Sitting of 4 February 1918

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in accordance with the announcement which I made the other day, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, in moving that this Bill be read a second time I think I ought to give your Lordships a short account of how the Bill appears in a separate form. Your Lordships will remember that at the Speaker's Conference the question of the extension of the franchise to Ireland was dealt with, but no recommendation either way was made as to the question of redistribution of seats in Ireland; and accordingly, when the Representation of the People Bill was introduced in another place, there was no reference to the redistribution of seats in Ireland. Later on, in October, the question of the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill was discussed in another place. At that time the Government had hopes that the Irish Convention might have reported, and that it might have been unnecessary to deal with the question any further in the Franchise Bill, but their hopes were disappointed; and they had therefore to decide whether or not any clause or provision with reference to redistribution in Ireland should be inserted in that Bill.
There were two alternatives before them. One was to omit Ireland altogether from the Bill. The other was to insert some measure of redistribution. Opinion in another place expressed itself very strongly against the omission of Ireland from the Bill; therefore, owing to the fact that redistribution and extension of franchise have always been so closely associated, and as of course the natural inequalities of population, which display themselves in different districts after a lapse of years,
302
will be very much increased by the extension of the franchise, the Government felt that some redistribution must be brought in. Instructions were accordingly given to the Boundary Commissioners to proceed on a certain basis, and I should like to give the House the exact words of those two Instructions. First, "the total number of Members of the House of Commons for counties and boroughs in Ireland shall remain unchanged"; and the second Instruction was that "in assigning Members regard shall be had to the population and size of the constituencies." The object was to disturb existing constituencies as little as possible, but to remove glaring inequalities. Your Lordships will observe that in the reference to the Commissioners there was no mention made of the question of University constituencies, which was outside the duty of the Commissioners.
The Boundary Commissioners reported, and early in December the Schedule which they had constructed was considered in another place. Very keen and almost acrimonious opposition was offered to the provisions of that Schedule, and after three or four days debate a compromise was arrived at, and a Committee was set up, with the Speaker as chairman and two representatives of each of the Irish Parties upon it, making a Committee of five. Now, in that case the question of University constituencies was not excluded form the consideration of the Conference. The Committee reported—I think I should have said that it was at the same time part of the agreement that the decision of the Committee should be embodied in a new Bill, and that the new Bill was to pass as an agreed Bill, and was to be submitted for Royal Assent at the same time as the Franchise Bill. These statements which I have made are quoted in the Speaker's Letter, dated January 19, and addressed to the Prime Minister as the result of that Conference.
The substantial result was that very little change was made in the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners—only, I think, in two cases—but two Universities received representation. One was the Queen's University of Belfast, and the other the National University of Dublin. I think it came with a certain amount of surprise to the House that by granting representation to these Universities the representation in the House of Commons would be increased by two. I think it had been expected that

303
if these Universities received any representation it would be at the expense of existing counties and boroughs; but this decision was, I understand, arrived at unanimously by that Committee. It was brought before another place in the form of a Bill; there was hardly any discussion upon the Bill on the Second Reading, none in Committee, and the Bill passed unanimously through the House of Commons, and I now present the Bill to your Lordships.
I ought to state, I think, in distinguishing between University representation and representation for boroughs and counties, that your Lordships have during the course of the Franchise Bill looked with a rather more favourable eye on increases in the numbers of representatives in the House of Commons when they are representatives of Universities. I might also remind your Lordships that in the case of Wales you granted another seat to the Welsh University, and this Committee has, I will not say followed this precedent, but has acted in somewhat the same way in granting these two further representatives, as representing the two Universities. This Bill, as I have said, has been put forward in another place as an agreed Bill, and I beg to move its Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I troubled your Lordships, I am sorry to say, with a few remarks upon the subject of the treatment of Ireland when the main Bill was under discussion, and I need not tell your Lordships that I shall not presume to repeat upon this occasion what I said then. Neither would it be fair to ask your Lordships to reverse the decision at which you then arrived. I ventured to suggest on that occasion that the proposals in regard to Ireland were open to the most serious objections, and that the proper moment at which to deal with them was when the question of the lowering of the franchise in Ireland was under discussion. Your Lordships were pleased to take a different view, and, of course, I bow with all submission to that decision.
But I thought it right to call your Lordships' attention to the extreme inconvenience of the conditions under which we are called upon to discuss this particular proposal. I do not believe it is possible to pretend that we have a free hand in the
304
matter, the Bill having been brought up to your Lordships' House at the very last moments of the session to be dealt with as if it were some matter of the smallest possible importance. In my humble judgment the Government have always looked upon this question of the representation of Ireland from the wrong point of view. They have considered it a purely Irish question, whereas it is a question of the Imperial Government. Any one listening to my noble friend who has just sat down will see the same idea penetrating his speech. He described to your Lordships how a Commission had been appointed to determine the representation of Ireland. With the exception of the chairman it consisted entirely of Irishmen, and the only question submitted to them was not what was the proper representation of Ireland as compared to the representation of the United Kingdom, but what was the proper delimitation of the constituencies in Ireland itself. Instead of the same divisor being taken to determine the proper number of Members in Ireland as is taken in Great Britain, a wholy different one is taken—a much smaller one—with the result, of course, that a far larger number of Members than Ireland is entitled to has been under this Bill awarded to her.
It passes all possibility of credibility that we should agree at this time of day to have England and Scotland under-represented to the enormous extent which they are compared with Ireland. I have nothing, of course, to say about the special University seats which appear for the first time in this Bill, on the merits of University representation. I am very glad that the Universities in Ireland should be represented, but I cannot help repeating that, in the face of the gross over-representation of Ireland, to add two more Members is really to add insult to injury. I do not know whether any other noble Lord will take a different view, but I do not propose, for my part, to ask your Lordships to do anything except pass the Bill in the circumstances. But I do think we are entitled to some statement from the Government as to how they defend the over-representation of Ireland and how long it is to go on. They are proposing a settlement here. They are always telling us that this is a great settlement, that the old quarrels about reform are to be buried, and yet they continue in this settlement that which is a gross injustice.

305
I put to the Government this question. Supposing the Convention does not come to anything—supposing it breaks down—are the Government going to do anything to cure the over-representation of Ireland which will be left in being by the passage of this Bill? Are we going on, year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation, with Ireland represented to the extent of forty Members more than she is entitled to have? If the Convention comes to a settlement of the Home Rule issue, no doubt the matter is more or less academical. Everybody admits that the whole matter of the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament will have to be reconsidered. But supposing it does not, I want the Government to tell us here and now whether they can hold out any hope to poor, oppressed England and Scotland that they will receive justice, and, if not, how they are going to justify such neglect before the constituencies of this country.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I should not have thought of rising, but I imagined that in the circumstances some reply would have been made to the noble Marquess who has just sat down, because it does appear to me that we are placed in a very extraordinary position. I called attention to this long ago. I have always held the opinion that the consideration of the Representation of the People Bill ought to have been postponed until the complete policy of the Government was before us, Now we have it, but in a separate Bill, and questions have been put to the Government about it which apparently they are reluctant to answer.
Now, what is the position with which we are faced to-day? First of all, the new Parliament is to have a greatly increased number of Members compared with the old ones—that is to say, the Parliament to be elected under the Reform Bill. I may remind the noble Viscount who has had the conduct of that Bill in his charge and who made an admirable exposition on the First Reading of it, that this fact was never mentioned in his explanation of the purport of the new measure. I own that I thought at the time it was a grave omission. What is it we are confronted with to-day? It has been pointed out by the noble Marquess that Ireland under these present proposals is to be represented on a basis of population of 40,000 persons in a constituency, as against the representation of English constituencies on a basis of 70,000. That is
306
to say, Ireland is to have representation on a basis of population a little more than one-half of that which has been fixed for Great Britain. In what circumstances is that enormous advantage to be given to Irish Members who will not only have to deal with Irish questions but will be able to interfere on every possible occasion that they please with the affairs and the legislation of this country and the rest of Great Britain?
And what is the condition of Ireland? It is admitted and never contradicted, with regard to the vast majority of the people of that country at the present time, that Sinn Fein is spreading to such an extent that a large majority are said to be in favour of the separation of Ireland from England and in favour of an independent Irish Republic. What do you suppose when this is known—and it is not known at present or understood—by the people of Great Britain, would be the reception that they would be likely to give a proposition of this kind? I own that it seems to me to be a very serious position, and a very extraordinary demand which you are making upon the people of this country. The noble Marquess suggested that the Convention might break down. In that case your difficulty, will be over for the time, at all events. The whole question would have to be reconsidered within a comparatively brief period of time. But supposing it does not break down, is this to be permanent? Is Ireland always to be placed in the position of having a much larger Parliamentary representation on the basis of population than we have in this country? I confess it is a proposal which fills me with anxiety and even with alarm, and I am sure it is one which cannot commend itself to the people of this country when they are thoroughly acquainted with what is being proposed. In these circumstances I do think we are entitled to some reply to the speech of the noble Marquess.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I did not rise to reply to the speech of the noble Marquess because the question was one to which, if he was entitled, as no doubt he was, to ask it, I should have thought the general sense of your Lordships' House would have agreed that it was impossible in the existing circumstances for the Government to give the reply that was sought. The noble Marquess asked, not for the first time in this House, for an answer, here and now. Well,

307
members speaking from the Ministerial Bench are unwise, I think, if, in the case of a challenge of that sort, without due consideration they give the reply to which they might be tempted.
What, my Lords, are the circumstances of the case? An arrangement has been proposed for Ireland—it is the logical sequence of the wide extension of the franchise and redistribution in this country—which has been unanimously accepted by the other House of Parliament. The noble Marquess, upon that, draws attention to the over-representation of Ireland, which we all admit, which many of us deplore, and which most of us, I expect, look forward to seeing corrected in the future; and he asks for some statement from the Government as to what they will do with regard to this over-representation of Ireland in certain contingencies. He reminds us that a Convention is now sitting in Ireland, and he says, "What will you do if that Convention comes to an agreement, and what will you do if the Convention fails to come to an agreement?" If the Convention comes to an agreement, as we all hope it may, the whole matter enters into a new atmosphere at once, and the question will have to be looked upon from a new point of view. The arrangements which may be proposed for a temporary emergency will not stand. If the Convention fails to come to an agreement, how can I now, on the spur of the moment, answer as to what His Majesty's Government propose to do with regard to the representation of Ireland, or anything else?
I think the noble Viscount who spoke just now rather forgot the fact that the Home Rule Act is on the Statute Book, and that that measure effects a very decisive reduction in the representation of Ireland. That is the broad governing fact that we have to remember, by which the Government, no doubt, will have to guide its future decision. Without, therefore, complaining of the noble Marquess for asking the question, it is one to which, in the circumstances of the case, I think your Lordships must not expect me to give a definite reply.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I had hoped that we should have had something from the noble Earl which would have justified us in leaving this subject altogether alone, but I am bound to point out
308
that he really places us in a very difficult position. The question of the over-representation of Ireland has been raised by my two noble friends, but look at the question which your Lordships are about to enter upon, and upon which by a large majority you disagreed with the other House of Parliament—namely, proportional representation. If ever there was a case in which the question of direct election for every seat is more important than in any other it is the case of Ireland.
What the noble Earl asks us to do is this—at the last moment of the session, when it is absolutely impossible, without prolonging the session, even to consider whether some other system should not be applied to Ireland—to take up this Bill, which we see in print for the first time this afternoon, and to accept it wholesale. The noble Earl well knows that the Unionist Party in Ireland, and the Protestants of the South of Ireland, will be left with practically no representation whatever under this Bill, although they are one-tenth of the whole of the electorate, outside Ulster. I deprecated it the other night, and asked your Lordships, if you saw fit, to treat this arrangement as temporary with a view of its being relieved, either by the reduction of Members and the distribution of seats which would be proposed under the scheme which the Convention might agree to, or by the reduction proposed by the Bill of 1914, if it should ever, unfortunately, come into operation. But this Bill, if neither of these contingencies happen, may perpetuate for all time the most inequitable system that has ever been applied to any country, and a system by which those who are paying between one-third and one-half of the whole of the rates and taxation in the larger districts of the south of Ireland are to be denied any representation whatever.
I must say I think it is putting a very severe strain, not only upon our loyalty, but upon our desire to avoid all subjects of controversy if His Majesty's Government ask us to accept this Bill, not as a temporary but as possibly a permanent arrangement, and to look upon the subject of redistribution and representation in Ireland as closed by a measure which your Lordships are not allowed to have more than a few moments to consider at the end of the session. Supposing, for the sake of argument (and it is the last argument I shall use), that either proportional representation or some modification of it, is adopted in

309
the course of the next few hours by the two Houses in consultation—in the case of Great Britain because there has been time to consider it, but with regard to Ireland, where the case is infinitely greater, it will not be touched at all because it has come at a time when it is impossible for us to move an Amendment. I enter a most serious protest against its being assumed that this Bill can be of a permanent character. If it were so it would be a gross injustice, and would also cast a severe strain upon the feelings of those of us who have done their best to try and bring matters into a more cordial relationship in the Convention.
LORD BERESFORD: My Lords, you were good enough the other day to listen to a few remarks that I made about the over-representation of Ireland. I think that everybody in your Lordships' House knows that this over-representation is a fact, and has been the source of all our troubles in both countries in years past. My noble friend the Leader of the House says that he cannot say what the Government are going to do in the future. I should like to point out that what is going to be done now is what has been done in Ireland all the time. You are going to give a lot of people over-representation—an overrepresentation which, if the Convention comes to nothing, will have to be taken away from them, because the inhabitants in this country will insist upon it. You are, therefore, raising up trouble for people in Ireland. In Ireland they will say that you have deceived them. You are going to rule the country as you have done for the last fifty years. You promise things to both sides—one Party is just as bad as the other—and then you are not going to give the benefits that you promised them. The result will be that the people will not believe you, and they will say that you have made promises which you never had any intention of fulfilling. In this way you are raising up difficulties ill my country which will be worse than those difficulties that you have had to encounter hitherto.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended) House in Committee., according to Order.
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have to move a consequential Amendment on an Amendment moved in the House of Commons transferring the power of appointing polling places from the returning officer to the Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and all polling places").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38, in the fourth column, leave out the word ("Great Britain-street") and insert ("Parnell-street").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
Amendments reported; Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
Amendments reported, according to Order: Then (Standing Order XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order).
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have a very small drafting Amendment to move referring to some classes of certificate which are renewed from time to time.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 24, after ("granted" insert ("or renewed").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments, and the Commons Amendments to certain of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the said Reasons and Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The references are to Bill No. 113.]
Lords Amendment.
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("on the last day") and insert ("during the last fourteen days") and leave out ("be") and insert ("have been")
The Commons disagree to these Amendments for the following reason:
Because it appears that better provision is made in the Bill as passed by the Commons to guard against changes of residence which are not bona fide.
The Commons disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords in page 3, line 14, and in page 29, line 24, and lines 24, and 25, for the following reason:
Because they are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Your Lordships will recollect the discussions both in Committee and on the Report stage with reference to the method of dealing with the "swallow" voter. Your Lordships preferred in the Committee Stage one particular way of dealing with the matter—the method of the fourteen days. The Bill, as it came up from another place, proposed that thirty days were to elapse from the time when a man came to take up his residence at the end of the qualifying period, and that, if he took up his residence within thirty days, he had to remain a corresponding number of days after the end of the qualifying period, or otherwise there might be objections to his being properly qualified. The noble Viscount opposite pointed out certain difficulties, and said that under the proposals of your Lordships a certain number of people might be disfranchised. Other noble Lords pointed out that there would be certain difficulties in the application of the method suggested by another place. I feel sure that your Lordships would not desire to disfanchise any person; and though there may be some little
312
difficulties about applying the other method, possibly in view of the strong feeling in another place your Lordships would not wish to insist upon your Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has told your Lordships quite truly what passed on the occasion when we had this particular provision last under consideration. I confess that I am sorry that the House of Commons has not agreed with us in this Amendment, because the effect of it is that, in many instances of the class of case which is contemplated, what is really required by the Commons is a seven months qualification, not a six months qualification. That seems a great pity. It is better that there should be a uniform period of qualification of six months for everybody; but in this case, where a man moves into a particular constituency at the last moment, he may, in an extreme instance, have to reside for seven months before he becomes qualified. This appeared to your Lordships' House to be a very illogical proposal, and we thought it better to make the qualification period end always on the same day, whether it were a case of a "swallow" vote or any other vote, and the compulsory period of residence in the constituency should be counted before the appointed day instead of after. One would have thought that that was a very common sense proposal; but, as the Commons have not seen fit to agree to it, I do not think it is a matter which, speaking entirely for myself, your Lordships need contest, though we believe our proposal was the better one.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 5, page 5, line 28, after ("Parliament") insert ("or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in service as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they are of opinion that further consideration should be given to the question of the qualification of Dominion soldiers as naval or military voters.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I think the substance of the matter is that the Commons agreed with the general desire of this House, but they thought that the Amendment,

313
as drawn, went rather too wide. It is possible that it does cover certain cases that might not be intended. I propose, therefore, that this house do not insist on this Amendment, but perhaps in lieu thereof the following Amendment should be inserted—
Line 28, after "Parliament," insert "or, where the person serving was at the commencement of his service resident in the United Kingdom, out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, or in service as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing-boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat."
Your Lordships will see that the alteration in the first part of the clause limits the advantage of the clause to persons who were resident in this country before they became soldiers. I think that was the intention of your Lordships.
LORD BERESFORD: May I ask whether this affects the Amendment which I moved about the merchant seamen?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No; it leaves the noble Lord's Amendment entirely untouched.
LORD BURNHAM: I raised in Committee the case of a soldier born in or associated with the Dominions and resident in this country, and I think the fresh suggestion of the noble Viscount entirely covers that.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, but agrees to the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Line 28, after "Parliament" insert "Or where the person serving was at the commencement of his service resident in the United Kingdom, out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in service as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
After Clause Li insert new Clause A.:
Supplemental provisions us to residence and occupation.
"A.—(1) Where land or premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, each of the joint occupiers shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be treated as occupying the premises, subject as follows:—

"(a) In the case of the occupation of business premises the aggregate yearly value of the premises must for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise be not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers; and

"(b) In the case of the occupation of land or premises (not being a dwelling-house) the aggregate yearly value thereof must for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise of women be not less than the amount produced by multiplying five pounds by the number of joint occupiers; and

"(c) Not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bona, tide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade or business on the land or promises.

"(2) Residence in a house or the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Act by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole, or by reason only of notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house, but the express enactment of this provision shall not affect in any way the general principles governing the interpretation of the expression 'residence' and cognate expressions."
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
At end insert:
( ) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a man shall not be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a constituency in respect of a residence qualification though he may leave been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, if he commenced to reside in the constituency within, thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to reside within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside.
( ) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area though that person may have been occupying land or premies in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, if that person commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to occupy the land or premises within thirty days after the commencement of the occupation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is really consequential on the Lords Amendment on Clause 1, page 1.
LORD STANMORE: I desire to move an Amendment which is consequential on the acceptance by your Lordships of the Commons Amendments. It is to insert after your Lordships' Amendment on page 30, after line 30, the following words: "and subsection (4) of the said section shall not apply." This provides that the last subsection shall not apply to Scotland. The reason is that the Scottish local government franchise is separately dealt with in the Bill in the Scottish application clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, after line 30, to insert, ("and subsection (4) of the said section shall not apply").—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, as amended.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out ("or local government ")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they are of opinion that Poor-law disqualification for local elections should be abolished.
The Commons disgree to the Amendments made by the Lords in page 6, line 34, and page 144. lines 42 and 43 and 48, and page 147, line 41, for the following reason:
Because they are consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 6, line 32, to which the Commons have disagreed.
They make the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
Page 145, line 46, at end insert:

"39 & 40 Vict. c. 61.

The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876.

Section 14."

VISCOUNT PEEL: In this case your Lordships may remember that the House of Commons took the view that there should be no Poor Law disqualification in the case of Parliamentary and also in the case of local government electors. Your Lordships assented to that view in the case of the Parliamentary elector, but your opinion was that certainly that disqualification
316
should still apply in the case of the local government elector. A very strong feeling was displayed in another place that there should be no disqualification in the case of a local government elector, and this I think was pressed very strongly by a great many Members who had long experience of Poor Law administration. I admit, of course, and your Lordships no doubt will feel, that there was much substance in many of the reasons advanced in your Lordships' House for leaving in this disqualification in the case of the local government elector, but possibly, in view of the very strong expressions in another place, your Lordships will not think it worth while to insist on your Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As it was on my Motion that your Lordships left out the words "or local government," perhaps I ought to say a word. I must say that I cannot quite agree with the noble Viscount who conducts this Bill that there was a very strong opinion expressed against this Amendment in the House of Commons. There were only two people who spoke about it—Sir George Cave and Mr. Peto. Beyond those two—I have looked up Hansard—nobody appears to have said anything about it at all. The reason given by Sir George Cave was this, that it might interfere with a man having a vote for a local government councillor. In this House when this question was raised it was pointed out to us that the Poor Law was very likely going to be transferred to the county councils. If that is so, all the more reason for not giving a pauper a vote for a local government councillor. The reason which is given appears to me a singularly bad one—"Because they are of opinion that Poor-Law disqualification for local elections should be abolished"; but that does not say that a pauper is to be given a vote for the guardian from whom he derives his relief. It seems to me that you cannot have a stronger case. I am told that there are in Manchester no fewer than 10,000 paupers who will be enfranchised if this is accepted. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time or to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but as at present advised I cannot see any reason for agreeing with the Commons. I should be guided, of course, by what is said by any of your Lordships, but it seems to me that on

317
the merits of the case nothing could be more objectionable than to give a pauper a vote for the guardian by whom he is going to be given relief.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I should like to add to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, just this remark. As this is entirely indefensible in principle—no one when we debated it endeavoured to defend it in principle—it is also to be remembered that it was a point on which the Speaker's Conference was unanimous. The disqualification which they proposed to remove was the disqualification for the Parliamentary vote, and they did not make any recommendation that the right to vote should be extended to paupers for local government purposes. It was pointed out with force by my noble friend Lord Haldane, when your Lordships were considering this subject before, that it is very probable that the functions of the Poor Law guardians may be transferred to the county councils. In fact, I rather think that from the Government themselves, or certainly from their Commissioners, a suggestion to that effect has emanated. Clearly, therefore, the argument used by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, with regard to Poor Law guardians will apply; and we shall be doing the very thing which is most to be regretted if in transferring these functions to county councils we give at the same time to the local government elector the right of voting although he is in receipt of Poor Law relief. That was the only argument advanced, so far as I can tell, by the Home Secretary in another place, and therefore I submit; that upon the merits there is every reason why your Lordships should disagree.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think there is some dispute as to the facts. Probably your Lordshisps would be disposed generally to agree that if the present Poor Law system was to be permanent it would not be desirable to give those who have been in receipt of relief the power of returning to office those who may have to relieve them. Similarly, if it were really the case that the whole powers of guardians were to be transferred en bloc to the county councils the same argument would no doubt apply. But I am not quite certain whether this is the case. I was under the impression that the proposal for the reform of the Poor Law took the form of appointing committees containing representatives of public
318
bodies, the county councils presumably, but also a considerable proportion of outside persons, not themselves representing any form of elected or official body, rather after the manner in which, as we know, public assistance is carried on in France. If that be so, a considerable part of the objection which has been raised would, I take it, disappear.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I was about to say what has been said by my noble friend who has just sat down, and I only desire to add a very few words to what he has put before your Lordships, in addition to the reason which he has given for thinking that, after all, this is a much smaller matter than it has been represented to be. There is this further, that since we discussed this matter the Report of the Committee appointed by the Cabinet to consider this question is now before the public. And the result of it is that the great controversy between the Majority and the Minority Poor Law Report three years ago has now been composed. It is not merely that you are going to transfer the administration of Poor Law questions from the guardians to committees of the county and borough councils if these things are carried out, but that the whole Poor Law will disappear in its present form. It will I be broken up, and the various conglomerate classes which are dealt with will be divided into their sections, and dealt with by the appropriate public authorities, working through the committees of which I spoke. If that be so, the class of persons in Manchester of whom the noble Earl (Lord Camperdown) spoke will be very small indeed compared with the numbers which they are at the present time. I suggest to your Lordships, in view of the scheme which I think is very likely to be carried through—judging by the indications of public opinion—that it would be a great pity if, by insisting upon this Amendment, we thought we were dealing with a very large question, whereas we are dealing with a question which is vanishing to very small dimensions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: All the more reason why the person should not have a vote, if the Poor Law is going to be handed over to these other people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that I have the greatest sympathy with my noble friend who sits

319
below the gangway, in his contention that to give a pauper a vote for the board of guardians is one of the most absurd things ever laid before Parliament. But I am struck by the speeches which have been delivered by the noble Marquess and by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. It is true that, since your Lordships first saw this Bill, there has been a very important Report presented to the public which indicates that the whole subject of the Poor Law is to be reconsidered. I suppose we may conclude that, if the Chairman of the Majority Report and the lady who took the most prominent part in the Minority Report, are agreed, there is some chance that this proposal will pass into law. I am very reluctant to ask your Lordships to exercise your power of disagreeing with the House of Commons except upon very clear issues; and I am not sure that what has been said does not rather blur the issue and make it somewhat difficult for us to act. In these circumstances I think that the House would, perhaps, be well advised—having regard to this new fact which was not before us on the last occasion—if the Government pressed the matter, not to divide against them. But may I say that the Government have put us in a rather difficult position in this case? The only defence of their proposal has come from noble Lords sitting on the Opposition side of the House. The Government themselves have merely made a proposal that, as the House of Commons feels strongly about it, we should not insist. I think that your Lordships have some difficulty in acting upon an argument of that kind. We are supposed to, and, I believe; in this House we very often do, decide a question on its merits; and to decide it upon a phrase of that kind seems to me a little below the very high standard which the noble Viscount and the noble Earl opposite have set us in conducting the debates of your Lordships' House. However, having regard to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and by the noble and learned Viscount, I should personally be content, though with great reluctance, to allow this to pass as it is proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 8, page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following subsection:
"(2) Any person being a conscientious objector to whom this subsection applies shall be dis-qualified
320
during the continuance of the war and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a parliamentary or local government elector unless before the expiration of one year after the termination of the war he proves to the central tribunal as established for the purposes of the Military Service Act, 1916—

"(a) that he has during the continuance of the war taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued service which constitutes a person (other than a person serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown) a naval or military voter for the purposes of this Act; or

"(b) that having been exempted from military service on condition of doing work of national importance he has done such work in accordance with the decision and to the satisfaction of the appropriate tribunal or authority; or

"(c) that having obtained an absolute exemption from military service without any such condition, he has nevertheless (whether before or after the passing of this Act) taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued some work of national importance;

and obtains a certificate from the central tribunal to that effect.
This subsection shall apply to a conscientious objector who either—

"(a) has been exempted from all military service (including non-combatant service; on the ground of conscientious objection) or

"(b) having been convicted by court-martial of an offence against military law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment or detention.

"The central tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this subsection for a period of a year after the termination of the present war.
"If a person disqualified under this subsection would have been entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector but for that disqualification, the disqualification shall not extend so as to affect the right of the wife of that person to be registered or vote as a parliamentary or local government elector, as the case may be."
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
In paragraph (c), lines 3 and 4, leave out ("taken up") and insert ("engaged in")
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I gather that the Commons Amendment is only a drafting Amendment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is substantially a drafting Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then, practically, the House of Commons agree to our Amendment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The House of Commons agree to the whole of the Amendment with this very small drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Viscount Peel).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 18, page 14, line 15, at beginning insert as a new subsection:
"(1) In a constituency returning not less than three nor more than five members of Parliament any contested election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they consider it undesirable to apply the principle of proportional representation, especially in view of the delay which would be caused thereby to the passage of the Bill.
The Commons disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords in page 2, lines 4, 26, and 27; page 8, lines 27 and 28, 30, and 31 and 33; page 12, line 26; page 20, lines 4, 7, and 11; page 23, lines 14 and 20; page 27, lines 4 to 6; page 28, lines 40 and 41; page 29, line 12 (" 'county' means a county inclusive of all burghs therein except a county of a city"); page 32, line 12; page 36 (to insert new clause); page 39, lines 1, 6, and 7; page 51, lines 9, 11, and 12; page 138 (to leave out the Sixth Schedule); page 139, line 18 (to leave out paragraph 6) ; page 149 (new Ninth Schedule), for the following reason:
Because they are consequential on the first Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise to move that your Lordships do not insist upon your Amendment, but that, in its place, you propose another Amendment. When this Bill went through Committee in this House, your Lordships inserted a complete scheme of proportional representation for the whole of Great Britain. That scheme has been rejected in the House of Commons by a formidable majority. That does not end the matter. So far as the complete scheme which we put forward is concerned, I bow to the decision of the House of Commons. But in saying that I also make this prophecy, that, within less than ten years, the great majority—not all—of the Members of the House of Commons who voted against this
322
complete scheme, will wish for a complete scheme of proportional representation as keenly and as strongly as I do now. I bow to this decision, but with the greatest regret, because, in my judgment, it inflicts a cruel injustice on the agricultural industry.
We had to put, forward a complete scheme because nothing less than that is of real effect to give agriculture the representation which is its due. Now, what is the position of agriculture, and what do I mean when I talk of agriculture? I mean, of course, the agricultural labourer, the farmer, and the landowner—all those classes which live from the land. Often their interests are in conflict; but as to the fundamental status of agriculture as a national industry their interests are identical; and it is exactly in respect of the position of agriculture in the national economy that all those classes have so much cause for complaint. If I were to say that the affairs of cotton, or of coal, or of iron, ought to be managed by farmers and agricultural labourers, the whole of those great industries would cry out in indignation. But that is exactly what has happened to agriculture in this country for the last fifty years.
The position of agriculture is quite peculiar. You may take a county returning five Members, and, by the number of votes occupied in agriculture, that industry may be entitled to two Members out of those five. But those proportions of 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. may be so exactly repeated in each one of those five single constituencies that, as a matter of fact, agriculture does not get one single Member out of that county. That happens again and again; and it was to remedy that cruel injustice that we proposed this complete system of proportional representation. I see that the Home Secretary in another place said that the scheme of operations which we put forward would have resulted in the loss of thirteen seats to agriculture. I absolutely dissent from that statement, and it is quite incomprehensible to me how any one could have persuaded himself that such would have been the case. My Lords, an experiment in proportional representation is, of course, of great value, as I will show presently, but it is wholly ineffective as a cure for the injustice under which I contend agriculture suffers, and therefore it is with the utmost regret that I have to accept the decision of the House of Commons, that

323
there shall be no complete scheme. The responsibility rests not on your Lordships' House, which has done all that you can for agriculture, but upon the Members of the House of Commons.
Before I proceed to discuss the situation as it is presented to us, I hope you will allow me to deal very briefly with one or two points that I do not think ought to be omitted from observation. Again the question has been asked, How would proportional representation apply to a four-Member constituency? Let me again repeat that there are no longer in this country two Parties fighting each other, for there are three Parties. There are going to be three different candidates of three different Parties in almost every constituency in Great Britain, and, in those circumstances, proportional representation works just as well in a four-Member seat as it does in a three-Member seat when there are only two Parties contesting.
Then I was interested to notice in the debates which have taken place that the argument of delay from our Amendments played a very small part. There was hardly any one found to suggest that our Amendments really involved delay in bringing the Bill into operation; but I cannot pass over, without comment, the Commons reason for disagreement to this Amendment, which has just been read from the Woolsack—
"Because they consider it undesirable to apply the principle of proportional representation, especially in view of the delay which would be caused thereby to the passage of the Bill."
My Lords, I do not profess to have profound intellect, but I admit that that is entirely beyond my comprehension, because if Parliament agreed to the introduction of proportional representation into the Bill, how could it possibly result in delay to the passage of the Bill? The phrase appears to me, I confess, absolutely meaningless. I was courteously rebuked by the Leader of the House, on the last occasion when this Bill was before us, for referring to speeches made in the House of Commons, but on this occasion I cannot, and ought not, to ignore those speeches. I want to focus your Lordships' attention on this remarkable feature of that debate. There was a constant reiteration of the objections to proportional representation from the practical or technical point of view. There was not one single word said in the House of Commons, any more than in this House,
324
against the case I made out here for proportional representation.
I am not going to weary you by repeating the whole of that case, but it is necessary that I should present it to you once more in a few words. The question at issue is not the difficulty under proportional representation for a Member of Parliament or for a constituent. The real question is whether it is good for the State, and whether it is not absolutely essential for the true interpretation of the democratic ideal. The position in which we find ourselves in this House is rather singular. We are the Second Chamber, under normal circumstances reduced to impotence by the action of the Parliament Act, but under the peculiar circumstances of the moment this House is restored to its full ancient authority and responsibility, and I submit that the responsibility cast upon a Second Chamber in dealing with a question of this kind is very great. We have to consider not only the judgment of our contemporaries, but how we shall be judged at the bar of history. Our contention in this matter is mainly with Liberal and Unionist Members of Parliament. I deeply regret that we, who believe so earnestly in the necessity for the adoption of this principle in this Bill, should be put into conflict with those Liberal or Unionist Members of Parliament, more particularly as some of them are my own oldest and dearest personal friends.
But, if that is the case, it is also true that your Lordships are supported by an immense volume of public opinion outside the walls of Parliament. You have not only behind you the whole of the organisations speaking for agriculture, but you have the whole of that great Labour Conference, representing more than two and a half millions of organised workers, that unanimously passed a resolution last week in favour of proportional representation, and you have also an extraordinary volume of public opinion not only in the London Press, drawn from both sides, but in the Scotsman, the Manchester Guardian, the Yorkshire Post, and other great provincial papers. I cannot help quoting to you a passage from the Manchester Guardian, because, seeing how strong the hostility is to the proposals that we advocate among many Members in another place, and knowing that, after all, some of you do not see even the great provincial journals, I think if I were not to read to you some such passage as this, you might fail to realise

325
how great and strenuous is the support Which we have behind us in the country. This passage is taken from the Manchester Guardian of January 28—
"The Lords are not alone. They have powerful backing, and as they happen in this matter to be right and to be sustaining a more democratic principle than their opponents they will have whatever advantage may belong to those who have the better cause. The fact that at the Labour conference last week proportional representation was approved without challenge should alone give pause to those who advocate that it should be lightly set aside. The fact is that the Lords are, in this matter, fulfilling the true function of a Second Chamber by giving to the popular House an opportunity of reconsideration where reconsideration is clearly needed. If the Commons should prefer to lose the Bill for this session rather than adopt this simple expedient, the responsibility will be theirs."
Now, my Lords, as I said, I wish briefly to remind you of the case. The case is that by the single-Member system, which is rigorously applied by this Bill as it has come back to your Lordships House, there is not only the danger but the moral certainty of the elimination from the House of Commons of an adequate representation of large minorities—not of insignificant minorities only, not of faddists nor of cranks, but of great permanent national interests. I showed your Lordships that that was not a fancy picture. I proved that it has actually happened, and was actually happening at the present moment. We are just going to embark on a reconstruction of England, a reconstruction of Scotland, and, we hope, of Ireland. We hope for a happier and a better England, and the question is whether the Parliament that is going to do this great work for our children and our children's children shall be a true or a fraudulent representation of democracy. What is it that may happen under the single-Member system? There may be no Churchman or Unionist in Wales and a mere pittance of Conservatives in Scotland, and we are told that the compensation will be that there will be no Liberals or Radicals in the Home Counties. But there may be in the vast industrial regions of Lancashire, Durham, the West Riding, and the Midlands great areas where there will be no Liberal or Conservative representation, no representation whatever of capital or of employers, and we are told that the compensation will be that Labour will have no representation in the agricultural districts of the south of England. Agriculture will be reduced to a mere pittance of representation all through Great
326
Britain, and I suppose the compensation to which we are to look is the fact that almost all Irish constituencies will return representatives of agriculture.
Cast your eves across the Channel, my Lords. The question of proportional representation in Ireland is only indirectly affected by this Bill, but there is a very strong movement in Ireland, not confined to one Party, for the adoption of that principle there. It cannot be adopted there for the Imperial Parliament if it is not adopted in Great Britain, and I ask your Lordships to consider the prospect that may be opening out before you in the Irish representation at Westminster. This last election in South Armagh was the first occasion since the Sinn Feiners began to contest seats on which they have had a set-back. I do not speak from any personal authority, but I was told before that election that it was believed that, outside the Ulster block, the voters were in the proportion of 60 per cont. Sinn Feiners to 40 per cent. Nationalists (who follow Mr. Redmond) and Unionists. If that is anything like an accurate estimate of the proportionate strengths of the parties in Ireland, I ask you to consider what may be the result under the single-Member system, and what appeared to be certain to be the result until this last election took place. With 103 Members from Ireland I reckon that you would get from the Ulster block and Trinity College, Dublin, twenty five Unionists. The whole of the remainder of the eighty might, under the single-Member system, be Sinn Feiners, with the result that you would go into the Peace Conference with a declared majority in Ireland of fifty-five in favour of separation. Now, if you apply proportional representation to Ireland you make the same estimate of Members, and what is the result? In addition to the twenty-five drawn from the Ulster block and Trinity College, Dublin, you get twenty-five followers of Mr. Redmond, friends of amity with the British people, and you have a total of fifty-five Unionists and friendly non-separatists from Ireland as against fifty Shin Feiners. That is the kind of case to which no answer has been attempted in the House of Commons. There was no attempt to answer it in this House, either.
My Lords, I do not want to appear to exaggerate, but I do feel very strongly in this matter and I realise my responsibility. I said on another occasion that I had no foreboding and no misgiving about

327
this tremendous experiment in democracy with 12,000,000 electors. I said it with this reservation in my mind—that Parliament in its wisdon would apply the only principle, that of proportional representation, which can possibly give, us a real reflection of the will of the people. In this question is involved no less than this. In the making of a new England are we going on in orderly progress, or are we going to see deep fissures cleft in the nation from end to end by the elimination from Parliament of great interests which cannot obtain representation under the single-Member system? I believe that this question spells all the difference between evolution and revolution. I believe that the whole of our social system is involved in it, very like y the form of Government in this country. I have painted with a broad brush, I know, but draw aside the curtain of a few years, stand back, and you will see that the picture is an accurate one. If you share these opinions of mine which I have endeavoured to express with an equal sense of responsibility as of earnestness, then you will agree with me that the welfare of the State requires that a fair trial should be given to proportional representation on a sufficient scale. And you will also agree that this House cannot divest itself of its share of responsibility because we are unfortunate enough not to have gained the assent of the majority of the House of Commons.
You ask me, in these circumstances, what course I would advise. Looking through the debates in the House of Commons certain passages struck me, as they must have struck your Lordships. I will trouble You with only two taken from the speech of Mr. Asquith. Mr. Asquith said—
"I, myself, should be very glad to see an experiment tried in the direction indicated which would have the effect. I hope, of mitigating anomalies and giving to unrepresented minorities that representation which, under the present system, they do not appear to receive … I shall be very glad to see a more adequate representation of minorities. I do not in any way recede from the opinion I formerly expressed, but I shall be glad even now if we could come to an agreement amongst ourselves—it was rejected I know by this House by a considerable majority—and with our fellow legislators in another place, to adopt, by way of experiment, the very moderate and reasonable scheme which has been suggested."
At the end of his speech Mr. Asquith said—
"I am in favour of proportional representation upon an experimental scale. I think a case has
328
been made out. If those concerned were content with the comparatively moderate proposition which originally was presented to this House, or will be content with it now, they shall certainly have my support."
There was another remarkable speech made by Mr. Adamson, the leader of the Labour Party. He did not use identical words with Mr. Asquith, but the sense was the same.
My advice to your Lordships is to take the line of action suggested by Mr. Asquith and to return to the House of Commons a clause which gives effect to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. The effect of that Amendment will be to apply proportional representation, as an experiment, to every Parliamentary borough returning three or more Members. I do not suggest to you to extend the provision to contiguous boroughs, or to endeavour to make London one constituency, as was suggested by the Speaker's Conference. The Amendment would apply to the boroughs in London, but only to them as boroughs.
What I deeply regret about this course is that it does not include any agricultural constituency. I have explained to your Lordships, and I think I have carried conviction to your mind, and should do so to any agricultural audience, that nothing except a real and complete system of proportional representation can meet the case of agriculture. No mere experiment is of any effect to that end. It is of no value except as an experiment, and it can be tried just as well on boroughs as on counties. I should have clearly loved to have found some way of introducing counties into this Amendment, but it is obvious, when once you depart from the inclusion of counties and endeavour to select certain counties for inclusion and exclude others, that your proposals offer themselves as a target for every critic. No private member of either House has authority to make such a proposal. If the House of Commons will, as I most earnestly hope, consider favourably the Amendment I am going to propose. I hope they will have the grace, of their own judgment and wisdom, to make some provision for a trial of this system, experimentally, among such counties as commend themselves to the judgment of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons again turn a deaf ear to the claims of agriculture I shall say to my agricultural friends in the country, "We, in this House, honestly have done our best. The House of Commons

329
has turned a deaf ear. But we have secured"—as I hope we shall—"a trial of the system in boroughs which will by its triumphant success in a very few years enable us to obtain an extension of the system to the counties." I shall say more than that to my agricultural friends. I shall tell them that if they want to see agriculture take its proper place in this country they must not bind themselves to the tail of any political party. I shall tell them they must organise as other industries have organised; that they must make their case scientifically, so that no Party will be able to resist it. And it may be that they will, on reflection, turn to the Government and ask the Government to grant them some special form of inquiry to elucidate their case, what I call the cruel injustice of agriculture, and how it can best be remedied.
Therefore, my Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships' House do not insist on the Amendments as disagreed to by the House of Commons, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof: "Clause 18, page 14, line 15, insert as a new subsection: Any Parliamentary borough entitled, according to the Fifth Schedule of this Act, to return three or more Members shall be a single constituency. Provided that a Parliamentary borough entitled to return more than five Members shall be divided by the Boundary Commissioners into two or more constituencies, each returning not less than three nor more than five members; provided also that any contested election for the full number of Members of Parliament in any constituency to which this subsection applies shall be held on the principle of proportional representation and each elector shall have one transferable vote." Then, if your Lordships adopt that, there would follow the consequential Amendment—namely, that the Commissioners shall present their Report to Parliament as soon as practicable, and their Report shall have the effect of law within twenty-one days, unless the House of Commons passes a Resolution requiring Amendments in it, and also that the registration of electors shall proceed at once. There are some other smaller consequential Amendments which will follow in the ordinary course. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, but propose in lieu thereof the following Amendment—
Clause 18, page 14, line 25, insert as a new subsection:
"( ) (a) Any Parliamentary borough entitled, according to the Fifth Schedule of this Act, to return three or more Members shall be a single constituency.
"Provided that a Parliamentary borough entitled to return more than five members shall be divided by the Boundary Commissioners into two or more constituencies each returning not less than three nor more than five Members; provided also that any contested election for the full number of Members for Parliament in any constituency to which this subsection applies shall be held on the principle of proportional representation, and each elector shall have one transferable vote.
"(b) The Commissioners shall present their Report to Parliament as soon as practicable showing the constituencies which are to be formed in pursuance of this subsection, the names of, and the number of, Members to be returned for each constituency.
"(c) The Report of the Commissioners so presented to Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
"Provided that if within the next twenty-one days on which the Commons House of Parliament has sat after the Report is so presented that House presents an Address to His Majesty praying that any modifications should be made in the Report, the Report shall have effect as if enacted in this Act with these modifications.
"(d) The registration of electors under this Act shall be proceeded with on the passing thereof as if the constituencies were those contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provisions as appear necessary or expedient to adapt the provisions of this Act as to registration to the arrangement of constituencies effected under this subsection and to Make any registration work done before such arrangement takes effect available under any new conditions resulting therefrom."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to inflict further the arguments upon the principle of proportional representation which I ventured at some length—I am afraid your Lordships thought at undue length—to use some days ago. The principle, indeed, has suffered what I should call a contemptuous, and I should have thought a conclusive, defeat elsewhere. But we are now offered by the noble Earl another scheme. It is the "little one" to which I alluded on a previous occasion. It is less comprehensive and more illogical than its predecessor. That I think the noble Earl would be ready to admit, and it obviously has no attractions to agriculturists, who are the only friends left to this policy.
This minor proposal put forward to-day has been already three times defeated in the House of Commons by increasing majorities. The noble Earl is going to

331
impose it upon certain selected boroughs without their assent. Mr. Walter Long, who, I imagine, enjoys the confidence of your Lordships, said on this matter the other day—
"You have not got to your hand the vile carcase which is prepared to be experimented upon in this way. Just as it is better to catch your hare before you cook it, so it is better first of all to find the constituency that wants proportional representation before you decide to adopt it."
The absence of that assent was proved by the Division in the House of Commons on Wednesday last, because out of fifty-five English boroughs Members who would be affected by this proposal—I mean English boroughs outside the metropolis—only nine voted in its favour. It seems to me, my Lords, that it almost amounts to a constitutional outrage to play these sort of pranks upon these great and hostile communities, some of the most thoughtful and the most powerful in our land. Sir George Cave, the Minister in charge of the Bill, said that all or nearly all of them are objectors to the scheme. The noble Earl had the courage to include a part of London—not all, but some of the boroughs of London. He is courageous to face it, because it is at our doors. Sir George Cave said the other night that he had sheaves of telegrams from almost every part of London, not one of them in favour of this proposal, but every one vehemently opposed to it; and I have no doubt that to-night the Home Secretary will be the target of similar protests from your last and latest victims.
You may, as the noble Earl suggests, secure the vote of the late Prime Minister. But how? By omitting his constituency, and on no other terms. But you will secure the support of hardly any of those whom you are going to affect by this proposal. You leave, as the noble Earl says, all the anomalies in the home counties and in Wales and in Scotland untouched, and yet these were evils which you prophesied that you were going to cure. I have no doubt myself that this plan will be rejected again in another place. You are, I think, heading straight to another defeat, to be followed by an undignified surrender. Yes, my Lords, I think that you must surrender. You cannot afford, and you will not dare, to destroy this Bill. You will not, and you ought not to, dare to face 4,000,000 of soldiers, 6,000,000 of women and other millions of munition workers who would be deprived of any
332
vote at all by your persistence in this policy. That way, my Lords, lies grave danger to the State.
The Home Secretary said the other night that he would not resist an experiment if it could be made in town and county alike and on assenting constituencies This plan fulfils neither of those conditions. The noble Earl said that little had been said in the House of Commons about the danger of delay to this Bill. The Home Secretary, as the Minister in charge of this Bill, did tell the House of Commons that the inclusion now of these proposals would endanger the Bill. The noble Earl compels me to read one or two extracts from the Home Secretary's speech. The Home Secretary said—
"Any proposal to-day for proportional representation would be somewhat perilous to the Bill. Whatever Schedule might be proposed, we should be involved in so many objections and Amendments that the Bill might be lost. I believe that objections to this proposal are very formidable indeed, and I am bound to say that I think these proposals might have a very serious effect upon the whole fortunes of the Bill. I am confident that the acceptance of the Amendment would involve great peril to the Bill."
Those are the words of the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place. The loss of this Bill would be a national and irreparable disaster, bringing grave results in its train. If the noble Earl will allow me to make a suggestion to him it would be that he should wait until he has educated the constituencies to accept his policy and to demand its enactment. But today, my Lords, I think that you would do well to seek the path of prudence, and not attempt for a second time to force an unwelcome scheme upon a hostile House of Commons.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that the time has come when we have a right to make an appeal to the noble Earl who leads this House to throw his weight into the scale on the side of the very moderate compromise which my noble friend Lord Selborne has just proposed.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: And to protect this House from what seems to me to be the very unmerited rebuff which has been put upon us by the treatment of our principal Amendment in another place. I know that if my noble friend were to take

333
this line he would be departing from that policy of neutrality which he has throughout these transactions laid down for his own guidance, but if I may say so without disrespect, I think that His Majesty's Government have found it very difficult to maintain that neutrality during the debate. We have been repeatedly told that we were free to vote as we pleased, that this was not a question in which the Government intended to take a strong line one way or the other; but throughout the speeches delivered from the Ministerial Bench, we have been constantly reminded that at the other end of the corridor there is a bogey man whom we must not lose sight of, and that if we interfere with this Bill we risk its fate, and the provoking of a very serious political crisis. The same kind of minatory language was used two or three minutes ago by the noble Viscount. He asked us whether we dared to touch this Bill. I venture to say that that is scarcely the kind of language which is appropriately used when you are arguing an important case upon its merits.
Let me say that when he talks of our action possibly destroying the Bill, it seems to me that he puts the responsibility on the wrong shoulders. It will not be our action, but the uncompromising attitude taken up by the friends of the Bill which will prove fatal to it, if that should indeed be its end. I appeal then to His Majesty's Government to make an endeavour to save the Bill, and also to save the House from the snub which it is proposed to inflict upon it. Nothing that we have done in our dealings with this Bill has in any way merited the treatment which apparently we are to expect.
Let me for a moment remind the House of the subject-matter with which we are dealing. This is no Party dispute on which we are engaged. We are not discussing one of those questions—a class which occurs readily to one's mind—the class of question with regard to which the opinion of the House of Lords is supposed to be untrustworthy, because it is a partisan opinion. Partisanship does not enter into this question at all. We are dealing with a great measure of organic reform. I mean by that that we are attempting to make a change, not merely in the law of the land, but in the machinery by which that law is made. We are dealing with a question of the very kind which in almost all civilised communities is reserved for the judgment of the Second Chamber, when there is one.
334
Attempts are made to contrast to the disadvantage of this House the authority of the House of Lords and the authority of the other House of Parliament. It is true that most of us are committed to the policy of making considerable changes in the constitution and functions of this House, but this House is, in fact, still the Second Chamber of this country. It has got duties which have been very distinctly defined by recent legislation, and it seems to me that we should be altogether untrue to the trust which has been placed in us if, because of any feeling that this Second Chamber was about to be replaced by one of a different character, we failed to interest ourselves to a proper extent in a measure of this immense constitutional importance.
And if it comes to the question of the comparative authority of the two Houses, surely we have a right to bear in mind that the House of Commons has now entered its eighth year and consequently has a much enfeebled mandate, if you come to inquire into the question of mandates. Apart from that, may we not also take into account the fact that a great many members of Parliament, being human beings and influenced by human considerations, probably find themselves, perhaps quite unconsciously, influenced by reasons of personal convenience, which occur to them at once when they consider how they, in particular, would fare under the altered provisions which may result under this Bill.
May I also venture, if I can, to reinforce what was said so eloquently, and I think so justly, by my noble friend Lord Selborne, when he reminded us that during these long discussions the principle of this Amendment has remained unassailed? When I speak of the principle of proportional representation what I mean is that, in our view, the number of seats which any Party can win at a General Election should bear a reasonable relation to the number of votes which its supporters are able to secure in the country. That is a principle so obviously fair that I am not at all surprised that the noble Viscount Lord Harcourt just now told us that he did not intend to occupy the time of the House by an examination of the principle of proportional representation. Is it not a matter of notoriety that this principle is outraged constantly and in all parts of the country under the system which now prevails? I am not going to repeat again the illustrations which

335
have been given to us by various speakers, but this we know, that the system works unfairly to all Parties, and that there is not a section of the United Kingdom in which you cannot put your finger upon gross and utterly unfair anomalies.
Surely these are days in which it is our duty to consider the way in which minorities are likely to fare in the Elections of the future. Reconstruction is on all our lips. We know what reconstruction means. Reconstruction means drastic interference with almost every interest in which the people of this country are concerned. It means drastic interference with the conduct of industries, with the course of trade, with the rights of parents to deal with their own children; it means drastic interference with the rights of property. We are ready to ook forward to all these things and to admit that such interferences are inevitable. But surely, if these interferences are to take place, the worst policy which you can adopt is to deprive the minorities, who may consider themselves, and rightly consider themselves, to be affected by what is taking place, of the opportunity of giving full expression to their opinions.
Only one word with regard to the proposal which my noble friend has made to the House. What I understand him to insist upon, and what I think he is entitled to insist upon, is that there should be added to this Bill provisions which will ensure that the principle of proportional representation shall receive at any rate an adequate trial by way of experiment on a scale sufficient to instruct the people of this country as to its practical value. That suggestion of my noble friend has been represented as something ridiculous and illogical. At any rate my noble friend may claim the high authority of the Speaker's Conference for what he is proposing. But it is a little hard that he should be taunted with the illogicality of his suggestion. My noble friend made at first a proposal which was perfectly logical and unassailable upon logical grounds. It was not received with favour. He now contents himself with a much more partial and much more moderate experiment, and then he is taunted with being illogical. I think Lord Harcourt was good enough to say that it was particularly illogical in that it dealt only with towns and not with counties, and that in order to make it more logical the counties should
336
have been included in the experiment. I have no doubt my noble friend would gladly welcome the inclusion of the counties, but like a prudent man he is lightening this ship in order that it may successfully navigate the rough waters which will doubtless be encountered elsewhere. I think the bridge which my noble friend is trying to construct for this House is a reasonable one, and I cannot help hoping that even now his proposal will be received elsewhere in the same spirit of conciliation which has prompted my noble friend to make it here.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I cannot pretend to follow the noble Marquess who has just sat down into those parts of his speech to which we all listened, I am certain, with the greatest interest, in which he discussed the proper rights of minorities, especially in the times in which we live. I only desire to say one or two words upon the actual proposal which the noble Earl behind me has put forward in the form of an Amendment. I am one of those who desire to see an experiment in proportional representation tried, but I confess that for various reasons it does not seem to me that the particular experiment which is advocated by the noble Earl—I have no doubt a fret the closest consideration given to all possible alternatives—is one which is either perfect in itself or which has, and after all this is not a point to be altogether ignored, a chance of general acceptance either here or in another place. I quite agree with the noble Marquess that it is not fair to run down any proposal of this kind on the ground of its not being logical. It is very seldom that an experiment can be described as logical, nor do I think it matters whether it is logical or not; but there are certain defects, as it appears to me, in the practical application of this scheme which make me desire that some other had been substituted for it.
I confess I agree with the noble Earl that it is a pity that on a small scale, if you are to have an experiment at all, it cannot be applied to some county constituencies. As I said last time—and I do not wish to repeat what I said then—I cannot quite share the view that a general application of the method to county constituencies would lead to a marked increase in agricultural representation in its fullest sense. I am inclined to think that what you would gain upon the roundabouts you would lose on the swings. There are some

337
large areas in which the agricultural interest would obtain a seat where now it does not obtain one in any single-Member constituency in that area. On the other hand, there are other areas, principally represented now by single Members who are generally streaking entitled to speak for agriculture, where that interest would lose some representation under the proportional system.
In particular, I am bound to call my noble friend's attention to the fact that he runs a considerable risk by his inclusion of no fewer than twenty-nine London seats against the practically unanimous objection of all the London Members. That appears to me to be something of an act of defiance in the circumstances which he might have avoided without, I should have thought, entirely abandoning his idea of an experiment. If the experiment is to be tried it should be tried upon constituencies very few of which will actually welcome it, because the adoption of proportional representation can seldom be agreeable to a sitting Member for a single constituency, but it should be applied to some constituencies where its application is at any rate not violently resented. I should have thought it would have been possible to find some areas where a sufficient experiment could have been tried without tackling such a very thorny subject as the representation of London.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, when the noble Marquess resumed his seat I rose at once, as I thought it was my duty to do, in response to an appeal which, coming as it did from a noble Lord who speaks with so much authority and influence in this House, no one in my position could afford to neglect. I am not at all clear in my own mind that I shall satisfy the noble Marquess's definition by the attitude which I shall adopt, but I can promise him that it will not be in any respect a minatory attitude, and that it will be designed as far as possible with the view of assisting your Lordships to a peaceful solution of this dangerous conflict.
My Lords, I myself am concerned in three things in the main. In the first place, as the man who happens to occupy the position of Leader of the House for the time being, I am greatly concerned in as far as possible preventing serious friction between the two Houses of Parliament
338
and of course—I might put this even stronger—still more in preventing one House of Parliament inflicting what the noble Marquess described as a snub upon the other. My second interest, representing the Government, is to secure with as much rapidity and with as much smoothness as possible the passage of this Bill into law. And here let me say that among those who have perhaps put the passage of this Bill in the greatest jeopardy by the action which they have thought fit to take, I do not believe there has been a single noble Lord who has adopted what may be described as a wrecking attitude towards this Bill. I think every noble Lord on the other side, whatever the line he has taken, has been inspired not merely by the sincerity of his own convictions as regards proportional representation, but by the wish that this great Bill should be placed at an early date upon the Statute Book.
The third point of view from which I approach the question is one that I share with a good many noble Lords in this House. I think I gave expression to it on the occasion when I spoke before. I am one of those who would like to see the experimental application of proportional representation to certain carefully selected constituencies in this country. I think I said at a previous stage that had some proposal to that effect been put forward in the Bill at an earlier stage, I myself would have voted for it; and I hope that this controversy will not end without the possibility of some such trial of the system being made. I make those observations as a preface to what I have to say.
The noble Marquess invited me, I think, to descend from the pedestal of neutrality which members of the Government had thought it their duty to occupy in connection with this Bill. I do not think that I can respond to that request. I do not wish even at this late stage to take sides; but I do wish to give, to the best of my ability, such advice to your Lordships as occurs to me to be possible at this moment. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who opened this discussion in a speech of much eloquence and power, was, I think, quite right to desist frankly and courageously from the attitude which he persuaded a large number of your Lordships to adopt in the debate ten days or a fortnight ago. He realised that this proposal had been rejected by an almost overwhelming majority

339
of the House of Commons, and that it could only be persisted in by provoking that conflict between the two Houses which, in common with all of us, he desires to avoid, and that form of unmerited rebuff to which the noble Marquess alluded in his remarks. My noble friend, Lord Selborne, accepted the decision of the House of Commons upon that point with dignity; and I do not desire to say one word further about the Amendment that he moved the other day, against which I argued (however imperfectly) upon that occasion.
The noble Earl then went on—as he had a perfect right to do—to restate, in almost impassioned terms, his convictions about proportional representation and the part that it ought to play in the reconstruction of this country after the war. I will not follow him again upon that point; because with a good deal that he said I am in substantial agreement. There was one point that did strike me somewhat. He spoke with great confidence about the increasing measure of support with which his ideas are meeting in the country. He quoted certain very important organs of public opinion. He referred to the attitude and the votes of the Labour Party. I am not quite certain—though here I am speaking from recollection—that in the House of Commons his ideas have received anything like the unanimous support of the Labour Members. But let that pass. It is the case—unfortunately, from his point of view—that we are not dealing at the present time with public opinion in the country; we are not dealing with the Manchester Guardian; we are not dealing with the Labour Conference; but with the House that sits over the way; and what we have to consider is whether the revised proposals which have been submitted to us by the noble Earl this afternoon are likely to meet with a better reception there than their predecessors.
Now, it is a little difficult for anybody, when he has had no notice of an Amendment, when it has not been placed upon the Paper, when he did not even know when he entered the House what Amendment was going to be moved, on the spur of the moment to get up and to give a reasoned opinion either as to the merits of the case, or as to the chances of its reception elsewhere. But I own that I think the revised scheme of the noble Earl is open to objections which are likely to receive a good deal of emphasis when it passes (if it does
340
pass) across the corridor to the House of Commons. I am not quite certain to how many constituencies and to how many future Members his scheme applies. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition told us that it would apply to twenty-nine out of the sixty-two or sixty-three London constituencies; and the number of boroughs in different parts of the country to which it would apply, I suppose, would be something over 100.
LORD PARMOOR: The exact number is 112.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It will be 112 and twenty-nine.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is 141. It is a scheme to apply proportional representation to 141 seats in the House of Commons of the future. I need not enlarge upon the difficulty that arises out of the inclusion of London—even though it be a partial inclusion—in that scheme. You are certain, I imagine, of the resolute opposition of the whole of the London Members; not merely the twenty-nine, but their fellow-Members.
Then as regards the boroughs which you propose to select, I am not at all clear that you will be able to rely upon the support of the present Members for those constituencies. However, I do not venture to give a confident opinion upon that point. There remains the further weakness in the scheme—frankly admitted by the noble Earl himself—that his plan, which is really trying to attract popular support by a reversion to the settlement proposed by the Speaker's Conference, is open to the overwhelming objection—which I should have thought nobody could have entertained, and probably nobody does entertain, more strongly than himself—that it gives no representation whatever to agricultural interests. In fact, I think the noble Earl used the language that it would be a cruel affront, or words to that effect.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said that, as at present constituted, it would be a cruel injustice.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes, to the agricultural interest. I was certainly under the impression that, when your Lordships' House ten days ago was so largely attended by noble Lords, and when they gave that overwhelming vote in that

341
Division, a large majority were actuated by regard (based upon personal experience) for that interest. I assume that that interest is also represented—although I know it is divided—in the House of Commons; and to go back at this stage to the House of Commons with a scheme which (putting on one side the difficulty about London, putting on one side the difficulty about its application to a fixed number of boroughs, most of whom in all probability would not like it) altogether fails to represent the interest for which proportional representation has been so powerfully advocated in this House—I should have thought that, in those circumstances, the chances of success were not as rosy as the noble Earl seems to imagine.
I was going to allude to the question of delay, but I do not think I need say anything about that, because the views of the Home Secretary have been quoted by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt. Now, if the noble Marquess says to me, "Cannot some scheme be thought of even now which will reconcile all these conflicting interests, and which will secure the necessary amount of support?" I would like for my own part—and I am only speaking my own opinion—to say that such a scheme ought to provide for the representation of rural as well as of urban areas. I would like to say further—and this point, I think, has been ignored by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—that any such scheme, if accepted, can only be, ought only in fairness to be, applied to constituencies after full inquiry into the local conditions, and with the consent of the areas to which it is proposed to be applied. I think the noble Earl said (he must forgive me if I did not catch it correctly) that if his. Amendment were accepted the Commissioners were to report within twenty-one days.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said that, when the Commissioners report, their Report lies on the Table of the House of Commons for twenty-one days.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Then the noble Earl concedes what was going to be my contention—namely, that a good deal of time must necessarily be devoted to the ascertainment of local views.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the meantime the Register has been formed.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Yes; I am not touching the Register; the Register is going on unimpaired. I am looking to the selection of the constituency; and, my Lords, it is surely not a simple thing, because if you decide to apply proportional representation in a great town, even if you apply it in a great town that is believed to be in favour of it—if you apply it, for instance, to Glasgow, which returns fifteen Members to Parliament, and which under the scheme of the noble Earl would have to be subdivided into a number of constituencies, either three constituencies returning five, or five constituencies returning three Members—you cannot undertake that and make it a success without local inquiry into the conditions under which the regrouping of these areas is to be determined. Therefore I venture to lay it down that any attempt to force a solution either upon areas that do not want it, or upon areas without careful inquiry into local conditions, is not likely to be attended with success.
My third condition would be this, and I do not know that in substance the noble Earl would disagree, that you cannot force any system of proportional representation upon the House of Commons, or indeed upon this House, unless it is satisfied not merely with the principle but with the method of application. I do not believe it is possible to go to another place at this stage, in the expiring hours of the session, and, by force of the pressure which your Lordships are perhaps in a position to apply, to wring their assent to anything to which, after fuller examination, with greater time at their disposal, they might be disposed less reluctantly to agree. Therefore, although your Lordships have a perfect right to follow the advice which you have received, and to take the Amendment and send it down to another place, I cannot myself feel at all confident that it will meet there with the reception which you desire. All the more so as, as has been pointed out, on the three previous occasions when this scheme, or something like it, has been submitted to the House of Commons, it has been rejected by ever-increasing majorities.
Is it possible for noble Lords, who hold the views to which I am referring, to proceed in any other way? What did the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, say? I think I took down his words correctly. He inquired whether there could be added

343
to the Bill provisions to ensure an experimental trial of proportional representation on a scale of sufficient size to do justice to the proposal. Then the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, a little later said that we should all be glad to find some area in which the experiment could be made. Now, my Lords, I think if I had been in the place of the noble Earl I should, proceeding upon the premises which I have ventured to lay down, have asked your Lordships to act in a somewhat different way. I think I should have realised that at this late hour of the session it would be somewhat difficult, even with the support of Mr. Asquith, to induce the House of Commons to recede on this particular proposal from the attitude which they have on three occasions taken up. I think I should have tried to get what you want with a little less speed but with equal certainty in the long run, and with more fair and logical representation of interests. I think, if I had been in the place of the noble Earl, I should have suggested something on the following lines. I should have suggested that, putting on one side this Bill with which you do not interfere, and allowing this Bill to pass On its own merits into law, you might have been willing to insert, something into the Bill before it passed, appointing a body of Commissioners, very likely a fresh body of Commissioners, to deal with this subject.
If the noble Earl had proposed such an Amendment he might in it have instructed the Commissioners to frame a scheme applicable to a certain number of constituencies, or to a certain number of seats in the House of Commons; and I think those constituencies or those seats ought to include a fair proportion both of urban and agricultural interests. He might, for instance, have suggested that the Commissioners should be instructed to draw up a. scheme to apply to 100 Members of the House of Commons. The noble Earl told us just now that his scheme applies to 140, and from that number you may certainly deduct twenty-nine for London, because you have no chance of including London in a scheme at all. Therefore there would be no great difference in point of numbers; but there would have been this difference—that under the kind of idea which I am suggesting he would have secured what he is not going to secure now, namely, proportional representation in agricultural areas.
If he had put forward a scheme of that
344
sort he would very likely have gone on to claim that the Report of this Commission, which need not have been long delayed—it would probably have taken two months—should, when it was completed, be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Then there would have ensued the process which I understand he is contemplating under his scheme. He talks about this scheme lying for twenty-one days on the Table of either House.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Only the Commons.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: He assumes the consent of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In order to show that there should be no delay, it is exactly the same Amendment as was suggested by Lord Balfour—obtain the assent of your Lordships' House and leave it to the Commons only to say whether there should be an Amendment in the Commissioners' scheme. I adopted his Amendment.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I expect you will find it difficult to persuade another place that it ought to surrender any portion of its responsibility for the details as well as the main principles of the scheme. The suggestion which I am putting into the mouth of the noble Earl, if he had thought fit to pursue it, would contemplate that the Report of the Commissioners would be laid on the Table of Parliament and discussed and amended if Parliament so desired, or rejected if Parliament so desired, or accepted, and that if it were accepted—and if there is that great wave of public feeling behind the noble Earl there could be no doubt of the result—then under the terms provided in thus Act, and so to speak as a sequel to this Act, it would pass into law. If I had been in the position of the noble Earl that is, I think, the kind of suggestion which I would have made to your Lordships' House. I think it would have given him proportional representation in a fairer form than that which he has suggested. Whether it would have been acceptable to the House of Commons I cannot say, but at any rate it would have appealed to me, and to some of those with whom I act, as being a more practical, and, I think, on the whole, a fairer method of approaching this difficult problem than that which the

345
noble Earl has suggested. I hope I have responded, however inadequately, to the appeal of the noble Marquess.
EARL LOREBURN: If I understand rightly the proposal of the noble Earl (Lord Curzon), it amounts to this, that there should be a Commission appointed to select roughly 100 seats, and that it should be made the subject of a fresh Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, I think I proposed that a clause should be put into this Bill. When I say proposed, I was making no proposal on the part of the Government, but only indicating the line of action which I think the noble Earl would have been better advised in pursuing on his own account.
EARL LOREBURN: I did not accurately represent the noble Earl. He is quite right. He proposed that there should be a clause inserted in the Bill as a starting point for some fresh step, that there should be a Commission, and, as I understand, afterwards there would have to be a Bill brought into the House of Commons.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think a Bill would be necessary.
EARL LOREBURN: At all events, it would give something perfectly indefinite and would not in any way advance the purpose for which those who favour proportional representation are at the present moment undoubtedly very anxious. In his criticism of the proposal of Lord Selborne I think the noble Earl forgot two things, if I may say so. The first thing he forgot was this, that the proposal in substance is not a new proposal. It is in substance what was proposed by the Speaker's Conference. Therefore, it is a part of a whole, almost all of which has been already included in this Bill. It has been considered very fully by very competent people, and, indeed, the noble Earl himself made no complaint against it in effect, except that it did not go far enough. He said it did not include agricultural constituencies which is perfectly true, but then the proposal that preceded it did include agricultural constituencies and the reason why this proposal is in such narrow dimensions is simply to make it as little hostile to other people's views as may be. The consequence is that this proposal comes with a great deal of serious authority. The second thing
346
which it seems to me the noble. Earl has forgotten is that when the proposal goes to the House of Commons, if they see any defects in it, it is perfectly easy for them to correct those defects. If they wish to enlarge it by the inclusion of agricultural constituencies or otherwise it is perfectly easy to do that. In short, it comes to this, my belief is that unless on this occasion in this Bill the step is taken of introducing an experiment in regard to proportional representation the individual interests concerned and the proverbial difficulty of dealing with electoral questions in the House of Commons will make it impossible for a good long time ever to entertain this subject with any hope at all of success. For that reason I shall very heartily vote with the noble Marquess.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say only a word or two in answer to the noble Earl. At the outset I would refer to the suggestion he has made. If the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in the Bill when it was last before you had been accepted, then exactly the line which the noble Earl has suggested might have been followed within the Bill itself. We made it perfectly clear in inserting the Schedule that it was a Schedule in reference to which the opinion of the Redistribution Commissioners must be taken, and that after they had expressed their opinion, it would be open to the House of Commons either to annul it or to alter it in any direction that they chose. They might have reduced its application to 100 members, for instance, the figure to which the noble Earl has referred. As far as I can see, having regard to what was done in the House of Commons in the rejection of your Lordships' Amendment, we should be going back in the suggestion made—I do not know whether any progress could ever be made from it—to a position which, if the House of Commons had adopted the Amendment, which your Lordships introduced, could have been brought about by the House of Commons. They refused to entertain it of course on the ground of mere prejudice.
May I say one other word in reference to what the noble Earl said? I do not seek for a moment to criticise the sympathetic tone in which he approached the question. His view was the same view which has been expressed by a good many other politicians in very leading positions. It is that there might be an experimental

347
application. If we are to have an experimental application, how can you possibly have it on better authority or on better conditions than are secured in the noble. Earl's Amendment? I want to make it quite clear. The noble Earl said he had not the Amendment in his hand. In one respect he misunderstood it. According to the proposal made by the Speaker's Conference the number of Members elected under the principle of proportional representation would have been 211. There would have been 112 in the boroughs generally, thirty-nine in what were known as the contiguous boroughs and sixty in London dealt with as one large area, and I think as far as I have followed it the opposition was very specially directed to the contiguous boroughs and to the question of London. How does the noble Earl's Amendment deal with these difficulties? Although no doubt it is founded on the Speaker's Conference yet it puts the question in a way which has never yet been thrown on one side in any Division in the other House. His suggestion is this, that it should be applied to the large boroughs, including such cities as Glasgow for instance (where the suggestion has been very favourably received), and they would return under this principle 112 Members. There are no contiguous boroughs involved, which it was suggested would make difficulties as to registration. As to London the ordinary borough principle is applied. It is not a principle which was applied in the Speaker's Conference, and I admit there has been a great deal of opposition to it, particularly in the London districts, so that taking the Amendment as it stands it is based on the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, but it only applies to 141 Members in the place of 211, and—I am not anticipating any such matter—should any special difficulty be found as regards the London boroughs then the number would be almost precisely the number which the noble Earl opposite suggested as an appropriate number for experiment. I think he suggested 100. The actual numbers in this Amendment would be 112.
But the fact is this—if I may say a word further—whatever may be the form in which the experiment is suggested, that particular form is criticised. The reason of that was admirably expressed, I think, by Lord Robert Cecil who showed where the criticism comes from. With your Lordships' permission I should like to read one
348
passage from his speech the other night. He said—
"Do not let us blink the fact that the great opposition to this proposal comes from the Party machine on both sides."
That is true. Whatever experimental proposal is made the Party machine on both sides sets to work to pick it to pieces with all the detrimental criticism it can give to it. Then Lord Robert went on to say—
"There is no doubt about it, and that is why the House of Lords, who are not dependent upon the Party machine, are able to take a strictly impartial view."
Now Lord Robert Cecil during his political life has felt the influence of the Party machine. Every one knows he was exiled from politics for a time through the influence of the Party machine—one of the worst instances of the use of the Party machine in modern politics.
In answer to what the noble Viscount said, I beg to say that there is no evidence whatever that these matters are disliked in particular constituencies. I think, so far as public opinion has been expressed, it is directly to the contrary. What you do find is that the machine gets to work at once. I dare say your Lordships will recollect that when we were discussing the matter before, every member of your Lordships House received a telegram. Who was it from? It was from the Party machine in London. It was not from the London constituencies but from the Party machine, but I do urge your Lordships to get free, on this great constitutional question, from the slavery which, unfortunately Members can hardly escape in the other House—the slavery of the Party machine.
There are only one or two more words I wish to say, and they are these. So far as delay is concerned, there would be no delay of any sort or kind under the Amendment, because the question of contiguous boroughs no longer conies into operation, and it is admitted that registration, which is the only matter which takes time, can begin at once. Therefore, there would not be the delay of a single day so far as bringing the Act into operation goes. I should like, in one word, to associate myself with what the noble Earl has said. It is admitted on all hands that we are to have what is called, democratic Government. If that is so, do let us have true democratic government, not a false one. Let us have every interest proportionately represented, and not hand ourselves over, under the single-Member

349
system, to the domination of a particular Party, a particular class, or the proletariat.
LORD SOUTHWARK: May I be allowed to add a few observations, and for this reason. I was a Member of the Speaker's Conference, and on the last occasion when this question was being discussed in your Lordships' House I explained that I was going to vote against the proposal, because it went far beyond what was proposed by the Speaker's Conference. On this occasion I find that it falls much below
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 18, page 14, line 15, leave out subsection (1).
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
the recommendations of that Conference, and, as I acted on the Speaker's Conference on the give-and-take principle, I feel bound as a member of it, although I am not really a supporter of proportional representation, to vote for the Amendment.
On Question, whether the proposed new Amendment shall be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 86; Not-contents, 35.

CONTENTS.

Camden, M.

Gladstone, V.

Faringdon, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Knollys, V.

Forbes, L.

Exeter, M.

Mersey, V.

Glenconner, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Harris, L.

Salisbury, M.

Islington, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Beauchamp, E.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

Knaresborough, L.

Camperdown, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Lambourne, L.

Chesterfield, E.

St. David's, L. Bp

Lamington, L.

Clarendon, E.

Leigh, L.

Cottenham, E.

Armstrong, L.

Lyell, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Atkinson, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Hardwieke, E.

Avebury, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, L.

Newton, L.

Loreburn, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Lucan, E.

Brodrick L. (V. Midleton.)

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lytton, E.

Burnham L.

Parmoor, L.

Morton, E.

Carnock, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Charnwood, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Northbrook, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Sandwich, E.

Colchester, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Selborne. E. [Teller.]

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Strafford, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Saltoun, L.

Verulam, E.

De Mauley, L.

Sandys, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Denman, L.

Southwark, L.

Westmeath, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

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

Digby, L.

Bryce, V.

Dinevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Chaplin, V.

Emmott, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Churchill, V.

Erskine, L.

Sudeley, L.

Falkland, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wren bury, L.

NON-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Coleridge, L.

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

Scarbrough, E.

Farrer, L.

Gisborough, L.

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

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Kenyon, L.

Devonport, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Crowe, M.

Haldane, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Lincolnshire, M.

Harcourt, V. [Teller.]

Queen borough, L.

Hardinge, V.

St. Davids, L.

Derby, E.

Peel, V.

Somerleyton, L.

Eldon, E.

Stanmore, L.

Howe, E.

Suffield, L.

Lich field, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Plymouth, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Weardale, L.

On Question, Motion not to insist on the said Amendment agreed to.

Because they desire to adhere to the principle of the alternative vote.
The Commons disagree to the Amendments made by the Lords in page 14, line 33, page 19, line 41, and page 26, line 5, for the following reason:
Because they are consequential on the second Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I do not propose to detain your Lordships long, because I am going to ask you to insist upon the decision which you gave the other day. I wish, however, to give a few of the reasons which I think will justify your Lordships' attitude. During the discussion on this Schedule in another place two contradictory decisions were given, and the result was that an entirely incomplete Bill came to your Lordships' House. The carrying out of the scheme was left entirely to Orders in Council. Rightly and justly, I think, your Lordships decided by a majority of six to one to omit from the Bill the principle of the alternative vote. What has been the result? The Bill went back to another place, and last week the House of Commons, by a majority only of eight, decided to disagree with your Lordships' decision and to put the alternative vote back in the Bill. When you have in the House of Commons two decisions only carried in one instance by a majority of one and in the other by a majority of eight, it shows that there is really no decidedly strong opinion at the back of the proposal.
What I think is very much more important is that this scheme has now become applicable to every single-seat constituency in the United Kingdom. Whether the electors want it or not an endeavour is to be made to force this scheme upon the whole of the United Kingdom. I would like, further, to point out that if your Lordships insist upon the Amendments that you will do nothing to jeopardise the future of the Bill by causing delay. I wish to emphasise also that there is no great demand from the electors. I believe that in this matter I shall have the support of the noble Viscount Lord Harcourt who says that the voters prefer to poll in the old-fashioned way, and to see the man who polls most votes declared elected. However that may be, I feel very strongly that your Lordships will be amply justified, having regard to the majorities which have been shown to exist. When the matter was before the House of Commons, in adhering to your decision. The whole matter has been so fully thrashed out that it is not necessary for me to adduce further arguments and I will therefore move that your Lordships do insist upon your Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth insist on the said Amendments.—(Viscount Galway.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am not unmindful of the fact to which the noble Viscount has just referred, that this matter was discussed very fully in your Lordships' House at another stage of this Bill, and that it was then decided to insert the Amendment (which another place has now rejected) by a very substantial majority. Nor do I overlook the fact to which he also referred that the majorities in the House of Commons upon this matter have been slender, and that there has not been so clear and so decisive an expression of opinion as there has been upon other matters, as for example, the one with which the House has just dealt. None the less, I trust that your Lordships will allow me for a few moments, and a few moments only to consider once more this question.
It is quite plain that in the altered state of this Bill this Amendment has a totally different application to what it had when your Lordships first introduced it. The noble Viscount thinks that that strengthens his argument for rejecting this system of alternative voting. I, however, would respectfully submit that it strengthens the case against it. What is the result? The result is that now there will be a very much larger number of single-Member constituencies than there were when your Lordships Amendment on the scheme of proportional representation found a place in the Bill. I do not think that there is any one here who can doubt that in a very large number of these constituencies there will be what are known as triangular contests. There will be a representative of each of the two old Parties in the State the Liberals and the Tories—and there Will certainly be a strong and active representative of more extreme views. If no alternative vote is to be introduced what may the result be? The result may be that you will find that the most extreme views of all, which would really obtain a minority of the total votes polled, will be the votes attached to the man who is returned at the head of the poll—a thing which both the other Parties would desire to prevent if they could.
It may well be, when this war is over and we are faced with the great difficulties of providing finance to meet our expenditure, that extreme men will suggest some method of tampering with the National Debt—desperate evils often suggest desperate remedies—and in such a case no one could doubt that both the two well-known Parties in the State would be glad to unite together to prevent the possibility of any

353
such view becoming dominant. How can that be done except by a system of alternative voting? After all, all that the alternative vote provides is this, that where a man has not, in fact, obtained a majority of the votes that have actually been polled, the man who stands at the bottom of the poll should have his second votes treated as though they belonged to the first two candidates. The only objection that I know to this scheme is the haunting fear that appears to possess noble Lords, and possibly the noble Earl who thinks we ought to insist on the original Amendment, that there would be some species of corrupt bargain by Parties at the Election which will secure that the Party that does not enter into the corrupt bargain may be eliminated. I have heard of a good many fears in the course of these debates lately about the iniquitous action of Party machinery and corrupt bargains. I had at least the opportunity of fighting two very severe contested election in a constituency where three candidates were present. There was the extreme Labour candidate, and myself, and the Conservative. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that, if the Labour representative had been at the head of the poll, he would most certainly have been returned by a minority, and that either of the other two parties would most unhesitatingly have given their second votes against the Labour candidate and reciprocally in support of each other. My view is that this alternative vote may afford a most valuable and useful check on the opportunity that may be given to the expression of extreme and violent opinions, which do not represent the majority of the electors in any constituency. For this reason I trust that this Amendment will not be insisted upon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think the case is so simple as the noble and learned Lord has made out. The objections which my noble friend opposite has urged against this particular provision are in my judgment very strong objections. It has no weight of strong support behind it in another place. It has been rejected in your Lordships' House decisively. The noble and learned Lord says that the alternative vote is a good system. But as a matter of fact it can be shown to demonstration that in a great number of cases it would produce an entirely false result, and the reason why is this. Though the second votes of the electors
354
who vote for the third candidate are counted, they are the only second votes which are counted, and as a result it may be that, though those who vote for the first two candidates would prefer, of course, their respective candidates, yet next to the candidate they would prefer very much to have the third man, who is eliminated under the system the alternative vote, and the result might be that the man who is eliminated would have received a far larger measure of support than either of the other two, tad all the second votes been counted, instead of the second votes only of the candidate who, according to the first vote, was third on the list. So that the system is by no means a perfect system.
In addition to that, we are informed—and I see no reason to doubt the information—that the alternative vote does lead to any amount of clandestine intrigue and arrangement under which false results are produced. Having regard to the very small majorities in another place and to the objections which lie against this system, it seems a pity that we should establish as a permanent part of our machinery a system, which cannot be proved to be perfect, and is not strongly supported in the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, it is the case, as those who have followed the movement of foreign countries in these matters will know, that it has become absolutely necessary to provide for these cases, wherever there are more than two parties. Unfortunately, the good old days when Whigs and Tories had stand-up fights are long past. We are in for a system of three Parties, perhaps four Parties. In France in 1914 they had nine Party groups. In France they were obliged to have the second ballot. As between the second ballot and the alternative vote the alternative vote is very much simpler, and also a cheaper and more expeditious method; and I think therefore that those who believe that some solution is necessary will prefer this method.
Just one word about the Party results. I venture to believe, and I think your Lordships who regard this matter in a calm way will come to the conclusion, that it is absolutely impossible to predict how this will work as regards Parties. I believe myself it will be quite different in different constituencies. There are some constituencies in which one Party may gain, some in which another may gain, and a third in which

355
another will gain. We cannot foretell; and if that is so, is not it better that we should settle the matter on this basis?
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Before we go to a Division, I hope we shall get some
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 18, page 14, line 19, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they are of opinion that it is advisable to adhere to the provisions of the Bill for the protection of minorities in University constituencies.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that this House do not insist on this Amendment. Your Lordships will recollect that the Speaker's Conference provided for minority representation in Universities. The House
guidance from the Government on the subject of the alternative vote.
On Question, whether the said Amendment shall be insisted upon—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Scarbrough, E.

Dineyor, L.

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

Verulam, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Erskine, L.

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

Westmeath, E.

Forbes, L.

Harris, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Hylton, L.

Bath, M.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camden, M.

Churchill, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Exeter, M.

Falkland, V.

Lambourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Peel, V.

Lamington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Leigh, L.

Llandaff, L. Bp.

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

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

St. David's, L. Bp.

Clarendon, E.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Derby, E.

Armstrong, L.

Newton, L.

Eldon, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Lichfield, E.

Atkinson, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Lindsay, E.

Avebury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Lucan, E.

Balfour, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Beasborough.)

Lytton, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Queenborough, L.

Morton, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midlelon.)

Saltoun, L.

Mount Edgeumbe, E.

Burnham, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Northbrook, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Plymouth, E.

De Mauley, L.

Suffield, L.

Sandwich, E.

Digby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Carnock, L.

St. Davids, L.

Charnwood, L.

Sandys, L.

Russell, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Southwark, L.

Bryce, V.

Denman, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) [Teller.]

Gladstone, V.

Emmott, L.

Haldane, V.

Glenconner, L.

Stanmore, L.

Harclourt, V. [Teller.]

Islington, L.

Strachie, L.

Knollys, V.

Lyell, L.

Swaythling, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Weardale, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Parmoor, L.

of Commons carried that out by saying that it shall be done by the transferable vote. The old state of things in Universities where each man voted for two Members at Oxford and Cambridge was reinstated by a majority of only one, I think, in your Lordships' House, and I submit that we ought to adhere in this respect to the provision of the Speaker's Conference.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Your Lordships will recollect that you passed this, as the noble Viscount below me has said, by a majority of only one, and in another place I do not believe that there

357
was any Division over it at all. In the circumstances I do not feel that I am able to ask your Lordships to insist upon this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 21, page 16, line 39, leave out ("close of the poll") and insert ("time at which the votes are to be counted")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they are of opinion that too wide a discretion would be left to the returning officer if the count of the votes could be indefinitely delayed; and that further consideration should be given to the question.
The Commons disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 17, line 10, for the following reason:
Because it is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 16, line 39, to which the Commons have disagreed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is rather a small matter, and the suggestion is, as stated in fact in the Reasons of the House of Commons, that it would be better to insert this definite period after which the votes should not be counted, so that there should be no suspicion that the returning officer was extending the time for any particular reason. Therefore I beg in the circumstances to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
After clause 28 insert new clause C.:
"Division of constituency into polling districts, and provision of polling places.
"C.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Council, whose clerk is the registration officer for any constituency or by whom the registration officer is appointed, as occasion requires, to divide the constituency into polling districts and to appoint polling places for the polling districts in such manner as to give all electors in the constituency such reasonable facilities voting as are practicable in the circumstances:
"Provided that before dividing any constituency in the administrative county of London into polling districts, the authority therefor shall send a draft of any scheme for that purpose to the London County Council, and shall take into consideration any representations made to them by the Council.
"(2) On the exercise of any powers given by this section the council by whom the powers are
358
exercised shall send to the Local Government Board a report, and publish in the constituency a notice, showing the boundaries of any polling districts or the situation of any polling places constituted as a result of the exercise of the power.
"(3) An election shall not be questioned by reason of any non-compliance with the provisions of this section or any informality relative to polling districts or polling places.
"(4) This section shall not apply to university constituencies.
"(5) Nothing in this section shall affect any polling districts or polling places constituted before the passing of this Act until occasion arises for the exercise of the powers given by this section."
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
After subsection (1) insert the following new subsection:
(2) If a local authority of not less than thirty electors in a constituency make a representation to the Local Government Board that the polling districts or polling places do not meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the constituency, or any body of electors, the Local Government Board shall consider the representation, and may, if they think fit, direct the Council whose duty it is to divide the constituency into polling districts, to snake such alterations as the Board think necessary in the circumstances, and if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given may themselves make the alterations, and way alterations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the council.
In this provision the expression "local authority" means as respects any constituency the council of any county, borough, urban or rural district, or parish wholly or partly situate in the constituency, or the parish meeting of any parish so situate where there is no parish council.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House do agree with the Commons in this Amendment. But I should like to move an Amendment in subsection (2), putting in the word "or" instead of the word "of" in the first line. It is clearly a misprint. I understand that there is a strong feeling that there should be some right of appeal by these small authorities owing to the great number of newly enfranchised persons and the great difficulties they may have in some instances in getting to the poll.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, with the substitution of "or" for "of" in the first line of the Commons new subsection (2).—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
After clause 28 insert new clause D.:
"Place of Election.
"D.—The place of election shall be fixed for each constituency (other than a university constituency) by the returning officer, and shall be—

"(a) if the constituency is, or the major part of the constituency is contained in, a municipal borough, some place within the borough;

"(b) in any other case some place within the constituency or within a municipal borough adjoining the constituency."

The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendments:
Line 4, leave out from ("is") to ("borough") in line 5, and insert ("a parliamentary borough or a division of a parliamentary")
Line 7, leave out ("in any other case") and insert ("if the constituency is a parliamentary county or a division of a parliamentary county") and leave out from ("the") to the end of the clause, and insert ("county or within a parliamentary borough adjoining the county")
VISCOUNT PEEL: These Amendments are merely consequential on the larger scheme of proportional representation not being adopted.
Moved, That this House doth agree to the Commons Amendments to the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 29, page 21, after line 41, insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Subsection (1) of section five of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, shall for the purposes of country council elections be read and have effect as if 'twopence' were inserted therein in lieu of 'threepence.'"
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they consider it undesirable to reduce the maximum scale of expenses at county council elections.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I do not know whether I shall have the support of His Majesty's Government in asking your Lordships to insist upon this Amendment. The Amendment was moved by myself, and accepted by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. It is regarded by the London County Council as a very serious matter indeed that, with the great increase which is being made to the local government electorate—in some cases probably doubling the constituency—the scale
360
of expenditure per head should remain the same. It is true that the other House struck out our Amendment at the instance of two highly respected Members of Parliament, on different sides of politics, who argued that the deduction would make it very difficult indeed to conduct a county council election. I confess that I have not very much sympathy with those views. I know very well that it is difficult for representatives of Labour to become members of local authorities, far more difficult than it is for men to become Members of Parliament, because large organisations can pay, and will pay, the expenses of a Parliamentary election, but are not willing to spend their money on a considerable scale in sending representatives to local authorities. The result is that the local authorities all over England are practically in the hands of the well-to-do middle classes. That is not altogether a fortunate fact. But, since our Amendment did not obtain support in the House of Commons, I conceive that it may be difficult for the noble Viscount to accept it here; otherwise I should be very glad to press it.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble Marquess knows that, with regard to the London County Council, I personally have great sympathy with the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I ought, perhaps, to have added that I understand that the County Councils Association have expressed themselves strongly in favour of this change.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that the House of Commons was very unwilling to accept this reduction on the ground that in many cases it would be impossible to apply; and, although it might be useful in some eases, I think the noble Marquess will see that it will be difficult to have this definite rule applied all over the country. Possibly the question might be taken up at some other time, and not in connection with this Bill.
LORD BURNHAM: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, may I say that I entirely agree and sympathise with the noble Marquess? The mischievous habit has grown up of using the same machinery for local elections as for Parliamentary

361
elections and unnecessary expenses thereby incurred. The feeling of the Speaker's Conference, and of many municipal bodies, is that this is certain to lower the scale especially having regard to the enormous number of new voters added to the Register. I hope that the noble Marquess will press his Motion.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I also hope that the noble Marquess will press it.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I shall not press the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 35, page 24, line 26, leave out ("if") and insert ("unless and until")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because it is advisable not to depart from the form usually adopted in enactments providing for the laying of regulations before Parliament.
The Commons disagree to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 24, line 30, for the following reason:
Because it is consequential on the Amendment made by the Lords in page 24, line 26, to which the Commons have disagreed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that your Lordships insist upon this Amendment. Your Lordships will recollect the discussion which we had at considerable length on this point when the Bill was before us on a former occasion. It was shown to demonstration that, under the form of words as the Bill originally reached us, there would be no security that an objection, either of your Lordships' House or of the House of Commons, to an Order in Council lying on the Table would have the effect of putting an end to it; and, therefore, all real control of the Houses of Parliament over this kind of minor legislation would be abolished.
When the matter was first raised there was some doubt as to how far this was actually true. But as the discussion progressed upon two evenings in Committee and on Report, it became abundantly clear that, under the words as they were sent from the Commons, it was not only possible, but it was designed, that these Orders in Council, which will profoundly modify the law were to be passed without the power
362
of either House of Parliament to check them. I want to dwell upon the point of "either House of Parliament." Addressing your Lordships, I think in the first instance of the proper control which your Lordships' House, as an essential branch of the Legislature, ought to have over legislation. But it is also true of the House of Commons. I feel convinced that the House of Commons have not realised, in the action they have taken in altering our Amendment, how they have deprived themselves of a necessary power to control the Executive Government. The Executive Government is growing every day in power. The authority of Parliament is falling every day. It is a great public danger. It is not as if the Executive Government were always guided by the best mind in the Government. Very often Ministers of small importance have control of the Government machine. Very often permanent officials behind Ministers, and not the Ministers at all, have the control, and they put things into Orders in Council which are laid before both Houses of Parliament. Then it appears that if we or the House of Commons object, the Government may snap their fingers at us and pass the Order in Council all the same. I am sure that the House of Commons did not realise the full importance of this matter, and it is with great confidence that I move that your Lordships insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not regard this matter as one of very capital importance. The clause in the form to which the Commons restored it is the usual clause, and no doubt it will work in the future as it has worked in the past.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I wish to speak with profound respect when I say that I am advised by authorities who have made research into this matter that the Lord Chancellor is not correct when he says that this has been the practice for a great many years. My Lords, it is not so. The present practice is comparatively new, and takes its date from the time when the Finance Bill of 1909 was introduced and carried into law. I spoke the other night at great length, and I explained the whole situation from beginning to end, but owing to the fact that the noble Earl Lord Crawford refused

363
my request and that of others for an adjournment, so that we might take this very important question as the first order on the following day, not one single word of that debate was reported in any newspaper in the Kingdom. I think that was a great hardship, because it is a matter of the greatest possible importance. These regulations in the days of which I speak, with rare exceptions—I think one was in the case of an emergency Army Bill for taking land by compulsion for the purposes of the war, and another was the Old Age Pensions Act, introduced the year before, and there was one Act passed many years before relating to Ireland, where a different proposal was made because it enabled the law in England to override the law in Ireland—with those exceptions I am aware of no proposal which did not admit and require
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment insisted upon accordingly.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 38, page 30, line 1, leave out from beginning of line 1 to end of line 22.
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Instead of line 1 to end of line 22, insert line 11 to end of line 22.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is merely consequential on a previous decision taken by this House as to the "swallow" voter.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
that Orders in Council, or Regulations made by law for purposes which had not had the sanction of Parliament, should not be valid until they had lain upon the Table for a specified number of days without either House of Parliament having moved an address against them. That was the rule until the date I have mentioned, and I think the present practice is a very serious departure. If this was the occasion to do so I could make a conclusive case, as I did the other night, against it. I do most earnestly hope that this Amendment may be allowed to go back into the Bill.
On Question, whether the said Amendment shall be insisted upon—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Camden, M.

Selborne, E.

Burnham, L.

Crewe, M.

Digby, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Chaplin, V.

Dinevor, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Erskine, L.

Armstrong, L.

Leigh, L.

Camperdown, E.

Balfour, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Sandys, L.

Lichfield, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Southwark, L.

Morton, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Kenyon, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, E.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Newton L.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Somerleyton, L.

Armaghdale, L.

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

Colebrooke, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Islington, L.

Suffield, L.

Plymouth, E.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords Amendment.
Clause 38, page 32, line 34, leave out subsection (11) and insert as a new subsection:
"( ) In the application of the section of this Act relating to division of constituency into polling districts and provision of polling places, and of the section of this Act relating to alteration of polling places where necessary, the returning officer shall be substituted for the council having a power or duty under those sections to divide a constituency into polling districts, and the Lord Advocate shall be substituted for the Local Government Board:"
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Lines 4 and 5, leave out ("returning officer") and insert ("sheriff")
LORD STANMORE: I must ask your Lordships to disagree to this Amendment of the Commons. In the Bill as it left

365
your Lordships' House various powers and duties were conferred so far as Scotland is concerned on the returning officer. When the Bill reached the Commons some doubt was expressed as to whether the returning officer existed at all at a time when there was no Election going on, and the sheriff was substituted. On reconsideration, however, it appeared that the returning officer does exist under Sections 31 and 39 in this Bill, and it is thought advisable to put back the returning officer.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Clause 39, page 34, line 12, after the first ("county") insert ("and for any parliamentary borough of which the whole or greater part is contained in the administrative county and no part is contained in a county borough and the clerk of the Crown and peace for a county borough shall be the registration officer for any parliamentary borough which is coterminous with or the whole or any part of which is contained in the county borough") and leave out the second ("county") and insert ("administrative county or county borough, as the case may be")
The Commons agree to this Amendment and make the following consequential Amendment in page 34, line 23:
Provided also that the person who, at the passing of this Act, is town clerk for the county borough of Dublin shall, so long as he holds that office, be the registration officer for the parliamentary borough of Dublin, and that the last preceding proviso shall not apply in his case.
LORD ARMAGHDALE: I move that we agree to the Amendment made by the Commons, with a number of other Amendments which I now submit. They are purely consequential, following upon an Amendment which was moved in another place on Friday last, the effect of which is to constitute the Town Clerk of Dublin registration officer of the Parliamentary borough of Dublin. Unfortunately, on Friday afternoon no Irish Unionist Member was present in the House of Commons as all of them had gone to Ireland. If they had been there, the demand would have been made that Belfast should be treated in the same way as Dublin in this matter. The Town Clerk of Belfast is a most efficient official and he enjoys the complete confidence of the people of the City. I am sure
366
his appointment as registration officer would give satisfaction to the vast majority of the people who are anxious, since the Town Clerk of Dublin has received this position, that the Town Clerk of Belfast should be accorded it also.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, with the following Amendments—
Line 1, leave out ("person") and insert ("persons"),
line 2, leave out ("is town clerk") and insert ("are town clerks"), after ("Dublin") insert ("and the county borough of Belfast respectively"), leave out ("he") and insert ("they"),
line 3, leave out ("hold that office") and insert ("hold their respective offices"), leave out ("officer") and insert ("officers"),
line 4, after ("Dublin") insert ("and the Parliamentary borough of Belfast respectively"),
line 5, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").—(Lord Armaghdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
First Schedule, page 38, line 33, leave out ("as") and leave out from ("for") to ("area") in line 34, and insert ("each polling district in the registration")
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Leave out all the words after ("as") in the above Amendment.
They make the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
Page 38, line 37, at end insert ("every such list shall be made up according to polling districts")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that we agree with the Commons Amendments, which snake it quite clear that the lists of absent voters are made up separately for each polling district.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am glad the noble Lord is quite clear. If he looks at the Commons Amendment he will read—"Leave out all the words after 'as' in the above Amendment." I do not see any words after "as."
VISCOUNT PEEL: The words are in the clause.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Which is the Amendment in which all the words after "as" are to be left out?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The words are "a separate list for the whole registration area."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would be almost a pity at this stage to agree with an Amendment which makes nonsense. I hope it does not make nonsense. If you assure us on the point, we have no objection.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have great confidence that it has been carefully considered, and I have no doubt it is right, but I pointed out that from this Paper it is impossible to understand it. The noble Viscount, I think, agrees, because he has not been able to explain it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a little difficult, as the noble Lord says, but I have quoted the words which follow.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
First Schedule, page 41, line 25, at end insert as a new rule:
"Information to registration officers.
"The Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council, either directly or through officers appointed by them, shall in the prescribed manner furnish to the registration officers in the several constituencies such information as to the names and addresses of Naval and Military voters and such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of their registration and of their voting as such, and it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to render any assistance that may be required by the Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council in conveying such information to the registration officers:
"Provided that the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall not be required to supply any particulars which in their declared opinion would interfere with the proper conduct of the war."
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Lines 1 and 8, leave out ("and"), and after the second ("Council") insert ("and the Board of Trade")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move that this House disagrees with this Amendment. I understand that the Board of Trade have nothing to do with this, and that their inclusion is really unnecessary.
Moved, That this House doth not agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
First Schedule, page 44, line 42, at end insert as a new rule:
"34. The Local Government Board shall collect from the Naval and Military and Air Force Authorities, the tribunals established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916, and other available sources such information, as it is reasonably practicable to obtain, with reference to persons disqualified on account of conscientious objection to military service from being registered and voting under this Act, and shall place any information so collected at the disposal of registration officers by whom inspection thereof shall be given under the same conditions that govern the register."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason:
Because they are of opinion that the value of the information obtained would not be commensurate with the labour and expense involved.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I moved that this House do not insist upon this Amendment. I understand that an enormous amount of work is thrown on these particular Departments now, and the matter having been gone into it is found that the results would hardly be commensurate with the labour involved, and that it would be best to leave the matter with the registration officer and the various objectors in the different constituencies.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
First Schedule, page 47, line 6, at end insert a new subsection:
"(8) Rule 2 of this schedule shall be construed as if the words 'or otherwise to distinguish' were inserted after the words 'in separate divisions.'"
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment, at end insert ("and as if the direction as to placing marks against the names of local government electors were omitted")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move to agree with the Commons in this Amendment. It is consequential, and makes clear what is to be done.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Third Schedule, page 49, line 16, at end insert ("in the same constituency")
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
At end add ("and in any case not more than two persons")
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a question of limiting the number in the case of each person having two votes. It is suggested that it will prevent unlawful plural voting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Fourth Schedule, page 51, line 7, after ("expenses") insert ("and the fee (if any) paid to the election agent")
The Commons agree to the Lords Amendment with the following Amendment:
At end insert ("not exceeding in the case of a county election seventy-five pounds and of a borough election fifty pounds")
VISCOUNT PEEL: Your Lordships will see that this Amendment has practically been accepted. I beg to move the addition of the following words at the end "without reckoning for the purposes of that limit any part of the fee which may have been included in the expenses mentioned above." That is to make it clear that it is an excess.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment, with the following addition: "without reckoning for the purposes of that limit any part of the fee which may have been included in the expenses mentioned above."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
.Lords Amendment.
After the Fourth Schedule, insert as a new schedule:
Paragraph 11 of the new schedule.
"11. An elector may vote at a poll by the delivery of a voting paper (signed by the voter at any time subsequent to the nomination) in the form appended to this part of this schedule or in a form to the same effect and accompanied with a like declaration, or, if the returning officer gives special directions to that effect, in person, and may so vote at any polling place if he has
370
not been allotted to any polling place, or, if he has been so allotted, at any polling place to which he has been so allotted.
"The returning officer may, if he thinks fit, give a special direction that voting in person is to be allowed at the election, and, if a direction is so given, may, if he thinks fit, limit the days of poll on which votes in person are to be received in pursuance of the direction."
The Commons agree to this paragraph with the following Amendments:
Lines 4 and 5, leave out ("if the returning officer gives special directions to that effect") and leave out lines 8 to 12, inclusive.
Paragraph 32.
"32. An election shall not be declared invalid by reason of non-compliance with these provisions if it appears to the tribunal cognisant of the case that the election was conducted in accordance with the principle of these provisions and that the non-compliance with these provisions did not affect the result of the election."
"Form of Voting Paper.
"I, A.B. (here give the elector's name in full, with his university degree and college, if any), give my vote as indicated below:—
"I declare that I have signed no other voting paper and have not voted in person at this election for the university constituency of
"*I also declare—
"(In the case of a man) that I have not voted at this general election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification;
"(In the case of a woman) that I have not voted at this general election for any other university constituency.
"Signed A.B.
"Address
"The day of 19.
"*This declaration is to be made only at a General Election."
The Commons agree to his paragraph with the following Amendment:
After line 9 insert:

Candidates.

Order of Preference.

A

B

C

D

Paragraph 39.
The Commons agree to this paragraph with the following Amendment:
In footnotes to this paragraph after ("transferable") insert ("or alternative")
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is the University Schedule, and I move that your Lordships disagree with the Commons Amendment in paragraph 11 of the new Schedule and propose other Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment, and propose the following Amendments:
Lines 4 and 5, leave out ("if the returning officer gives special directions to that effect") and insert ("unless the returning officer directs to the contrary").
Leave out lines 8 to 12 inclusive, and insert ("the returning officer may give special directions that votes shall not be given in person at the election or that votes may be given in person on certain days of the poll only").
Paragraph (13) leave out ("in pursuance of the direction of the returning officer").—Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: We now come to paragraph 32. I move to leave out the words after the footnote to the end of the paragraph.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is not this consequential on the alternative vote?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, this is an Amendment to paragraph 32. I think I am right. I was going to move to leave out the words after the footnote, and insert, "This form will require modification where the transferable vote is not used at the election."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is this the transferable vote or the alternative vote?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The transferable vote.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Has not the noble Viscount gone a little too far?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, I think I have.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: These are consequential.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes. I have to move at the end of column "ABCD" to insert, "This form will require modification where the transferable vote is not used at the election."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment,
372
with the addition of the words "this form will require modification where the transferable vote is not used at the election."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move to disagree with the Commons Amendment in paragraph 39, because this is consequential on the decision of your Lordships.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Leave out the Fifth Schedule.
The Commons disagree to this Amendment as consequential on the first Amendment made by the Lords in page 14, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed and reinsert the schedule with the following Amendments:
Page 137, line 43, at end insert:
The University of Wales 1
Line 45, leave out ("the University of Wales")
Line 49, leave out ("the University of Edinburgh")
Line 50, leave out ("and") and after ("Aberdeen") insert ("and the University of Edinburgh")
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move to agree with these Amendments, but I wish to move, in the new Schedule, to insert at the end of paragraph (c)—
"(d) in the case of the constituency of the University, of Wales, the Vice-Chancellor of the University."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments, and at the end of paragraph (c) insert "(d) in the case of the constituency of the University of Wales the Vice-Chancellor of the University."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am under a promise to my noble friend Lord Digby, that, when this Schedule came back from the House of Commons, restored as it has been, I would move, on page 102, line 30, to leave out the word "Poole" and insert the word "Eastern," so that the four divisions of the country of Dorset shall remain, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western, as they were before this Reform

373
Bill. Poole has been inserted as a sort of exception. Lord Digby, who is a gréat authority on matters in Dorset, voiced the feeling that was felt at the change, and I promised to move the Amendment to strike out the word "Poole," for the purpose of inserting the word "Eastern."
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 30, leave out ("Poole") and insert ("Eastern").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the general practice has been followed in this case. If the noble Marquess, with his local knowledge, and the noble Lord also, can assure me that this is the general feeling of the locality, I should not be disposed to offer any opposition.
LORD DIGBY: The Dorset County Council has approved of the alteration.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will not oppose it then.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As a matter of order I should like to know whether I ought to move here the Amendment that I have on page 130, line 137.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is this an Amendment that has come from the Commons?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Commons have sent back their Schedule as an Amendment instead of accepting the Schedule which your Lordships sent to the House of Commons. We are therefore entitled to take that original Schedule and to further amend it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert after the word "Llandaff," the words "and Barry" in the Fifth Schedule, fourth column. The noble Earl said: The facts, in two or three words, are these. The whole population of this constituency is about 70,000. In the urban district of Barry there is a population of about 35,000, and in the rural district of Llandaff about 25,000. The Barry Urban District Council urge very much that the word "Barry" should be added to "Llandaff" in describing the constituency, and I have taken pains to find out what the Llandaff view is Although I cannot say that the Rural Council have passed a resolution in favour
374
of this change, yet I can say that the Parliamentary Committee of the Llandaff Rural District Council have passed a resolution recommending their council to adopt the change, and I hope, in these circumstances, that the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 37, fourth column, after ("Llandaff")insert ("and Barry").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that there was some objection to having these double-barrelled names, and that the proposal was refused, but at a later stage of the discussion in another place a number of these Amendments were accepted. If the noble Earl can assure me that there is a general desire for this change I will not oppose it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I have heard no word against it, and I believe that both Llandaff and Barry have agreed to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD moved an Amendment in the Fifth Schedule, fourth column, to leave out "Kinross and Western" and insert "West Perthshire and Kinross." The noble Lord said: The reasons for this Amendment are that in area, population, and assessment Perthshire is enormously over and above Kinross, and West Perthshire at present is joined to Clackmannan and its name is put first. As it greatly exceeds Clackmannan in the respects that I have mentioned, and as there is a general feeling that this alteration should be made, I ask your Lordships to agree to it.
Amendment moved—
Fifth Schedule, page 136, lines 31 and 32, fourth column, leave out ("Kinross and Western") and insert ("Perthshire and Kinross").—(Lord Beresford.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: West Perthshire is only part of a county, and Kinross is a whole county, and I rather think that Kinross should take precedence over West Perthshire in this case.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would not like to interfere with the local knowledge of Scotsmen on this point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I desire to move an Amendment which is necessary in order to make provision for a returning officer for the Welsh University election similar to the provision made for the other University constituencies.
Amendment moved—
Fifth Schedule, Form B, under paragraph C and D, insert ("in the case of the constituency of the University of Wales, the Vice-Chancellor of the University").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think I am right in saying that, as this Schedule is going back to the Commons, these are purely drafting Amendments to put the precedence of these Universities in proper order.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord in perfectly right.
Lords Amendment.
Seventh Schedule, page 140, leave out lines 38 to 40 inclusive.
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
Insert lines 39 and 40.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Commons Amendment and the one that follows are purely drafting, and make no difference in the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment.
Seventh Schedule, page 141, leave out lines 1 to 7, inclusive, and insert:
"The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Viet. c. 51):—
"In section sixty-eight in the definition of 'revising barrister,' for the word 'sheriff' shall be substituted the words 'registration officer.'"
The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment:
At beginning insert:
In Rule 60 of Part I of the First Schedule, a reference to Division (4) of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for the reference to the Schedule in that rule mentioned.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in consequence of the changes made in the Bill, I beg to move the usual formal Resolution for the appointment of a Committee.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords insisting on certain of their Amendments and for disagreeing to certain of the Commons Amendments; the Committee to meet forthwith.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.