Guest's speech. Captain Guest referred to what was said by the noble Viscount, then Sir George Younger. Perhaps the noble Viscount would allow me to read an extract which I made, and he may be able to tell your Lordships whether it is accurate or not. This speech was made by Captain Guest at the time when he was Chief Liberal Whip, and it relates, not to the recent Election, but to the Election of 1918, though the moral to be derived from it is the same whether you consider one Election or another. The speech was made after negotiations with the Independent Liberals had failed.
Captain Guest is reported to have used these words:—
"We therefore proceeded to the agreement with the Conservative Party as to what should be done with regard to seats. He said, 'Take your hundred and fifty.' That was a generous offer. As a matter of fact, 137 were returned."
What representative system is there in a bargain of that kind? It is all very well for the noble Viscount to talk about log-rolling. That is worse than any logrolling. What becomes of the independent elector? What becomes of his chance of voting after Captain Guest and Sir George Younger had met? "You are to have 150 seats" says Sir George Younger. "I will not oppose you in 150 seats, but let the Conservatives have the rest." "A generous offer," says Captain Guest., and, as a matter of fact, the Liberals got, only 137 seats. Is that the old fashioned principle which has produced Governments in this country, according to Lord Long of Wraxall, from time immemorial? That is exactly what happens, and it is the worst result of the present system that, instead of a proper system of representative Government, you have a system which—apart from mere figures here or there—produces nothing but distorted results.
Let me apply another criticism to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall. The difficulties which, I think, he had in his mind are not difficulties which arise from the adoption of the alternative vote. They are difficulties which arise from the existing system, acting unjustly, as it does, at the present time. I want to snake that quite clear. Not only in this country, where I thought
430
the figures were known to everyone—although I agree that you do not wants mere mathematical calculation, which may very likely he incorrect—is what I call distorted representation the result of our present system. To illustrate this point I will take figures which have been supplied to me from the results of recent General Elections elsewhere. In New Zealand they have the same system as we have in England. If Lord Long will permit me to use a sporting expression, it is called the system of "first past the post." It does not matter how you get there, or how few votes you obtain; get your head "first past the port" and you are elected.
A General Election was held in New. Zealand in 1922, and a General Election in Canada in 1921 was conducted on the same principle. What was the result? After the General Election in New Zealand you got no majority, you got no, stability such as the noble Viscount, Lord Long of Wraxall, hopes to obtain. You got the exact contrary. Let me give your Lordships the figures. There were four Parties. The Government won 36 seats, the Liberals 34, Labour 17, and Independents 1. Therefore, adopting the, very system that we have, which is admittedly imperfect, admittedly distorted, and which admittedly does not give true representative principles a chance of expression, you get there every evil to which the noble Lord has called attention—you get impossible conditions, because you do not get, a majority in favour of any one Party. It is the same in Canada, where I think the results are very striking. The Liberals got 117, the Conservatives 50, the Progressives 65, and Labour and Independents 3—almost an exact balance, 117 Liberals and 118 for the other Parties combined. Now that is obtained under the same system as we have in this country at this date, but I want to say that it did not mean you had unstable government in Canada. Probably there has never been a more stable Government than under these conditions. The Government had a majority very often of 70 or 80 and a constant majority of 17 to 18, and at the present time they are in a stronger position than ever before. Therefore, that does not indicate that there would, be any difficulty, even if Proportional. Representation were adopted.

431
Now let me give a last illustration on the other side, and I think it is a very striking one. It is the Election in Southern Ireland. I believe that everyone who has studied the statistics of that Election fully will agree that but for Proportional Representation having been adopted the Free State could not have won, in the sense of winning by a substantial majority, because a study of the second and third votes, to which the noble Viscount has referred, disclosed the fact that it was the preferential system of voting, and nothing else, which really gave the Free State a majority, with which they have been able to carry on under the extremely difficult conditions in Ireland. Your Lordships know perfectly well that before that Election an arrangement was proposed between Mr. Collins and Mr. de Valera, just as it was proposed between Captain Guest and the noble Viscount, but that was thrown over—that could not stand—in the face of Proportional Representation. It came to an end when the Election was carried on under a system which gave something like true representation. Whatever attitude the noble Viscount may take in regard to this Bill, I hope it will not go out that in the opinion of this House there is no alternative to a system which is admittedly wrong, admittedly distorted, and in my opinion wholly insufficient, in a democratic age, to do what a representative system ought to be able to do, and that is to give a firm answer to any suggestion of direct action. If the noble Earl goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, I am very disappointed by the attitude taken up by the Government with regard to this Bill, and I should like, I will not say so much with regard to this Bill as with regard to this subject, to state somewhat shortly why. First of all, I think the Bill itself is not open to all the objections brought against it. I do not think it is really taking a retrograde step in the direction of introducing complications which have been swept away since 1832. The main tendency since 1832 has been to sweep away complications in the franchise qualification, but this Bill does not touch the franchise qualification. The chief mischiefs which required simplification in 1832 were the great variety of fancy franchises and franchise qualifica-
432
tions, and I agree that the simplification of franchise Qualification has been entirely in the right direction, and that any retrograde step on that subject would be undesirable.
As I have said, however, this Bill does not touch the franchise qualification, but it merely affects the method of voting, and I do not think it ought to be suggested—I do not say it has actually been suggested—that my noble friend in introducing this Bill has been prompted by any question of Party expediency. After all, the Bill is in accordance with one of the suggestions of the Speaker's Conference. That Conference, I think, was beyond suspicion of looking at this question of voting from any angle of vision of Party expediency, and I think any Bill which is introduced in accordance with a Report of that Conference ought fairly to be regarded as not necessarily dictated by any narrow view of whether it is likely to suit one Party or another, but as being the outcome of the impression produced on opinion by the Report of the Speaker's Conference and an impartial study of the whole question of voting.
I regret very much that the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for India, should have treated the matter, as I think, too much from the point of view of expediency rather than that of principle. I am not thinking, in reviewing this question of voting in my own mind, much or at all of the past. Certainly I am not thinking much of the present, but I am thinking of the future. I do not say that so far any very great evils have arisen from the present system of voting; but times have changed. I agree that under the old system of voting we have, to a very remarkable degree in this country, secured stable government, although there is no provision in the Constitution that we should have stable government. Under the Constitution of the United States stable government, for four years is secured. In this country the Government lives from day to day upon a Parliamentary majority, and it is remarkable what stable Governments we have had, when there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent us from having very unstable Governments, examples of which, for a period of years, we have seen in neighbouring countries.
But that has been under the two-party system. The two-party system has

433
gone, and there are people who think that the pressure of events may again reduce our electoral arrangements to a two-party system. I very much doubt that. We have certainly got a three-party system, and I do not believe that under a three-party system, which may become still more complicated, we shall secure in the future Governments as stable as those which we have had in the past under the two-party system, unless we introduce improvements in the method at voting which will guard against. the dangers which have been comparatively slight under the two-party system, but which may become the most important and dominating factors in our political arrangements under the tendency to have three parties or perhaps more.
At the present moment the Government, as has been pointed out, have a Parliamentary majority, although they had not a majority of votes. It is perfectly open to supporters of the Government to argue that if the alternative vote, or anything of that kind, had been in existence at the last Election they would have got a majority, as a result of recounts of votes in the country, and even increased their Parliamentary majority beyond that which they have now. It does not follow, under our present three-party system, that because a Government gets an actual majority of seats without a majority of the electors, therefore under the alternative vote its position might not have been improved rather than worsened. But, even if it is the case that the present Government have a Parliamentary majority, which represents not a majority but a minority of votes, at any rate they have the defence to offer that at the last Election they themselves put forward hardly any programme, except, perhaps, the policy of retrenchment. I never remember a Party which went to the country with so small a programme and so few promises as the present Government made at the last Election. Some of those who were opposed to them had very large programmes, and all of them, I think, had a larger programme than the Conservative Party, though they were not agreed about their programmes. And it is perfectly arguable that at the last Election if there was not, as there was not, an absolute majority of votes for the very small programme of the Conservative
434
Party, there was at any rate no greater number of votes for any of the other programmes put forward.
But it is very dangerous in a question which really ought to be decided upon principle to deal with it purely on the facts of the moment. What I see ahead as a possibility—I think even a proltability—is a danger which I should have thought would have been pointed out rather from the Conservative side of the House than from this side. You have an increasing tendency to extreme opinion in this country, as in many other countries. At present those opinions are held by a comparatively small minority, but that minority has a tendency to grow. Under out system some years hence you may have a solid, compact, and very well organised Party with a programme which to many people will seem extreme, but other Parties will be divided, and it will be quite possible that a Party without a majority of votes in the country, but with a very trenchant and searching programme, may come into power with a considerabe Parliamentary majority. Should that happen in future, I think those who are members of the Government now will be exceedingly sorry that they have taken the attitude that they have done to-day—an entirely negative attitude—towards this question.
With regard to this particular Bill I agree that no private Member's Bill can possibly deal with the matter effectively. It has no chance of passing through Parliament, and my noble friend, in moving the Second Reading, said that he put it forward as a concrete measure in order that he might raise discussion on the question involved, because that discussion might be more effective on a concrete proposal. I regret very much that the Government have concentrated rather on criticism of this concrete proposal than on discussion of the general principle involved. I see no security for the future unless there is some alteration in our method of voting which will secure that in single-member constituencies—where in future there will probably be three or more candidates—no one is declared elected until it is apparent that he has a majority of the votes given. As the numbers of candidates increase more and more in individual constituencies you will have Members returned who do not represent a majority of the electors in those

435
constituencies. Surely the principle we ought to look to is that, where there is increasing political difference of opinion among electors, that difference of political opinion should be so sifted that at last it results in the return of a man who does represent a majority of the electors. And until you have the system of the alternative vote you will, I think, increasingly find that candidates are returned in constituencies by a minority vote.
Electors have their preferences. There may be four candidates, and a minority of electors may prefer each one of those candidates, who may each obtain no more than about one quarter of the total votes given. A constituency that does that ought to be regarded as not yet having expressed its opinion, and it ought to give a better opinion than to return a Member by a comparatively small proportion of the votes polled. We want to get stable government, we want to get an expression of opinion from the constituencies, and we ought to have some method by which at least we can find out what is the opinion of the majority of the electors. There is more than one way of doing that, of course. You may say that this Bill does not provide the best way. The second ballot is another way of doing it. But to leave the present system as it is, with the growing tendency for the increase of Parties, for multiplication of candidates, for confusion in elections, is, I think, going to be increasingly dangerous both to stable government and to fair and adequate representation of the real opinion of the country. I think the political changes that are taking place will reveal more and more the evils of the present system, and we may one day find ourselves with a Government in power which does not represent anything like the majority of the electors in the country, and which, if the opportunity occurred of having the Election over again, would not be returned to power. When you get that position, if you ever do, you will put a great strain on the working of democratic and representative government.
I would regard this question simply from the point of view of principle, and I would say definitely that some change is required to guard against these dangers in future. I would ask the Government to reconsider very seriously the extremely negative attitude which they have taken up. It may become increasingly difficult
436
to introduce a remedy when the dangers become more apparent afterwards. At the present time it would probably be more easy to deal with this question than it may be a few years hence; there is an opportunity now. I do not ask the. Government to accept the Bill of my noble friend, but I should be very disappointed if we did not get from the Government a declaration that they are alive to the evils and the dangers of the present system, and that they do not regard the fact that the present system of voting has worked fairly well in the past as any guarantee that it will guard us against the increasing dangers of the future. I should like His Majesty's Government to make a declaration that they will not put aside the expression of opinion by the Speaker's Conference that it has been felt that some change is required, and that they will regard this as a measure that must be given full consideration if our democratic institutions are to be safeguarded and we are to be protected from the possibility of having a Government which has not merely a Parliamentary majority representing a minority of votes but a Parliamentary majority which may be absolutely opposed to the majority of the voters of the country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I suppose that after the appeal that has been addressed to the Government by the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, I should be suspected of discourtesy to him if I did not say a word in reply. I hope he will excuse me if I am very brief, because at the present moment I have one of those important engagements elsewhere with which, from his acquaintance with the Foreign Office, he is only too familiar. I would like to assure my noble friend that no one on this side of the House either blames the noble Earl for having brought the subject forward or suspects him for a moment of having done it in a Party interest. Obviously, it is a, question which deserves the attention of any deliberative Assembly and any Government, and the fact that these proposals are usually made by Parties who have been unsuccessful in a General Election does not in the least degree necessarily imbue them with a Party taint or pre-

437
vent their being regarded with respect by the Government. There is all the greater right on the part of the noble Earl to bring this matter forward because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Grey, has pointed out., this was one of the recommendations which were favourably commented on in the Report of one of the most important and representative Committees that has even been constituted. From the fact that this particular Bill has met with the reception that it has to-day, and the fact that His Majesty's Government, through their spokesman, have said that they can give no facilities for it, the inference must not be drawn that we regard the Report of that Committee with disrespect, much less with anything in the nature of contempt.
My conclusion is not the same as that of the noble Viscount because my premises are not the same. On the whole I am disposed to think, from such experience as I have had of public life, that our old-fashioned system in this country, whether you describe it by the metaphor employed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, or not, has worked well; and I am disposed all the more to think so when I contrast it from the systems that I see in existence in foreign countries. Now, during the last year or two, I have been thrown necessarily into contact with the representatives of foreign Powers, and in the intervals of Conferences I have discussed with them the particular political and Parliamentary systems that they have in their own countries. There are now several of the great States of Europe where some system either of the alternative vote or Proportional Representation prevails. I take more particularly Italy. During the last three or four years I have been confronted with the phenomenon of a series of unstable Italian Governments, seldom lasting for more than a few months, and depriving their representatives at Allied Conferences of that power which results from stability of institutions. I think I have put. the same questions to every succeeding Italian Minister, be it Prime Minister or Foreign Minister, with whom I happened to be associated, and on every occasion I have had the same reply: "The weakness of our institutions and the instability of our Governments are due to Proportional Representation and to Proportional 'Representation alone." I only mention that in passing. I have
438
not, of course, time to develop the argument to-night.
Another premise of the noble Viscount that. I should be somewhat reluctant to accept is his proposition that the old two-party system is necessarily dead and that because there are three Parties now, or, as some one argued, four Parties, that is going to be an inevitable feature of our future political life. I am far from clear that this is the case. I think it would be a somewhat rash thing, having admitted that on the whole we have got a good result from the existing system of election under our present division of Parties, to destroy or make away with it because at the present moment the two-party system seems likely to be replaced, at any rate temporarily, by a larger number of political bodies.
But where I thought the noble Viscount was a little unreasonable was in this. Admitting that the noble Earl had a perfect right to introduce this subject, admitting that it is a subject to which the Government, if it has any long tenure of office, ought in all probability to turn their attention, all we can do at the moment is to deal with the particular Bill which the noble Earl has placed before us. It is a narrowly restricted proposal recommending one form of the alternative vote. To that proposal objections have been raised, and upon it criticisms, which I own I thought were formidable, have been passed. Is it not a little unreasonable that the noble Viscount should deduce from that that His Majesty's Government are resolutely opposed to consider all questions of Parliamentary or electoral reform? That is much too large a deduction draw from much too small a premise.
I would, therefore, say that, opposed as I am to the Bill which we have had before us this evening, inevitable as I think the answer of my noble friend was, although personally many of us consider the present system the best, I am far from asking the House to conclude that we think it incapable of modification, and if the noble Viscount, speaking with his great authority as Leader of the Opposition in this House, desires at any time in the future either this Session or in another Session to put before us in the form of a Resolution, or a Bill, or in any ether way, the considered opinion of himself and of his colleagues upon the

439
whole question of electoral reform, of course we shall give it the attention which his high position and his representative character would entitle him to expect. But for the moment I think your Lordships will agree that, as regards the narrow issue before us, His Majesty's Government could not adopt any other attitude than that which has been announced by my noble friend, the Secretary of State for India.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in asking your Lordships' permission not to proceed further with this Bill, I should like to say a few words I think your Lordships generally will agree that we have had a very interesting and valuable discussion. I was especially grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for sounding a more optimistic note with regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government than we heard in the speech which was made to us by the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for India. I do not feel at all sure that it is the business of noble Lords on this side of the House to put forward a measure—that is a function of the Government of the day—which is seriously intended to pass through both Houses of Parliament.
My object, as I explained before, was to provide a subject for discussion, and I am specially grateful to those noble Lords who were good enough to say that, in their opinion, I was actuated by altruistic motives. I think I was; because if a system of this kind had been in vogue at the last General Election, I firmly believe that the majority by virtue of which noble Lords opposite hold office now would have been considerably larger than it is at present. I had, I confess, some hopes, if the Government had held out any possibility of smiling on this Bill, that it might have become law, and that, all the by-elections between now and the next General Election would be held under this system and that, with the experience which we should have gained of the working of this system, it might then have been possible for the Government either to use it at the next General Election or to introduce some other measure of reform. However, though I confess that I am disappointed, I admit that I am not altogether surprised, and I will ask your Lordships' permission not to proceed further with the Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (privilege) made: Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
EXPLOSIVES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IMPERIAL RELATIONS.
LORD STRATHSPEY LORD STRATHSPEY had placed the following Notice on the Paper:—
To ask His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to consult the Dominions with the object of bringing forward definite proposals for the consolidation of the Empire and keeping the right spirit uppermost in future years.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very glad and proud to bring forward the question of the consolidation of the Empire at the present moment, for no one can look upon the crisis through which we are passing without feeling very anxious about the future. I am very pleased to be able to do so because, as a New Zealander, I belong to one of your youngest and most distant Dominions, and yet am the thirty-first in my line as Chieftain of one of our oldest clans—in a word, I am one of them and one of you.
I may say with pride that we in these great overseas lands are a great breed and an absolutely loyal race of people. I do not think that the world has ever seen a grander or a more magnificently loyal brotherhood of nations than we

441
displayed when our manhood flocked to the colours. The whole world acknowledged they were as brave and physically as fine as anything that the world had ever looked upon since the days of Adam. Your great ladies of this dear old land opened up their houses and their clubs. They gathered in all these magnificent lads as they landed and gave them friendship, true warmth of spirit, and a mother-land love. I say that this spirit had a great influence in winning the war, and, I am convinced, it could prevent more wars. But is this spirit to die out because England does not help to keep the home fires of brotherhood burning? If so, the next generation will look upon it as a forgotten tradition, and it will disappear.
I am speaking to-day on behalf of the Dominions as a whole and not for any one part. We possess an Empire unrivalled in its opportunities for trade and commerce, an Empire which, you would surely think, could not fail to inspire a statesman with great ideas. But have our various Governments taken advantage of all this? I say emphatically, "No," because we see going on before our eyes the disintegration of the Empire; and this not because the Colonies do not trust England, but because England does not trust the Colonies. The case of Ireland to-day may be the case of every Dominion to-morrow, and I want to echo my warning before it is too late.
This country is called Great Britain, and we call it "home" or the "motherland," but geographically and physically it is "Little" Britain; it is too small for us, and, in all the most elementary natural products, too poor to sustain, unaided, forty or fifty millions of people. It cannot feed or clothe itself; it does not supply food from its fields and farms for more than, shall we say, a third of its population. It has the best textile factories in the world, but does not produce enough wool to keep the machines busy. Other nations might set up an economic blockade against us, but if our affairs are properly managed then this need not worry us. The Empire can stand alone and face the whole world.
Great Britain is not self-supporting, but Greater Britain could easily be so, as our Empire contains everything that our people may want. There is scarcely anything that mankind wants for
442
subsistence, comfort or luxury, which could not be produced in our Empire. Those magnificant lands of Australia and New Zealand could supply the wool, wheat, and meat that may be necessary, and still have plenty for themselves. One could grow in Queensland, sugar, cotton, jute, coffee, tea, maize, rice, and rubber, without spending a penny in a foreign country. South Africa could supply the fruit, precious stones, sugar, etc., that are necessary. Canada could easily be the timber and paper market of the Empire, and also supply the grain required. Australia has millions of acres of manless lands, while England has millions of landless men. England has about 640 people to the square mile, while the English speaking Dominions as a whole have about two and a half. I wish to point out that what I am saying is not put forward as a grievance; it is a pure statement of fact.
Let mo in "City" terms call what I advocate a pure business proposition. A great commercial enterprise cannot be run from a country-house. There must be unity between the centre and each department, not once a year, but each day and every day. Every home question, in other words, is an Empire question; every Umpire question is a home question. That is why I want to see the English Houses of Parliament in reality Imperial Chambers just as our race is Imperial in blood and ideals. Nay, more—to blot out the hideous blunder that broke up the Anglo-Saxon race when America was expelled, I would rather see a couple of courtesy seats given to some of the American senators than see the Empire run without the representation of the Dominions, who are merely informed that a war has taken place and then are expected to contribute a blood tax. We were very near the same old blunder the other day in the Turkish question, and the Colonies were pretty emphatic about what they thought. They told you that they would fight like partners if you consulted them as such, but they would not be treated as mere possessions.
In the words of the Prime Minister of Australia, what is needed is:
"A greater understanding to weld the Empire in a common bond of self-interest and Imperial advantage. New markets must be found and the, only way out of the difficulty was reciprocal trade within the Empire, mutually benefiting every part."

443
You will agree that the Dominions did remarkably well in the war. I have not all the figures to hand, but as an instance, I quote that New Zealand had 125,000 men, one in ten of the population, either in the field or training, and Australia approximately 500,000, while all the Colonies paid the full costs of their entry into the great war. We appreciate very much and are very grateful for all that England has done, but it must be remembered that we in turn have done something also. I simply mention this because I have heard it said that we are not sufficiently grateful; but need I comment on that?
We want trade developed in the Empire, and foreigners to be given secondary consideration. At the end of 1922 New Zealand was buying goods from England at the rate of £10 per head of the population, Australia at the rate of £8 8s. per head, and America 8s. per head. But how can we keep in touch on these intricate matters unless it is in your everyday counsels, in your so-called "Imperial" Parliament. How well Germany understood this before the war, working hand in glove with her third-rate colonies. Why, if she had had our Colonies she could have ruled the world. Why does the Englishman look upon emigration as exile? It is because you have lost touch in daily life with the Colonies, and you can only bring that touch back, not by Colonial Conferences in ten years, but by the camaraderie of the lobby every ten minutes.
There might be a keener insight into the requirements of the Empire if the principal permanent officials were men who had an intimate knowledge of those overseas lands. You do not allow any but the best brains to enter the Indian Civil Service; and then men must make it their life-work. They must pass examinations in their knowledge of India, its language, its products. Why not study the Colonies, and evolve a breed of experts likewise? What is India to the Empire compared with the Dominions? The Dominions were ready to shed their last drop of blood for us here to save the old home. What do you think they will think when they read that even the Prelates of the Church admit that the war has left no trace upon England save possibly for the worse? No, my Lords. Just as the Colonial troops
444
were the saving of England so Colonial members permanently living here, and representing the great Colonies, can save England's Empire from the inevitable catastrophe of misunderstanding. It is not out of mere sentiment that I plead for this. It is for the sake of common sense, to save you from the consequences of your own blunders.
Talking of sentiment, however, I suppose your Lordships will all agree with me that it has had a great influence on at least a part of the history of this clear old country, and on our Empire in general. Who amongst us does not honour and revere the name of that little old ship "Victory"? That feeling is strong in New Zealand, a Dominion now only about 75 years old. Ten years ago, when it had approximately a million people, it presented through the then Prime Minister, Sir Joseph Ward, a magnificent battle cruiser of 18,800 tons. It did great work during the war. And now the edict goes forth that England must scrap some of her warships. Is it true that this vessel is one of those chosen for the scrap heap? Can this really be a fact? If it is, then I can only look upon it as another indication of that lack of common sense which is the result of that lack of common life for which I plead in the establishment of a truly Imperial Parliament, and not merely an English Parliament.
Candidly,my Lords,I should have liked to introduce a concrete plan for such an alteration of our Constitution, but I realise that this should come from the Government; moreover, there are countless difficulties. I therefore throw out the suggestion as a whole as a step in the right direction. There are, however, some alterations that might be well worth considering. For instance, each Dominion ought to be represented in some manner in your Lordships' House. That might be done by giving the High Commissioners seats in this House, and allowing each to use an official title while acting as his country's representative; such as, for instance, Lord Quebec or Lord Capetown. So far as the Church is concerned, Dr. Julius (Archbishop and Primate of New Zealand) is reported in the newspapers to have said recently that he objected to being addressed as "Your Grace" as such a title is meaningless in Archbishops who have not seats in the House of Lords.
The adoption of my proposal, I think, would help to maintain the ethical unity of the Empire in such important matters as the divorce laws.
I further suggest that the powers of the High Commissioners should be increased to the extent that the British Government should invite them to be present at certain Cabinet meetings; for instance, those dealing with foreign policy which might have an effect or a bearing on the Dominions for trade or war. I ask the Government to confer with the various Prime Ministers when they are here in the near future, and in the meantime get the opinions of the various overseas representatives now in London. I am looking forward to the future. We must legislate now for that, otherwise some of those who follow us may be in for a rough time. If nothing is done to strengthen the situation, indeed, I think it becomes an open question whether, two generations hence, there will be any Empire at all.
Meanwhile, I can only repeat that the Empire, as our fathers knew it, is breaking up visibly before our eyes. Something must be done at once, and this to my mind is the one thing that needs doing most. Why? I will tell your Lordships. It appears to be a principle here that no Colonial-born man should represent the Colonies as Governor; and whenever a Colonial comes over he is made to feel that he is a sort of inferior subject rather than an equal partner in the Empire. That spirit will have to go, or the Empire will go. It is not playing the game. It is neither good patriotism nor sound business. You do not seem to realise what Dominions mean, and you are eager only for domination. That is because no Colonials are in your councils to guide you here. Do you realise that since the great war over £1,000,000,000 have been poured into the desert wastes of Russia, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Ireland, and everywhere except the Colonies?
What will be your harvest? So sure as corn seed will produce corn, so sure will you reap a heritage of hate, and, when the time is ripe, expulsion as aliens, because you are out there for domination. Yet all this while you are starving Australia of men and Canada of capital. Do you realise that instead of squandering nearly twice your pre-war National Debt you could have settled a whole million of demobilised men with £1,000
446
each of capital, and reaped a heritage of gratitude and strength from your Colonies? It is in the Colonies peopled by men of your own flesh and blood that your real strength lies. Mesopotamia, Palestine, Russia—these are your weaknesses.
That which Rhodes tried to do for the mother universities of England, I should like to see done for the Parliament of Britain. If you do that I think I am not exaggerating when I say that it will lead to a sort of permanent Peace Conference of the world for cur generation at least. You admit the principle of Colonial representation in moments of crisis, and a picturesque Rajah or two are imported for the pictorial effect, but where were the Colonial representatives in the every day councils, who, with their advice, might have helped you to avoid those crises? It will be too late to call an Imperial Congress when the Colonies are "fed to the teeth" or when you have angered them or neglected them until they are sick to death of you. A few Colonial representatives in this House and the other House before the War of American Independence would have saved the great English-speaking race as one unit, and I believe that the same fault of lack of understanding will even in our day send each Colony the way of America. Do you think for one moment that the Zionists, the Mesopotamians, the Indians, the Americans and the Greeks will then win the Colonies back for you and gratefully finance you in your hour of need?
Your Lordships know what the clan spirit has done for Scotland, and Scotland knows what her chieftains have done. I say to you, as the thirty-first Chief of my line, that what the clans were to Scotland, so are the Dominions to England. Be true to us and we will be true to you. But mix yourselves with all the niggers, dagoes, and all the riff-raff of the world rather than with your clans, and the clans, when they are in trouble, will look elsewhere for help. Every day I want to see the papers speak of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, instead of Mesopotamia, Palestine, and so forth. What are these last-mentioned countries to us, after all? They are not our flesh and blood. I do not for a minute suppose that I alone speak for the Colonies. Your

447
Lordships need have no fear. We shall get on all right. We have the right stuff, and the goods. Possibly we may go under, but if we do, remember that you will go under also. In this matter I speak for your own starving, workless population, who will have nowhere to go. The Empire question is a labour question; nay more, it is a labour solution, and we stand or fall together. Our problems are your problems. That is why I say without any hesitation that it would be better to withdraw every titled Ambassador from Spain, Tokio, Paris, and Constantinople than to go on running your Empire without that intimate touch which I maintain only the continued presence of Colonial Members in both Houses of Parliament can bring to the Empire. My warning may seem strange, fantastic, absurd. I will tell your Lordships why. It is because your heads are crammed with Palestine, Mesopotamia, the Far East, the Far West, the Far North, anywhere but your Colonies. But the historian may some day point to my Question as the last warning that might have saved the Empire of the world for the Anglo-Saxon race.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, while I am quite prepared to associate myself to the full with the tribute which the noble Lord paid to the services rendered by Dominion troops and troops from all portions of the Empire during the war, I regret that I am unable to agree with him in the other conclusions at which he has arrived. Possibly I have greater opportunities than the noble Lord of hearing from day to day and seeing from hour to hour the efforts which are being made, not merely in the old country but throughout the Empire, to discover to what extent it is possible still further to cement those bonds which bind us so closely together.
The noble Lord may be interested to know—or rather to remember, for I am sure he knows it already—that, though he referred to the impossibility of anyone from the Dominions taking an active and a prominent part in our national life here, it so happens that the Prime Minister of England to-day is Canadian-born. Perhaps we have in the present Government stronger representation than in almost any preceding Government of
448
those who have had the privilege of taking part in the affairs of our great Dominions overseas, and I can assure the noble Lord that, regarding the words of his own Notice, we are keeping, and we intend to keep, these considerations uppermost in our minds.
The noble Lord may also recall, as I know your Lordships will recall, that one of the first acts of the present Government was to state publicly that at the earliest possible date we proposed to summon or notify representatives from the Dominions to attend not merely a Conference of Prime Ministers but an Economic Conference as well. I hope that in the course of a very few days a public announcement can be made as to the date upon which this Conference can meet. I should also like to inform the noble Lord that the Government are considering very far-reaching proposals by which we may materially improve trade conditions in this country, and at the same time lead to what I believe will be a very considerable development of those great natural resources of our Dominions, our Crown Colonies, and our Protectorates.
The noble Lord suggested various constitutional reforms, which, so far as I am aware, have at any rate the distinction of being novel, though whether they would provide an efficacious manner of attaining the object which he and, I believe, all your Lordships desire to attain, that of bringing this Empire closer together, I am a little inclined to doubt. Certainly before taking any such step as he contemplates, we should, at any rate, like to have the full views of the Dominions themselves. This question of representation has, I know, occupied much time and consideration in the past. No doubt with the added experience which we gained during the war, with the closer ties which bind us, at the Conference it will be the earliest duty not only of the Government at home but of those responsible for the conduct of business in the Dominions to devise still further means by which those ties can be strengthened.
The noble Lord also made reference to a particular item, of which he kindly gave me notice. It is as to the scrapping of the "New Zealand." I am sure the noble Lord will be relieved to hear that before that ship was scrapped we entered into

449
correspondence with the Government of New Zealand, and that we are in the process of handing over some mementoes of that ship, which I hope will perpetuate for all time the history of the gallant part which she played in the war. We are now handing these relics and mementoes over to the New Zealand Government, and I am pretty confident that if the New Zealand Government had expressed any such desire the ship would have been handed over. We have further settled that any sum which may be realised as a result of the breaking up of that ship will be placed at the disposal of the New Zealand Government for such purposes as they may think fit.
I have only to remind your Lordships that within, I hope, a relatively few months we may have the opportunity of welcoming to these shores the representatives of the Dominions. A large and comprehensive programme will be placed before them, and I am confident that that Conference will have beneficial effects, not only to us but to the Empire as a whole. I hope that with that answer, that a Conference will be held, my noble friend will be able to relieve himself of some of those evil prognostications which he has expressed this afternoon.

REFUGEES FROM IRELAND.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON rose to ask His Majesty's Government if their attention has been called to an appeal made in the Press on behalf of 23 little girls (mostly orphans), refugees from Ireland, for the use of a home to shelter and accommodate these children, and whether His Majesty's Government will undertake to see that these children are provided for as being British subjects and the victims of abandonment by the British Government.
The noble and learned Lord said:—My Lords, the other day I read in The Times newspaper the following advertisement:—
"Twenty-three little refugee Girls from Ireland (mostly orphans) have been happily housed in Devonshire for the last few months. The house they occupy is now needed for a hospital. Have you a large empty house to lend them for the time being?"
A simple, plain advertisement, but, knowing something of the facts, I could
450
not help thinking what a tragedy lay behind those simple words. I could not help contrasting, as I proceeded to read my newspaper, the great public interest taken, especially in the House of Commons, in the deportation from this country of a number of people who were conspiring, and have been conspiring, together, for the purpose of carrying out the very outrage which have driven these unfortunate little orphans, in this condition, into this country.
I brought this matter before the House last July. The facts are lamentable, and will, I think, go down, in all the horrible history of the outrages in Ireland, as one of the worst incidents of the abandonment of the loyalists in Ireland by the late Government. Here was a little orphanage, carried on since the year 1849—one house for girls and one house for boys—and one evening last June the house for boys was not only raided but burnt down, as a reprisal, openly announced and so stated by Mr. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, for the fact that this orphanage had supplied boys and men who joined the British Army.
In one night these thirty-five or forty boys were left in the field without any protection of any kind. A ship of war came to the coast and brought them away to this country, so that they might get the protection of the flag under which they were born, and which had been ignominiously hauled down. I am glad to see, in the reports that I have received from time to time, that through the great generosity of certain people—and I must also acknowledge certain help from His Majesty's Government—those boys have now all been settled far away in those Colonies to which the noble Duke has just referred. I think it is a matter of comment that the only result of what has happened, in your policy towards Ireland, is that these children have had to be distributed throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire, thousands of miles away.
After the treatment meted out to the boys it was thought by the British Government unsafe to allow the orphan girls, 25 or 26 in number, to remain in this little orphanage at Clifden, in the County of Mayo. There again, as all communication with Clifden had been cut off, it became necessary for the Government to send over a warship to take these

451
girls away. They were landed, I think, at Plymouth, not long after the boys, and owing to the great kindness and hospitality of a number of people they were assisted in obtaining a house that was placed at their disposal, and which was built or intended to be used as a hospital for cripples. Since last July they have lived there happily and merrily, but this house has been demanded from them, because it cannot be kept indefinitely away from the objects for which it was built, or at all events for which it was purchased, and hence the advertisement to which I refer. All praise is due, I think, to the honorary secretary for what she has done since these children came over here. But could anything more pathetic be found in fiction than the spectacle of these children, or those who represent them, writing to the public Press and saying: "Give us a house that we may live, because, though we were loyal, and, indeed, in consequence of our loyalty to your country, you abandoned us and allowed us to be driven from our own country, so that we had to seek refuge in the country which had treated us in that way"?
I do not want it to be imagined that I think the present Government are likely to be unsympathetic. After all, this is a legacy from the last Government; but the Government of Great Britain, whatever it may be from day to day, cannot escape responsibility in this matter. I admit that they have done something. I know they gave a grant towards the support of these children, and I think they gave a grant towards keeping some of the boys in Dr. Barnardo's Homes. But the whole of this question of refugees from Ireland is a matter that ought to be taken in hand in a thoroughly sympathetic manner by the Government. No fault lies with the orphanage or with the children. There are willing hands and loving hearts prepared to look after the children at the very minimum of expense, and I do not imagine for a moment that the Government will allow them to go unhoused when we appeal to them for assistance.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, my noble friend, in raising this Question, has given the history of what occurred in July of last year. A debate followed in your Lordships' House at the end of July, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to go back beyond this
452
immediate Question. I am glad to say that reports which I have received about these boys coincide with those to which my noble and learned friend referred. The majority of the thirty-three boys have migrated to the Dominions, and I have every reason to believe that they have made a most successful start in what, I hope, will prove a happy and prosperous career. The twenty-three girls were very kindly accommodated in Dame Rodgers' Home at Plymouth. They have been very satisfactorily housed there, and I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government, of expressing my gratitude to the trustees of the charity, to the Civic Guild, and to many private individuals for the attention, the sympathy, and the kindness which they have shown to these unfortunate children. I am glad, however, to remind your Lordships that no financial liability, either in the case of the boys or of the girls, has fallen upon the shoulders of private individuals. The Irish Distress Committee has advanced £1,000 for the purpose of housing and accommodating these children. That sum is not yet exhausted, and I can assure your Lordships that, when it is necessary that further sums should be advanced, that application will receive a most sympathetic hearing from the Government.
The point which we have now to consider is not a question of financial assistance, but, as the home where these children are is now required for other purposes, further accommodation has to be provided. I have every reason to believe that we shall experience no difficulty in finding that accommodation. For what it is worth, I can say that I am personally responsible for seeing that proper and adequate accommodation is found for these unhappy children, and everything which we can do will be done, not only to make them comfortable, but to see that they are as fully equipped and trained as they possibly can be to lead happy and prosperous lives afterwards.
This orphanage is supported by voluntary donations and subscriptions, and must, of course, continue to be supported in that way. But we realise that at the moment, whatever may be the outcome later on, it is our duty to carry these children through the trying position in which, through no fault of their own,

453
they find themselves. I trust that we shall succeed in obtaining compensation from the Irish Free State in respect of the destruction of the buildings and property in Ireland. I understand that possibly, later on, I shall have a further opportunity of dealing with the question of compensation in a wider sense, and I shall therefore not refer to it to-day; but I can assure your Lordships that both in this and, I do not hesitate to add, in further cases His Majesty's Government will give the most sympathetic and, I hope, practical consideration to cases of this cruel description.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this subject, as the noble and learned Lord himself said, is only part of a larger matter, which ranges far beyond the story of this particular orphanage and its crushing sorrows and difficulties. I am day by day, of necessity, in touch with the kind of question to which the noble Duke has referred as now receiving the attention of the Government. I find the greatest possible difficulty in knowing how most helpfully to deal with the problem as it is constantly coming before me. I am doing everything in my power to help in the matter by constant pronouncements about it, by appealing on almost every opportunity that I have, and by calling, too, for the remembrance of those sorrows in the most sacred of all manners. But we find a difficulty in answering the question as to what the Government believes to be the position of these people who are suffering so terribly. We are not able to say what is the Government's attitude or the Government's view as to the probabilities of help being forth-coming in the way of compensation to which the noble Duke has referred. I thoroughly understand the difficulty, and I am thankful for the statement which the noble Duke has made. It will help in dealing with one of the most difficult and trying of the problems with which I, for one, have to grapple week by week and month by month.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I should like to say one word of thanks to the noble Duke for the manner in which he listened to what I had to say and for the way in which he received this appeal. I am perfectly certain that the present Government will do all they can in these
454
difficult circumstances. It is not worth while in a great revolution such as that which is unfortunately going on in Ireland, for the sake of a few thousands or even millions of pounds, to sacrifice people whose only crime was their loyalty to this country. In reference to what His Grace has said, may I be allowed to say that I have placed on the Paper a Question for Thursday to try to elucidate the whole matter, and to obtain information, if it is possible for the Government to give it to us, which will enable us to proceed in these cases which are so often brought before us.

CHURCH AND STATE IN RUSSIA.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information with regard to the reported arrest by the Bolsheviks of Monsignor Cieplak, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Petrograd, and certain Roman Catholic priests, and the threat of immediate death; and also to ask whether His Majesty's Government has any recent information with regard to the present position of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question of which I have given Notice. It is one which divides itself necessarily into two parts, the first of which is to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any information with regard to the reported arrest by the Bolsheviks of Monsignor Cieplak, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Petrograd, and certain Roman Catholic priests, and the threat of their immediate death. There is no subject on which it is more difficult at this moment for private individuals and, I believe I am right in saying, official persons and authorities as well to obtain accurate information as that which relates to the internal doings and affairs of Russia. With regard to this particular Question, the urgency of which is obvious on the face of it, I have had some communication from an independent source.
I received a telegram from one who takes a deep interest in all that concerns the Church of which he is an ornament, Cardinal Mercier, of Malines, who has telegraphed and written to me on the

455
subject. I have also been in communication, at their initiative, with the Polish Legation in this country who had direct information, or what was believed to be direct information, from Petrograd upon the subject which was inviting our consideration and our aid. During the last forty-eight hours I have had communication from the Vatican indirectly, stating that it is their desire to co-operate in any inquiry which we can set on foot in regard to these matters, and that the Pope had already taken such steps as seemed to him possible and right for making inquiry, and, if it was necessary, public protest. But none of these give more information really than is to be found in the newspapers, and I am most anxious to know whether we can obtain from His Majesty's Government to-night any fuller information or details. To-day, from a source which I have hitherto always found to be trustworthy, though communication is necessarily difficult, I have heard that the Roman Catholic Archbishop has been taken to Moscow, that his trial is immediately impending, and that, apparently, a grave outcome is to be feared.
Your Lordships may possibly remember that this particular Roman Catholic Prelate was imprisoned some two years ago, in October, 1920, for what was alleged to be anti-revolutionary propaganda, and that he was subsequently released. We are anxious to know what the facts are now. Is it the charge which was made and apparently dropped in 1920 which has now been revived, or has there been a fresh accusation brought forward regarding the action of the eminent Prelate who is suffering this outrage at this moment, if it be true that he has been taken to Moscow upon a charge involving, as I understand, the possibility of the penalty of death on an accusation about which we know little or nothing?
If this was an isolated instance occurring in any other country it might obviously be regarded as something that belonged to the internal affairs of that country, and would not properly call for any intervention from outside or any protest on our part. If this was happening in some other country, we should all feel that to be almost certainly the case. But we cannot so isolate it from the wider movement of which we are witnesses, which is taking place not
456
only in Moscow and Petrograd but throughout Russia generally, and is directed not against individual ecclesiastics, in whatever position they may be, but against religion as a whole. Evidence is accumulating rapidly in my hands as to the growth of a definite anti-religious movement in Russia, calculated to do intense harm even beyond the limits of Russia by the circulation of literature and the nature of the persecution—we can call it no less—which is going on as regards the religious folk of the country as a whole.
It is for that reason that in addition to my Question about the Roman Catholic Metropolitan of Petrograd, I have asked whether His Majesty's Government has any recent information with regard to the present position of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow. I want the two things to be connected together because they are, as it seems to me, indisputably part of something much larger and far more extended than the mere prosecution, rightly or wrongly, of an individual. They are part of a system which is calculated to spread far beyond Russia in its evil effects.
May I recall to your Lordships for a moment what happened last year? In May of last year I called attention to the story of the Patriarch Tikhon and his continued persecution. I ventured then to remind your Lordships of the history of that remarkable man, not yet an old man—he is not yet sixty or only just about sixty—who has served in different countries with extraordinary distinction as a scholar, as a divine, and as a promoter and lover of peace and good will in every way. During his tenure of the patriarchial chair of Moscow he has shown in the most marked way his dislike of anything which would be disloyal even to the existing Government in Russia, the Government which is persecuting him, and has deprecated again and again—and I can say this from personal knowledge and personal communication—anything which would be merely hostile to the Government itself, unless it could be shown that some definite wrong could be brought to light. I can speak of that from knowledge of a direct kind.
I can also speak from knowledge of a direct kind of the efforts which he made throughout the famine years in Russia to secure, if possible, that all the aid which the Russian Church might be able to

457
render should be given to the relief of the famine-stricken districts. It was that which made more outrageous than one can readily describe the stories which were euriet—the statements were officially made by the Bolshevist Government—that he had abdicated, and that he had done this in consequence of the action of the Government, which was based upon the refusal which he had consistently made to give help to the famine-stricken areas, the facts being the very reverse.
The Bolshevist authorities tried to confiscate even the Church treasures for public purposes and not for the famine areas at all, so far as we can ascertain. He offered that the authorities should be, with his concurrence and his help, furnished with the utmost possible assistance on one condition only, and that was that he, or someone representing him, should be cognisant of the destination to which the money went. He stipulated that so as to ensure that the money should go to the famine area and so that there should be a check upon it by those who were responsible for the enormous sacrifices that the Church would be making in lending its treasures. But everything of that kind was denied him. He was held up to public opprobrium as a person who was declining to allow help to be given by a rich Church to the famine-stricken areas of Russia. That was done, it would seem to me, merely for the purpose of concocting stories against hint in order that he might lose the popularity which had been so markedly and rightly his.
When we called attention to that in the summer of last year, it was followed by an appeal from Christian ministers and others connected with definite Christian work in this country and elsewhere. That appeal was addressed to the Soviet Government asking for information as to the supposed wrongdoings of this Prelate, and the persecution to which we understood he was being subjected. This led to a violent letter from the other side making statements which, so far as I know, had no substantial backing whatever from any other quarter. It seemed to us, from what some of us knew, that these statements were contradictory, and on receiving them I ventured to write again asking permission for two or three representatives of Christian bodies in
458
England or America or Europe to make an independent inquiry on the spot in order that we might learn whether the statements which the Bolshevist authorities had made could be substantiated or not. If they were substantiated obviously what we had said would fall to the ground. That request met with a reply couched in terms of almost studied insolence, and such a visit by representative persons was absolutely refused. We were told that nothing of the kind could be granted.
A little later, we were informed, on behalf of the Foreign Office—I think it was in August last—that an endeavour would be made to secure that a representative from the Allied Powers, or from ourselves, should attend the trial, which was then supposed to be imminent, of the Patriarch Tikhon in Moscow. The Foreign Office was led to hope that that request would be granted. I should like to ask now whether that holds good, and whether the Government has any information as to whether if a trial does take place, as it is said to be about to do, a representative of the Allied Powers will be allowed to attend as an independent authority.
The whole position of general persecution seems to have been aggravated and the difficulty has become more intense. I am startled to learn from the horrible journals which come to me, and which are published apparently under Soviet authority, of the persecution not only of Christians but of Jews. In these publications there are caricatures, blasphemous pictures, and things of that sort, the purpose of which is to deride religious administration of all kinds. Those journals are being circulated at the present time. It may be said that we have no responsibility for them, but they are the background to the overt actions to which we are now calling attention.
These eminent ecclesiastics are being tried for their lives after they have done great religious work not in Russia alone but in other parts of the world, and after they have earned respect wherever they have been. Organised processions are taking place under the authority of the Soviet in the streets of Moscow and elsewhere. There is abundant evidence of the strange stories which are told of the growth of what is called the Free Church of Russia, or the Independent Church of

459
Russia, which is supposed to be the force now existing for religious life in Moscow, and perhaps in Petrograd also. To those who are trying to look at the matter all round this would seem to be a fictitious body, created for the purpose of cloaking the real business of those who would be afraid of popular indignation if all that they were doing were rightly understood.
Feeling on this subject is now very widely aroused in this country. Testimony comes to me both from home and foreign sources as to how anxious people are becoming in regard to it. It is not a mere Church of England matter. Your Lordships probably saw in yesterday's Press a letter from one of the leading Nonconformists in this country saying how strong and united is Nonconformist feeling on this subject. I have had several requests that I should call attention to the fact that from Rome itself an appeal is being made on behalf of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics who are in peril, and a protest made against the wrongs which are apparently being endured and the perils run by the Patriarch Tikhon who belongs to the Russian Church. The condition of things seems to be such as is likely to arouse the feeling of the whole civilised world. In these circumstances I think your Lordships will not feel it to be wrong that I should ask the Government whether they can give us any information or guidance upon this important matter.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the most rev. Primate, in his Question and in his most interesting speech, directed special attention to the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church, and to the atrocious treatment of the Patriarch Tikhon, but I am quite certain, from his speech, that he realised that this is only part of a very great whole. In the first four years of the Bolshevist rule in Russia 1,233 archbishops, bishops and priests of the Orthodox Church were foully murdered, in some cases with the most shocking torture. The attack on the Roman Catholic Church in Russia is of comparatively recent date, but before that the Orthodox Church had been robbed of property to the value of 30,000,000 gold roubles. I am afraid that far too little notice was taken of those atrocities in this country. In all, the Bolsheviks from first to last have
460
murdered very nearly two million people, all Russians, and of course the majority of them peasants and workmen. The total loss of life from the application of the principles of Karl Marx to Russia is now very little short of twenty million people, including those who died from starvation and disease. This is the most horrible crime in all history. In comparison with Lenin and Trotsky, I think we may almost say that Attila and Tamerlane were humanitarian.
I was so glad to hear what the most rev. Primate said when he pointed out that this attack upon the Churches in Russia is only part of a great attack upon Christianity throughout the whole world, an attack which is being carried out, of course, by other methods both here and in America, and, I am sorry to say, not without some success. I feel sure that he will give his powerful support to all of us who are trying to put a stop to the conversion of our young children in Socialistic Sunday schools into revolutionary atheists. In view of what has happened—I have only given the slightest sketch—it is interesting to note that the Soviet propaganda paper in this country spoke of "the absurd stories which are at present being circulated concerning the attitude of the Russian Government towards religion." That is what we are asked to believe, and that is why I have this evening recalled these few terrible facts.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, the most rev. Primate was fully justified in raising this question, which is one of great gravity and importance. No one, as I know very well from long experience of the interventions of the most rev. Primate, takes greater trouble than he does to acquaint himself with every possible source of information before he addresses your Lordships, and sometimes in answering him I find that he has greater information than the Government have at their disposal. I am not certain that this is not the case in the present instance. When he asks me to supplement his own information by such knowledge as we have received I gladly respond to the appeal, and I will give him in detail exactly what we know about the matter.
The persecution of the Roman Catholics in Russia, as apart from the Orthodox, dates back to December 2, 1922, when the Roman Catholic Church at Gatchina was

461
closed by the Bolsheviks. A few days later ten other Roman Catholic churches were closed in Petrograd. The reason given by the Bolsheviks was the refusal of the Roman Catholic clergy to recognise a Soviet decree of January 23, 1918, for the lease and use of Church property. The effect of this decree was to recognise the ownership by the State of Church property in contravention of the Canonical laws of the Roman Catholic Church. Monsignor Cieplak, Vicar-General of the Arch-diocese of Mogilev with the titular rank of Archbishop, appealed to the Pope through the Papal Nuncio at Warsaw on December 6, 1922.
Nothing further was heard of any persecution until a telegram was received On January 27, 1923,from His Majesty's representative at the Vatican stating that Monsignor Cieplak, together with other priests, had been arrested for opposing the confiscation of sacred vessels by the Soviet, and that the Vatican had requested M. Chicherin to intervene on the ground that Monsignor Cieplak had probably acted in good faith knowing that the Vatican had offered to redeem the property. On receipt of this news, a telegram was sent to the British Agent at Moscow instructing him to make strong representations to the Soviet, Government on behalf of Monsignor Cieplak and the other priests unless he considered that this would do more harm than good. As it appeared that Monsignor Cieplak was not at that time actually under arrest, and as the head of the Papal Mission in Moscow was endeavouring to obtain a postponement of the threatened proceedings, Mr. Hodgson judged it wiser to await developments before intervening.
But when it became clear a fortnight ago that the Soviet authorities were determined to proceed with the trial without delay, Mr. Hodgson made representations to M. Litvinoff pointing out the lamentable impression on opinion abroad which would be caused by such proceedings when no longer justified by revolutionary necessities. On March 15 Mr. Hodgson was again instructed to do everything possible to save the lives of those arrested. Our own information from Mr. Hodgson shows that the ecclesiastics in question were not actually arrested until March 10, though they had previously been threatened with it. On March 5, Monsignor Cieplak and fifteen
462
other priests had been summoned from Petrograd before the Revolutionary Tribunal in Moscow. Apparently they were arrested on arrival in Moscow and were then transported through the streets in a military truck under armed guard. The trial was due to begin on March 14 before judges and was to be conducted by a prosecutor whose prejudices were well known.
There was ground for thinking, as the most rev. Primate indicated in one portion of his remarks, that the real object of the trial was to provide material for an anti-Christian demonstration for Easter—there have been several of these dreadful organised demonstrations of the most blasphemous and infamous character in several of principal Russian cities—and to prepare for the trial of the Russian Patriarch Tikhon. We beard this morning that the trial has been postponed probably till March 21. Mr. Hodgson will not desist from continuing his representations in the interval.
As regards the Patriarch Tikhon, about whose public spirited behaviour at the time of the famine and in general the most rev. Primate gave us particulars that must have greatly impressed your Lordships, I know very little; I mean I know very little about his present position. So far as we have ascertained, the date for his trial has not yet been fixed. Mr. Hodgson was asked by telegram on March 15 for information about his treatment, but no reply has yet been received. Of course this is not due to any inactivity or negligence on the part of Mr. Hodgson, who is a most active and capable representative of our interests, and who is fully aware of the great importance of this matter and the duty that lies upon him personally to do what he can in the interests of the accused.
The most rev. Primate referred to some engagement which was given last year, I rather think in my absence because I was ill, by the representative of the Foreign Office as to the intention of His Majesty's Government to press for a representative being present at the trial. Of course we will do our best to fulfil that engagement, and if it is possible to secure the presence of the British representative at the trial either of the Monsignor or of the Patriarch we will endeavour to secure it. We have learnt, as the most rev. Primate told us, that the Pope has made similar

463
representations in Moscow both on behalf of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics and the Patriarch Tikhon.
I wish I could give further information. Anything that comes to hand I will, of course, communicate to the most rev. Primate, and, if the occasion arises, to the House itself. I am as profoundly horrified and dismayed as he is, and as the noble Lord who spoke below the gangway can be, at the narrative of events, involving this wanton persecution that we hear of as proceeding in Russia at the present time. I wish our influence, or the influence of decency, was greater than it is at the moment, but any influence we can exert by our representative or otherwise the House can rely upon us to use. I only wish I was in a position this afternoon to make a more satisfactory if not a fuller statement than it has been in my power to do.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the information which he has given. It is possible that many members of your Lordships' House are not familiar with the subject, and I note that the noble Marquess spoke of our ignorance at the present moment concerning the exact position of the Patriarch Tikhon. The Patriarch has been under arrest for two years. He may not be actually in prison, but he is under arrest in a monastery, he is not allowed to speak to anybody, or receive any messages, or gain any information from the newspapers, so that the amount of liberty which he is at present enjoying is approximately that of a man in gaol. Those are the circumstances. I thank the noble Marquess for the information he has given me.

ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I beg to make the Motions standing in my name with respect to certain Special Orders made under the Electricity Acts, 1882 to 1922. The Orders are all purely formal, and emanate from the Ministry of Transport.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply)
464
Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Crook, in the County of Durham, which was presented on the 13th day of February, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Hoole and parts of the rural districts of Chester and Tarvin, in the County of Chester, which was presented on the 14th day of February, 1923, be approved.— (The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Aberayron, in the County of Cardigan, which was presented on the 14th day of February, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, confirming an agreement between the Slough Urban District Council and the Slough and Datehet Electric Supply Company, Limited, which was presented on the 14th day of February, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the burgh of Invergordon and part of the parish of Rosskeen, in the County of Ross and Cromarty, which was presented on the 20th day of February, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under

465
the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the continuance and extension of the generating station at Limehouse, which was presented on the 20th day of February, 1923, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920 (SPECIAL ORDERS).
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I beg to move that approval be given to the Draft Special Orders under the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, which are the subjects of Notices on the Paper. These Orders also are formal. They emanate from the Board of Trade.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order (entitled the East Kent Gas Order, 1923), proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of Drew-Bear Perks and Company, Limited, which was presented on 15th March, 1923, and published, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Weston-super-Mare Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 8th March, 1923, and published, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Moved, That the Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Ryde Gaslight Company and the
466
Brading Harbour District Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th March, 1923, and published, be approved.—(The Earl of Clarendon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of March 16.]

SUBSTITUTED BILL.
Presented, and read 1a.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the, Table.
Bill committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

OAKHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]

  SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  [From Minutes of March 19.]

PETROLEUM BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off sine die.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.