Sitting of 21 January 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Armagh (South Armagh Division), in the room of Charles O'Neill, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Boland.]
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Notes on the Education (No. 2) Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
Copy presented of Account of the General Lighthouse Fund, showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 172.]
MINISTRY OF RECONSTRUCTION.
Copy presented of Report by Local Government Committee on Transfer of Functions of Poor Law Authorities in England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS IN IRELAND).
Copy presented of Letter from Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister acquainting him of the Determinations arrived at by the Conference on the Redistribution of Seats in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for
640
the year ended 29th September, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 173.]

EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
Copy presented of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1917, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 174.]
PUBLIC OFFICES SITE (DUBLIN) ACT, 1903.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Public Offices Site (Dublin) Act, 1903, and of the Expenditure; the Money expended and borrowed and the Securities created under the said Act for the period ended the 31st March, 1917, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 175.]
SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1859 AND 1876.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 18th December, 1914, declaring Harbin to be an unhealthy place for the purpose of the Superannuation Acts, 1859 and 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of Heavy Motor Car (Amendment) Order, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DUTCH TRANSIT TRAFFIC (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 2, 1918).
Copy presented of Further Correspondence respecting the Transit Traffic across Holland of materials susceptible of employment as Military Supplies [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rules for application of proposed grant of £50,000 for the purposes of Intermediate Education in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations with respect to the definition of certain benefits and advantages and other matters connected with Agricultural Wages [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BANK OF ENGLAND.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk (of the House: Copy of all applications made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England for advances to Government authorised by Parliament, from 6th January, 1917, to 5th January, 1918 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 176.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    RUSSIA.

      TREATY WITH JAPAN.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the text of the secret Russo-Japanese Treaty of 3rd July, 1916, recently published at Petrograd; whether the Foreign Office had knowledge of this Treaty when made; and whether, in view of Article 3 of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1911, he will say whether the British Government was consulted before the Russo-Japanese Treaty of 1916 was effected?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The Treaty referred to was communicated to
      642
      His Majesty's Government confidentially by de Japanese Government before signature.

      DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES.
      Mr. KINGasked whether the Governments of France and the United States, or either of them, continue to have diplomatic representatives at Petrograd; and, if so, whether such representatives are in diplomatic relations with the present Government of Russia?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; that to the second in the negative.

      SIR GEORGE BUCHANAN.
      Mr. LYNCHasked whether Sir George Buchanan is returning from Petrograd; and, if so, whether in any future appointment the area of selection will be so greatly widened that such posts may become available to capable and distinguished men of the world whose ideas have not become limited by the official groove: and whose minds are alive to the movements of a new time?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Sir G. Buchanan is only home on leave. As regards the second part of the question, I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he makes no reflection on this most able and distinguished public servant. On the subject of appointments to ambassadorial posts I am giving an answer to the hon. Gentleman in connection with Question No:8.

      ALLIED STATE.
      Mr. KINGasked whether Russia is still an Allied State for the purposes of the War?
      Mr. BALFOUR: As far as treaties can make her so, she is.
      Mr. KING: Is the position taken up by Russia at the present time with reference to the Pact of London a matter which has made no difference in this respect?
      Mr. BALFOUR: It has not affected the validity of the treaties so far as I know.

      INTERNED RUSSIANS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether any Russian subjects now remain interned without trial in this country; if so, how many; and whether the release of any of these

      643
      persons in the near future is under consideration; (2) whether Mr. Sairo, a Russian subject, is, or has been, interned. without trial in Brixton Prison; if he is still interned, why was he not returned to Russia with Mr. Tchitcherine; (3) whether Mr. Hasse, a Russian subject. is, or has been, interned without trial in Reading gaol; and, if he is still interned, why was he not returned to Russia with Mr. Tchitcherine?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): Four persons, claiming to be Russian subjects, are at present interned under Defence of the Realm Regulation 143, namely, three men and one woman. They have all been offered the choice between being sent to Russia or remaining in internment in this country. One of the men, Sairio, refuses to state which he would prefer; it is proposed to send him to Russia. The other two, Hasse and Natenbruk, have now chosen to go back to Russia; the woman, Witcop, declines to go unless she can be accompanied by a German prisoner of war who cannot be released from internment or sent to Russia. Arrangements will be made to send Sairio, Hasse and Natenbruk to Russia as soon as possible.
      Mr. KING: With regard to the question of Witcop, is it not a fact that her husband, who was exiled from Germany, was a well-known writer against German militarism for many years, and that she has been offered by the Advisory Committee an opportunity of going to Russia with her husband?
      Sir G. CAVE: I do not know whether the person whom the hon. Member refers to as her husband is married to her.
      Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that she has been married to this man, though not by English law, for many years, and has a grown-up son, and does the right hon. Gentleman think it a fine thing to insult a woman like this?
      Sir G. CAVE: I say nothing at all against her, but if she is married to this man, of course, she is a German subject, and cannot be sent to Russia at all. We have no power to send a German to Russia.
      Mr. KING: Is it not a fact that Mrs. Petroff was declared by the Home Office to be a German subject, and has she not recently been sent to Russia?
      Sir G. CAVE: That may be so, but different considerations apply in the case of a German man and a German woman.

      BRITISH CONCESSION, SHAMEEN (GERMANS).
      Colonel YATEasked whether all Germans have now been cleared out of the- British Concession at Shameen, in China; and whether their buildings have been taken over and their leases terminated?
      Mr. BALFOUR: When China declared war upon Germany His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton informed all the Germans in the British Concession on the Island of Shameen that they could only remain there if they closed their businesses and reported to him at the British Consulate-General every fortnight. As a. result seven enemy subjects left the Concession, and the twelve who remained, all males, have observed. the conditions imposed by the Consul-General. I am informed that, pending a decision in regard to the legal questions involved, no buildings belonging to Germans have been taken over, nor have their leases been terminated, but further inquiries will be made as to this point
      Colonel YATE: What legal decision. does my right hon. Friend refer to? Are we at war with Germany or are we at law with Germany?
      Mr. BALFOUR: Undoubtedly at war with Germany, so that I do not see the relevance of that observation.

      BRITISH AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the position of permanent Ambassador at Washington, he will, in considering the qualities demanded by that post, avoid the selection of any man incrusted in official routine or out of sympathy with democratic ideals, and will consequently select from outside the present limits of the Foreign Office a forward-looking man of wide culture and democratic style?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I feel sure that when the occasion arises the Prime Minister of the day will take a broad and statesman-

      645
      like view of all the considerations which should influence the advice he will give to the King.
      Mr. WATT: Is it the case that no man can be appointed to such a position as this unless he is in possession of a private fortune of a certain figure—one of the rich?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any rule of that sort. If the hon. Member wants further information he had better put a question down.
      Mr. LYNCH: Even if it should break with the tradition of the Foreign Office, will the right hon. Gentleman not follow this excellent advice?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The advice that I have suggested to the Prime Minister is in exact conformity with the traditions of the Foreign Office.

      UNITED STATES (PASSPORTS).
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will grant passports to a mother and daughter who desire to nurse a daughter of the former who resides in the United States and is stricken with an incurable disease, and has no other relatives there to attend to her?
      Mr. BALFOUR: In the circumstances stated by the hon. Member, applications for passports would no doubt receive the fullest consideration.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      MILK.
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any Report or public statement will be issued by the Milk Production and Distribution Committee showing what this Committee has done in the matter of the milk supply?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The Committee on the Production and Distribution of Milk have already issued two Interim Reports, dated the 8th June (Command Paper No. 8608) and the 30th November (Command Paper No. 8886), in last year.

      BRIXHAM FISHERIES.
      Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will sanction the request of the Brixham Fisheries Development Committee to have two lights fixed at Tor Cross to safeguard the Brixham fishermen from trawling in the restricted area of Start Bay?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I regret that on naval grounds the fixing of lights as suggested in the question cannot be sanctioned.
      Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not mark a chart, painted in dark blue, so that the Fisheries Development Committee may keep it, and show it to the fishermen, who are only too anxious to catch fish, but who do not desire to transgress the Regulations?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will submit that proposal of a marked chart to my naval advisers. Obviously lights are out of the question. They would disclose the full situation to the enemy submarines.

      FISH.
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the great difference between the price given to fishermen for sprats caught, namely, 3s. or less for 100 1bs., and the retail market price of 6d. per 1b.; and whether, seeing that sprats are an important article of food, especially at the present time, he will fix the market price without delay to prevent undue profits being made?
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that herrings are still sold at 5d. and 6d. apiece in the London shops, whereas at the coast they have been sold at the rate of 1?d. apiece; and whether the issue of the Order for the regulation of fish prices can be expedited, seeing that he stated on 20th December that it was being considered?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The F sh (Prices) Order, which comes into operation on Wednesday next, will, it is hoped; remedy the grievances to which attention has been called.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that sprats and herrings do not disappear from the market, like rabbits?
      Captain CARR-GOMM: What steps will the Department take to see that these high prices in the Order just issued will mean adequate remuneration to the fishermen, who have to take great risks catching the fish?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot reply in detail to that question. The prices have been fixed and they will be issued on Wednesday next. When the hon. Member has seen them he can put another question on the Paper, if he requires further information.
      Captain CARR-GOMM: I have seen the prices in the statement issued. I am anxious in regard to the fishermen in this industry that the hon. Gentleman will see that the prices fixed will secure adequate remuneration to the fishermen and not the middlemen.
      Sir RICHARD COOPER: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the price paid to the fishermen is 3s. per 100 lbs., while the retail price is 50s. per 100 1bs.?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot go into any details, but I will direct the attention of the Ministry of Food to the matters which have been raised

      MONTHLY SUPPLIES.
      Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, (1) in view of the statements that householders may not have in store more than a fortnight's supplies, what is the position of the householder who is paid monthly and gets in his supplies monthly; (2) what is the position of the housewife who saves the household ration of sugar for the purpose of jam preserving, though not a grower of fruit, when the preserving season commences and in consequence thereof may have sundry pounds of sugar in hand; (3) what is the position of the housewife, in the event of a visit from an officer of the Food Controller, who is found to have possession of a plentiful supply of jams of her own preserving, bearing in mind the fact that no more than a fortnight's supply of rood, controlled or uncontrolled, be kept in hand?
      Mr. PARKER: No statement has been authorised as to whether a person may or may not have in store more than a fortnight's supply. Whether the quantity of
      648
      food in a householder's possession at any one time exceeds the quantity required for ordinary use and consumption is a question of fact to be determined in each case. The Food Hoarding Order does not apply to any home-produced or homemade article of food in the possession of the producer or maker, or to the materials necessary in the ordinary course for such production.

      AMERICAN Y.M.C.A. (ST. JAMES'S SQUARE BUILDINGS).
      Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the First Commissioner of Works the purpose of the excavations going on and of the bricks collected in the garden in St. James's Square; what is the nature and height of the structure presumably to be erected there; and what is its object and when is the structure to be completed?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The building referred to by the hon. Member is not being erected by my Department, nor have I any information on the subject beyond the fact that I understand it is being erected by the United States Young Men's Christian Association.
      Sir A. FELL: Do we understand that it has nothing to do with the Commissioners of Works? Is it the War Office?
      Sir A. MOND: As far as I know, it is being erected by the United States Young Men's Christian Association.
      Sir A. FELL: Are there not large mansions in St. James's Square and in the neighbourhood which are unoccupied and which might have been used instead of this building?
      Sir A. MOND: As I have told the hon. Member, I know nothing at all about it. It has nothing to do with my Department.
      General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Have they not to get sanction for building from some Department of the Government?
      Sir A. MOND: I have no doubt they have to get sanction from some Department—I do not quite know which.
      General Sir I. PHILIPPS: Is it not His Majesty's Commissioners of Works?
      Sir A. MOND: No; not at all.

    SHIPYARD EMPLOYES, DUMBARTON.

      BONUS TO TIME-WORKERS.
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has been informed that the shipyard employés in Dumbarton received from their employers a promise on the 20th December last that an increase of 12 per cent. would be paid on the 22nd if the Ministry of Munitions agreed that the firm was in communication with the Ministry on the subject; that the Ministry sent, under date of the 11th December, a letter which arrived on the 21st and which was too late to permit of an amicable settlement of the claim; whether he is aware that, after delays and continued unsettlement owing to the indefinite replies made by the Ministry of Munitions, a large number of men quitted work; and whether he has yet been able to settle this dispute?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will answer this question if I may. It is a fact that the employés received a promise from their employers on 20th December that the per cent. bonus to plain time workers would be paid on the 22nd if the Ministry of Munitions agreed, and that firms concerned were in communication with the Ministry on the subject.
      The Order is dated 11th December, and a very large number of copies had to be issued. Finding from the printers that the prints could not be returned to us by the 18th, we set to work ourselves on the 17th, duplicating copies of the Order and a covering letter which were posted by us on the 18th. These were not delivered by the post office to some of the Dumbarton firms till the 21st. On the 20th, some of the employers on the Clyde informed their men that unless the Order was received that day, it would be impossible to pay the bonus to all men entitled to it on the 22nd, and a notice to this effect appeared in the local Press. The copies arrived too late to enable the employers to make up the pay sheets so as to pay on the 22nd, and the bonus was paid the following week before the New Year holidays.
      It is possible that this incident contributed in some degree to the decision of the men to "down tools," but my hon. Friend is, of course, aware that other questions were involved. The whole question of the strike has since been in the hands of the Ministry of Labour. I understand that
      650
      most of the men affected in this particular case undertook to return to work this morning.
      Mr. SHAW: Are we to understand that in any case this advance will be retrospective from the 22nd?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to see the terms of it, but I have no doubt in my own mind that that is the ease.

      HORSES EXPORTED FROM IRELAND.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President. of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what relaxation has been made regarding the export of horses from Ireland which are not required for agricultural or business purposes in Ireland, but are wanted in Great Britain; and whether he is aware that many complaints have been made on this subject, and that those idle horses arc consuming oats and hay and so depleting food supplies?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Light trappers and hunters have been added to the classes of horses for which licences for exportation from Ireland were previously given. Careful consideration was required to secure the retention in Ireland of sufficient horses suitable for agricultural purposes, with a view to the carrying out of the Compulsory Food Production Scheme, but the Department of Agriculture hope to be in a position before long to announce the withdrawal of the Order restricting the export of horses.

      DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (WALES).
      Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that, with the exception of the Wrexham garden village training centre, there is at present no technical training centre or orthopædic institution for special treatment available in North Wales; and whether he will consider the advisability of amalgamating the two Joint Statutory Committees of North and South Wales, so that the requirements of discharged soldiers in Wales may be dealt with by one Committee, who will have regard to the provision of training and treatment for the whole of Wales?
      The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I have no power to amalgamate the two Joint Committees, which are voluntary associations of local committees formed under the Act of 1915, and I doubt whether any suggestion for such amalgamation would be acceptable to either body. The fact of this separate existence of the two sub-committees is not, however, a bar to the common use of institutions and training centres in Wales. The hospital at Llandridod Spa, which I am arranging should take 150 cases, will be available to the whole country, as is already Wrexham, for orthopædic treatment. The general arrangements for training include the transfer of a man from one area to another u here this is necessary.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether the suggested alterations have now taken place at Chelsea; and whether one can now expect a reply to letters within a reasonable period?
      Mr. HODGE: The reorganisation of the Award to Soldiers Branch of the Ministry at Chelsea is progressing, under the direction of Sir Woodburn Kirby, as rapidly as can be expected, having regard to the immense and quickly increasing volume of work in the branch, which has to be carried out by a growing and inexperienced staff. The dealing with letters received at Chelsea from soldiers and their friends constitutes a large part of this work and retards rather than accelerates awards. If correspondents would make more use of the local committees, the accredited agents of the Ministry, it would give the branch at Chelsea better opportunities of discharging its primary function of awarding pensions.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his intention to have Chelsea reorganised in Christmas week has fallen through? Can he say how soon now it will be reorganised; this is a very important matter?
      Mr. HODGE: It was intended to have closed a week at Christmas for the purpose of adopting the new filing system. Previous to that I secured the services of Sir Woodburn Kirby, who is one of the best organisers that we have in
      652
      London. He has taken personal charge. We are having an addition made, so far as office accommodation is concerned. The last report I had from the gentleman in charge was that he believes that in March he will have the thing completed. At the present time everything has been very greatly expedited as the result of his care.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can state the number of pensions awarded up to 31st December, 1917, or other date, giving figures for life, temporary, widows, and dependants, respectively?
      Mr. HODGE: I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject of this question.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not rather circulate his information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that everyone can see it?
      Mr. HODGE: In the course of a few weeks it will be necessary, under the Act of Parliament, that a complete Report should be made. Then, of course, full information will be given, not only as to the number of pensioners, but the amount of money spent by the Department; and I hope it will also contain a statement showing the system of treatment and training, and a variety of other matters which come under the control of the Department.
      Mr. HOGGE: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to communicate with me, cannot he, at the same time, communicate with the rest of us by publishing the Reports?
      Mr. HODGE: The only object I had in saying what I did was to consult with the hon. Member as to what form this information should take.
      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman not put other Members of the House who are interested in the pensions question—as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has suggested—in possession of the facts and consult them also?
      Mr. HODGE: Absolutely!
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether he can see his way to give widows with pensions the same privileges as are accorded by the local war pensions committees to the wives of serving soldiers?
      Mr. HODGE: I am in some doubt as to what "privileges" the hon. Member has

      653
      in mind, but any inequality of treatment which now exists will, I think, be largely remedied by the amended Regulations of the Special Grants Committee, which will shortly be issued. Under 13 (a) of Part II. of the amended Regulations the sickness grant will be payable to a widow as well as to the wife of a serving soldier; and with regard to rent allowance, the new Regulation 1 (of Part I.) will, it is hoped, be found sufficiently liberal to meet the widow's needs. Under this Regulation, as amended, the supplementary allowance will be payable where, owing to exceptional circumstances, the pension seems to be inadequate, without the pensioner being under the necessity of pleading "serious hardship," and a further allowance of not exceeding 2s. 6d. a week may be granted in respect of each child previously supported by the deceased soldier.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am very glad to hear that. Is, however, my right hon. Friend aware that when a widow has exhausted the twenty-six weeks' separation allowance she is no longer entitled to get the same grant as the wife of the serving soldier, either for herself or her children; and can he see his way to make these grants accessible to the widow and children who receives less in pension than the wife who receives more in separation allowance?
      Mr. HODGE: I understand that the alterations in the Regulations are designed for the purpose the hon. Member has in view.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister why separation allowance is now to be paid to the children of officers up to the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, respectively, for male and female children, instead of fourteen, as in the case of the children of private soldiers, or whether it is proposed to extend the allowance in the latter case?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. W. Forster): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The decision of the War Cabinet follows the lines already adopted for allowances to children of deceased officers. The separation allowances of soldiers' children do not terminate at age fourteen, as stated, but at age sixteen in the normal case, and these allowances also ere extended to the age of twenty-one in eases of apprenticeship, continued higher education, or invalidity.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is not my right hon. Friend confusing the allowance for diseased children and for live children? Is he aware that in the case of children of private soldiers the allowance ceases at the age of fourteen, and is only increased to sixteen and seventeen in very special cases and never extends to twenty-one even in the case of mentally afflicted children?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think my hon. Friend is entirely wrong. I know it is very unusual in his case, but if he will refer to a very excellent pamphlet or guide-book by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogg:), he will be able to refresh his memory.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it is because I did refer to the guide-book, which he says is excellent, that I am putting this accurate information to him?
      Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend would ask the hon. Member for East Edinburgh to revise his publication.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: What reason is there for allowing any difference between the ages of children of private soldiers and the ages of children of officers at which you Fay separation allowance? Is it not equally desirable that you should encourage the education and care of the children of private soldiers as of the children of officers?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; and, as I have said, the separation allowance of private soldiers does not terminate at the age of fourteen but at the age of sixteen in normal cases, and is extended in cases of apprenticeship, continued higher education, or invalidity, to the age of twenty-one.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman then kindly state what is the difference made in the case of children of private soldiers and in the case of children of officers?
      Mr. HOGGE: Why should the wife of a serving soldier have to make application for a separation allowance beyond the age of fourteen in the interests of education or apprenticeship when it is not necessary in the case of an officer?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That raises another question.
      Mr. HOGGE: I will write another edition.

      DISOHARGED DISABLED MEN (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
      Sir HENRY HARRISasked the Pensions Minister whether he has come to any agreement with the London civilian hospitals as to the terms and conditions on which discharged disabled men will be treated by these institutions; and, if so, whether he will have such terms published immediately?
      Mr. HODGE: Arrangements have now been made with both London and provincial hospitals, and the terms will be communicated to all Local War Pensions Committees forthwith.
      Sir H. HARRISasked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware of the difficulty which is being experienced in London in obtaining in-patient treatment for discharged disabled men, which is largely due to the sudden withdrawal by the War Office of facilities for such treatment in military hospitals; whether he is aware that many beds in civil hospitals are occupied by soldiers; and whether he proposes to take steps to have these beds made available for discharged disabled men and to supplement the inadequate accommodation in London, having regard to the claims of ordinary civilians?
      Mr. HODGE: I am fully aware of the difficulties referred to, and have represented the matter to the War Office. In response to my representations it has been arranged that the War Office, recognising the prior claim of the Ministry to the accommodation in civil hospitals, will refrain from requisitioning further beds in those hospitals, and, further, will release the accommodations now occupied by them as rapidly as possible.
      Sir H. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the matter is a very urgent one, and that a considerable number of men are now waiting for treatment, some of them have only been discharged from military hospitals on the express understanding that they would receive further treatment from these hospitals, which is now denied them; will he also answer the last part of the question: "Whether he proposes to take steps to have these beds made available for discharged disabled men and to supplement the inadequate accommodation in London, having regard to the claims of ordinary civilians," and quite apart from the military beds?
      Mr. HODGE: I may say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that I have just instituted a Medical Department, presided over by a very eminent surgeon. They have the whole of the matter in hand. I am hopeful, under their expert advice, that the difficulties referred to will be rapidly swept away.
      Sir W. COLLINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 1,600 beds have, since the beginning of the War, been added to the accommodation of the voluntary hospitals in London in order to meet the case of the admission of military patients?

      RECONSTRUCTION (POOR LAW UNIONS).
      Major DAVIESasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he has received the resolutions dealing with the constitution of the Sub-committee which has been appointed to consider and report upon the steps to be taken to ensure the better co-ordination of public assistance in England and Wales and upon such other matters affecting the system of local' government as may from time to time be referred to it; arid whether he proposes. to remedy this defect by appointing representatives of the Association of Poor Law Unions in England and Wales upon this. Sub-committee?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): I would refer my lion. Friend to the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Dartford Division on the 16th January, to which I have nothing to add, except to say that the Sub-committee has already reported.

      CIVIL ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (ADMIRALTY).
      Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Sir Alexander Gibb, K.B.E., C.B., R.E., who has been appointed Civil Engineer-in-Chief to the Board of Admiralty, belongs to the Institute of Engineers or any other technical institute of similar character; whether he is a director of the North-Eastern Railway Company; whether he is. a member of the firm of Easton, Gibb, Son, and Company, Government contractors; whether it will be within his. province to supervise the work of contractors; and whether he will retain his

      657
      directorship of the North-Eastern Railway Company and a financial interest in Messrs. Easton, Gibb, Son, and Company?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Sir Alexander Gibb is a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, as well as of other technical institutes and societies. He is not a director of the North-Eastern Railway Company, and has never had any connection with that railway except as a contractor, but he is a member of the firm of Easton, Gibb, and Son, Limited.
      As Civil Engineer-in-Chief it will be within his province to supervise the work of contractors. As from the date when Sir Alexander Gibb entered upon his duties, his firm has discontinued its business as contractors for the period of the War. All existing contracts are cancelled as from that date, and Brigadier-General Sir Edward Raban, K.C.B., R.E. (late Director of Works at the Admiralty) has been appointed by agreement between the Admiralty and the firm to assess any outstanding accounts between them. The Admiralty are much indebted to Sir Alexander Gibb for the readiness with which he has set aside all his business interests in order to assist the Public Service.
      Sir C. HENRY: Have arrangements been made, or will they be made, to finish the work entrusted to Messrs. Easton, Gibb and Company?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, as regards the main contract that practically is now completed. There are, however, a number of matters to clear up and values to adjust. They will be dealt with by the respective surveyors by agreement if possible, and, if not, referred to Sir Edward Raban for assessment. The firm has another contract upon which a considerable amount of work has yet to be done, and that will be cancelled and the firm paid off. We shall then either do the work ourselves or get it done by other contractors.

      ENEMY SUBMARINES.
      Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how enemy submarines can operate regularly in the Mersey whilst British submarines are unable to operate close in to enemy ports in the North Sea?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty are not prepared to admit that British sub-
      658
      marines are unable to operate close in to enemy ports in the North Sea. But it must be clear to my hon. Friend that the conditions obtaining in the vicinity of enemy ports are wholly different from those which obtain in the case of British ports. The absence of mercantile traffic from German ports in the North Sea renders practicable the use of extensive minefields by the enemy. On the other hand, the volume of mercantile traffic using British ports renders it necessary for the approaches to be kept clear of mines.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that enemy submarines have not been inside the Mersey bar?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot discuss that at all.

      GREENOCK TORPEDO FACTORY.
      Colonel GODFREY COLLINSasked. the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to advertisements inserted in English newspapers offering employment for women in the torpedo factory, Greenock; is he aware that there' are many women in Greenock awaiting employment; and, in view of the present housing conditions in Greenock, will he take steps to employ women resident in. Greenock and the neighbourhood?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. No advertisements have been inserted in. English newspapers offering employment to women in the factory at Greenock. I may say, further, that in the course of the last three months, of the forty women who have been entered only two were last employed in England. One of these really belongs to the locality and applied from. her home, near Greenock. The other is the wife of a soldier whose father is, employed in the factory.
      Colonel COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if further women are wanted for the factory, other things being equal, preference will be given to the women resident in Greenock?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Obviously that is most desirable.

      FIARS PRICES (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland,(1) whether he is aware that one result of the recent level

      659
      of flars prices in Scotland has been to reduce to about one-third of their previous annual amount certain funds providing for the teaching of Divinity subjects in the university of Edinburgh; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; (2) whether any progress has been made towards legislation on an agreed basis on the subject of fiars prices in Scotland?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am aware of the effect of the increase in fiars prices upon the income of the Divinity chairs referred to and upon landed property in general. The whole question is engaging my serious attention, in consultation with the interests concerned. I am not without hope that some agreement may be possible.
      Mr. CURRIE: Will he say if the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to reach is one which will take effect merely temporarily, or has he in view a permanent settlement?
      Mr. MUNRO: That is just one of the questions which will have to be discussed.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCRIPTED MEN, MAIDSTONE.
      Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Minister of National Service, whether 'he is aware that conscripted men are being sent to Maidstone for re-examination and being posted elsewhere, that they are there housed in the Agricultural Hall, an old cattle market, which is unheated and cold, and that, mattresses being insufficient, men are sleeping on the bare ground in this wintry weather; and whether he will immediately stop sending men to these conditions?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): In one of the buildings used at Maidstone the heating arrangements were not satisfactory, but steps have already been taken to remedy this. Recently there was a temporary shortage of mattresses owing to the arrival of a large number of men, but the men were given six or more blankets instead. The battalion in question will be moved as soon as suitable accommodation can be found elsewhere.

      APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. JACOBSENasked whether the officers who have hitherto acted as military representatives at Appeal Tribunals are still not notified as to whether they are to be retained by the Ministry of National Service; and, if they are to be retained, will they be in charge of a department for tribunal work or merely represent the Ministry at Appeal Tribunals?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Cecil Beck): A general Instruction was issued on 15th November containing the following paragraph:
      "The appointments of Military Representatives (who now become National Service Representatives) will remain in force as though they had been made by the Minister of National Service, unless or until they are in any case revoked or varied by the Minister of National Service."
      These officials are at the present moment performing the duties of their offices. Returns and recommendations are being made by the Directors of National Service in the regions with a view to the definite settlement of the regional establishments. The matter of the organisation of tribunal work in the regions has not been finally determined. It is probable that no uniform system can be made to suit the requirements of all regions, which differ widely in character. It may, however, be stated that in general the work of the Appeal National Service Representatives will not be confined to representing the Ministry at Appeal Tribunals.
      Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that transference to the National Service Department includes those military representatives who are of military age and military fitness and who have never yet been out of the country?
      Mr. BECK: Yes; it includes all military representatives, but the whole question is being considered.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will any steps be taken to have their protection certificates withdrawn?
      Mr. BECK: Our regional directors are advising on the whole of these questions.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Will that include men who have been simply engaged as recruiting officers in khaki?
      Mr. BECK: They are not necessarily under the Ministry of National Service.

      PROTECTION CERTIFICATES (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of National Service (1) if he can state the proportion of the one million or more administrative protection certificates issued, protecting their holders from military service, which have been issued by Government Departments to men in Government offices; (2) whether steps have been taken to cancel any of the administrative protection certificates, numbering over 1,000,000, and which are at present subject to cancellation by order of the Director-General of National Service; how many of these certificates have been cancelled during the past year; and how many men holding such certificates, it is estimated, could be at present obtained from Government offices and other protected vocations?
      Mr. BECK: The administrative protection certificates to which my right hon. Friend referred in his speech on Monday, 14th January, are those issued under the Munitions Area Recruiting Scheme, and do not affect men of military age employed in Government offices, who are exempted under the provisions of Section 2, Subsection (2) of the Military Service Act, 1916. During the past year, under the M.A.R.O. Scheme, the number of men whose certificates have been withdrawn and who have been posted for service, is about 50,000.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the depressive effect upon the soldiers of favouritism or the exercise of undue privilege, he will take steps to clear all the Government offices in Whitehall of men of military age able to bear arms?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the hon. Member suggests that men of military age are retained in Government Departments owing to favouritism or the exercise of undue privilege he is mistaken. As stated in the reply given on 31st December to the hon. Member for South Moneyhan the Civil Service has already supplied its full quota of men of military age and fitness for service with the Colours, and I am satisfied that many Departments are seriously handicapped for want of skilled staff, and that the course suggested by the hon. Member would be neither practicable nor
      662
      in the public interest. The matter receives the constant attention of the Ministry of National Service, and no man is retained without the concurrence of this Department.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the Government considered not merely the military value of these men but the profound moral effect of encouraging embusqués in the Government offices?
      Mr. BECK: Yes, but the Government have also to consider the profound moral effect of a break-down of the staff in all Government Departments.

      DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (RE-EXAMINATION).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, before the House goes into Committee on the Military Service Bill, he can announce the decision of the Government with regard to discharged men now subject to re-examination and recall under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act; and whether it has been agreed that such men shall be given the alternative of engaging in work of national importance and, so long as they remain engaged in the same, shall not be subject to recall unless and until a national emergency warrants it?
      Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Government propose to make the following further concession with regard to men at present in civil life who have served in His Majesty's Forces and have been discharged in consequence of disablement or ill-health, and who are now, or who may become, subject to re-examination and recall for service under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917. It is proposed that any such man who has served in the Forces and who is not for the time being engaged on work of national importance shall have an opportunity which it is proposed to fix as a standard at the period of one month, but for good cause shown in any individual case this will be extended, in which he may engage in work of national importance. The period would run from the coming into force of this arrangement in the case of men already discharged, and from the date of discharge in the case of men who may be discharged hereafter. The work of national importance would be in an industry contained in a list to be settled and revised from time to time, such as shipbuilding, iron ore mines, munitions, agriculture, public utility

      663
      undertakings and the like. Each man himself must take steps to apply for employment, but every facility will be given through existing Government machinery to enable him to obtain such employment. Special arrangements are already in force to enable soldiers now being discharged to obtain civil employment. The arrangement will apply to men already engaged on work of national importance. These will on application be given a protection certificate to show that they are rightfully continuing in civil life. In order to secure the smooth working of these administrative arrangements, it is absolutely essential that all discharged sailors and soldiers should keep the local officials of the Ministry of National Service fully informed as to their whereabouts and the nature of their employment, and I venture to express the hope that all associations interested in their welfare will co-operate.
      Mr. HOGGE: Arising out of this extremely important answer, is my right hon. Friend aware that men who are now in the condition which he has explained who have served overseas are entitled now to their final discharge without the answer he has given, and does his answer mean that all men who have been discharged disabled and who have not served overseas will, first of all, be given the alternative of work of national importance, and so long as they are engaged in that, according to the list he has explained, they will not be subject to re-examination?
      Mr. BECK: Yes, that was what I intended my answer to be.
      Mr. HOGGE: Are you quite clear about it?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman have the answer corrected in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because, as the answer at present stands, it is a limitation on the concession granted by the Under-Secretary of State for War in July last, when he conceded the point that all men who had served overseas would not be called up?
      Mr. BECK: I think if my hon. Friend reads the answer—
      Mr. PRINGLE: I have read it.

      ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the
      664
      late Bombardier, John Golding, No 77844, Royal Field Artillery, killed in action in France in August last, had been medically classified as C 3; and, if so, whether he will investigate the circumstances in which he was sent to France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am inquiring into this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    MAN-POWER.

      ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL INDUSTRIES.
      Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of National Service if he can state the proportion of the 450,000 men of military age which he proposes to obtain from each of the various essential industries, respectively, including the coal-mining, engineering, and iron and steel industries under the provisions of the Military Service Bill; whether any arrangements have been, or are about to be, completed with the employers and trade organisations for the release of a certain proportion of the men engaged in each of the industries referred to; and what methods will be adopted to secure the number of men required from each separate industrial district?
      Mr. BECK: As large a proportion of the men required will be drawn from nonessential industries as is possible.
      The number of men to be withdrawn from the various essential industries is determined in consultation with the Government Departments responsible for the maintenance of those industries, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, not only is the Ministry of National Service in close and constant touch with the representatives of employers and employed on all questions of recruiting, but the other Government Departments concerned are also in a similar position.
      It is not intended to withdraw all the men in one day, or one week, and as the withdrawals proceed, their effect on each industry is noted, and the rate of withdrawal is adjusted accordingly.
      Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon Gentleman, say whether, before the Military Service Bill is passed, the Government will be in a position to state the proportion generally which it is proposed should he withdrawn from each of the various essential industries?
      Mr. BECK: I do not think that that is at all necessary. There is the closest cooperation between ourselves and these industries.
      Mr. MILLAR: Is it not the case that figures have been suggested to the various trade unions concerned, and is the House of Commons not entitled to know what those proposals are?
      Mr. BECK: I do not quite know to what the hon. Gentleman refers, but it would be most undesirable to bind people down to figures.
      Mr. MILLAR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer the point I put to him. I am asking what proportion of men it is intended to withdraw from these particular industries, and surely the House is entitled to know what essential industries are to be affected, and what are the proposals which have been made to the trade unions concerned?
      Mr. BECK: It is really pressing an unnecessary point. It has been fully explained to the industries and to the trade unions that industries will be combed out, the output of which admits of their being combed out, and most elaborate arrangements have been made for informing the trade unions as to the actual men and their ages and occupations.
      Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. Member give the House the arrangements made with the trade unions?
      Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether estimates have been made as to the proportion affecting the various industries, whether these estimates have been actually given to the various trade unions themselves, and whether the House is not to be put in possession of the figures given to the trade unions?
      Mr. BECK: That really shows how undesirable it is to raise so elaborate a 'question in this way. There is a Third Reading Debate, when these things can be adequately dealt with.
      Mr. MILLAR: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Third Reading.
      Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of National Service what steps he has taken to give effect to the policy laid down by him at the Aldwych Club on the 14th November, 1917, that in recruiting the State must first of all draw from the internal luxury trades and trades which are
      666
      continuing to provide unnecessary and wasteful articles; and whether he proposes to utilise for the Army and for work of national importance the man-power at present still absorbed in the luxury and non-essential trades specifically referred to by him at the Aldwych Club and at Plymouth as great organisations which existed to encourage waste before withdrawing men from the essential war industries of the country
      Mr. BECK: The policy of drawing men from the luxury trades is being steadily pursued, and since the speeches referred to in the question many thousands of men have been drawn from them for the Army. If the powers under Clause 2 of the Military Service Bill are obtained, many more will be recruited. Through the restriction of imports the supply of raw material to these trades is being cut down, and employés who in this way become surplus to the requirements of the industries are being found employment in work of national importance in large and steadily increasing numbers.
      Mr. MILLAR: Is it intended to withdraw men of military age from nonessential trades before the essential trades are affected?
      Mr. BECK: I have told my hon. Friend, in answer to question No. 42, that as large a proportion of the men required will be withdrawn from non-essential industries as is possible.
      Mr. KILEY: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what, if any, conclusion has been arrived at as to what is a non-essential trade?
      Mr. BECK: That raises a very wide point, which, I think again, is a matter for the Third Reading.

      CAMBRAI.
      Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister the nature of the inquiry in connection with the military operations at Cambrai, the composition of the Court, and whether its findings were reported direct to the War Cabinet or were subject to the revision of the Secretary of State for War or the Army Council?
      The CHANCELLOR of the Ex-CHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire on the 15th of January, except

      667
      to say that all the documents in connection with the inquiry were submitted to the War Cabinet. General Smuts, at their request, went through them, and his Report, which was approved by the Cabinet, was not subject to revision by Lord Derby or by any member of the Army Council. It therefore follows that the decision in connection with the publication of the results of this inquiry was taken by the War Cabinet, who are responsible for it.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very great deal of dissatisfaction is being expressed outside this House as to the withholding of the result of this inquiry from the public?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of that fact to a certain extent; but, as I stated in answer to a question previously, after carefully considering it, the War Cabinet have come to the conclusion that it is not in the public interest to give more information than has been given.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the dispatch from the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief describing the events at Cambrai be published?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that it will, but that point has not been considered, and I cannot say.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent the truth being told by soldiers who return on leave from Cambrai?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. Gentleman is judging by representations similar to those which reach me, it is not always the truth which is being told.
      Mr. HOGGE: I refer to statements by fellows who have been fighting.

      LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE PURCHASE).
      Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether the proposals for the State purchase of the liquor traffic will include the purchase of distilleries now engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes; whether it is proposed that after they have been purchased they should be used for the production of alcohol for industrial, surgical, and medical requirements; whether alcohol can be manufactured at Is. a gallon as compared with the present price of 3s. 6d. per gallon for petrol; and
      668
      whether, in view of the saving of money which may be effected, he will introduce at an early date a measure for the State purchase which will include the taking over of all the distilleries in the country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am unable to make any statement at present.

      GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EXPENDITURE).
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Prime Minister when the Committee of business men who are to inquire into the expenditure of Government Departments will be appointed; whether any new public building will be necessary for its accommodation; whether the members of this Committee are to receive any salaries; and what office staff is to be allowed for the work of the Committee?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committees set up by the Treasury in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure have been appointed, and the names of the members and their terms of reference are being circulated to-day in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for the Cleveland Division. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative. It is not anticipated that any office staff will be required, beyond a secretary to each Committee.—[See Written Answers this day.]

      LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND).
      Mr. J. O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, as a check on the land hunger in Ireland and the undue inflation of land values in that country, he will take steps to remove the block against the operations of the Estates Commissioners so as to enable them to take over land for distribution among those who are willing and eager to till the same; (2) whether his attention and that of the War Cabinet have been called to the inflation of the price of land in Ireland and the amount of letting rents of grass lands, in both cases often from five to ten times pre-war figures; and, having regard to natural requirements for food at reasonable prices, he and the War Cabinet have considered the advisability of restraining this inflation in the interests of economical food production
      Mr. DUKE: I have been asked to reply to these questions. The Department of Agriculture are taking steps with a view to increasing the food supply in Ireland during the coming year by increased tillage. Even if it were possible to take steps to enable the Estates Commissioners to distribute estates under the provisions of the Irish Land Acts, no arrangements could be made in time to increase the food supply this season. The Irish Government have no information as to the extent to which the price of land and the rent of grass land have risen since the beginning of the War, but there is little doubt that they have increased considerably, though probably not to the extent suggested in the question. I may remind the hon. Member that if powers were granted to control prices of land and rents in the hope of reducing prices of food-stuffs, this would involve the necessity of further control over the prices paid to farmers for their produce.
      Mr. O'CONNOR: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware from publications in the newspapers that the price of land in Ireland has gone up to the extent mentioned in the question; and does lie not think it is a matter of State policy that these lands should be sold at prices as will enable food to be produced at a reasonable rate? At the present prices in Ireland it is absolutely impossible to do that.
      Mr. DUKE: I have no control over prices fetched at auctions of Irish land, but I do not suppose a buyer pays more than he is likely to be remunerated.

      AERODROMES (EMPLOYMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS).
      Major BRASSEYasked the Prime Minister whether contractors employed in the erection of aerodromes in rural districts are taking men from agriculture to carry out their work; and whether, in view of the importance of increasing the food supply of the nation, he will take steps to prevent this
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR COUNCIL (Major Baird): I am aware that this is a matter in regard to which some complaints have been received, and I am considering whether it is possible to take any further measures to meet them.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the Government take steps to prevent agricultural labourers being induced to leave their employment?
      Major BAIRD: It is very difficult to secure that altogether. These cases do not occur under the direct employment of the Government but in the cases of contractors, and, it may be, sub-contractors. It is not altogether easy to stop it.

      AUSTRALIA (CONSCRIPTION REFERENDUM).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether it has been brought to his notice that the no-majority in the vote on Conscription in Australia has been due in some measure to the treatment on the part of the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the sentiment of the Australian people with regard to the interference of a State governor in the politics of the country and also by the desire of the Secretary of State to introduce a system of imperial federation which is obnoxious to Australians and by the antidemocratic spirit which he manifests in all his pronouncements; and whether, in view of the magnitude of the loss of man-power which has followed from the pursuit of such policies, he will reorganise the Cabinet so that the affairs of the Dominions may not be dealt with at the Colonial Office?
      Sir H. CRAIK: On a point of Order. Before the question is answered, may I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether it. is not the case that the proper object of questions in this House is to elicit information on matters of fact; and, if that. be so, whether it would not be possible, before such questions are printed upon the Order Paper, to eliminate from them assumptions which impute improper motives to the Secretary of State?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The object of questions is to enable facts to be elicited, and also the views of the Government with regard to present and future policy. Some hon. Members make use of the Question Paper not so much to obtain the opinion of the Government as to ventilate their own. That is not in accord with the proper principle of questions, I think the object of the hon. Member's question is correct. There is no harm in its object, although it appears

      671
      to have a good deal of embroidery about it which might be dispensed with. If we had had time on Friday before the House rose to correct the questions, I think there would have been some exercise of the pruning knife.
      Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. May J ask, as the point has been raised on my questions, may I have an opportunity of offering a defence of my questions, or rather a vindication?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. If the hon. Member has any point of Order to raise, I shall be glad to hear it.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no embroidery in the answer. The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is not this a case where a question is asked to obtain information of the very highest value, involving really the transference of nearly 500,000 men from one side to the other? Why are the Government authorities always like the Bourbons, who forget nothing and learn nothing?
      Mr. SPEAKER: There is too much embroidery in that question.

      WESTERN FRONT OPERATIONS.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a small Committee of competent men to review the main operations on the Western Front during the last year, with a view of ascertaining the nature of any cases in which the cost of men was out of proportion to the objects gained or the prospects of success; whether such a Committee, if appointed, will be given full powers of inquiry and be instructed to proceed to work without delay and eventually to recommend retirements irrespective of persons; and whether, in that case, the War Cabinet will proceed to give immediate effect to its findings?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. LYNCH: What is the policy of the Government? Is it to win this War by the most effective methods or to protect the reputation of the great?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That -does not arise on this particular question.

    MUNITIONS.

      MR. KUPFERBERG.
      Colonel FABERasked the Prime Minister who was responsible for the appointment of Mr. Kupferberg as head of a shell factory in this country?
      Sir W. EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The factory to which I assume my hon. and gallant Friend refers belongs to a private company. The Ministry of Munitions did not appoint Mr. Kupferberg to any post. Criminal proceedings are pending against Mr. Kupferberg.

      FRANCHISE (CONVICTED PERSONS).
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation depriving persons convicted by Courts of Law upon criminal charges of defrauding the Exchequer of large sums of taxes of the right to vote at elections of all kinds, so that they may not enjoy privileges denied to conscientious objectors?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The question of disfranchising persons convicted of misdemeanour was discussed in this House during the pas-age of the Representation of the People Bill, and has, I understand, been also discussed in another place. The Government cannot undertake to propose legislation on the subject.

      BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE STAFF.
      Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether members of the staff of the Board of Inland Revenue who resigned at the beginning of the War in order to join the Colours, and who now come under the Order that at the end of the War they will be reinstated, will be restored without delay to the staff in respect of pay and thus be on the same footing as those who joined later with the approval of the Board?
      Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): Steps are being taken to deal with this question generally, and I hope to issue directions to Departments in the course of a few days.

      NEW ZEALAND SOLDIERS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
      Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether R. D. Gray, a New Zealand soldier, conscientious objector, recently taken to France, a member of a religious sect, the Testimony of Jesus, whose tenets forbid participation in war, has been returned to this country or is he still in France; (2) whether a New Zealand soldier named Private H. Patton, No. 53863, has recently been sentenced in France to twenty-eight days' field punishment No. 1 for refusing to parade; and whether Private H. Patton has disobeyed military orders in New Zealand, England, and France on the grounds that he has a conscientious objection to military service; (3) whether Alexander Baxter, William Little, Daniel Maguire, Garth C. Ballantyne, L. J. Kirwan, H. Patton, T. P. Harland, and Mark Briggs, New Zealand soldiers, conscientious objectors, were taken to France from Sling Camp, Salisbury, about three months ago; whether they have refused to obey military orders in New Zealand, England, and France on the grounds that they claimed to have a conscientious objection to military service; and will he give particulars of all sentences passed on any of these men while in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: There are no records in the War Office of the men to whom my hon. Friend refers. I can add nothing on the subject generally to the answers already given on the 31st October to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds and to my hon. Friend himself on the 26th November.

      ANTI-TYPHOID VACCINATION.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to render anti-typhoid vaccination free from the usual temporary disturbances of health which reduce the efficiency of the soldier, he has studied the method introduced into the French Army following on the researches of Dr. Le Moignic, and which is known as lipo-vaccination; and whether, if not now actually employed in the British Army, this system will be adopted?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The method to which my hon. Friend refers is known to the British medical authorities, and is being investigated.

      TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, concerning men who are time-expired and have served overseas in combatant units since the War began, including service during the retreat from Mons and the first battle of Ypres, whether he will, or he will not, give them the option of transferring to Home service or to non-combatant units?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 22nd November.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, concerning men who enlisted in the early days of the War and are now approaching fifty years of age, who, therefore, have not been classified into any medical category, whether he will allow them to claim on their own application to be examined by a medical board with a view to their being transferred to units more suitable to their physical condition?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given to my hon. Friend on December 19th.

      SILVER BADGES.
      Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will define what class or classes of soldiers receive the silver badge on discharge from the Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the relevant Army Order.

      SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL.
      Sir A. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a man who has been badly wounded and placed in a hospital at a distance beyond the means of his nearest relatives, he can see his way to issue, say, two return tickets per week at a nominal charge, not exceeding 5s., for bonâ fide visits of his near relatives, to be issued through the local war pensions committee or the chief constables in order to prevent abuse?
      Mr. FORSTER: There is great difficulty in going beyond the existing concessions, but the transfer of soldiers to hospitals as near as is practicable to their homes is to be given still further consideration in the future.
      Sir A. YEO: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this question with a view to giving satisfaction to the wives and relatives of these poor men whom they cannot see?

      ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, BURS C OUGH.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has acceded to the request of the Army ordnance employés at the Burscough Army Ordnance Department that their application for an increase in wages arid war bonus should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee for decision; whether he is aware that this Department are paying wages, including war wages, of £1 10s. per week as compared with £2 6s. per week paid by some private firms at Burscough for similar work; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. FORSTER: This application has now been dealt with, and a temporary war increase of 5s. per week has been authorised with effect from the 1st December last. I am not aware of the £2 6s. rate to which the hon. Member refers, but, at the present hours of work, unskilled labourers in the War Department employ at Burscough will, as a rule, be earning about this amount per week.

      GUNWHARF AND HILSEA LINES, PORTSMOUTH (WAR BONUS).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why it took his Department six months to decide whether certain women engaged as sewing hands and temporarily employed as cooks at His Majesty's Gunwharf and Hilsea Lines, Portsmouth, were entitled to a war bonus of 2s. 6d. per week; and whether he has yet decided the date from which this award is to be granted?
      Mr. FORSTER: The delay was due to a misunderstanding of the instructions originally given. Fresh instructions have now been issued on the subject. The bonus dates from 13th August, 1917.

      EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central
      676
      Division) if he can state how many British prisoners of war have now reached Holland from Germany under The Hague agreement; what is the system pursued in choosing those who are to be sent; for how long the most recent batch had been prisoners; and how soon it is hoped that all officers and non-commissioned officers who have been prisoners for eighteen months and over will have reached Holland?
      Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed by the military authorities that up to the present 77 officers and 434 non-commissioned officers have reached Holland from Germany under The Hague agreement. The method of selection for transfer of these classes of prisoners is based upon priority of capture, irrespective of rank. The most recent of these transferred had been in captivity for over three years. In regard to the concluding part of the question, the military authorities are informed that there will be one more dispatch of prisoners in the present month, and five in February. If the transfers are continued on this scale, it is hoped that all of our officer and non-commissioned officer prisoners who have now been in captivity for eighteen months (and who are not eligible for repatriation and internment in Switzerland) will reach Holland in the course of the next few months. I would, however, remind my hon. and learned Friend that the realisation of this hope is dependent on the working of the agreement by the German authorities.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: What is the number of British prisoners of war who will come under the agreement?
      Mr. HOPE: I am afraid I have not that in my mind. I must ask for notice.
      General Sir I. PHILIPPS: Can a list be obtained of the men who arc being sent to Switzerland and Holland and to this country, because, so far, we have not been able to get it?
      Mr. HOPE: I will consult the War Office about it?
      Sir C. HENRY: Are there any who have been interned at Ruhleben?
      Mr. HOPE: It includes only prisoners of war, and those interned at Ruhleben, far, who have not gone to Holland. Some have come straight home, but these figures refer only to combatants.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Is the selection of prisoners sent from Holland made by the German authorities or have we any voice in the matter at all?
      Mr. HOPE: The lists are in order of priority of capture. These lists, I understand, are checked in Holland by representatives on both sides.

      COAL MINES (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the short supply and dearness of coal in Ireland, the Government will connect the Irish coal mines with the main lines to enable the utilisation of Irish coal so urgently required by the people?
      Mr. DUKE: A line of railway from Athy to Wolfhill is nearing completion, and I hope that the construction of a short railway extension to serve the Arigna mines may be found practicable.

      COLD STORAGE DEPOTS, NEWRY.
      Mr. MOONEYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the announcement that the Treasury has made a Grant of £750,000 for the provision of additional cold storage space; if he can state whether any portion of this Grant is to be expended in Ireland; and, if so, if he will take steps to see that the claims of the port of Newry as a suitable place for the erection of a cold storage depot will be considered?
      Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the answer to the second part is in the negative. If a suitable scheme for cold storage accommodation at Newry is put forward, the advisability of granting a loan for its erection will be considered.

      Deputy Lieutenants (Property Qualifications).
      Mr. HINDSasked the Prime Minister how soon it is proposed to introduce the Bill to do away with the property qualifications of deputy lieutenants of counties?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: At the earliest convenient opportunity.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Next Session?
      Mr. HOGGE: After the War!

      Electricity Production (Ireland).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary whether he can arrange that a survey may be made of the water power in Ireland to be applied to the production of electricity?
      Mr. DUKE: I dealt with this matter in an answer to the hon. Member for the Dublin a Harbour Division on the 1st November, to which I would refer the hon. Member. I would acid that the Board of Work; has at its disposal complete information as to the Irish waterways.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is this a case where complete data are available to show whether the scheme is feasible?
      Mr. DUKE: There are complete data, no doubt.

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to,—
      Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Bill, without Amendment.

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question -about business—whether the Government intend to proceed with the Military Service Bill in the absence of Labour Members at Nottingham, and, in view of the unsettled conditions of certain trade unions, whether he will postpone the Committee stage?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The point of this question was brought to my notice last week and was considered by the Government, but, much as we regret the necessity:for the absence of some Labour Members, we do not think it possible to postpone the consideration of this Bill for a whole week. I would remind the House that the Christmas Recess was shortened precisely in order that this Bill might proceed without delay, and, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, its pressing urgency is the greatest justification for the Bill. I may add, also—for I do not wish the House to consider that the Government do not -desire to give every facility—that I understand the formal Conference only meets on Wednesday. We had intended to take the Committee stage to-morrow, but, in order, as we thought, to make it possible that some of the Labour representatives might be present, we put it down for to-day. In these circumstances, I feel sure the House will agree with me that the Government would not be justified in delaying:the proceedings.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Military Service Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Repeal of s. 3 (3) of 5 and 6 Geo. V., c. 104.)
    Sub-section (3) of Section three of the Military Service Act, 1916, as amended by Section six of the Military Service Act 1916 (Session 2), is hereby repealed, and accordingly the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, shall, as respects any man
    696
    whose certificate of exemption for any reason ceases or has ceased (whether before or after the passing of this Act) to be in force, have effect as though the provisions repealed by this Section were not included in those Acts.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "or has ceased (whether before or after the passing of this Act)."
    I regret that the early hour at which the House adjourned on Friday precluded myself and other hon. Members from putting on the Notice Paper several Amendments, some of them of real importance, and we have handed in some manuscript Amendments. They do not cover many points, and I do not think it will be greatly to the inconvenience of the House if we deal with them as they arise. The object of the Amendment I propose is to do away with the retrospective character of the Clause. I think it is an Amendment which might very well be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not, however, so important as other Amendments which follow. We should be glad to know at this, the earliest opportunity, whether he is disposed to consider favourably any suggestions we have to make, and especially with regard to the very stringent powers which are being given in this Bill. This Bill in many ways makes the Director of National Service an absolute dictator over the lives and liberties of men, and I hope that he will indicate that he is willing to consider our Amendments in a very reasonable spirit.
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I can assure the Committee that I shall be only too pleased to consider any Amendment which has for its purpose making it more easy to obtain men for the Army within the very limited time during which it is necessary to obtain them. Such an Amendment as that which is now proposed means that we should have the continuation of two months' delay before any benefit is derived under this Clause. There are at the present time a considerable number of men whose continuance in civil life is deemed not to be in the national interests, because of the nature of their occupation, whose certificates of exemption have been cancelled and whose automatic extension of two months is now running. There does not appear to be any hardship on this military class of men that they should be treated in the same way as the overwhelming majority

    697
    of their fellow citizens, particularly as the leaving certificate, which made a provision for this two months' automatic exemption, has ceased to be. The cause having gone, it does not appear necessary that there should be a consequential safeguard. Therefore, it seems to me most undesirable that this Amendment should be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "but any man whose liability to military service arises under this Section shall have the right to appeal to a tribunal."
    I am not quite sure whether this is not actually the intention according to the drafting of the Bill, but I think it ought to be made quite clear. It is quite obvious that cases may arise where a man has had exemption granted to him because he is a munition worker, and on that ground only. The Director of National Service is now entitled to take that exemption away and to send him into the Army, but, in the meantime, the man may have become the sole support of a father and a mother, or orphan children, say, a brother or a sister. The claim for exemption on those grounds may have arisen since he had his exemption granted on the ground of his occupation. His health may have broken down, or he may have had an accident, or he may have developed an internal disease, or other circumstances may have arisen. That man would undoubtedly have got exemption from the tribunal in the first case, apart from his employment. I want to know whether the man in this case will now have the right to appeal to the tribunal? I think these words are necessary, and I am sure that the case I have put forward will appeal to hon. Members as fair and straightforward. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate case.
    The CHAIRMAN: I had doubts about this Amendment, whether it is in any way necessary, but I thought the hon. Member was entitled to bring it before the Committee on the point of its legal interpretation.
    Sir A. GEDDES: This Amendment is not in any way necessary. It is already provided by Regulations made by Order in Council that any rights which the hon. Member wishes to secure when a certifi-
    698
    cate of exemption is cancelled are secured without any Amendment of this nature.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. MILLAR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement just made does not require to be modified to this extent, that the opportunity of appearing before a tribunal will be limited to such grounds as conscientious objection and financial hardship, and that in respect of occupational grounds no opportunity will be afforded to any person whose certificate of exemption is cancelled to apply to a tribunal afterwards?
    Mr. MORRELL: As the law now stands. a man has a right of appeal to tribunals. That. the right hon. Gentleman says, is. secured to him by' Order in Council. But it is also secured to him by Statute. What I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that in future the man will no longer have a right to a legal appeal to a tribunal, but will merely have a right of appeal under an Order in Council, which may be withdrawn at any moment without reference to this House. Is that the position or not? I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how far the individual is secured in his right of appeal to a tribunal when this Bill passes into law?
    Sir· HERBERT NIELD: It is unfortunate that the House should have arisen. at such a time on Friday as to prevent us patting down a series of Amendments which might have a considerable effect. One of the evil results of what has happened is that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset, which he has put in at the conclusion of Clause 1, seems to me to be better made in Clause 2, and I have got an Amendment down for the purpose of safeguarding: this very point. I have considered very carefully what would, be the effect, unless we are careful to preserve the men who are now having their certificates taken away, and are losing the protection which they have hitherto enjoyed, in relation to other heads of claim under which they might have had a right of appeal if no change had been made. In most of the cases the protection was afforded by Government Department certificates. A relatively small proportion will be those of occupational certificates of exemption from a tribunal. I do not know what the proportion will be, but

    699
    I have no doubt that a very great preponderance of men will be got under this Bill, when it becomes an Act—many more than can possibly be the case by the cancellation of tribunal certificates granted on the grounds of occupation. That means that the men who have been so protected have still the right of appeal to the tribunal. The Order in Council to which my right hon. Friend referred is in general terms, and it prescribes that the application should be made in a definite time. Are we to regard that as the time from the withdrawal of the certificate? It might have been withdrawn, and they would have had two months. As I understand, the operation of this first Section is that this two months is reduced to fourteen days. Whether it is right that an Amendment should come in here, or in the first paragraph of Clause 2, it is necessary to avoid all misgivings and difficulties, which have arisen all over the country, owing to promises made in this House and outside by members of the Government and by indecisive action in this House, and a totally contrary interpretation by officials.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that we had better clear up this point. The hon. and learned Member has submitted an Amendment to Clause 2. I should tell the Committee that it is in order, and that I shall call it when we reach it. The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that the cancelling of exemptions on occupational grounds does not take away from the person so affected his claim on other grounds. The question here is merely whether there is under Clause 1 any additional disability which requires a provision of that kind to be inserted now, and I think that if the point is cleared up perhaps the hon. Member for North Somerset would not press his Amendment, and that the matter would come up in its effective place on Clause 2.
    Mr. KING: I have not seen the Amendment of my lion. Friend, but I gather from what he says that it includes my point and more than my point, and therefore I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. MORRELL: Before this Amendment is withdrawn I want to be quite clear. Is it the intention to allow to the individual a right of appeal on other grounds? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to secure this by Statute, or does he intend
    700
    that we shall rely entirely upon the Order in Council, which may be revoked at any moment? If he intends to do it, why riot do it by Statute? Are the Government going to do this by legislation or leave it entirely to the Executive Government to do what they like under Order in Council?
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: It would facilitate matters if the Minister for National Service would make clear what is the position of the tribunals. It is not made clear in the Bill what is the position of the employer who wants to apply for some of his men. There might be a small employer, some of whose men are being removed, and he may think it necessary to retain these men in order properly to conduct his business. If he employs a man who had not any special certificate, he can go to the tribunal. It ought to be made clear, not only to the House, but to the whole country, if that right is still to continue.
    Mr. KILEY: As chairman of a local tribunal, I would like to put this point: A man has come before us on two grounds—one occupational and one personal. We have considered the two, and decided that the personal ground was not a strong one, but that the occupational ground was one on which we should give exemption. Therefore we refused on the personal ground. That man has no right to come before us again on that ground, but possibly circumstances have changed in the two years since we have refused him, and he can only come before us again on a new matter; but if he receives a calling-up paper from the recruiting officer, that debars us from hearing his case.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is a subsequent Amendment which I have on Clause 2.
    Mr. MORRELL: The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, would explain what he meant by saying that the individual would be protected by an Order in Council?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think that the point is quite clear. Clause 1 is dealing with the automatic extension of exemptions which was introduced to cover conditions in force in connection with the certificates. The result of Clause 1 is to cancel that automatic extension without modifying in any way the rights of the individual which are conferred by Statute, Section 3 of the Military Service Acts, 1916, where the rights are conferred upon the individual who is affected by such cancellation, and

    701
    the matter of exercising those rights is at present defined by statutory Regulations made under the Act by Order in Council. That is the point about this particular Clause which we are considering at present, that there is no change whatever in the individual's rights at the end of his exemption. There is merely a change in the date on which that exemption ends. So there is no subtraction from the protection which the individual has on the:grounds of personal hardship, domestic reasons, conscientious objections, or anything of that sort. No right which he has on those grounds is subtracted from. It is merely in the automatic extension in the exemption which was afforded in order that we might have the period of six weeks which existed in connection with the leaving certificate. Therefore I cannot see that the point which has been raised really should come up in connection with this particular Clause, because there is no change whatever with regard to those points with which I understand the hon. Member for North Somerset is dealing.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Director-General of National Service to Withdraw Exemptions.)
    (1) The Director-General of National Service may at any time by Order withdraw any certificate of exemption from military service to which this Section applies as from such date, not being less than fourteen clays after the date of the Order, as may be specified in the Order, and as from that date any certificate to which the Order applies shall cease to be in force.
    (2) This Section applies to any certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, whether granted before or after the passing of this Act, and whether granted by a tribunal or by or under the authority of a Government Department, where the certificate was granted on occupational grounds, and also applies to any certificate So granted on such grounds to a man who has voluntarily attested, notwithstanding that the certificate has not Statutory force.
    (3) An Order under this Section may be made applicable either to individual certificates, or to certificates granted to any class or body of men specified in the Order (whether or not dependent on the obtain-
    702
    ing by those men of individual certificates) and as respects any class or body of men may be made applicable only to men falling within such limits of age or fulfilling such other conditions as may be specified in the Order, and may contain such exceptions and supplemental provisions as the Director-General thinks fit.
    An Order under this Section may be revoked, extended, or varied, by a further Order of the Director-General, as occasion requires.
    (4) Where and so long as an Order under this Section is in force, then

    (a) no application shall be entertained for the grant of a certificate, and no certificate shall be granted, where the certificate, if it had been operative at the time at which the Order was made, would have come within the terms of the Order; and

    (b) no application shall be made by or in respect of a man whose certificate comes within the terms of the Order for the renewal of the certificate except on grounds which are not occupational, or for the grant of any certificate on occupational grounds.

    (5) For the purposes of this Section a certificate shall be deemed to have been granted on occupational grounds which was granted wholly or partly on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Military Service Act, 1916, or (in the case of voluntarily attested men) on any similar grounds or which in either case was granted by or under the authority of any Government Department; and if any question arises whether a certificate was granted on occupational grounds, the question shall be referred to the Director-General, whose decision thereon shall be final.
    The. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Blackpool has just handed in an Amendment to leave out the words, "Director-General of National Service," in order to insert the words "Government Department." That would seem merely to leave the law as it stands.
    Colonel ASHLEY: No; the tribunals would come under that revision. If you would just allow me to move it I will make it clear.
    The CHAIRMAN: All through this Clause we have the Director-General of National Service, who may do certain things.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The Bill suggests the Director-General of National Service. There is an alternative method which would substitute in every case the Government Department, which would deal even with the exemption granted by the tribunals.
    The CHAIRMAN: Strictly speaking, I ought to have the consequential Amendments to the rest of the Clause. I will ask the hon. Member to move his Amendment.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Director-General of National Service," and to insert instead thereof the words "Government Department."
    I have no wish to obstruct the passing of this Bill. The very last thing which I would wish to do is to prevent men being brought into our Army in this very grave national crisis. But I object strongly to giving one super-Government Department power to override all other Government Departments who may reasonably be expected to know much more about their own affairs than any newly-created institution such as that which has just migrated to a hotel in Victoria Street. We have seen the evil effects of allowing the Food Controller to override the Board of Agriculture in the matter of food. The food conditions in the country at the present moment are in a most unsatisfactory state. You have only got to open the newspapers to glean but a tithe of what is going on. As a matter of fact we know that very much more is going on than what appears in the newspapers. A most illuminating sentence appeared in an article in the "Times," with regard to the overriding of one Government Department by another, and the powers conferred upon the Food Controller. This is the sentence:
    "The blame, it is only fair to say, does not entirely lie with the Food Controller, for the Government are responsible for conferring upon him powers that enable him to deal as he chooses with the Department charged with the encouragement and direction of production. The initial error, therefore, has to be laid at the door of the Government in that they undervalued the importance of providing the articles that were to he controlled."
    What I object to is the raising of another Government Department, whose business will be entirely the get' ting of men, over the Board of Agriculture or the Ministry of Munitions, or other Government Departments. The very essence of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of
    704
    National Service presides is to get men. That is his job, and I do not blame him for getting every man lie can. That is what he is there for. But we have to take a broad view of this matter. We must not think only of the getting of men, though that is a great and important matter, bat we must also equally think of other essential matters, the food of the people, the provision of munitions, and so forth. I should like a plain statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether some modification will be made in this respect, whereby there shall be some protection given to the man engaged in National Service, whether it be food production, coal production, or munitions production. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, through his regional officers, should have power to take anybody at any time just as he wishes. According to the proposal now before the Committee, what protection has the ordinary man who is now engaged in a mine, or in agriculture, against error'? Suppose, through an error, he is, called up under this Act by the National Service Department, what has he got to protect him? Previously, he possibly had a tribunal or the agricultural committee to which he could go for protection, but under this proposal he has absolutely no. protection at all.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the present arrangements under the agricultural committee are satisfactory?
    Colonel ASHLEY: For getting men or for getting food?
    Mr. BECK: For protecting the men.
    Colonel ASHLEY: No; but in connection with recruiting we have heard of very numerous mistakes made by the recruiting officer, and I submit that the present proposal is worse still, because any little protection which is given at the present moment might be swept away. The hon. Gentleman's interruption therefore is really not to the point, my point being that I object absolutely to handing over the liberties of men to the uncontrolled activities of a single Government Department which is not concerned with any particular branch of industry in which those men are doing National Service. After all, in the case of agriculture, there is a Board of Agriculture.

    705
    whose business it is to see after the men who are engaged in food production, and if an error is made a man can at any rate try to get to the particular Government Department which deals with his particular industry in which he is engaged. Under this Bill, unless a man gets into communication with his local Member of Parliament, there is not the slightest hope that he will have any redress of any injustice which may, even by inadvertence, be done to him. Perhaps through ignorance the wrong man might be called up, and yet there would be no possibility of redress. Supposing the recruiting officer came to my county of Hampshire and said that he must have 1,000 men from agriculture. Though it might be necessary that he should have that number of men, yet I most absolutely object to a single Government Department, that has no knowledge of agriculture and its needs, coming down and overriding the Board of Agriculture, who might say that the retention of the men was necessary. I do not say that the Amendment which I propose is the best solution which could be offered, but I have put it on the Paper to give effect to my very strong protest against handing over to a body of men, well-meaning and probably able, uncontrolled power to call up 450,000 men, and not allow the other Government Departments, or anybody else, to say with regard to food production, munitions, shipbuilding, or other industries the men proposed to be taken were necessary to carry those industries on. I ask the House of Commons to bring its mind to the point of whether there is not some other and better solution of what, I agree, is a difficult problem, than allowing the right hon. Gentleman to have this uncontrolled power.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure what Department the hon. Gentleman means.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Nor am I.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The proceedings would have to be under the Military Service Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister would grant the certificates, but that would not be the effect of this Amendment. However, we will see about it.
    Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I should like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, I believe, does not want to
    706
    obstruct the passage of this Bill, that his Amendment goes right to the root of the Bill. I have not had a talk with hint in regard to it, but I would point out that the object of the Bill is to avoid Government Departments being able to hide men. This measure gives power to the Minister of National Service to get the men, and I think the Amendment ought not to be considered by the Committee, because there is no doubt that it actually knocks out the whole principle of the Bill. I do hope my right hon. Friend will stick to his guns.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I think my hon. Friend (Colonel Ashley) perhaps does not quite understand what this Bill is for. We have had countless cases of men being exempted by Government Departments and in other ways, and this has led to enormous difficulty. It is quite impossible that any Government Department, whose interest lies in some sort of production, food, munitions, or whatever it may be, should have the power to investigate cases for exemption, for the result would be that if any of these Government Departments had the power to exempt, the work of exemption would be delegated. to quite subordinate officials. The whole object of the Cabinet in creating the National Service Department, and the whole object of this Bill, is to get the opinion of a body of men who have nothing else to do than study the manpower position. It is quite wrong of any hon. Member to think that the Ministry of National Service sits in its hotel in Victoria Street and that it has no consultation with any other Government Department. We are in the closest touch at all times with all Government Departments, and there is no Department of the Government which is in closer touch with other Government Departments than the Department over which I preside. The power which is proposed to be given to the Director-General of National Service will only be exercised after full consultation as to any step which is to be taken. But it is necessary that there should be some official in whose name the Order can be made for cancellation of exemption. It can only be issued by the Ministry of National Service, and it is a power in connection with recruiting that has been transferred from the Army Council to the Director-General of National Service and it therefore follows that the Director-General of National Service should be

    707
    solely responsible for the issue of these orders. You cannot have half-a-dozen authorities issuing orders. The strings of control over man-power must be brought into one Department, which is that of the Ministry of National Service, working in close touch with other Government Departments. It is quite impossible to accept the Amendment put forward.
    Colonel ASHLEY: What step is a man to take who is called up? Is he to get no redress at all, no security?
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend goes a little too far. So far as I remember, when we discussed the original Bill there was considerable objection taken by some of us to the power then granted to Departments of exempting certain people, and this Amendment rather looks as if we were going to take a retrograde step and go back to that part of the Bill which was certainly not right. On the other hand. I think something ought to be done, though perhaps not in this particular direction. My recollection of the original Bill is that some of us, certainly I, myself, proposed that the exemption should be settled by this House; that everybody should be taken except certain people that it was not then possible to settle by this House. I myself am a great believer in Parliament, and with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman I do not care that anybody should sit in an hotel, or wherever it is, and act as dictator over the whole country, without any appeal, and to do just whatever he likes, and nobody dare say a word. I do not call that democracy, or at any rate it is not the right kind of democracy. I would suggest that there are one or two claims which ought to be considered by taking away some of the power of the right hon. Gentleman to get men. That of Agriculture is one, but I do not discuss that now, as I have an Amendment upon the Paper, and if I discussed it now I might be prevented from doing so later. I think the direction in which we should go is to make exemption in the case of one or two trades, and that Parliament should particularise those trades of which I am sure agriculture is one.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley) in his desire to limit the power
    708
    conferred on the Minister of National Service by this Bill. As it stands we are giving a blank cheque to that Minister to do as he pleases with the man-power of this country irrespective of the wishes of any Department or of the wishes of the tribunals, which in many cases have acted quite fairly in the national interests in this matter. We have no knowledge of the principles on which he is going to act. I doubt whether the present Amendment can be accepted. I agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), whom we welcome as a champion of democracy, that the original Bill was probably faulty on this matter, and that some of the Members who opposed the attitude of the Government at that time were well advised. At the same time I think we should have some provision safeguarding our rights over the principles on which these powers are to be exercised. I have handed in an Amendment in which I suggest that the Regulations should be laid before Parliament.
    Major HAMILTON: I think that the Amendment proposed is one which the Committee could not consider for a moment. We must realise that, after all,. the War Cabinet are governing the country, and the House of Commons interferes with the War Cabinet very little. If there is any section of the community, such as agricultural workers, who are really more important at their work than in the Army, then the War Cabinet under pressure from this House would exempt. those men. To shipbuilders exactly the same thing applies. If those men are more necessary, in order to win the War, engaged in the building of ships, then the War Cabinet would exempt them, and the Minister of National Service is merely acting as the mouthpiece of the War Cabinet in calling up all men whether for shipbuilding or agriculture or for the Army. He has got to distribute the whole man-power. In my short experience in the National Service Department I thought that what that Department wanted was exactly what this Bill gives it, a little more strength, a little more power, a little more possibility of being able to dictate, subject to the War Cabinet's ruling on general principles, as to whether the men were required. I do hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn. I am sure my hon. and gallont Friend who proposed it is as keen as I am to see that the whole matter is put on a sound business basis as it can be. This Bill gives to one

    709
    Government Department the authority to say to other Government Departments, after studying the whole aspect of affairs, "We think you have got men who could be better employed elsewhere, and we propose to take them away from you." If the Ministry said that to the War Office, in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is specially interested, I have no doubt the War Office would be able to approach the War Cabinet and to say, "We cannot spare these men whom the National Service Department are trying to take away from us," and the War Cabinet would then give a ruling. It is the tribunal in large sections of that sort.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I do not agree with the Amendment that has been moved, although I think I understand what the hon. and gallant Gentleman desires to arrive at. Personally I sympathise with the view already expressed that the one thing we do not desire in this Bill is to give the Departments power of exemption. Those who have had experience during the past few years of some Departments, have never left them without feeling that the comb should be rather thoroughly put through them. What I take it that the hon. Member desires is that there should be some power between the arbitrary dictum of the Director of National Service and the general public in exceptional cases. I have had knowledge of a very exceptional case from a technical institute, and I do not know at present how those concerned would be able to put their case before anybody. It is the case of a man who has been engaged in instructing munition workers. Despite several advertisements, they have been unable to get anyone to fill his place with the necessary technical knowledge and skill. You would lose more than you would gain by taking that one man into the Army. I fully agree with the spirit of this Bill in getting in the men that ought to be got into the Army. We are all making sacrifices amongst our own relatives, and we are all aware of the young men who have been shielded from being put into the Army, as they ought to have been put. I would ask the Government seriously to consider whether they could not give us some means whereby in exceptional cases where it could be demonstrated that for the good of the community it would be ill advised to take exceptional men, some opportunity would be given of putting the case before the Director-General of National Service.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not wish to stop the progress of the Bill, but this shows the disadvantage of not having Amendments on the Paper. I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, so that the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) may be able to move his.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "may" ["may at any time"], to insert the words, "in accordance with Regulations previously laid before Parliament."
    The effect of this would be to place a small and limited restriction upon the arbitrary powers which this Clause confers on the Director of National Service. I think that the hon. Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley) made out a strong case against constituting the head of any Department as dictator in any sphere of administration or in any sphere of national life. The illustration which he has given from the extraordinary situation which we have now reached in regard to food, should put the House on its guard against allowing similar dictatorial powers to be used by the head of any other Department. It may be true that Government Departments in the past have abused their powers and that subordinate officials in those Departments have been enabled to obtain exemption for people in whom they were interested, but that is no sound reason for conferring similar power and giving a monopoly of it to another Department, where you may equally find subordinate officials exercising their powers by the same methods of favouritism. I quite agree that this Amendment does not cover the v hole ground, but I believe it is of great importance that the Regulations should be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament will be informed of the principles on which the Minister acts. I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite who said that this was really a matter fur the War Cabinet. I think our experience of the working of the War Cabinet, more particularly in relation to the taking of decisions on this subject, ought to prevent us from giving any such power to that body. We know already that the greater part of the muddle on man-power has been due to the incapacity of the War Cabinet to take decisions. Why did the old Department of National Service fall? It

    711
    failed because the War Cabinet was unable to take decisions to give that Department power.
    Major HAMILTON: It is giving it now.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Let us refer the matter still to the War Cabinet," which blundered so badly in the past. It is perfectly true that this Bill in terms gives it to the Director of National Service, but if a Department feels aggrieved it will send the question to the War Cabinet, a body which has not been too prompt in its decisions in the past. Everybody knows the history of the working of the War Cabinet in regard to shipbuilding. Shipbuilders have made demands for more men six months ago, but no definite answer has yet been given. I say that it is time that Parliament should deal with this matter, and I do not believe that this proposal in the Bill is a sufficient assertion of the power of Parliament. I believe that if the House of Commons sets its mind to these matters it is in a better position to lay down principles for the Minister of National Service than any Government Department or any War Cabinet. The present War Cabinet is not a good body to decide matters of this kind. The old Cabinet was, because on the old Cabinet were the representatives of the various Departments, and Ministers were in a position to state their point of view and to argue it. The system under the present War Cabinet is that heads of Departments come up like clerks before them and make reports to them, and then this body of supermen come to a decision without proper argument or statement of the case. That is a bad system, and has been proved to be so in working. Therefore, I think that the new Director of National Service should be called upon to lay down the principles on which he proposes to act in Regulations to be laid before Parliament.
    The Director of National Service has had many interviews with trade unions and labour organisations; he has told those organisations the principles on which he is going to act, and facts and figures have been given to those deputations which have been denied afterwards to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) endeavoured on the Second Reading to obtain from the Prime Minister the facts which were given to the trade unions, but
    712
    the Prime Minister rode off with a piece of camouflage which delighted an after-dinner audience here. The House of Commons should insist that it is not going to be treated in that way. What I ask now is not those figures, but a statement of the principles on which the Minister is going to act, similar to what he has given to the trade unions, because, after all, the responsibility for this measure does not rest on the trade unions. The responsibility for this measure rests upon the House of Commons—upon the two Houses of Parliament. If the House of Commons is to be worse informed than the trade unions, and if the House of Commons is going to submit to that, then the sooner it gives up its job the better. The object of this Amendment is to secure that whenever the Director of National Service puts into operation the powers conferred by this Clause he shall lay the Regulations on which he is going to act on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, so that Parliament will be able to examine those principles.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The point very properly raised by my hon. and learned Friend is one of great importance. I think we are entitled to have from the Government, now and in this Committee stage, clearly and distinctly their intentions as to the methods they propose to adopt in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. As has been pointed out, Parliament itself gives them absolute power to deal with any exemptions granted, either by tribunals or by Government Departments, on occupational grounds, and I should like to point out to hon. Members that if they read through this Bill they will find that under its terms the Director-General of National Service is to exercise his power with the most absolute discretion. For example, after fourteen days, the Order, whatever form it may take, will have effect without any possibility of appeal. It will affect individual certificates as well as class certificates, and any provisions that may be inserted with regard to the body to be called up. The conditions upon which the Order is to take effect may be revoked, extended, or varied, and such further Orders may be issued by the Director-General as may be required. He is made the authority even to construe the Act of Parliament in regard to occupational grounds. I hope the Lord Advocate will note that, and that he will agree that that matter would be more properly dealt

    713
    with by a Court than by the Director-General, as it might raise very important questions of construction.
    My object is not to delay or defeat the purposes of this Bill, as I think it is a thoroughly necessary Bill under the circumstances, but I should like very much indeed, in supporting this Amendment, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the House of Commons into his confidence in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister has taken the trade unions and the labour organisations into his confidence. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, informed this House that conferences would be held with and explanations given in considerable detail to the trade unions as to the precise way in which the Government. proposals will affect each industry, and lie added that he had received from the representatives of the trade unions material assistance on many points of detail. I can assure him he will also receive assistance from Members of the House of Commons, who represent large industrial constituencies, if he will extend to them the same frankness. Speaking as I do as the representative of a large industrial constituency, which has selected me to watch its interests here, I am quite as much entitled to know what are the conditions under which industrial workers are to be combed out from the various industries as are the representatives of the trades unions. It is not fair to the House and to the Committee not to give us the fullest information now as to what the intentions of the Government are. Let me suggest one or two points which really do concern us. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that he is going to deal with the essential industries under this Bill. But I gather from speeches he has made elsewhere that his personal idea has always been to deal with the non-essential industries until the last man has been obtained. If I remember rightly, at the Aldwych Club the right hon. Gentleman said it seemed to him that his first duty was thus to deal with the non-essential industries.
    Mr. BECK: And I said so again to-day, in answer to a question.
    Mr. MILLAR: We are handing over to the Director-General of National Service absolute power to deal with all trades, including the essential trades, and we want to know definitely what are the non-essential trades he has been talking about.
    The. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we must not enter into a discussion on administrative points. The object of the Amendments is to lay it down that the proposed powers shall only be exercised under a scheme previously laid before Parliament. The point raised by the hon. Member is one for the Second Reading or Third Reading stage, but it is not proper in Committee.
    Mr. MILLAR: Am I not entitled, under the Amendment, to ask that the Director-General of National Service shall indicate the methods to be adopted? Am I not entitled to ask him whether the methods to be adopted and the Regulations to be issued are to refer to particular trades, and, if so, which trades?
    The CHAIRMAN: Not to which trades. Surely that would be an administrative question. The hon. Member is entitled to ask whether these powers will be in accordance with any scheme or design, or whether they will be exercised by haphazard, and that I take it is the object of the present Amendment. That object is to ensure that the powers shall be exercised in accordance with some scheme within the knowledge of Parliament.
    Mr. MILLAR: May I point out that in Sub-section (3) Section 2 reference is made to Orders which may be granted with respect to any class or body of men occupied in particular industries. If that be so may Regulations not be required to apply to particular industries? There is the typical instance of a Government Department which may have granted a number of exemptions to men engaged in mining or some other essential industry, and therefore these Regulations would be required for that particular industry or class.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would not arise out of the particular Regulations. The hon. Member's point it appears to me is a purely administrative one. He is dealing now simply with executive power.
    Mr. MILLAR: I will endeavour to keep my remarks to the point you have indicated, but I should like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us now a full and frank statement as to the industries he has in his mind, and as to the proportion which he desires to obtain from them so that we each and all of us in this House who represent industrial districts may be in a position to understand what

    715
    the situation is in our own constituencies from which we have many appeals and communications in regard to this particular Bill. We hold that we should not be left in the dark as to the intentions of the Government. There is another point of equal importance and that is the position of the tribunals under this Bill. As it stands the Bill gives absolute power to the Director-General and to his officials to withdraw certificates of exemption granted by tribunals on occupational grounds. It is provided that—
    "No application shall be entertained for the grant of a certificate and no certificate shall be granted where the certificate, if it had been operative at the time at which the Order was made. would have come within the terms of the order."
    And later on it is further provided that—
    "No application shall be made by or in respect of a man whose certificate comes within the terms of the Order for the renewal of the certificate except on grounds which are not occupational or for the grant of any certificate on occupational grounds."
    The CHAIRMAN: These are, I think, all of them subject matters of subsequent Amendments. The hon. Member really must not try to review the whole Clause on the present Amendment.
    Mr. MILLAR: I have no desire whatever to prolong the Debate on this particular Amendment. I take it that such Regulations as may be issued will certainly have reference to the position of the tribunals; otherwise I do not see how it can be made perfectly clear what the position of the tribunals will be at a later period. The intention of my hon. and learned Friend in moving his Amendment was to draw attention to the position of the tribunals as well as to the position of the Government Departments under the Regulations which may be issued—
    Mr. PRINGLE: I was going to raise that later.
    Mr. MILLAR:I do not want to prolong the Debate on this point, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the view which has been submitted to him, and to state to the Committee on the present Amendment in perfectly clear terms what his intentions are. Otherwise it may be necessary for the House to limit the Bill
    716
    in many particulars for the future. Personally, I shall feel it necessary to support the Amendment unless we do get some statement from the right hon. Gentleman now which will indicate the extent to which the powers which he proposes to take are to be exercised, and the extent to which he is going to override both the tribunals and the other Government Departments.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend proposes that the absolute power which this Bill intends to entrust to the Director of National Service should be in some degree limited, and that that power shall be exercised subject to obligations and regulations to be laid before Parliament. I submit to you, Sir, that in a sense this does raise the whole question of the powers proposed to be conferred under this Clause, and it is rather difficult to discuss it except from that point of view. While, of course, avoiding any detailed consideration of particular points, or asking for any statement of administrative detail, I venture to submit it will be necessary for the Committee, if it is to decide whether or not Regulations shall be required to be laid on the Table of the House as to the method of exercising these powers, to examine what is the nature of the power itself, and whether it is safe in the interests, say, of a single individual or of a class to pass this Clause, which would vest unqualified authority in the Director-General of National Service, sitting without any advisory council and enabling him, on his own fiat, to declare precisely what men are to be called up from the various trades and occupations of the country. The tribunals are no longer to have a voice in the matter so far as occupational exemptions are concerned. Take the case of a great industry such as the mining industry.
    When I had the honour to be at the Home Office we had to deal with the exemption of miners, and we set up Colliery Courts all over the country to decide whether exemptions should be allowed to this man or that. These Colliery Courts were composed of representative mine-owners and of the men and were presided over by inspectors under the Home Office. As I understand it, they are now to be put on one side from the occupational aspect of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman, sitting in a room, is to have sole despotic authority over all these men. I doubt

    717
    whether any Legislature in any country at any time has ever placed in the hands of one man such unlimited authority over the lives and fortunes of millions of his fellow subjects. The Bill deals with two classes of exemptions which are now granted on grounds of occupation—those granted by Government Departments and those by tribunals. With regard to the Department, there, indeed, we are really replacing, so far as the ultimate authority is concerned, one Minister by another. But with respect to the tribunals, a question of principle arises. I had a part in the conduct of the first Military Service Bill through this House. We then set up all over the country a system of tribunals which we hoped—and I think our hopes have been verified—would really represent in these matters the common sense of the whole nation.
    Mr. HOGGE: No, no
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Well, I think they do. No doubt mistakes have been made here and there, but the tribunals have immensely simplified and eased the working of the system of compulsory military service. If from the beginning we had attempted to centralise all this machinery in the hands of the Executive of the day, or if we had left it really to the military authorities, I feel quite certain you would not have had the comparatively smooth working of this great new experiment in this country which you have had as a result of the work of administration being largely in the hands of men appointed in the localities and well known to the people of those localities in which they are operating. I think the Committee would desire to know what is to be the relation of the new system to the tribunal system. I do not think that either on the First Reading or on the Second Reading, so far as I remember, anything was said in criticism or in deprecation of the work of the tribunals, but the whole decision, as I gather, of questions of occupational exemption are now to be taken out of the hands of tribunals and vested in the hands of the National Service Department. That may be right or wrong, but if that is what is really intended I think we should have some reasons given to us for it. I should like further to ask whether it is intended that the National Service Department shall deal with the principle of large classes of case? I will put it in this way:
    718
    Is it intended that it shall deal with the case of any class, or are there to be appeals or references to the National Service Department also of individual cases? The wording of the Bill would, as I take it, allow either. Is it intended, for example, that the National Service Department should simply make Regulations and say that in such-and-such a trade all men under the age of twenty-three or twenty-four shall no longer be exempted; that all certificates of exemption shall be cancelled; or is it intended to go further and say, "We, the National Service Department, will consider on their merits cases of particular individuals in particular trades"? For example, with regard to the luxury trades, is it intended that there shall come up, case by case, to the National Service Department particular instances for their decision? If a tribunal in a town says, "We have here four men engaged in the trade of butcher. It is necessary to have soma butchers in the town, and we must have two. We will release two," and they give exemption to two men of military age and refuse exemption to the other two men of military age—that kind of case is coming up thousands of times over in all towns throughout the country—is it intended under this Bill that these exemptions should still stand, and that individual discrimination should still remain vested in the tribunal, or that an appeal should lie not only from the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal, but afterwards from the Appeal Tribunal to the Ministry of National Service?
    That is rather an important point, because under the Bill it is within the power of the Ministry to cancel any exemption or to overrule any tribunal on any individual case of the kind. If there is an appeal to lie for the first time to the National Service Department, is the appeal to lie on both sides? That is to say, are the military authorities alone to be allowed to make the appeal, or is the person also to be allowed to make an appeal for exemption to the National Service Department? Further, I think the Committee will be glad to have such information as the Government can give as to the general conception they have of the Working of this Act. To what sorts of trades in general—I do not ask for detailed particulars, because that, of course, is a matter for administration—do they intend to apply it? Do they intend to fix age limits in particular trades? Are those age

    719
    limits to vary with the various trades? I think either we ought to have a statement, as full as the Rules of Order will allow to be made, to-day, or some opportunity on some occasion of considering the whole matter with fuller particulars than we have certainly yet had laid before us. I would also venture to throw out this last suggestion for the consideration of the Government—I do not press it, but simply suggest it for their deliberation: Whatever powers are exercised, are they not too large to be vested in any individual, and would it not be to the advantage both of the National Service Department and also to the advantage of the country as a whole if something in the nature of an Advisory Council were established to co-operate with the Minister, consisting wholly or partly of Members of this House, who should consider one by one the proposals the Minister intends to put into operation, and to bring additional minds to bear on this large and profoundly important question, representing so large a proportion of His Majesty's subjects?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) must not expect me to answer by any manner of means all the questions which he has very properly addressed to this side of the House. The reason is that some of them go far beyond questions with which anybody could deal except the Minister in charge of the Bill. I was myself about to rise with regard to the Amendment before us, and, although I have not much to say about it, I shall try in saying what I have to say to answer those of the questions the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to us which seem to fall properly within my own sphere or my own Department. The Committee will remember that the present proposal is founded upon the conferring on the Director-General of the power to revoke certificates of exemption. What is proposed is not to take that power away. What is proposed is to say that that power should be exercised in accordance with Regulations previously laid before Parliament. Will the Committee be so good as to apply their attention for a few moments to the question of whether that is really a practicable proposal. Frankly, I do not myself think it is. I quite understand the purpose which inspires the proposal. It really is the same, I think, as that which underlay at least a part of the
    720
    remarks of the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago—it is a feeling of much alarm at the concentration in the hands of one Director of powers so extensive as those of the revision of all certificates of exemption granted by Departments or by tribunals on occupational grounds. I quite follow the feeling as regards that, that it is a very large power to concentrate in the hands of one man, but the only question we can determine on this Amendment is whether this power should be qualified by some attempt or other to define beforehand by Regulation how it is to be used. I doubt very much if that is at all possible. The right hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions bearing to some extent on the problem. He asked, "How would you exercise it?" He asked, "Is it intended to give power to deal with the individual circumstances of a particular individual, or is it only meant to deal with the more general considerations of occupation?" which, of course, may directly affect a particular individual or a number of individuals, but still the purview of which does not look to the particular circumstances of the individual, but to the general circumstances of the occupation which procured him exemption. I think I may at once and without any hesitation return to that general question this general answer. The power is intended to be exercised in the purview only of occupational considerations. It is not intended to be a power to deal with the peculiar position of a particular individual. The order is intended to be an order to deal with wider circumstances than those altogether, namely, those affecting particular occupations. You do not require Regulations on that, for that is what the Bill says. The Bill says that this is to apply to certificates of exemption where the certificate was granted on occupational grounds, and also applies to a certificate so granted on such grounds. It is quite clear, therefore, that the purpose is to deal with what I might call occupational considerations.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman read the first part of Sub-section (3) of Clause 2?
    Mr. CLYDE: Yes, that is quite right. I did not intend to leave that out. It is perfectly true that considerations which have occupational grounds in view may affect particular individuals or they may affect, if you like, the whole class of individuals who are engaged in the particular occupation.
    Mr. MILLAR: They might be peculiar to the individual.
    Mr. CLYDE: I think not. I think the point is that the considerations must be peculiar to the occupation, but I agree that the considerations might, of course, be such, and the circumstances of the occupation might be such, that the Order could not apply to all persons occupied in the same way, in the same place, and at all times. In that sense, no doubt, it affects the individual as well as the class of persons engaged in the occupation. I am afraid that is inevitable, but I believe I have stated correctly—at any rate, I have done my best to do so—what the Bill does. The right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I frankly make him the concession that if you deal with the question of man-power within the purview of what is to be done with regard to the various occupations it is true that the Orders cannot always apply to all those who come under the same occupation, in all places, and at any one time. It is quite clear, therefore, that what is called the right to revise any individual certificate is, of course, to be in the Bill. Again, may I deal with another matter put to me by the right hon. Gentleman? He asked, "Is it the intention that there should be an appeal from the Central Tribunal to the Director-General of National Service?" I do not see any trace of that in the Bill, and, so far as I am aware, there is no idea of an appeal at all. There could hardly be one, when the question is not one dependent on the particular circumstances of the individual, but on the particular circumstances of his occupation. In short, the Director-General can only deal with the occupation as a whole, although it is quite true that he must be able to deal with the occupation as a whole everywhere and may have to consider local circumstances as well. With this explanation made, I do not want to detain the Committee much longer, but may I not very fairly ask what kind of Regulations could we imagine to be framed? How could any form of Regulation provide rules for the exercise of this administrative power? How could we foresee circumstances, and how could we foretell the sort of conditions in which the power might have to be exercised? The truth is that the power is a very large power, but I am afraid it is a power which would be useless if one were to attempt to say beforehand that it could only be exercised in such-and-such a way with
    722
    regard to these various occupations. In short, if any proposal were to be made to limit the exercise of this discretion, I think it would require to be done in some other way—because I do not think this is a practical way—than by a power to define beforehand by Regulation how or exactly what the Minister was to do. While one fully appreciates, therefore, the reflection which leads to proposals of this kind, I do not think that the one before the Committee would be practicable or would be one which we could adopt.
    Mr. SAMUEL: What alternative does the right hon. Gentleman suggest?
    Mr. CLYDE: That is quite a fair question to put across the Table, and I think I ought to say at once that in my view a power of this kind, for the reasons I have giver, could not be exercised except by the responsible Minister and his Department. I do not see any other plan. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the grant of these certificates so far by Departments has only been done with the advice of the Army Council. In fact, the Army Council was supreme. The way in which it worked was this: If a Department wished to exempt certain people, it asked the Army Council to do so. The Army Council were absolutely the masters of whether it should be done or not. I do not think anyone has complained of that. The problem now is to entrust to someone the power of withdrawing those exemptions I suppose if you had not a Minister of National Service, probably the Army Council who granted these exemptions would have the power to withdraw them. Now that the Minister of National Service has come in, I think that the Minister of National Service must in like manner exercise the power of the Army Council now that he takes the place of the Army Council. The only question, therefore, the Committee has to consider now is, Is it a practical proposal to attach to the power to be exercised that this shall be somehow or other conditional or limited by a set of Regulations to be approved by Parliament? For the reasons I have given,. I do not think that could be accepted by the Committee as a practical proposal.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: As I understand, the military authorities call up a man. That man, being engaged in some occupation of national importance, then appeals to the tribunal. If the tribunal exempts him, the military authorities have no power over him.
    Mr. CLYDE: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but when he asked me a question a moment ago I understood him to refer to Departmental exemptions. Those are not done through the tribunals at all.
    Mr. LAMBERT: So far as I read the Bill, I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Service will have absolute power to abrogate exemptions given by all the tribunals in the country?
    Mr. CLYDE: Quite shortly, no; no power whatever, except in one class of case, namely, that class of case in which the tribunal has exempted on occupational grounds, and that only. Within that limit, yes.
    Mr. LAMBERT: But the Bill is very clear.
    "This Section applies to any certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, whether granted before or after the passing of this Act."
    That means everyone.
    HON. MEMBERS: Read on!
    Mr. CLYDE: The Sub-section proceeds, "where the certificate was granted on occupational grounds."
    Mr. LAMBERT: There is another difficulty which interests the Committee. As the Committee knows very well, I have been extremely anxious that agriculture should not be depleted of labour. May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? Supposing the Minister of National Service wishes to withdraw exemptions from men who are engaged in agriculture, has he the power to do it?
    HON. MEMBERS: Yes!
    Sir A. GEDDES: May I interrupt, in order to make the point plain? It is within the knowledge of this Committee that there are at the present time many forms of exemption on occupational grounds. We have the tribunal form of exemption on occupational grounds, and we have the Government Departmental form of exemption under the Act of 1916. We have, in addition to that, various forms of protection. Protection is given to men in munition factories who possess no certificate under the Acts at all; they are simply not called up. There are today no less than 1,200,000 such exemptions. Then there are the agricultural
    724
    protections, which exist in very large numbers, which are given by the War Agricultural Executive Committee, which have no legal existence at all, and can be cancelled at any moment by the Director - General of National Service. [An HON. MEMBER: "How is that?"] Because they are simply protections from recruiting which rest upon his understanding with the Department concerned. It is done with a pen. All these so-called exemptions and protections granted by the War Agricultural Executive Committee rest only upon the fiat of the Director-General. Therefore it is hardly necessary to-day to proceed with the case of agriculture, which we all recognise as being one of the really vital industries, such as shipbuilding, and so on, where we have already in large measure the state of affairs which will exist all over the country if this Bill becomes law. It already exists, and the reasons for it are that the tribunal exemptions were so erratic that there was no certainty you would get the protection required in order to make safe the food supply of the country. One tribunal would say, "That is a young man; away with him to the Army." The next one would say, "That also is a young man; away with him to the Army." We stepped in and said, "No, this is not in the national interest." We must have some means of protecting these men, and we use the Agricultural Executive Committee as the agent for the issue of these certificates. Now in law at the moment those certificates could be cancelled within five minutes from now. It is not proposed to do it, but there is no legal -basis for their existence. The position with regard to agriculture is not affected.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what other industries are in the same position in these respects?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There are a very large number of industries in the same position at the present moment, because tribunal exemptions were so hopelessly erratic. Shipbuilding and repairing is in the same position. Mining and quarrying, other than coal-mining, is in the same position. and certain manufactures in connection with the metal industry. Aeroplane manufacture is in the same position, and so on. At the present moment those industries. being most vital industries, are all under the administrative powers which it is suggested by this Bill to entrust to the

    725
    Director-General of National Service. So that if at the moment the Director-General of National Service is not ruining the country with the powers he already possesses in connection with the vital industries, it is not likely he will proceed to ruin the country if he gets the same powers in connection with less vital and luxury industries.
    Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend's explanation has considerably relieved my mind, but lie seems to be in a position to be able to control all the industries of the country, and by a stroke of the pen he can stop any industry from going on. Of course, I do not think he will do it with regard to agriculture, in which I am most interested, because there would be a revolution very soon, and the same state of affairs as in Russia. I am not talking so very wildly when I talk about the position of things in this country being very serious. But may I ask this further question, that before my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service takes, or permits to be taken, any further men from agriculture, he will consult, at any rate, the President of the Board of Agriculture?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Certainly. In all these things it is invariably my custom, and would necessarily be the custom of anyone who was in the position of Director-General of National Service, that he should consult with the heads of the Departments concerned; otherwise the whole thing would be chaos in two or three days. It is very desirable that the Committee should realise that the Minister of National Service has no special interest in raising men for the Army. I know my past association with the Army lays me open to a suspicion that I have a specially soft corner in my heart for the Army, but it is not so. The Ministry of National Service is an executive Department with regard to man-power, working under the War Cabinet, and after the most full consideration with all Government Departments. We have agreements with all Departments of State. There is never an Order issued affecting the interests of any Department without the Order being referred to that Department and agreed to, and, in the event of disagreement, it is carried to the War Cabinet for overruling The appearance of the name of the Director-General of National Service is merely to get some one Department for the purpose of signing Orders. It is an administrative power, and not a great
    726
    despotic power. This House controls the whole Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and if the National Service Department began rushing off doing things without co-ordination it would not be many days or hours before the matter was known.
    Mr. LAMBERT: I am very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, and to be assured that he will consult the Government Departments concerned. That will be an improvement on the present procedure. If you take the Food Controller, I am perfectly certain he does not consult the Board of Agriculture with regard to many of his Orders. Having had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he will consult the Board of Agriculture, I shall rest satisfied; but I do wish to press upon the Committee that I do not rise on any trivial ground, because the agricultural situation to-day is serious. Another matter raised is that of cases in which men are being taken for aerodromes, and things of that description. Men of sixty or sixty-five are paid 45s. a week and fetched by motor lorry, the whole agricultural districts being skinned for the purpose. Those are matters to which the right hon. Gentleman might give some attention, but I do assure him the conditions with regard to agricultural labour are very serious, and the tractors are not proving the success that was anticipated.
    Sir H. NIELD: I think right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not appreciate the fact that the power has already been in the hands of one Department which is best known under the name of the Reserved Occupations Committee. A list of certified occupations has from time to time been revised by them. There is very little difference between that Committee sitting, as it used -to do at Whitehall, and the Minister of National Service, who is responsible directly to this House. That Committee had only to advance the ages in the various certified trades to cause those men to be no longer certified, and therefore no longer to be protected. That has been going on all the way through. Surely there is very little difference, and far less security, in a Committee like this than there would he with the Ministry itself But what I want to call attention to is the confusion of thought that exists here as to different classes. There is the pure and simple Government protection

    727
    certificate of the men who have never been anywhere near a tribunal. There is the certificate of the men who have been to a tribunal, and, having been heard on various grounds, and turned down in order to join up, have promptly entered munition factories or aeroplane works, or something of that sort, and so have got back. At once you have two classes of men who are protected by a form of certificate that the Minister of National Service now wants to control. You have the man who goes in under some kind of certificate, and has taken his chance before the tribunal and has failed. You have the man who has come before the tribunal and made good his case, whatever his medical classification has been, and, of course, the lower that classification is the greater the possibility of getting exemption on that ground.
    Therefore you have that type of than who has got a certificate of exemption from the tribunal, either because they were bound to grant it, because he has brought himself within a certified occupation, or because, in the exercise of their discretion, they have considered that he is entitled to be exempted "on the ground of National Service"—that is the phrase generally used in the first paragraph relating to exemptions as set forth in the Military Service Acts. The tribunals have endeavoured to use the statutory words in making out their certificate. Therefore such a man would get his certificate on the ground of National Service. Over and over again he has brought himself within the certified list or has shown the Committee that although not in the certified list he is entitled to exemption. That is one of the Regulations. There is a distinct statement as to the certified occupations list, that if that man is within a certified occupation and is graded 3—that was the lowest in those days, C3, I think—he is to be treated as though he were an older man and therefore exempt, although not so entitled had it not been for his health. I think I may say that the relative number of these certificates is small in comparison with those large numbers which have been issued from time to time by Government Departments. I cannot myself see, inasmuch as the power, so far as the tribunal occupation certificates in the ordinary case of certified trades is concerned, has been exercised by the Reserved Occupations Committee without any substantial objection, the Committee are now giving
    728
    away very much in authorising the Director-General as the Bill proposes to do.
    In regard to Government Departments the objection might be urged, but surely those of us who have been intimately cons netted with these matters know this, that in the old days, with the War Office on the one side and the Departments on the other, there was a good deal of friction and pulling in opposite directions. Now that you have a Department the sole purpose of which is the regulation of the man-power of the whole country, you have a totally different thing, because we have not mere creatures of the War Office standing between the Government Departments on the one hand, and the demands of the military on the other. They are judging independently, I venture to think, too, in a very different way from the old time, when there was a good deal of prejudice and feeling against the action of the War Office. That being so, I do think that the proposal is a mistake to suspend the operation, pending the laying on the Table of Regulations, the difficulty of which, I quite agree with the Lord Advocate, would depend entirely upon the particular trade or service. It might be that the men in a certified trade only require to be called up between certain ages—it would depend upon the particular nature of the trade or service. So that it seems almost impossible that any Regulation should be framed which would adequately give what is hoped for in the proposal made. On these grounds, having regard to the fact that the tribunals are powerless, directly the age is altered and the men removed from the category which gives him protection by reason of the shifting of the age by the Committee, I think we are really straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel not to give the power for which the Ministry now specifically asks, which is no greater than in the past, and is to be exercised with greater advantage, because it is to be exercised in the way suggested by the Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: I quite agree that there are considerable difficulties in framing satisfactory Regulations in connection with the Amendment now suggested, but I cannot understand why any Member of this House should willingly trust a single individual with the enormous powers which are asked for under this Bill. I listened with great interest to the speech which was made by the right hon.

    729
    Gentleman which we have just heard, the Minister for National Service, chiefly on this ground—I was interested to see how quickly any lion. Gentleman can acquire the approved Ministerial tone. Every Minister who has ever introduced or carried through Committee any Bill has always said, "Of course, we have no intention of doing anything whatever that is unreasonable. We shall be very careful to protect this or that interest, and we shall be very careful about exercising the power for which we now ask." In every case, however, at the same time, they have made every objection to any limitation of the power to be given; therefore, as I say, this suggestion of no unreasonableness and so on, was in the true Ministerial manner. What, however, we have to consider is whether the House of Commons is entitled to give any man, however excellent his intentions, the powers which are demanded in this Bill. The Minister might under this Bill go down to any trade in the country and withdraw any number of men without appeal and without any consideration of the interests of the people concerned. He may do so up to any number he requires, and this House will have no further say in the matter whatever. It is quite true at the moment there is only the question of 500,000 men, which, in these days, is a comparatively small number. Even so, everyone knows that as this War goes on the difficulty of withdrawing further men from the industries of this country becomes ever so much greater.
    Suppose you cannot get the 500,000 men out of the luxury trades or any trade particularly, I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to do in this matter Are we, then, sure that lie will not go to agriculture and take the men engaged in that, and to shipbuilding and take the men engaged in that? He will will have great pressure brought to bear on him by the War Office. He will have great pressure brought to bear upon him by the War Cabinet. What is the security we have that he will exercise his enormous powers with discretion? If this Bill passes as it is the Ministry may not only bring hardship and trouble on individuals, but they may bring absolute disaster to the country. The right hon. Gentleman told us to consider how careful he had been of agriculture. That was the effect of his speech. Has agriculture to-day got all the men it wants? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Consider the meat shortage!
    730
    Consider what is now going on in the towns in the North! Consider the discontent there is in all parts of the country! Consider not only the meat shortage, but the butter shortage The way agriculture has been treated up to the present does not give us great confidence in entrusting to any Minister, who has nothing to do with agriculture, the powers asked for in this Bill. Why has agriculture been treated in this way! It has not been done by the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool has pointed out that it has been treated in this way because the Cabinet, or the Government, gave the Food Control Department the power of controlling agriculture—a Department which knows nothing about it Lord Rhondda and his advisers have the power to interfere with agriculture—and they have done it! In the same way the right hon. Gentleman is asking for full powers to withdraw any men lie pleases. In saying that he is misleading the House, because he knows perfectly well already that he cannot withdraw men who have obtained, on occupational grounds, certificates of exemption from the tribunals. There are a large number of men engaged in agriculture who have certificates of exemption on occupational grounds; therefore he has no right to say that he can do what he likes with the men engaged in agriculture.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I did not say that I had tie power over the certificates granted by the tribunals. What I said was that so far as men engaged in agriculture at the present time are concerned, I had power over the certificates of exemption given by the agricultural committees.
    Mr. MORRELL: If this Bill passes it will very seriously affect agriculture. That is the only point I was trying to make. I think the right hon. Gentleman did not point that out in his earlier observations. Take the trade in which I am very much interested—the cotton trade. I am advised by my Constituents, and those who know the cotton trade, that it has now come to the point when it has given all the men it can, and cannot spare another without danger to the whole trade breaking down, and Lancashire being thrown into a state of absolute starvation. The trade is very much disorganised at the present time. Supposing an ignorant Government Department goes down to this very delicately balanced trade and takes away men from the spinning mills, men who are

    731
    vitally necessary to the trade? You may very well have the whole weaving industry, the cotton trade, and the spinning, in a state of complete disorganisation in Lancashire, with riots and disturbances. It, is, therefore, very dangerous to give the powers asked for in the present state of the industry.
    I want to make a proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. If he will not accept this Amendment, I want to know whether he will limit his powers in any way or whether he demands unlimited powers? He has said again and again that he is not going to exercise these powers without consultation with the Department concerned. Will he put that in the Bill? Will he say that in every case the Department concerned shall be consulted, whatever the Department may be, before the powers of this Bill are exercised? That, at any rate, will give us something, even if this Amendment is rejected. It seems to me the House of Commons will not be doing its duty to the country, nor we to our constituents, if we give to a single man or Department, as it is now, the powers asked for in this Bill. If the present Amendment, which appears to me to be not unreasonable, cannot be accepted, will the Government say what limitation they will suggest, or do they really suggest that this Bill is to be passed as it stands, to give these absolutely autocratic powers to a single untried Ministry?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Minister of National Service made us a very satisfactory speech and promised us things which I am sure he will personally carry out to the very letter, but what I would point out is that, after all, the right hon. Gentleman is ephemeral, and he may leave to-morrow morning, and his post may be filled by somebody else. A promise made by a Minister in this House has no effect in law, and the only thing that is effective is what is put into the Act of Parliament. That is why my lion. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire wishes to see some limitation placed upon the Director-General of National Service. Although the right hon. Gentleman himself may be full of the most excellent intentions, and he may he really desirous of carrying this Bill into effect without any friction at all, can he guarantee the same common sense and tactfulness on the part of his subordinates? If
    732
    they carry out these powers in the same way that they did in connection with the recruiting campaign, I am afraid we have no such guarantee.
    The right hon. Gentleman's speech is largely discounted by the fact that he may not be in his present office in a week's time, and although he may be anxious to carry out his own policy, his subordinates may not carry out that policy in the same way. One or two hon. Members have hinted that we are unpatriotic in supporting this Amendment, because the need for men is so very urgent. That is invariably the plea which is put forward by a Minister when any proposal is brought forward to limit the control of his Department. The Department concerned should bring in its proposals earlier, so that the House of Commons may have time to consider them and at leisure put in any control which seems to be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that up to now when they wanted to take any men from agriculture they consulted the Minister for Agriculture, and if they could not agree then the matter went before the War Cabinet to be decided. Under this Bill that will not be so. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt consult the Minister of Munitions and the Minister for Agriculture and come to some agreement, but if they do not agree it will not be the War Cabinet that will decide, but the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    A great point was made that at the present moment those exempted on occupational grounds could he taken for the Army, and therefore this Bill makes no change. I may be wrong, but my impression is that a man at the present moment who is protected on occupational grounds and whose certificate is taken away by the Ministry fur National Service can appeal to the tribunal on other grounds and get exemption. Under this Bill all that is swept away. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will point out what protection a man exempted on occupational grounds has who is called up by the Minister for National Service. Supposing John Hodge, an agricultural labourer in Hampshire, is called up and his age is twenty-three. Is there any appeal against that calling up? Supposing the right hon. Gentleman issued a ukase calling up every agricultural labourer between twenty and twenty-five in the

    733
    United Kingdom. Is there any appeal against that decision? I would like that simple question answered by the right hon. Gentleman. Unless there is some form of protection it is impossible for the House of Commons to grant such powers to any Minister or any Department, however well-intentioned they may be. It is our duty to see that these questions are answered satisfactorily before this Bill passes into law. Up to the present we have only had vague generalities. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire may not be an ideal one, but it places some limitation on the powers of the Minister of National Service.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The inquiries which have been made have only been partially answered, and although the Minister of National Service has shown us much courtesy in communicating the method by which his Department is administered, and has given us an enlightening account of the proceedings, I do not think that meets the point which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland. There is some doubt in the minds of hon. Members, not even excepting the hon. and learned Member for Ealing, as to whether the Minister of National Service is to have the right to override the decisions of the tribunal. This is a most important matter. Individual exemptions have been granted by the tribunals in an enormous number of cases on different grounds. They have made selections in the various localities. Are those decisions to be swept aside or has the Minister power to settle them? Are the decisions of the tribunals to come under his review?
    My right hon. Friend put a very simple question. People want to know whether or not it is within the power of the Minister of National Service to wipe out the exemptions given, say, to the butcher in a small market town. Take a case, for instance, where it has been decided that two butchers are to be kept out of four. Is that to be the decision of the tribunal or the Minister of National Service? Here you have a concrete inquiry to which we have received no answer. I submit that in so far as we have heard a description of the powers of the Minister, they appear to go a good deal further than those which were exercised by any Government Department in the past. I can well remember the work of the
    734
    McLeod Committee. The Reserved Occupations Committee did most useful work at the beginning of the recruiting campaign, and by raising the age or cutting certain categories out of the list they did a great deal to facilitate the work of the military authorities in getting men from the industries from which they could be best spared. We have no guarantee that that Committee will be continued. The alternative now before the Committee which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland is. that there should be something in the nature of an advisory council. If it were only composed of men similar to those who sat on the McLeod Committee it would, at any rate, be a safeguard against the power of the Minister. Some body of that kind should be set up to advise the Ministry, or to share the responsibility. If that be objected to, at least there should be an advisory body to deal with these extremely difficult cases.
    I have in mind two industries in which decisions taken by the Minister may be of vital importance. When the First Reading of this Bill was taken the right hon. Gentleman made an admirable statement with regard to our sea Services, with every word of which I was in full agreement. Such a. full acknowledgment of our dependence upon the sea had not been made even by his right hon. relative when he addressed this House. So long as the right hon. Gentleman is there I feel sure the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries are not likely to be diminished in their man-power, but the right hon. Gentleman may find an occupation where his services are more urgently required. The Government of the day may decide that they will put someone else in the right hon. Gentleman's place, and he may be put into a position of greater responsibility, and then we should be dependent on the personal opinion, enthusiasm, and insight of the Minister himself. In a matter of such supreme importance to the country I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not feel that we are jealous of his personal power when we say that no power of this kind should be left in the hands of one single man, and that is our contention.
    I take another instance. The right hon. Gentleman has had negotiations with the railway men, and the result has not been communicated to the House. It is most desirable that the House, being

    735
    the supreme authority, should have the fullest information given to it. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can safely get from the railway service 4,000, 6,000 or 10,000 men. That is a matter of opinion and negotiation, but why is he not negotiating with the representatives of the community as a whole. So far his negotiations have been purely with the representatives of the railway men. Why should the result not be communicated to the House? I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that if he is as frank and candid with us over his negotiations with the trade unions as he has been in regard to the working of one section of his Department, he will not find us unsympathetic. We are a bit jealous of matters of this kind being discussed with only one section of the community, and more especially matters of such vital importance.
    Everybody knows that the port of Liverpool is badly congested, very largely because of what some of us think was a premature administrative decision by which vessels were diverted from London to Liverpool in large numbers. It is a matter of very great importance. There are about a score of vessels in Liverpool unable to obtain a berth, and I have been informed by those who know a great deal about the administration of the port of Liverpool that the trouble is not so much that of the vessels getting a berth as in clearing the railway communications. If distribution is going to be doubly difficult because of the lack of railway communication, if at such a time the right hon. Gentleman is going to take large numbers out of the railway service, surely the House of Commons ought to be told. I think such information should be communicated to the representatives of the nation as a whole. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have got rid of a great deal of the feeling and apprehension, I will not say suspicion, as to the powers which will be given to him under this Bill if it is unamended, if he had been able to make the same sort of declaration to us as he made to the trade unions as a whole or separately. That is one of the reasons why a good many of us sympathise with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Lanark, although I fully realise the difficulties of his proposal. It might not be, I think, the best possible way of the House of Commons sharing the responsibilities of the
    736
    right hon. Gentleman, but it is the only suggestion which has been made this afternoon that apparently meets the position.
    6.0 P.M.
    I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland at a later stage will make some other proposal if this Amendment is not carried. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised not only in the national interest, but in his own interest, if he would share his responsibilities in this matter as widely as possible with the representatives of the people. I am not exaggerating, I am sure, when I say that on his decision may depend the whole extent of our endurance during the War. A wrong decision, taking men from a vital industry, or in regard to the administration of food or raw materials, might bring us almost to a standstill. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should either accept the suggestion that there should be an advisory council to assist him or that he should call upon Parliament itself to share to some extent his responsibilities. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, having undertaken the duties of his office, may feel that he is quite prepared to go through with it at whatever cost. I admire his courage. In taking on the Department at the stage that he did he did a very courageous act, but that does not exonerate us as representing the industries and constituencies from seeing that too vast powers are not placed in one pair of hands. The very decisions which have been taken by the various Departments have been to some extent a safeguard. I know that there has been friction as between some of the Departments, but some of these Departments from their very constitution have been charged with safeguarding great national industries. The Board of Agriculture, for instance, has as its main business the safeguarding of the production of foods and the protecting of the agricultural population from over-recruiting. The Board of Trade, or, I presume, the Ministry of Shipping now, is charged with safeguarding the interests of those engaged in the mercantile marine. The Controller of the Navy is specially charged with safeguarding the interests of shipbuilding and ship repairing. All these Departments were specialists and knew what they wanted and realised the responsibility of their decisions. This arrangement covering the whole thing by one Department may simplify Depart-

    737
    mental procedure, but it places upon one pair of shoulders a responsibility that no one pair of shoulders can bear. I suggest, when these safeguards are taken away, apart altogether from the individual questions which can be raised in individual trades, that the right hon. Gentleman should consider, if not at the present moment at all events before he goes further with the Bill, whether he would not be well advised to take Parliament more fully into his confidence and to share more fully with Parliament this responsibility. I would, therefore, ask that he should himself on that one specific point assure the Committee that he will be prepared, after the discussion that we have had here and of which he can have no complaint—it has been. very well-intentioned and most sympathetic towards him—to take into further consideration this or other alternative proposals for carrying out the object which he has in view, and secondly, that he should not refrain from giving the information to this House as to what he intends with regard to various industries which he has already given to the trade unions and which ought to be given to those of us who represent even wider interests than the trade unions themselves.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: I do not think anybody would refuse the right hon. Gentleman the possession of larger powers under this Bill if past or recent experience warranted them. Fear has been expressed to-day on all sides that agriculture is not sufficiently regarded by the persons who have the carrying out of the enrolment of people at present engaged in that industry. The. lion. Member for North Northampton (Major Brassey) asked a question to-day as to whether it was within the power of contractors erecting an aerodrome in a certain district to take away men engaged as agricultural labourers on the surrounding farms, and the Minister met the question by practically saying that he could do nothing, the whole of that bench sitting perfectly silent. I listened most carefully to the question and answer, and, as far as T could gather, nothing is to be done. If contractors like to avail themselves of the cheaper labour of agricultural districts, then, no matter what agriculture may suffer, there is no friend of the food industry to be found to defend agriculture from those attacks on its labourers. That is to-day's experience. and it is extremely significant, because it shows that this
    738
    great question is not gripped by the whole of the Government as one solid question to which all others are related. This War is going to be either won or lost on this question of food.
    We are now faced with a new Department which is to have control of this question of National Service. Have we any ground for believing that it is going to be more fully carried out? Are we not entitled to ask that something on the lines of the Amendment should be laid upon this House and should be understood to be, and in fact be, indicative of the guiding principles that the Government propose to adopt in this matter? The other day a case was brought to my notice. There was a farm in a county with which I am fairly familiar, a very successful and highly cultivated farm, which was carried on by a farmer and three sons. One son died of pneumonia, and another who had been enrolled was killed in France. The third son a year previously had gone to Canada, and had there bought a farm. When his father and his two brothers died he came to England, and from his knowledge and skill he laid down the whole operations of the farm in order that his mother and sisters, with one or two helpers of a very indifferent character, might carry out his instructions. He then went back to his farm in Canada. Later he wrote and said he would come over again, but he could not get any guarantee that he would not be interfered with. He was advised that if he came he would be liable to be enrolled as a soldier as his brother had been, and he said in that case he should not come over. His mother replied that the farm would become derelict. He said it would become so if he came over and were enrolled. Meanwhile, he was passed in Canada in a low category and was given exemption. He again proposed. to come over, but he asked what guarantee he had that when he did so there would not be a different award from that which had been given in Canada. His case went before the Agricultural Committee, but they could give him no information or guarantee. These cases are occurring all round the district. In that same district there are two firms supplying food over an area of fifteen to twenty miles. No rules are laid down with regard to the methods of distribution. All the men except two, one of whom is over military age and the other barely within it, have been taken.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): The hon. Member seems to me to be going beyond the scope of the Amendment. There is another Amendment which has been handed in—it is one of the disadvantages of the Amendments not being on the Paper—which raises more specifically the question of agriculture, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself more particularly to the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I will leave the matter now, and take my chance later.
    Colonel GREIG: The example which the hon. Member has given would not come within the Military Service Act at all. The man he mentioned is domiciled in Canada and would not come under the Act. The last two speeches have struck me as being Second Reading speeches. I may be wrong, but, as I understand it, the whole essence of this Bill is that, instead of this Departmental power of exemption which has been exercised in a way totally unrestricted, except by the discretion and the reasonable action of the heads of the Departments, the power should be concentrated in one Minister who should be responsible to Parliament. That gets rid of all these Regulations. You have the control of Parliament, and, if the Minister does anything wrong or unreasonable, the matter can be thrashed out here on the floor of the House before two days are over. An hon. Member opposite was horrified at the powers going to be conferred on one Minister. Has he been horrified at the powers exercised not under an Act of Parliament but entirely by the stroke of the pen of heads of administrative Departments in exempting men? The country has been roused by the probability that in those Departments and elsewhere there may he men who have escaped. We do not say that in a great many cases it has not been properly done, but the feeling is that there are men there who ought to go out, and Parliament by passing the Second Reading of the Bill has assented to the principle that the responsibility should be placed not on the heads of the various Departments but on the head of one Department who can consult with the heads of the other Departments whose subordinates he is going to comb out. At the same time he will be held responsible to this House. Surely that is sufficient guarantee for the proper, reasonable, and wise exercise of the powers that Parliament is about to confer upon him.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I hope that I may be allowed a little latitude as so much of the discussion has ranged outside the exact Amendment before the Committee. I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) for the way in which he spoke about the points that have been raised. I would like to assure him and the whole Committee that the procedure under which the Department for which I am responsible works in connection with these exemptions is a procedure for instituting which I think he himself was responsible. The Reserved Occupations Committee, better known as the McLeod Committee, still exists. Its functions have been extended and it has itself been expanded and now forms the Trade Exemptions Department of the Ministry of National Service. That is the section of the Department which will be responsible for dealing with all questions which are outside the Government Departments exemptions and yet which come under the Bill as a whole. We have, therefore, at present a Committee now expanded into a Department with long experience of this very class of case, having worked since the very first days and even before the first days of the Military Service Acts at this problem and at this question. It is in connection with the proper exercise of its knowledge and its experience that the powers of this Bill are asked for by the Ministry of National Service. The powers must stand in the name of the head of the Department, but it is not the intention or the desire in any way whatever that these powers shall be exercised by one individual sitting in a room arbitrarily saying that men must come in. The same right hon. Gentleman made a considerable point that the trade unions had received information which was not given to this House. It is quite true that they have. The reason is partly the rather peculiar course which was followed on the Second Reading of this Bill. It would have been impossible for a much longer statement to have been made on the introduction of the Bill than was made. It was intended that there should have been further information given on the Second Reading, but as the result of the course which the Debate pursued the opportunity for giving that information did not arise.
    I am afraid I should be out of order if, at the present moment, I suddenly branched off from this particular Bill into a general discussion of what we propose

    741
    outside the Bill altogether. The information which has been given to all those great and important trade unions which we have been meeting day by day since the 3rd of this month, has dealt with administrative arrangements under the schedule of protected occupations, which arrangements are not affected or modified in any way whatever by the Bill at present before the Committee. Therefore I should be going far afield if I were to enter into a description of those arrangements, but on a suitable opportunity I quite agree that it is right, proper and necessary that this House should be placed in the fullest possession of all the information that has been given to the trade unions. It is unfortunate that the opportunity has not arisen so far. I do not think it can be seriously argued that it is possible in the administrative work that is required in connection with a proposal of this nature that a general description of principles can be laid before the Committee, because that would certainly fail to meet half the cases that arise from day to day. What I fear that certain members of the Committee fail to regard fully is that the proposals in Clause 2 of this Bill as a whole aim at unifying the procedure and bringing similarity into a field that is at present chaotic. We have at the present time men in such an important industry as shipbuilding, protected under a scheme of protection in which the Director-General of National Service appears possessing the powers that it is proposed to confer upon lam by this Clause. Again, in such an important industry as aeroplane construction he appears with the same powers. In such an important industry as agriculture again, over a large part of the field, not the whole field, he appears with the same powers. Similarly, in connection with certain of the vital metal processes the Director-General of National Service appears with the same powers that it is proposed to confer by this Clause. That point has been rather overlooked.
    Already we have this machinery of consultation and examination in existence. The whole of one of the big Departments of the Ministry of National Service is designed to do nothing else but sift the evidence in favour of granting or of withholding exemptions for certain classes of men. Already we have in existence the whole machinery of consultation between Government Departments. We have a series of definite agreements existing between the Ministry of National Service
    742
    and the various Departments with regard to the procedure to be adopted in connection with the issue of Orders affecting men who have been exempted. What we are trying to do is to get under these powers the whole man-power question brought into, if I may use the word, a condition of discipline. We have had in the past one, two, three, four, perhaps as many as ten Departments, each going its own way. We still have examples of that happening. We have had the example quoted, not in connection with recruiting, but in connection with aerodrome work. There we have had a bad breakdown, which has just occurred, and the matter is now being dealt with. What we are labouring to do is to prevent these break-downs, occurring, and to get the Departmental work, both with regard to their exemptions of men, with regard to their release of men for service, and with regard to their work and labour, co-ordinated.
    I would urge upon this Committee the importance of recognising that this important big principle, as it looks here, is really just the keystone that is required to complete the arch which will give us a definite, disciplined control over the question of exemptions by Government Departments, and also on occupational grounds where those occupational grounds are alleged to be in the national interest. I ask the Committee to notice that these tribunal exemptions, which will be dealt with under this Bill if it becomes law, are all granted on occupational grounds for the alleged reason that it is in the national interest that the man is employed or continues to be employed in that work. It is not a question of the employer's opinion. These exemptions are recommended to the tribunal on the ground of national importance, and are granted by the tribunal on the grounds of national importance. It is not possible for any tribunal to view the whole field of national interest in the same way as it is possible for a Department which is receiving information from all the Departments of State from day to day about their man-power position; it is not possible for any tribunal, appeal or local, however great its knowledge of its own locality, to have the same complete information that comes into a Department which is fed with daily and almost hourly information from every source from which information can be obtained. Therefore, I would ask the Committee to recognise that, although

    743
    the words "Director-General of National Service" appear here, it is really a Department which is built to deal with this problem that is going to deal with it, and is going to act and take the decisions, those decisions, of course, being given in the name of the Director-General of National Service, but in reality being decisions of this Department which has grown out of the McLeod Committee, and those decisions which have been arrived at after consultation with all the Government Departments concerned. Therefore it is not, I can assure the Committee, in the power of a single individual really in fact to take these decisions. It is simply getting one channel constituted through which those decisions may be announced, and one machine being recognised into which all information must be passed before decision be taken. I am sure that if it is looked at in that way the Committee will not think, as certainly some hon. Members have thought, that this is overburdening one individual. Naturally, some such responsibility for decisions must fall upon an individual, but this is a machinery which is existing, which has existed for years, and which has worked satisfactorily.
    Mr. KILEY: If this were simply a question of consultation or co-ordinating the work between one Department and another I could understand the position, but the matter goes far beyond that. It concerns not only the bulk of the Departments, but the bulk of the tribunals. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the speech lie has just made, I doubt whether his Department is best qualified to go into sectional cases. I have a case in my mind with which I, as chairman of a tribunal, had to deal to-day. It concerned a large firm, employing 300 girls and a few engineers. The tribunal granted exemption to those men as long as they remained in their occupation because they were necessary to carry on the factory. I understand that that power is now to be taken away, and that these men can be ordered to join the Army, after fourteen days' notice, at the will of the National Service Department and some other Department, without any particular knowledge of the locality. Such cases could be multiplied by thousands or tens of thousands. If it were limited to Government Departments, I could understand it. What can be the objection to what is now
    744
    desired by this Amendment, namely, that when the Minister makes up his mind that he is going to comb out any industry the Order or Regulation should be placed on the Table of the House for ten or twenty days, to enable it to express its opinion if it so desires. The men have had exemptions granted to them with the clear knowledge that they will not be taken away without two months' notice. The men have incurred obligations, many of them having removed from one part of the country to another. Suppose they are called up for military service 'and want to take their wives and families back to the district from which they came, on the clear understanding that they were to have two months' notice of any change of locality. In justice to these men they are entitled to some consideration. They have done what the country wanted them to do. We are asking for something which is not at all unreasonable, namely, that we shall be given information to which we are entitled. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) dealt solely with railway congestion. At the present moment my own Constituency and many others in London are vastly concerned over a most serious problem that has recently arisen in which railway transit will play a very large part. If the Minister of National Service presented to this House a notice that he was going to comb out a large number of railwaymen, I should be the first to call the attention of the House to the impracticability of that step being taken, and the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to agree that we should have notice of it. There are many reasons in favour of this Amendment being carried. The only disadvantage I can see in it is that it might mean a delay of from ten to twenty days at the outside. I therefore urge the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I had hoped that after the Debate to which we have listened we should have had some concession from the Government. I do not suggest that the proposal contained in the Amendment is the best method of meeting the points which have been raised in the course of the Debate, but most members of the Committee will agree that a case has been made against surrendering all the powers which are being given by this Clause to the head of a single Department, without any check at all. The Amendment suggests one form of check with which this House is familiar. Although in the past

    745
    it has in many cases proved altogether illusory, still it is a check. If the Government are not prepared to accept that check they ought to be willing to suggest something else, but no such suggestion has been made. One proposal was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), namely, an advisory council, which should have separate authority, but both the Lord Advocate and the Minister of National Service have refused to listen to that suggestion. The Lord Advocate suggested that the method of regulation is altogether impracticable. In many other cases it has been adopted where the urgency was as great as in regard to the raising of men under this Bill. For example, it was adopted under the first Munitions of War Act, which was one of the most urgent measures we ever had to deal with in this House, and Rules and Regulations under that Act were all to be laid before Parliament and to lie on the Table for twenty-one days. Why should not the same proposal be accepted now? I think "Regulation" is rather an unhappy word to describe what is meant here. I should have preferred to have the actual Orders laid before Parliament. Unfortunately there is a Clause in the Bill which indicates that Orders may deal with individual certificates, and it would be hopeless to expect the Government to lay such Orders on the Table. If, however, they were all shown in their character referring to special trades and classes, it would be quite possible to lay the Orders, so that the House would know the industries which were affected and the men who are going to be taken from those industries. It is very important that the House should know these things.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the consultation which takes place between heads of Departments, but I am afraid, under the existing system, such consultation is not anything like what prevails under normal Cabinet conditions. We want to know also what may be in the mind of the Minister from time to time. We know that since he has taken office lie has changed his mind about schemes which he was going to put into operation. [Interruption.] One can only judge from his speeches. He made a speech at the Aldwych Club, in which he indicated that he was going to proceed on quite different lines from those proposed in the Bill, and that he was going to take men from the luxury trades, but certainly not from
    746
    essential industries. In the course of two short months he has changed his mind altogether. We know his mind as it was when he introduced this Bill, but he may change it in another two months, and the House will have no authority whatever to change his action. He may take a decision, and even persuade the War Cabinet, over whom he seems to have great powers, of the wisdom of his new view. But if so, these changes will be made by administrative Order, without any power of the House to intervene. It is true that we shall be able to call the Minister to book on the floor of the House of Commons, but it is much more difficult to call a Minister to book after the Order is issued and in actual operation. If the Order lie on the Table before it was put into operation anyone who was interested would have an opportunity, by Address, to call the attention of Parliament to the matter and to prevent the action being taken, That is the important thing. Action of a very serious kind may be taken which may have disastrous effects on the national interest, and it may not be until after it is taken that the House will be able to intervene, when criticism is too late. It is important that a check should exist before anything is done, and it is in order to establish a check before anything is done that I proposed this Amendment. As the Government has not seen fit to offer any alternative, I propose to take it to a Division.
    Colonel HAMERSLEY: I trust this Amendment will not be accepted and that the Committee will do nothing which will cause delay in any way. The necessity has arisen to get men out of these trades. If this Amendment were carried out, an Order would have to lie on the Table for twenty days, and it might be a few months before these cases were decided. I have seen drafts from England coming out to France, some of the men only having had seven weeks between leaving civilian life and arriving in the front trenches. In another case I saw 200 men combed out from the Expeditionary Force canteens and put into the front trenches a fortnight after they began to receive their training. That is almost a criminal thing to do, and by anything we do to cause delay we are helping to send men into the trenches with insufficient training. Do not, for heaven's sake, do anything which will curtail the time of training of men. All these Amendments tend to do that. Our experience

    747
    hitherto of recruiting for the Army through the machinery we already have has been delay after delay. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman to-day that he is not taking to himself the absolute arbitrary power which some members of the Committee think, but he is only getting the machinery together with the object of hastenng things up to give a better opportunity for our men to fight than they hitherto had. For these reasons I ask the Committee most earnestly not to pass any Amendment which will create one hour of delay in getting these men into the Army. Let us get them in as quickly as we can, give them all the training we can, and give them the chance they ought to have of being able to fight for their country.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman before a decision is come to on the Amendment, to say definitely whether he is or is not going to accept any Amendment of any sort in regard to the uncontrolled power which he seeks to have under this Bill. We have discussed this for two hours, and that is really the only point that has emerged from this discussion. If he would say he will consult right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite with a view possibly to getting some advisory committee to help him, it would very much modify the attitude of myself and others in regard to this Amendment. No one wishes to tie the Government down and no one wishes, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Hamersley) seems to think, to prevent these men joining the Colours. All we want is that the supremacy of the House of Commons should be maintained and that some control over Government Departments should be devised. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say exactly what he is going to do. If lie would say that he will accept some Amendment, it would shorten our deliberations and prevent my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) moving his Amendment in regard to agriculture.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I press the appeal which has just been made? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will go so far as to say he will between now and the consideration of a later Clause in the Bill consider the points which have been put to him. If he says it is absolutely impossible for him to amend a single letter of his Bill, I am quite sure he will find him-
    748
    self in conflict with the fairly general feeling of the Committee. It is not confined to one side only. I urge him to say, at all events, that he will be prepared to consider the representations which have been made to him. If it is impossible for him to make any modifications, he can say so as frankly as he has made other statements. I hope he will treat the Committee with more respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I notice that one or two hon. Members rather dislike that expression, but they have not been here during the discussion. It has been of a most friendly and helpful character, and I am sure Ministers do not object to that. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should follow a practice which is not unknown in this House of saying that the points which have been put to him are worthy of consideration, and that he will not now bar and bolt the door against any and every modification which may be suggested. If he will let us know that at a later stage he will be prepared, if necessary, to make a further statement on Amendments which are bound to be put down, lie will ease the feeling of a good many Members who do not like his non-possumus attitude.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am sorry that I should have appeared to any Member of the Committee to be treating it with disrespect. I have spoken with all the frankness I can. I have no desire about this Bill except to get it made just as good as it can be for the purpose which it has in view. If any Amendment is brought forward which will help and strengthen that purpose, I shall welcome it in every way. I am not taking up a non-possumus attitude. Far from it. But I have considered this Amendment and I frankly cannot see how it would work, and it would be administratively impossible to accept it. I would urge hon. Members to notice exactly what this Clause says. Fourteen days' notice has to be given before an Order becomes operative, and any Order of occupation must be published, and thereafter there will be a further seven or fourteen days before men can be called to the Colours. So that as the Bill stands now there is plenty of time for second thoughts. If this were a suggestion that the Director of National Service should issue an Order and the men should join the Colours the next morning, I could understand the points which have been raised. But there is a definite provision in the Bill that there should be fourteen days, and in the case of any Order affect-

    749
    ing classes of men publication of the Order before it becomes operative, and then comes the time taken by the men's own individual appeals; and it seems to me to be straining words to suggest that a procedure which already involves all that delay and all that publicity is rushing things and trying to get men into the Army without giving time for consultation.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I have an Amendment to leave out the word "fourteen" ["fourteen days"] and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-eight," but I have much more important Amendments later on, and as the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to accept this, I will not trouble him by moving it.
    Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "A notice of any Order made under this Section shall be forthwith sent by the Director-General to every man to whom the Order applies."
    I think in justice that the men who have presumably been living in a certain amount of security under their exemption orders ought to have individual notice. It is not fair to expect a man to be always engaged in minute search of the notice-board in a factory or the post office or other public place where the Director-General may think proper to post his notice. If this is going to apply to a class of a certain age, in a certain trade, it will be still more confusing, and inasmuch as the local officer of the Ministry knows precisely who are the men and where they are, it will be perfectly easy for him to give a notice individually. In every case where a tribunal exemption is challenged now and it is desired that it should be reviewed, specific application has to be made by the Military Service representative asking for a review of that exemption, and a day is appointed by the tribunal. If it can be done in that case, it can be done equally well in the case of a man who is called up and who is known perfectly well to the officer of the Ministry as being the person wanted, and it can be done in the case of a group of persons wanted in certain factories. Many instances of harshness have come before me during the last two years when the tribunals have been sitting, where men have not had a notice and have lost rights to which they would otherwise have been entitled. I wish to make it perfectly clear
    750
    by a subsequent Amendment that a man who is called up under this shall have certain rights in respect of other matters as well as occupation. If a man does riot have a reasonably specific personal notice, he probably will miss his opportunity of going to the tribunal, because there is a limited. time. Inasmuch as it is a matter more or less of administration, I think it could be done perfectly easily, and we owe it to a man to take care that he shall have individual personal notice when the exemption is cancelled, and he is expected to go to the Colours.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee what is the nature of the publication which is intended apart from the question of notice? He indicated that it was his intention in every case to publish the Order. Does that apply to individual Orders as well as Orders affecting classes? It appears to me that the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend is very sound so far as individual Orders are concerned, because one could hardly imagine that it was the intention of the Ministry to publish every individual Order. I assume that there may he quite a number of such individual Orders issued. I hope, therefore, that if there is no intention to publish all individual Orders, an Amendment of this kind will be accepted. With regard to the period of time which may arise on the question of notice and publication, the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that there would be an ample period elapsing, because after fourteen days the man would have all his rights in regard to appeal, and so forth; but surely that would not apply to cases of occupation, because in that case the Bild provides that no further application can be made to the tribunal.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that it is very necessary from a broad point of view to see that adequate information is available in connection with any Order which is made under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I cannot, however, quite bring myself to agree that it is necessary to insert the exact words which he proposes, or perhaps any words. What is proposed is this. Let me take, for example, without any special reference of probability, the cancellation of the exemption of miners of Grade 1, under twenty-three years of age. It would appear to me that that fact broadly published would be quite adequate

    751
    information. By "broad publication" I do not mean simply the printing of the Order and possibly its insertion in the "Gazette." I mean broad publication in the sense of its definite insertion in the Press, and if there be any locality specially affected special reference in that Press, and also, if necessary, by poster. Where a single exemption has been cancelled that would be quite a different matter. Very often it would pillory a man to publish the fact that his exemption has been cancelled. In connection with single exemptions, and with exemptions which cannot be described in the same broad, general way, such as I have suggested in my purely hypothetical case in connection with the miners, I would absolutely agree to send individual notice to the individuals concerned as to the cancellation of certificates. Where we have a broad case which is easily defined, I think it would be unnecessary to send individual notice, because in any case these men would receive, if not an individual notice of cancellation of exemption, an individual calling-up notice, which would be issued to them in the ordinary course. I seems to me that we might meet the point in the way I have suggested without making it absolutely necessary that every individual should receive a notice.
    Sir H. NIELD: Inasmuch as the time may have gone by when the man might have had an opportunity of appealing to the tribunal on other grounds than occupational, difficulty would arise, I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will do as he has done before and give an under-taking to consider words which shall limit them to individual cases, such as individual tribunal cases, and if he does that I am content to leave out a whole class of persons, such as he has instanced in the case of miners under twenty-three or twenty-five, in grade 1, to be dealt with by a common notice. If he will give me an assurance that between now and the Report stage he will consider a form of words which will give effect to that, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, I will do that.
    sir H. NIELD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that this Section shall not apply to persons engaged in agriculture."
    The reason why I move this Amendment is that agriculture has been very hardly treated, and treated in a very arbitrary manner, since the various National Service Bills became law. At the commencement a large number of people were taken indiscriminately from agriculture, including many skilled men. In addition many blacksmiths and threshing machinists were taken. I remember that in some of the daily papers there were complaints that blacksmiths were being allowed to remain in the villages, and it was said that this was a very wrong action on the part of the tribunals. They did not appear to realise that you cannot plough land or work a farm unless your horses are shod. Unless you have blacksmiths you cannot shoe your horses, and at the present moment—I do not in any way blame the blacksmiths—many farmers in my neighbourhood have their work delayed two, three, or six days because it is impossible to get their horses shod. It is absolutely essential that this Bill shall not be applied to agriculture in the way in which many tribunals, and sometimes war agricultural committees, have dealt with agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman has said that if this Bill becomes law he will be in the same position in regard to agriculture as he is now. He afterwards corrected that statement, and stated that to a large extent he will be in that position. I cannot tell how many men have been exempted by tribunals, or how many have been exempted by war agricultural committees, but my impression is that probably more men have been exempted by tribunals, or, at any rate, quite as many, as by war agricultural committees, and the position when this Bill becomes law will be that all these men who have been exempted by tribunals, and who are engaged in agriculture, can be called up by the right hon. Gentleman practically without any appeal.
    7.0 P.M.
    Everyone knows that the various Government Departments are making appeals to farmers to plough more land. What is the actual position in agriculture at the present moment? The position, I believe, in the greater part of the country is that the farmers have not enough men to keep the arable land which they have got in cultivation, and it is practically impossible

    753
    to plough more land unless they get more assistance. It is impossible, so far as I know, to get further assistance. We are told we can get soldiers, but they are by no means satisfactory. Sometimes they are satisfactory and sometimes they are not. We are also told that we can get women. That is an extremely difficult thing to do. I have been trying to get women for. some months, and I got so far as having an inspection, but beyond that I have got no further. Even if you do get women it is not possible for them to do more than the lighter work about the farm. Therefore, on every ground, it is absolutely essential that no more men should be taken from agriculture, especially skilled men. In addition—I admit I have not got it in my Amendment, because I drew the Amendment hurriedly—there should also be some sort of exemption for men such as blacksmiths and men who repair agricultural machinery and go about with threshers. I hope that the Government will not only accept my Amendment, but, later on, will consider words which will bring in those classes. The right hon. Gentleman has already said, as I understood him, with regard to those men who have been already exempted by war agricultural Committees, that at present he has power to take them away, and therefore the Committee may trust him that when the power is extended, as it is under this Bill, to include men who have been exempted by tribunals, he will act in the same way and not take them away. My answer, if I have not misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, is that that is no reason why he should not accept my Amendment. The Amendment only proposes to do that which he tells us he is going to do.
    But there is a very strong reason why the Amendment should be in the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool told us that it was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman may not be here in a short time, indeed in a few months. Ministers come and go. We have a good many examples of the changes that are constantly taking place. We might have an election, we might have a totally different set of Ministers on that bench, and men whose views did not agree with those of the right hon. Gentleman. In addition, it is possible, though I do not say that it is likely, that the right hon. Gentleman himself might change his mind, and then all these assurances would go for
    754
    nothing. As I have said over and over again, and as all Members of this House who have been hero for any length of time will agree with me in saying, there is no use in taking the assurance of the Minister in charge of a Bill as to how lie is going to carry it out. I do not say that the Minister is not actuated by the most honourable feeling and that he will not carry out his undertaking if it is possible to do so, but that is not sufficient. Circumstances arise either by a change of Minister or a change of opinion of the particular Minister who gave the assurance, and I have noticed, over and over again in this House, that it has been said, "Possibly something of that sort may have been said, but it is quite impossible now to carry it out." Therefore, the only safeguard we have is to insert an Amendment in the Bill. Possibly there was some idea that this Bill should go through without any Amendment, in which case a Report stage will be avoided. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman just now to say that he was prepared to accept any Amendment which would not interfere with his power to get the men who are requisite for the Army. I should be the last man to suggest anything of the sort; I would desire to assist the Bill in its progress through the House, but no one can deny that, at the present moment, agriculture is just as important as the Army. I am not at all sure that the War will not be decided by the question of food, and not by the question of men. However that may be, it cannot be denied that it is the most vital question of the moment and that we cannot afford to play with it in this House. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I desire to support the Amendment. It is absolutely essential that not a single man more shall be taken from agriculture. The President of the Board of Agriculture has told us, and it is the case, that the whole of the arable land of this country is full of weeds for want of proper tilling, and the actual yield of agricultural land is considerably less than it should be, owing to this want of cultivation. That is clearly due to want of men and the want of men only. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture now says, "Although your land is so badly cultivated, although you are suffering from want of labour, we call upon you to put under the plough another one-ninth part of the best land of the

    755
    country. We call upon you to supply another 2,000,000 acres for growing corn." The farming industry are responding to that and responding well, but I would ask any hon. Member to consider how possibly can that be done when we have this great shortage of men. The thing is quite impossible. We must continue to have every man who is now engaged in agriculture and kindred pursuits. I agree with what the right hon. Member for the City of London has said. We do not accept the assurances from Ministers who happen to be in charge of a Bill. On behalf of agriculture, so far as I can speak for it, I take a most serious view of the procedure of placing agriculture and its needs under one single individual, whoever he may be. I have very little knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, and of what his experience may be, but I understand that he has no knowledge at all of agriculture, and I dread the prospect of having this great industry put under the arbitrary will of a gentleman who is totally unacquainted with its needs or its facts. I speak with some experience. We as farmers have had some experience of our industry being put under the charge of a coal-owner. We have seen what has been done by the present Food Controller. He has had the absolutely unlimited powers of a dictator in the orders which he issues. He consults whom he pleases, and no sooner does he make an order than the article whose price he is controlling disappears from the market. Even when he came to control rabbits the other day, within twenty-four hours after the Order was made—
    The CHAIRMAN: We really must not diverge into the discussion of other subjects.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I am not going to discuss the merits of the Food Controller, but I suggest that I was in order in this way in showing that the way in which he has exercised his uncontrolled power enables us to form a judgment as to how similar autocratic powers will be exercised if they are put at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, or of any other Minister. Members who are engaged in agriculture as farmers themselves, or who are connected with the land, view with great disquietude the prospect of putting such unlimited powers into the hands of one man, so far as agricultural industry is concerned. As has
    756
    been pointed out, when there is this great shortage of men, what need is there of the Bill in its application to agriculture? But if there was this shortage even before this recent Order as to the two million extra acres which are now to be ploughed was issued it is ineffective. If you exclude agriculture from the Bill it shows that the House is determined that those engaged in agriculture shall be encouraged, and that the production of corn shall not be hindered. If every farming hand employed in agriculture is liable to be called up it will cause great disquietude and great loss of time to the individuals, and to the farmers concerned, and it will not succeed in getting any men into the Army except by a much more counterbalancing loss of the men engaged in the production of food. For these reasons, so far as I can speak for agriculture in my Constituency, of which I have a considerable knowledge, I desire to support the Amendment.
    Major BRASSEY: I desire to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. More than one allusion has been made this afternoon to a question which I put to the Prime Minister to-day and to the very unsatisfactory reply which was given to me by the hon. Gentleman representing the Air Board. The question to the Prime Mininster was whether he was aware that contractors engaged in the construction of aerodromes in rural districts were taking men from the land, and whether he would take steps to prevent that in view of the great importance of the increased production of food at the present moment. Allusion has been made in two previous speeches to the fact that in the earlier part of the War agriculture was drawn on very freely for soldiers. The War Cabinet then put a stop to more men being taken from the land. But it is poor consolation to farmers, for whom I speak, and who have been carrying on for the past two or three years under great difficulties, that they are now having their men taken from them for this work. The aerodromes to which I allude are in the. district of which I have knowledge. Two aerodromes are now being erected there, and the contractors who have charge of the work draw as freely as they possibly can upon agricultural labour in that district. The men are tempted to leave the land by the offer of a very high rate of wages. In one particular case motor lorries are sent to the villages for the men,

    757
    who live some miles distant from the aerodrome, and they are taken back in motor lorries at night. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury) alluded to the fact that the farmers can apply for soldiers or for female labour. I have had some personal experience during the last few years of both, and I can say that the soldiers I have had have done most useful work, and I have been more fortunate than the right hon. Gentleman opposite in having been in a position to employ several ladies, who have also done excellent work for me. But anyone with experience of the subject knows that however willingly these soldiers and ladies work, and however obliging they are, they do not take the place of men over military age with lifelong experience of farm work. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the urgency of this question, and I can assure him that in my district, which is largely an arable district, the farmers have, I believe, done their duty, as well as anyone in the country, by ploughing up the grass lands. They are very shorthanded now, and any men taken now for military service from the purposes of agriculture would be a, most serious matter in regard to the food production of the country.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: May I venture to commend the principle of this Amendment to the attention of the Director of National Service? I do so from no sectional interest at all, nor with any idea of benefiting the farmer, or those who have to live upon the land, or to increase the profiteering of any section of the community. I commend the Amendment solely because of the need which exists in regard to the question of food production, which, in my judgment, is the most vital matter that concerns us to-day. I had an opportunity this morning of going over the Army and Navy Stores, and I took occasion to look through the food departments there. The Army and Navy Stores supply a fairly wealthy clientèle, but in the departments through which I went I found notices up, "No meat," "No butter," "No tea," "No margarine." These are four essential commodities, which are ticketed in this way at the stores, and these articles of food could not be obtained this morning. As I stated, the stores supply fairly wealthy customers. But what must be the conditions in the poorer districts We want to urge this question on the Minister of National Service, and I do not bring this matter forward simply that the farmers should make profits, but solely on
    758
    the ground of the supply of food to the people of this country—a question which looks to me to be getting more serious every day. Honestly; I do not know what is going to be the position, but I hope the Government have some plan or, if I may so put it, something up their sleeve, to deal with this vital question. I am afraid that we are drifting into a somewhat dangerous position in regard to food. I do not know what the Government have in their minds, but I would point out that if the position is anything like what it has been in the last two weeks it may become a menace and a danger. This is not a new topic with me; I have been at it for a year and a-half, and when my hon. Friends say that I do not want to get men into the Army I would like them to read the chapter of Carlyle's "Revolution," which begins with the bakers' shops, and which shows what the effect of the food question was in Paris at that time.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept the Amendment of the Member for the City wholly, whether he will in some degree meet it? What the right hon. Gentleman should do is to afford the farmers some assurance that will give them confidence that they will be able to carry on their industry at a profit. They have had profits within the last two or three years, no doubt, but the cost of production has gone up to such an extent,. and the difficulties of production are so great, that I assure the Minister of National Service that, now this question has been raised, it will be necessary to give the farmers confidence, especially when they are called upon to increase the acreage under cultivation. In reference to that I am somewhat sceptical—indeed, I am certain that it will not be done; there will not be 3,000,000 new acres of land brought under cultivation in Great Britain this year; that is as certain as I stand at this box now. I presume that the Minister of National Service knows that in so far as agriculture is concerned, it has already been drained. There were, before the War, about 1,000,000 men engaged agriculture. We all knew there were too few men in agriculture then. There has been taken from the agricultural industry, or there has been lost to that industry, between 300,000 and 350,000 men. Yet you expect the agriculturists to produce 50 per cent. more food with 30 per cent. less labour. It cannot be done. Therefore I put this point quite impartially to my right hon. Friend opposite, having no sectional

    759
    interest whatever to serve—I simply say to him, "Will you reassure agriculturists of the country with regard to their labour?
    The Government Departments are acting, I think, very rashly and without sufficient thought in regard to agriculture. I saw in one of the newspapers this morning that something like 230 Orders respecting agriculture have been issued. [An HON. MEMBER: "One hundred and thirty!"] The paper I read said 230. At all events, these Orders have a very depressing effect; they are annoying, they are irritating. I am perfectly certain that the Minister of National Service, who, I am convinced, has the instincts of a real statesman, would not exercise these powers, where our food production is concerned, without consulting the President of the Board of Agriculture and his colleagues. The Food Controller must have acted in this matter without consulting the President of the Board of Agriculture, and it is, therefore, that we desire some assurance that the steps which are contemplated will not be taken where food production is concerned without consultation with, and the concurrence of, she President of the Board of Agriculture. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to accept this Amendment in its present form he might consider the insertion of some words to meet the point whereby men will not be taken from agriculture without the consent of the Board of Agriculture. That, at any rate, would leave power in the hands of the Government. I throw that suggestion out, while again assuring the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a question of private profit, but it is the question that unless agricultural production is stimulated there will be very great danger within a measurable distance of time of a very large number of people in this country being without food altogether.
    Sir A. GEDDES: It is hardly necessary for me to assure the Committee of my very great sympathy with the position of man-power in agriculture. I know how difficult the position is, and I do not think, from the point of view of the Army, it would make any difference if we were to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City; but it would introduce very considerable difficulties, and I would be much more prepared to meet the point raised on a general basis, which would perhaps go a good way to meeting the various points which we have had raised this afternoon.
    760
    I imagine that those who are interested in agriculture would feel perfectly safe if we were to insert a proposal that any Order under this Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House, and in that way I think it is possible, perhaps, to meet practically all the difficulties which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I shall read the form of words which I suggest to be inserted in Clause 2 as a new Sub-section:
    "(6) An Order under this Section (other than an Order applicable to an individual certificate) shall be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either of these Houses within fourteen days after the Order has been so laid; presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order, or any part thereof, shall be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, or such part thereof, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything done in pursuance thereof: Provided that Section 1 of the Rules of the Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to an Order made under this Section."
    Mr. HARRIS: How will that work when the House is not sitting?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The experience during the War has been that there have not been very long intervals during which the House has not been sitting. I realise the interest, of the speeches which have been made with reference to agriculture, but this provision would apply to every occupation, and therefore would include agriculture.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather inclined to agree with the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I do not know whether hon. Members interested in agriculture feel that the offer is one which should be accepted.
    Mr. J. MASON: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been wise to accept the recommendation made. So far from thinking that there will be any difficulty with the right hon. Gentleman, I have always looked upon his appointment for recruiting, both for the Army and for the trenches and industry, as a safeguard on which we are justified in relying. I do hope that in administering this Bill the right hon. Gentleman will go further and will protect agriculture against other Government Departments which are doing their best to create difficulties such as have been described by my hon. and

    761
    gallant Friend. At the beginning of the War the difficulties were between agriculture and the Army. I do net think that is the case now; the difficulty now is between agriculture and other Departments which are carrying on works at aerodromes, cutting of timber, and so forth. I hope he will try and protect us against those.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I am very glad that the Director-General has made this effort to meet a widespread feeling. I quite agree there would be some difficulty in selecting one industry of vital importance, though it is such as agriculture, and putting it into a separate category in this Act. For example, an Amendment might be moved to include merchant shipping, and another might be moved to include ironstone mining, and there might be other cases. I think the Minister in charge of the Bill is well advised to deal with this matter in general terms, and that the Amendment he now forecasts will go far to satisfy the feeling that was expressed in the Committee on an Amendment moved earlier by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). This Amendment will at all events bring these Orders within the cognisance of Parliament, and will leave the ultimate control with this House or with the other House. Any Address which this House might choose to present against such Regulations would have the effect of annulling the Order of the Minister. I should have preferred either in substitution or, preferably in addition, that there should have been constituted an Advisory Council, representative of Parliament and of industries, to act with the Minister in framing these Regulations, because they have to be considered from day to day and from week to week, and it is more probable that effective control would be exercised if the Orders were plastic before they were actually made and published. However that may be, I think the whole Committee will thank the right hon. Gentleman for the conciliatory spirit he has shown and for recognising the force of the objection to the conferment on any Minister of despotic and uncontrolled power. The exercise of despotic powers conferred on other Departments has not been so completely successful hitherto as to lead the Rouse very readily to repeat the experiment. I have no doubt my right lion. Friend will be ready to withdraw the Amendment, arid I am sure that the con-
    762
    cession made by the Minister will greatly facilitate the remaining stages of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that this Section shall not apply to any man who has attained the age of forty-one years before the passing of this Act."
    The right hon. Gentleman will at once see that there is something to be gained and very little to lose by the acceptance of this Amendment. Admittedly you want men for the Line and for the trenches, and for those purposes you do not want men of the mature age of forty and upwards. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he intends to proceed by the calling up of classes by certain ages, beginning with the younger years. I imagine that there must be quite a large number of men of forty who have been exempted on occupational employment, and I think it would be not only disturbing to them, but to industry generally, if those men were called up, or if they were to be left in doubt as to their position as to whether the exemption would be taken away. I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
    Sir A. GEDDES: In view of the modification of the original proposals, it seems to me unnecessary that there should be any limitation of this sort inserted actually in the Bill itself. It would appear to me to be simply introducing unnecessarily a complication of wording without having any effect in protecting men of that age from military service.
    Mr. MORRELL: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he intends to call up men of that age? The right hon. Gentleman makes short speeches rejecting Amendments which are quite reasonable, and think it would make a good deal of difference as to our attitude towards the Bill if he would tell us what are the intentions of his Department as to such cases. Does he really intend to call up men or forty-one or not? If he does not, then it is no: necessary to have an Amendment.
    Sir H. NIELD: In practice T am assured that if a man is forty-one before being called up, although he was not forty-one on the appointed day under the Act, although he has not the right, he is not in fact called up. If a conscript does not receive his calling-up notice before he is

    763
    forty-one, then he cannot be called up. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted it would make it statutory for everybody, and I think that would be far the better way. I am not in favour of allowing the man who has been, say, for two years in a protected trade, and who has been able to get to the age of forty-two because of that protection, to be placed in a better position than the man who has had to go into the Line because he was within the age on the appointed day.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid there must be some misunderstanding on the part of my hon. Friend, for which I have no doubt I am responsible. In conversation with him to-day I made a remark which has evidently been misunderstood. The position of the attested men and of the unattested men, so far as age limitation and liability for service, is precisely similar; there is no difference between the two. At the present time any unattested man who is forty-two, and whose exemption lapses, is called up for service. The attested man is dealt with precisely on the same basis as the unattested man.
    Sir H. NIELD: One has a statutory right and the other gets it in administration.
    Sir A. GEDDES: But the statutory right of the unattested man is not to remain in civil life if he has managed to cross his forty-first birthday without being called up. The attested man is treated as if he were an unattested man so far as dates are concerned.
    Sir H. NIELD: Suppose the case of a man who has never got exemption and who was near the limit of age, and that they neglect to give him a calling-up notice, it may be by accident, and that the man gets over forty-one. I understand that the unattested man obtains a charter by that neglect which gives him the right to exemption for which he does not go to a tribunal to ask. He has got a perfect statutory answer that he is not liable while the attested man has not.
    Sir A. GEDDES: That does not come under this Bill. The man who passes the age of forty-one remains liable to be called up so far as the Military Service Acts are concerned. Even if he were now approaching forty-three, as a single unattested man, he might be called upon to serve, and he would still, so far as the law is concerned,
    764
    be liable to serve. The military age is not limited to forty-one, but is moving forward.
    Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that it is proposed to call up men of forty-one or forty-two? It is important, particularly for these men, to know that, and I would advise my hon. Friend, unless he gets an assurance that the Government do not propose to do so, to go to a Division. It seems to me to do so would be merely creating trouble, disturbing industry, and would not add any military valour to the forces. No one will suggest that that is of any real use to the winning of the War to call up men of forty-one and forty-two. [An HON. MEMBER "Why?"] Because they are far too old to be any good. They would have been called up long ago if they were of any use. This applies to an extremely small number of men and a tiny little class all of whom are now occupied at home. Everyone knows that men above forty are of very little use in the trenches.
    Colonel Sir F. HALL: Have you any experience?
    Mr. MORRELL: I do not want to put my experience against that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have endeavoured to make myself acquainted with the opinion of others who have engaged in warlike operations, and I am told by a good many people that men of forty-one and forty-two are comparatively useless for modern warfare. It is the young men who are wanted. The House originally intended to call up men up to the age of forty and now these men of forty-one and forty-two are going to be called up or are liable for service. I should have thought it was a very small matter, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "whether" ["whether granted by a tribunal"]
    There will be a consequential Amendment, and if my proposal is carried the Clause will read:
    "This Section applies to any certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 and 1917, whether granted before or after the passing of this Act and granted by or under the authority of a Government Department."

    765
    The Amendment would exclude from this Section the withdrawal of exemptions where granted by tribunals. It is quite obvious that the exemptions which the Ministry of National Service has in view and which it is proposed sooner or later to withdraw are, the great bulk of them, those issued by Government Departments for rather large classes of munition workers, and it is for the purpose of dealing with these large classes that this Bill is introduced. There are, of course, individual cases of similar workers where the exemption has been granted by a tribunal, and if these words are included these individual eases of tribunal exemptions will be exempted. First of all let me point out that every case should be judged on its individual merits. The cases I am referring to are cases where the local circumstances are peculiar. It is not desirable, I think, to sweep away these individual cases of exemption granted by tribunals. If you do so you will certainly not be doing justice in these cases, and you will also cause a great deal of injustice and inconvenience in the locality. I suppose each one of us in our own localities, especially in rural districts, must know of individual men the retention of whose service is of the greatest importance. They may be machinists or fitters looking after agricultural machines. I myself have had two cases of this nature under my attention, and I suggest that they need to be individually considered. If they are so considered they should be considered in connection with the tribunal and the machinery which the tribunal has. I do, therefore, very earnestly hope that the Minister of National Service will accept this Amendment. I do not believe he is going to gain a very great number of men by keeping in these words, but on the other hand, if he attempts to carry out the provision as it stands it will involve a great deal of work, it will necessitate individual inquiries all over the country, and consequently I am in no way preventing the Bill being made as efficient as possible, but am making it easier to work by depriving it of these grounds for suspicion, difficulty, and discontent. I trust the Amendment will, therefore, have sympathetic and favourable consideration.
    Mr. MILLAR: The Amendment of the hon. Member appears one of substance, but I think he has put it in too wide a
    766
    form. I quite conceive it may be necessary to review cases of individual exemption granted by the tribunals, and I think this Committee ought to be in a position to know at this stage what the attitude of the Government is towards the future of the tribunals which may have to deal with these things. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point? After this Bill is passed, wherever a case is made for exemption on occupational grounds before the tribunal, the representative of the Ministry of National Service will be present to urge his case; and if the tribunal decides it is a case for exemption on occupational grounds, it may happen that on the following day the Director-General of National Service may see fit to withdraw the exemption. It appears possible, therefore, that the functions of the tribunals will, to a very large extent, be taken over by the Director-General of National Service. That really raises the question of whether there is to be any limit at all upon the cancellation of certificates of exemption granted by the tribunals. Is it contemplated that these cases are still to be allowed to go to the Appeal Tribunal, and if necessary to the Central Tribunal before the Minister of National Service will decide on the cancellation of a particular exemption, or is he going to consider each case on its merits as it arises on the representations of his representative before the tribunal? I feel quite sure, unless some explanation is afforded upon this point, the tribunals will have the feeling that their functions will be so cut down to dealing with minor cases of exemption that come before them that it has become a duty which ought no longer to be thrown upon them. In that respect there may be an element of misunderstanding throughout the country which it is desirable to remove at the earliest possible moment. For that reason I desire to press the right hon. Gentleman to say what is to be the future position with regard to these local tribunals and whether it is intended by him to exercise his power in every individual case that may come before. the tribunals after the passing of this Bill.
    Mr. CLYDE: I agree it is undesirable that there should be any misconception on this matter. With regard to the substance of the Amendment I think the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) will agree that after all, if the power of

    767
    recalling these exemptions on occupational grounds is to be used at all, that power must apply to exemptions given on occupational grounds by tribunals just as it must apply to other exemptions on occupational grounds. After all, the tribunals themselves have acted, or ought to have acted, with regard to occupational exemptions on the guidance which was provided for them by the published list of exempted occupations. Many hundreds—I suppose many thousands of exemptions—on occupational grounds were given by the tribunals just as I have no doubt a great many other exemptions on occupational grounds were given through Departments or otherwise. I am afraid if we are going to deal with the matter from an occupational purview of the situation then it is quite impossible to consider whether the agency that acted in the matter was the tribunal on the one hand or the Department on the other. I am afraid the Director-General could not very well do without the words which it is suggested should be omitted. Now I come to the point put by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Millar). I think he had in his mind the effect of Sub-section (4).
    Mr. MILLAR: That is so.
    Mr. CLYDE: But the point which he raises would never occur once the Order has been issuéd.
    Mr. MILLAR: My point is this. Where you have a certificate granted which applies to a class it will be perfectly plain it would cover all men who might fall within that class. But in the case of the individual exemption you are dealing under a Sub-section which defines the occupational ground. There may be a great variety of circumstances affecting the individuals. You may have circumstances peculiar to the health of the individual, and you may have decisions given by tribunals with respect to particular individuals, who may be put to work of national importance in some other direction than the Army. I want to know what is to be the position of the tribunal with regard to these particular individual cases?
    Mr. CLYDE: The ground of exemption is either occupational or it is not.
    Mr. MILLAR: For the individual or class?
    Mr. CLYDE: It is occupational, and occupational exemption equally affects the individual as it does the class. The ground of exemption is occupational and is not individual. If the exemption has been given upon grounds which are peculiar to the health of the individual, and not arising out of occupational circumstances, then that case will not fall under this Act at all. This Bill merely deals with exemptions on occupational grounds and with those alone. I have said that more than once.
    Mr. MILLAR: There are some occupations in which there are very few individuals concerned. There are occupations in which the circumstances are special which would apply to particular cases.
    Sir H. NIELD: May I suggest the case of a man who would never get an occupational exemption were it not for his health? A.B. conies along and fails to make out a complete case for occupational exemption, but, having regard to the fact that he would be of no use for the Army he is given occupational exemption. Am I to understand that the exemption in that case is to be swept aside?
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. CLYDE: It would certainly be swept aside so long as the exemption was on occupational grounds. Otherwise it would not fall within this Bill. It may be there are cases which upon investigation would be found to be partly affected by individual considerations which were not solely occupational, and a case of that sort could only be covered by the power of exemption which is given in Sub-section (3) of Section 2. But I think the hon. Member for Lanarkshire will agree, first of all, that where the Order has been made the difficulty he suggests never can occur.
    Mr. MILLAR: If it applied to a class.
    Mr. CLYDE: Certainly; always applying to a class in the sense that the Order applies to an occupation. Then, if it is. the other case, there is no Order. In that case, no doubt, an Order might follow any particular application or number of applications. That is a chance that nobody can provide against, and it is possible that it might occur. If it did, then the exemption granted before the Order would be wiped out—
    Mr. MILLAR: Before an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal?
    Mr. CLYDE: If it happened that the Order came before the appeal that result would follow also, but it comes down to a very simple matter—either there is an Order or there is not, in which case the exemption may be wiped out if the Order is made at a subsequent date. The only case in which it might occur is where you might have an exemption which had been affected by other considerations. That you can only meet by making an exception in the Order.
    Mr. MILLAR: It is provided for in Sub-section (5), where the definition of occupational grounds is,
    "Granted wholly or partly on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (a)."
    There it might be partly occupational and partly ill-health.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that I think he has been wandering over Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), and has not been dealing with this Amendment. I have Amendments before me dealing with each of those points as we come to them, and I think it would be much more convenient to take them as we reach them.
    Mr. MILLAR: With great deference, Mr. Whitley, I have endeavoured to keep within your ruling, but I submit that it is relevant to raise this question.
    Mr. CLYDE: I did answer the question, Mr. Whitley, but with the knowledge that in my opinion the question the hon. Gentleman was asking had nothing in the world to do with the Amendment, which is to leave out the reference to the tribunal in Sub-section (2). Without withdrawing anything I have said I shall not carry it any further till the subsequent points are reached.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words, "and also applies to any certificates so granted on such grounds to a man who has voluntarily attested, notwithstanding that the certificate has not statutory force."
    Here we come to the old question of the voluntarily attested man—his ready sacrifice, and how we ought to treat it. I do not think we ought to treat him as a conscript. I think all along the voluntarily
    770
    attested man ought to be treated differently to a conscript, and I invite the Minister of National Service to treat him differently under this Bill by refusing to rope him in as a conscript in this way. I, therefore, very briefly appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to give favourable consideration to this proposal.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Though I think I may say I share to the full the sympathy with the attested man which the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) has expressed, I find it quite impossible to agree to this particular Amendment because it would have the effect of withdrawing from the purview of the Act very nearly three-quarters of the men who will be affected by it, and in that way this Amendment, if adopted, would go far to defeat the purpose with which the Bill has been introduced.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words, "either to individual certificates, or."
    This Amendment raises the same question that we have had before, and would make the Sub-section read:
    "An order under this Section may be made applicable to certificates granted to any class or body of men," etc.
    It is the question again of the individual case as against the class, and it provides another opportunity, from a slightly different point of view, for the Minister to reconsider this question. I put it to him that he cannot deal with these individual cases without using the machinery of the tribunals, and a certificate of exemption granted by a tribunal can always be withdrawn. His representative at a tribunal could always apply to the tribunal to withdraw or vary the certificate of exemption given, and it is only by the same machinery that he proposes to deal with this that he can deal with it under this Bill. It therefore seems to me that these words "either to individual certificates, or" could very well be left out without really impairing the ability of the Minister of National Service to call up any men that he would want, and who could be spared. It does not deprive him of a single man. It is only a question of machinery, and it is going to do away with that sense of sweeping away wholesale, by a large order, individual exemptions which have

    771
    been granted on individual merits. As everybody knows, I have not the profound belief that all tribunals everywhere have done right. I think there arc vast differences amongst them. I think there are a great many—especially among the local tribunals; less so among the Appeal Tribunals—local tribunals which have undoubtedly given very unsatisfactory certificates, but in this case I believe the Minister of National Service could very well omit these words, that he would lose nothing, and that he would remove a very possible cause of friction and difficulty if he did so.
    Mr. MORRELL: I would appeal to the Minister of National Service if he wishes to pass a fair Bill to realise that he might very well accept this Amendment. If you really mean to take occupational grounds in a broad sense there can be no occupational ground of any importance that cannot be brought within a general Order. To have these words in, allowing for the revision of individual certificates of exemption by a Government Department, is going very near to defeating the original object of the Bill, which was to deal only with occupational grounds. I think a Government Department has no right to say, first of all, "We propose to deal with men who are in certain occupations, and by Orders which have been hid on the Table of the House," and then to say, "If there happens to be this or that individual who, we think, ought to be conscripted but whom we cannot bring within the Order, then we are going to deal with him as an individual." These men have been exempted after what purported to be—and what was, I am glad to think, in most cases—a thorough inquiry into their cases—to an extent that can never occur if this is passed—by a body of men who had regard to the merits of their individual cases. As the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Nield) has stated, they very often give their decision on composite grounds. If you leave these words in you will allow a lot of hardship and injustice to prevail, and will give an undue power to a Government Department, which Departments very often act without due consideration of the individual cases concerned. I think these are very dangerous words, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to act fairly, to accept this Amendment, which cannot affect the Bill.
    Mr. MILLAR: I think this Amendment raises very clearly the distinction I have been trying to bring out in regard to the two classes of cases which are dealt with under the Bill. The Lord Advocate has based his argument throughout on the fact that this Bill is purely one dealing with occupational grounds, and, if that be so, I cannot see what occupation can be taken without including the individual certificates altogether, because, according to his argument, in every case you will grade men according to their occupations, and will therefore be dealing with classes—whether they be small or large—according to occupation. Now we have in the Bill the words "individual certificates," which are now sought to be excluded by the Amendment. I think the Committee is entitled to know what the individual certificates are intended to be which are distinct in character altogether from the occupational certificates granted to classes. I do not want to trespass again on Sub-section (5), but, with all respect, Mr. Whitley, I do submit that I am entitled, in dealing with the question of individual certificates, to bring to your notice the fact that these individual certificates, which must have reference to occupation, must fall within that definition, and that therefore I am entitled to quote the definition to the Committee. With your permission I shall do so. The definition of "occupational grounds" is that contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the original Military Service Act, namely,
    "That it is expedient, in the national interests, that he should, instead of being employed in military service, be engaged in other work in which he is habitually engaged or in which he wishes to be engaged, or, if he is being educated or trained for any work, that he should continue to be so educated or trained."
    That raises, of course, a very wide variety of possible circumstances in which a man might accept National Service; but then, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. King) pointed out, the certificate which is issued on occupational grounds has to be regarded as composite. It may have reference to ill-health, to hardship, to conscientious objection, and it cannot for a moment be said, therefore, that these can all be treated, as the Lord Advocate stated they might be treated, on the basis of certified occupations pure and simple. You get the

    773
    personal question arising at every turn, and as you have that personal question arising before the tribunals you may have many cases coming before the tribunals in which they will be debarred from dealing with them if the Minister of National Service is about to issue an Order. We are entitled, at least, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be kind enough, in the outspoken manner in which he has sought to bring information to the House, to give us some information as to what cases the individual certificates are intended to cover. Are they numerous, and, if so, what will be the effect upon the tribunals if many of them come before them, subject to the right hon. Gentleman's power to cancel them afterwards?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I feel that there is a very great deal to be said for the question raised by the hon. Member for Somerset in this matter. There is no desire or intention, as has been pointed out on several occasions from this box this afternoon, to deal with this power in a harsh or discriminating manner; and if the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment, I will be prepared to move the insertion, after the words "individual certificates," the following words, "granted by Government Departments," because I think we should retain the right of dealing with individual cases where a certificate has been granted by a Government Department.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: That Amendment, I think, covers all the points I raised this afternoon, together with the other Amendments the right hon. Gentleman has promised.
    Mr. KING: I am very much obliged, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "certificates" ["either to individual certificates"], insert the words, "granted by Government Departments." —[Sir A. Geddes.]
    Mr. BECK: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "certificates" ["those men of individual certificates"], to insert the words, "or to certificates granted to men of any class or description specified in the Order."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment. It has been pointed out that this paragraph
    774
    might be supposed only to apply to certificates in certified occupations, and these words make it quite certain that that difficulty does not arise.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4, a), after the word "grant" ["for the grant of a certificate"], insert the words, "or renewal."
    After the word "granted" ["no certificates shall be granted"], insert the words, "or renewal."
    At the end of paragraph (b), insert the words, "and no such application if already made shall be proceeded with, and no certificates shall be granted on any such application."—[Mr. Beck.]
    Sir H. NIELD:I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "Any man, whether he has or has not attested, whose certificate of exemption is withdrawn by an Order under this Section shall be entitled to make an application to the appropriate tribunal for exemption on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 2 Sub-section (1) of the Military Service Act, 1916, other than occupational grounds, provided the application is lodged with the tribunal within fourteen days of the date of the notice withdrawing his certificate, or within such extended time as the tribunal may allow, and the Regulations or instructions relating to the procedure of tribunals in force for the time being shall, so far as circumstances permit, apply to any such application."
    I think there is some substance in this Amendment. We should make it perfectly clear, upon. the face of the Bill, that these men, from whom occupational certificates have been withdrawn on the ground that they are no longer necessary, shall have opportunities of presenting within a definite time their appeal to the tribunal on other grounds. At present in the there is a somewhat cryptic reference in these words (paragraph b)—
    "no application shall be made by or in respect of a man whose certificate comes within the terms of the Order for the renewal of the certificate except on grounds which are not occupational."
    I much prefer the English way of stating definitely and clearly, as was done in the Review of Exceptions Act, a man's right to be re-examined. I do hope this will be accepted. If it is intended that the words in the Bill, to which I have referred, give this right, by all means let it be definitely

    775
    stated. There are many men who will have very strong grounds for coming before the tribunals afresh—grounds which were never considered, or were brushed aside, because the best card was put down first, namely, that his occupation was a certified trade, or something of that sort, and he was given exemption on that ground and other grounds were never gone into. It would be manifestly unfair, therefore, if he were not given an opportunity within a definite time of appealing on other grounds.
    Mr. CLYDE: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to do nothing more than to make assurance doubly sure. He says that is the English way of doing it. I rather think that the fairest use of the language is not to say a thing twice if you have stated it clearly once, because then you are apt to find that there is something inconsistent where there is really no inconsistency. As the matter stands at present, the only restriction that there is in the Bill against applying for a certificate of exemption is that you are not to apply again on grounds which are not occupational, or other grounds, in a certificate given on occupational grounds. The result of accepting what is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be merely to repeat what the Bill contains already. There is nothing in the world to prevent a man applying for exemption upon grounds which are not occupational at all; therefore it is very much better to leave what we have said clearly once than to endeavour first affirmatively and then negatively to say what we have already said to amend the Clause, and so leave under unintentional obscurity what we have already declared clearly.
    Sir H. NIELD: That is not quite the sort of criticism I expected from my right hon. and learned Friend. It is not affirmatively and then negatively put down. My right hon. and learned Friend forgets that under the Regulations which govern the original Appeal Tribunals, limitations of time are imposed. The only grounds upon which a subsequent application may be made are grounds of new circumstances. I am speaking of what you, Sir Donald, are perfectly well aware—no man more so—you must have new circumstances before you can bring a new claim. What is this? It is not a new circumstances; therefore it will be out of time. I am perfectly con-
    776
    vinced, from the experience of nearly two years now, that unless some such words—I do not ask for the acceptance of my words particularly—
    Mr. CLYDE: I am quite unconvinced, but at the same time one may be wrong. If I were to give an undertaking to consider the matter, perhaps that will meet the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Sir H. NIELD: Certainly; and under those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words, "or partly" ["granted wholly or partly"].
    I take it it is obvious that many certificates of exemption lave been granted originally on various grounds. If a man had "other grounds" besides occupational grounds, either the occupational grounds or the other grounds may have been thrown in as more or less unimportant. But they may have been of vital importance. The words or other grounds "may have been sufficient to give him exemption. Therefore, I think that it would be unfair, and not right or appropriate to take away certificates of exemption from those men who have had other grounds of exemption besides that of occupation.
    Sir A. GEDDES: One appreciates and sympathises with the points of view which have been put forward, but I think perhaps the hon. Member for North Somerset has not quite realised our position, and how this will work out. If those individuals who were affected by the Order were in fact entitled to exemption. on grounds other than those of occupation, it would be still open for them to apply for exemption on those other grounds. Whereas if the words "or partly" were left out we would have no. chance under this Bill for the reconsideration of cases where the real grounds for intention were occupational, but where some minor other possibility may be added by the tribunal. The provision in the Bill, if it should be found on reconsideration to be not sufficiently clear, will, as my bon. and learned Friend has just suggested, be reconsidered.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir A. GEDDES: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the following Sub-section:
    "(6) An Order under this Section (other than an order applicable to an individual certificate) shall be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either of these Houses within fourteen days after the Order has been so laid presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order, or any part thereof, shall be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or such part thereof, and it shall henceforth be void without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done in pursuance thereof, provided that Section (1) of the Rules of Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to an Order made under this Section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes before Nine o'clock

WAR.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS AND STAFFS).
    COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY.
    COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PLOUGHING TRACTORS.
  PLOUGHING TRACTORS.
  OATMEAL.
  OATMEAL.
  ECONOMY CAMPAIGN (SPEAKERS).
  ECONOMY CAMPAIGN (SPEAKERS).
  FLOUR.
  FLOUR.
  LUNATICS' MAINTENANCE (GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION).
  LUNATICS' MAINTENANCE (GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  SHIPPING LOSSES.
  EARBY AND THORNTON GAS COMPANY.
  EARBY AND THORNTON GAS COMPANY.
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (INVASION).
  VOLUNTEER FORCE (INVASION).
  CAMBRAI.
  CAMBRAI.
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (STOREHOLDERS)
  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (STOREHOLDERS)
  ARMY OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
  ARMY OFFICERS (ALLOWANCES).
MUNITIONS.
  AIRCRAFT WORKERS (REMUNERATION).
  AIRCRAFT WORKERS (REMUNERATION).
  TAXI-CAB DISPUTE.
  TAXI-CAB DISPUTE.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (WAR ADDITION).
  HORSES (NORMAL LOADS).
  HORSES (NORMAL LOADS).
  WAR AIMS (LABOUR PARTY'S STATEMENT).
  WAR AIMS (LABOUR PARTY'S STATEMENT).
  Mr. TCHIT CHERINE.
  Mr. TCHIT CHERINE.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
  INSURANCE AGENTS (REMUNERATION).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (REMUNERATION).
  RECONSTRUCTION (PRIORITY CLAIMS).
  RECONSTRUCTION (PRIORITY CLAIMS).
  RUSSIA.
  RUSSIA.
  PASSPORT (Ma. C. H. NORMAN).
  PASSPORT (Ma. C. H. NORMAN).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Cattle Drivers, Kildare.
  Cattle Drivers, Kildare.
  Housing (Dublin).
  Housing (Dublin).
  Penal Servitude (Cost of Criminals).
  Penal Servitude (Cost of Criminals).
  Prison Offences (Punishment).
  Prison Offences (Punishment).
  National Insurance (Benefits).
  National Insurance (Benefits).

A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House for a moment to make something in the nature of a personal explanation. I have received a very courteous letter from the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who I am sure we are all glad to see back in his place, in regard to a statement which I made in the debate upon the noble and learned Earl's (Lord Loreburn's) Amendment in Committee. I then said that it was largely owing to the intervention of the noble Earl (Lord Curzon) himself in the management of the Association against woman suffrage that agitation had not been more marked in the months through which we had just passed. One day last week, on January 18, in the letter to which I have referred, the noble Earl wrote, "I did not intervene at all. I was asked my opinion as to whether I thought an agitation last summer would do any good, and I said No." As a matter of course, I accept that statement in the most perfect way, as I would any statement which was made by the noble Earl. I had, as a matter of fact, no personal knowledge of the matter at all. What I said on the occasion to which I have referred was founded on the fact that Lord Gisborough, in this House on January 10, when the noble Earl was present, said—
"There was an intention to carry out a campaign in the country against this proposal, and this intention was only given up by those who are opposed to woman suffrage at the request of the noble Earl who leads this House, and for whose guidance we who are opposed to woman suffrage were grateful."
I ought, perhaps, to have said that the statement which I made was not made on that day, but was made on January 14—I mean the statement which the noble Earl challenged. All I can say is that, of course, I accept the denial of the noble Earl; but I think that I was justified in founding my remarks upon the fact that Lord Gisborough had made the statement, and that the noble Earl was in the House on that day and did not challenge it. He has since told me that he did not want to interrupt the noble Lord because it was the first speech that Lord Gisborough had made in the House. I could not, of course, be expected to know that. All I have to
818
say is that the statement which I made on January 14 was made in perfectly good faith, and I now say, rather than revise the report in Hansard, that I accept the denial of the noble Earl.
But on another matter the noble Earl has challenged a further statement that I made. I said—
"I am bound to say that we did not expect him, although he might absent himself, to put all the pressure which the latter part of his speech undoubtedly put on loyal supporters not to vote according to what he knew were their real convictions on the matter."
In the same letter that I received from Lord Curzon he seems to take this as referring only to his colleagues in the Ministry. As a matter of fact, the words were intended to bear—and I think do bear, according to a proper interpretation—a much wider significance, and to apply to loyal supporters generally. They had an effect not only on Peers who abstained, but on some who actually voted against Lord Loreburn's Amendment when they had previously expressed their intention of voting for it. I am not for a moment prepared to say that the words of the noble Earl went the length of affecting the actual result of the Division, but unquestionably the number of those supporting the Amendment would have been larger than it was but for the eloquent words which the noble Earl used near the end of his speech.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has, with characteristic fairness, corrected a passage to which I had taken objection in the speech which he delivered to this House on Monday, I think it was, of last week. I was not present on that occasion. Had I been here, and had I heard the words of the noble Lord, I should have risen at once to question them. The noble Lord has just told us that his words did not spring from any personal knowledge on his part, but were based on something that had fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, at an earlier stage of the debate. It is quite true that Lord Gisborough, in a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill on the same day that I had the honour of closing the debate, did make an allusion to, or a statement about, some pledge which I was understood to have given. When the noble Lord made that remark in the opening of his speech—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: It was on Lord Loreburn's Amendment.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I beg pardon, on Lord Loreburn's Amendment. When he (Lord Gisborough) made that statement in the opening sentence of his speech I had not the slightest idea to what he was referring, and I only refrained from rising at once to challenge him for the reason named by the noble Lord who has just spoken—namely, that I did not like, almost at the opening stage of a maiden speech in your Lordships' House, that an interruption should be made by the Leader of the House. Lord Gisborough, with perfect fairness, has since withdrawn the statement in a letter to the newspapers.
The next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, was as to the degree of influence which he conceived to have been exercised by the speech or by the action which I made or took the other evening. I have no means of knowing what influence that speech, or my action consequent upon that speech, had generally upon your Lordships' House. I only know this, that as regards my own colleagues in the Government it was so strangely without influence that, looking at the Division List, I find that no fewer than thirteen of my colleagues on this Bench voted, irrespectively of what I had said, as I believe they always had intended to vote, in favour of woman suffrage; that only one of my colleagues voted against it; and that only four imitated my example in abstaining from the Division.
As regards the general question on the occasion to which I have referred, I will only say this, that if any noble Lord desires in any way to challenge what I then said or did I hope that he will do me the favour of doing it across the floor of this House, where I can have the opportunity of meeting the challenge made, No person can expect to hold, or to retain, the leadership of your Lordships' House unless he is generally assured of the confidence reposed by the House in general, I do not say in his wisdom, because that is merely a matter of opinion, but in his integrity and honour; and if that confidence were impaired or withdrawn, I should be the first to relieve both this House and myself of a false position.

PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any information can be given to the House as to the present position and future prospects of the South Persia Rifles, and whether His Majesty's Government can inform the House as to the present position of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to echo the congratulations made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the return to this House of the noble Earl, Lord Curzon. I do not wish to delay business when your Lordships are engaged on a lengthy consideration of the large Bill which is before us. But this question regarding the position of affairs in Persia has not been treated in this House since last February. Whilst I do not wish, therefore, to raise a general debate, there are two specific points of peculiar importance that I have put down on the Notice Paper.
Since the statement made by the noble Earl (Earl Curzon) last February, there had been a Despatch from Sir Charles Munro which has been published, but that does not really carry us much beyond the information that has been supplied by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. With regard to the first part of the Question standing in my name, the last information that we had was to the effect that Sir Percy Sykes had been right to Isfahan and had joined hands with the Russian forces there, but had then gone back to Shiraz and made that place his headquarters. The last event in connection with the forces under his command was that they had gone down to quell some disturbance at Kazerun and were down to the Persian Gulf, but were not strong enough and had to retire to Shiraz. That is the last information in respect of the operations conducted by Sir Percy Sykes of which I have heard. In February last the noble Earl (Earl Curzon) very justly paid great credit to the operations that had been conducted by Sir Percy Sykes, both from the military and political points of view, and it is only right that the public should learn something of the very arduous nature of the operations upon which he

821
has been engaged, and of the heavy responsibility that has been thrust upon him, and upon his subordinates who from time to time have to go out on missions far from headquarters and have thereby very special duties to discharge. It must be remembered that this small force, practically isolated, really forms the right Hank of the Allied battle front, which stretches from the confines of India up to the very north of Scotland, and therefore it is a matter of supreme importance to this country to have some knowledge of what is taking place in connection with that force. I trust that the noble Earl will be able to give good news of Sir Percy Sykes and of his command.
In regard to the second portion of the Question—the position of the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907—I put this down on the Paper because, owing to the Russian débâcle, I for one have not the remotest idea how the position really stands at the present time in Persia. No doubt that Convention, badly conceived and ill-omened, has afforded, if not the justification, at least the pretext for the invasion of Persia by a German-Turkish force. It must necessarily be a very delicate topic to deal with, but it is a matter of supreme interest to the public, and I trust that the noble Earl will be able to give some indication of the position of the Anglo-Russian Convention at the present moment.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am glad to answer the Question of the noble Lord; and in view of the importance of the debate which we are all awaiting, will content myself with following his example in making a brief statement rather than a speech.
I think that there has been some misconception about the character and service of the South Persia Rifles, which are under the command of Sir Percy Sykes. For several years there has existed in the Southern portions of Persia a police or gendarmerie force, whose main duty it was to preserve order and to guard the principal trade routes. Up to and even after the beginning of the war this gendarmerie was commanded by Swedish officers. With their disappearance in 1915 the force itself was dissolved, and disorder at once again raised its head. The
822
Persian Government recognised the necessity of creating a new force to take the place of the disbanded gendarmerie, but at the time were unable themselves to undertake the task. They therefore formally accepted the offer of His Majesty's Government to place at their disposal a number of British officers for the purpose. A great many of the old gendarmerie were re-enlisted, the force was strengthened, its headquarters—as the noble Lord remarked—were established at Shiraz, and the effect was speedily visible in a return of local security and the revival of trade. But the force continued to be, what it was in its inception, what it will, I hope, always remain—namely, a Persian force. The most assiduous attempts have been made by pro-German elements, with whose devices we are now so familiar, to represent this force as a part of the British or Indian Army, and as engaged in a military occupation of the country. Of course, it is nothing of the sort. It is Persian in character, composition, and allegiance, and the first to suffer from its disappearance would be Persia herself.
This point has been continually placed before the Persian Government by the British Minister at Teheran, and, in spite of much interested misrepresentation, is generally recognised by Persian statesmen. An even surer guarantee of the sincerity of British intentions has been furnished by our willingness to discuss with a friendly Persian Cabinet the future of the South Persia Rifles when the war is over. We desire Persia to remain neutral during the war and to retain its complete independence after the war. There should be no difficulty in finding a solution of the question that will fulfil the triple criterion of satisfying Persian national sentiments, providing for the safety of the roads, and protecting the legitimate interests of trade. Without the existence of such a force the authority of the Persian Government would itself be imperilled. The sole aim of the British Government is to render it an effective unit in the military resources of the country. The matter, I can assure the noble Lord, is one to which, in consultation with our able British Minister. Sir C. Marling, His Majesty's Government have devoted and are devoting very earnest and sympathetic consideration.
The noble Lord, in the concluding sentences of his remarks, asked a further

823
question upon what he rightly described as an important but delicate matter—namely, the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1907. This Convention was intended, not to impair the integrity or independence of Persia, but to put an end to the longstanding rivalry between the two great outside Powers in Persia; and whether it was a good or a bad Agreement, it certainly did not fail in its principal object. Nevertheless, there were many here again who lost no opportunity of representing to the Persian Government that what was in its essence a self-denying instrument was secretly inspired by a hostile purpose, and was aimed at the territorial integrity or political independence of the Persian Kingdom. There was no foundation for these beliefs at the time. I desire most categorically to repudiate and deny them now. Further, the great change in the situation produced by recent events in Russia has given to His Majesty's Government a welcome opportunity of testifying their sincerity in this respect. In the absence of a stable Government in Russia it has not so far been found possible to discuss the matter with that country. But we have informed the Persian Government that we regard the Agreement as being henceforward in suspense, and as soon as the conditions to which I have referred are satisfied we shall be ready to reconsider the whole question.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the emphatic disclaimer which has just fallen from the noble Earl. I do not wish to ask him any question which he would think it undesirable to answer, but if he feels it possible to tell us anything with regard to the state of things in North Persia, to which he did not refer, we should be glad to hear it. As I said, I will not ask him that question if he feels any delicacy in answering it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am afraid, owing to the disorder prevalent in the Northern parts of Persia, that our information as to what is passing in those regions is very imperfect; and, even if I were to ask the noble Viscount to postpone his question, and put it on another occasion, I doubt very much whether the Foreign Office, all of whose telegrams I have seen, would be able to give him anything in the nature of a satisfactory reply.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 18:
Modification of method of voting in certain constituencies.
18.—(1) If at an election for one member of Parliament there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act.
(2) At a contested election for a university constituency, where there are two or more members to be elected, any 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.
(3) At a contested election for a university constituency in England or Ireland, the voting paper shall be signed by the voter in the presence of one witness who personally knows the voter and attests the fact of the voting paper having been signed by the voter in his presence at the place therein mentioned by signing his name thereto, and adding his designation and place of residence.
(4) His Majesty may by Order in Council frame regulations prescribing the method of voting, and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the principle of the transferable or of the alternative vote and for adapting the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act relating to parliamentary elections thereto, and with respect to the duties of returning officers in connection therewith; and any such regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
(5) Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided herein, affect the method of conducting parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert, at the beginning of Clause 18, the following 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 noble Earl said: I must ask for your Lordships' patience. The case I have to make is an important one, and I cannot be brief. I have to explain what I am asking your Lordships to do, and why I ask you to do it; and I must endeavour to anticipate the objections which will be made. In the first place your Lordships may ask me, What is proportional representation? As regards the voter the answer is very simple. The voter is re-

825
quired, under that system, to put the figure "1" against the name of the candidate of his choice instead of a cross. If he does that, his vote is valid; but he would be wise if he does more and puts the figure "2" against the second candidate of his preference, and so on through the list of candidates which is before the electors. When you come to the counting of the votes by the returning officers the matter is more complicated. But it is enough for me to tell the House that this system has been tried, for one purpose or another, in at least a dozen countries some within the British Empire, others which are foreign countries but in none of them has the counting of the votes been found to be a matter of any difficulty.
The system requires large constituencies. As you will see from the terms of my Amendment, the area of a constituency must be three, four or five times greater than the area of a single-Member constituency. But the result achieved by this system, or the result which we who advocate it claim for it, is that, by the system, you do get true representation of national opinion instead of what I can prove to you to demonstration to be often a mere travesty of national opinion.
Now, the objections urged against this system are drawn, in some cases, as stated, from experience; others are what may be called practical objections; others are technical; and, lastly, there is the objection of principle. I will come first of all to the objection of experience. It is stated that because the three-Member constituencies in which two votes only were given to each elector, introduced under Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill of 1867, were not continued in the Reform Bill of 1884, and because the cumulative vote which was at one time the method of election for the School Board because those two systems had been abandoned, therefore all attempts to give an adequate representation to minorities must be pronounced to be a failure. That is an argument; which is easily answered. The fact that these two wholly different propositions from the one I am making to your Lordships have been discontinued is no proof that my proposal is not a sound one, especially as some of those who will speak in this debate will be able to show how the system of proportional representation is working in those countries which have tried it.
I come next to what I call the practical objections. The first of these is, I think, the most formidable—namely, that the geographical area is so great as to make the task of a candidate such as only a young man could undertake and, indeed, intolerably hard and difficult. Let us consider that for a moment; the proposal being that a constituency shah be formed of three, four, or five single county-Member seats. I think I am right in saying that all the counties were undivided counties before the great Reform Bill of 1832; and our forefathers had to deal, as candidates, with these counties when there was no means of locomotion except riding or driving. But let us go to the year 1885, the year in which I first entered Parliament. I think my case is fairly typical. I stood for a single-Member division of the county in which I lived. I had to speak in every village and hamlet, and those places numbered very nearly 100. Besides the journeys I was able to make by train, I rode and drove just over 1,000 miles. I say without the slightest fear of contradiction that it would be easier for me to-day to speak in the principal towns and villages of half my county with a motor car than it was thirty years ago to deal with that single-Member constituency by means of riding and driving. I admit, of course, that it would be still easier to deal with a single-Member constituency with a motor car. That is obvious. But I think that I have said enough to show that the practical difficulties, so far as geography is concerned, are not such, now that we have the use of motor cars, as to make that objection obviously fatal.
I pass to the question of expense. It is argued that the expense of a contest in one of these big constituencies would be prohibitive. The expense of a candidate will always be what Parliament chooses to make it. We all remember the days when the great Whig and Tory families vied with each other in county elections, and ruined their families in the process. Ever since those days Parliament has been consistently and continuously engaged in lessening the cost of Parliamentary contests; and in this Bill a further step is taken in that direction. If that step has not gone far enough, well, there are already Amendments on the Paper inviting you still further to reduce the expense of a Parliamentary contest.
I come next to the question of the by-election. It is asked, How can you apply the principle of proportional representation to a by-election? You cannot apply it; and that is a perfectly valid and reasonable objection. We do not attempt to do it. We say that, in the case of a by-election, the big constituency must be treated as a single-Member constituency; but we are going to put Amendments on the Paper to endeavour to reduce as far as possible the number of by-elections. I think the time has come when it should be no longer necessary for a member of the House of Commons to seek re-election because he has been selected to become a Minister. This is a matter in which all parties are in the same, position. We know that it has happened again and again and again that the man most fitted to serve the King and to do good work for his country has not been appointed to an office because the Government of the day did not like to risk a by-election in his constituency. The reason for that by-election—jealousy of the Court influence—is a matter of past history entirely inapplicable to present conditions; and I hope that your Lordships will agree with the Amendment which proposes to deal with this matter.
I have already said that the technical difficulty of counting the votes is not one that can be seriously urged as an objection to my proposal. The list I am going to give is not exhaustive, but the system is in operation, for one purpose or another, in Tasmania, in Switzerland, in Norway, in Belgium, in Finland, and in Sweden. It has been adopted recently in Denmark; it has passed through the Lower House in Holland; and it has been adopted for New Zealand for the election of the Legislative Council. Last, and by no means least, it is in use at the present moment, for their own purposes in one of the great railway unions in this country. A union of 400,000 men find no difficulty in conducting their elections by means of proportional representation. If that is so, I think we may ask the opponents of this measure not to trouble any further with a dilation on the technical difficulties of counting the votes. But it is urged from the point of view of the Member of Parliament—I am taking now the arguments that were used in the House of Commons by the opponents of this system—that the position of the Member of Parliament would be impossible. One Member said that he would only be the fifth or the third of the
828
Member for the constituency. What a strange conception of the result of the system, that a Member should be one-fifth or one-third of the Member for the constituency. He would be nothing of the kind, my Lords. The constituency will have three or five Members, and each Member will be Member for the whole constituency. Therefore there is nothing in that point.
Then it was said, and said again and again, that all the happy personal touch between a Member and his constituents would be destroyed. It is quite true that the touch will be of rather a different kind. I personally should not think it a ess honour to be Member for Birmingham han for a division of Birmingham, or member for the county or half the, county if Hampshire, instead of being Member for one division of Hampshire. I do not deny that there are cases where the relations between a Member and his constituents may be quite accurately and without exaggeration described as one, of a happy personal touch, and I do not pretend that except in very exceptional cases exactly that same relationship could exist in a larger as it does in the smaller constituency. But, my Lords, is there not another side to that question? Is not the personal touch sometimes of rather a different description? Are there not cases where a wealthy candidate pours an uninterrupted stream of gold into the constituency, and where the touch may be more correctly described as corrupting than of a happy personal kind. Therefore, if there may be loss in one direction, which I admit, there will be at least equal gain in another.
Then it is said that a candidate cannot become known to a larger constituency. The electors can read, and we all know out of the existing electorate what proportion attend the meetings addressed by the candidate. It is only a minority who go to the meetings. The great majority of the electors ascertain the candidate's views only through the Press, or through the literature which his supporters leave at the voter's house. Therefore it would be just as easy for the candidate to place his views before the electors in the large as in the smaller constituency. I remember quite well reading that that was exactly one of the arguments that was used against the extension of the franchise last century, because there was a time, my Lords, when a candidate had to canvass all the electors

829
personally; and it was argued that it was a pity to destroy that perfect system of enabling the elector to know his candidate and understand his views. Therefore, in that argument we have only an old friend which has already been proved to be a fallacy.
It was also stated that the annual expenses of the candidate would be intolerable in a large constituency. They are quite intolerable in some of the smaller constituencies, and anything which we can do to make it less possible for a Member to be bled by an exacting constituency would be nothing but a public service. It is not so easy for a Member to pour out subscriptions in a large constituency as in a smaller one, and I hope that that intolerable system will be largely remedied by the adoption of proportional representation.
It is then said that you are going to increase the power of the Party machine. I am one of those who believe that you cannot work democracy without a Party machine, and I am not going to stake my reputation on any such statement as that the adoption of proportional representation would weaken the influence of the Party machine. I do not say that, but I do say this, that I think the Party machine would have to be more careful than it is now as to the kind of candidate which it chooses, and that instead of having a tendency which I see in both Party machines to prefer the rich man to the able man or the man of public service, I believe that tendency would be corrected by the larger electorate.
Now I come to a point to which I ask your Lordships to give special attention. It was said, I think, by my hon. and gallant friend Sir Herbert Jessel, who is a convinced opponent of this system—he was alluding to the Committee of your Lordships' House that has been actively engaged in promoting this matter ever since the Franchise Bill was introduced—
"If noble Lords are so keen about proportional representation I hope that they will advocate that system for the new House of Lords, and leave members of the House of Commons to their own devices."
My Lords, I make a prophecy, and it is this, that proportional representation will quite certainly find a place in any recommendations that are made for the constitution of a new Second Chamber. I am going to say something more. I am going
830
to say that it is very probable that the success or completion of a scheme for a new Second Chamber will very largely depend upon whether or not proportional representation is introduced for the First Chamber.
I come to the case of London. There is no doubt that the opposition of the London Members is a very real, convinced, and formidable one, and I speak of it with great respect. I find that thirty-six London Members voted against proportional representation, nine voted for it, and fifteen did not vote. That does not show anything like a unanimous opinion, but it does show a preponderating opinion, to which I wish to attach all weight, against the application of the system to London.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That was, I believe, in the first Division. I think you will find that the figures were different on the later Division.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I want to put the arguments before you which the London Members addressed to the House of Commons, because they are very important and require the whole of your Lordships' consideration. I have taken certain extracts which I think are typical and accurately describe the attitude of these London Members, foremost among whom are my very old political friends Mr. Hayes Fisher and Sir Herbert Jessel, but they are not alone. Mr. Burdett-Coutts is a strong opponent also. Now these are verbatim extracts—
"Proportional representation in London will absolutely destroy the whole of that solidarity of local life which is defined by the boundaries of administrative areas."
"Proportional representation would strike a deadly blow at tin; whole of the corporate life of London which has been built up with so much care and pain."
Again—
"The Parliamentary area must be co-extensive with the local government area."
I want your Lordships to understand what that means. A band of devoted Londoners, of whom I have mentioned some of the principal members—there are many others, of all Parties—have set themselves, to the great advantage; not only of London but of the nation, to fill London with an esprit de corps of its own, with a local metropolitan patriotism, to make the Londoner proud of London as a citizen of Birmingham is

831
proud of Birmingham, and they have had the most wonderful success. I think nobody knows better than my noble friend opposite who is in charge of the Bill what a true public spirit has been introduced in London, how fruitful that has been in the past, and what bright promise of further advantage it has for the future. Nobody knows it better than my noble friend Lord Crewe behind me.
Those gentlemen who take the view that I am describing believe that that has been possible because in London the constituencies for the county council cover exactly the same areas as the Parliamentary constituencies, the only difference between the two being that in most cases the constituency returns one, member for Parliament and two members for the county council. They are afraid that if these two areas cease to be universally and always coterminous the work in which they are engaged may be undone or even destroyed. I would ask your Lordships to consider whether that is really so. Is it really impossible to maintain the local patriotism of London, to increase it, to work up even to a greater height the civic enthusiasm of Londoners, if the boundaries of these two sets of constituencies cease to be invariably coterminous? I would remind you, my Lords, that in all the great provincial cities without exception the administrative area is sub-divided for Parliamentary purposes. In none of the great cities at the present moment are these two areas coterminous. Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester are each one area for municipal purposes, but they are five, six, seven, eight, or nine areas for Parliamentary purposes. Again, in the case of some of the smaller provincial towns the administrative areas of two or more are united for Parliamentary purposes. You have the boroughs of Warwick and Leamington, two wholly separated municipalities but united in one Parliamentary constituency. The same is true of Dewsbury and Batley; and in Wales and Scotland you have whole groups of boroughs. If some boroughs have to be combined in London to form one Parliamentary constituency, so also will some provincial boroughs and counties, but no one would make the contention I have mentioned in respect of a county.
There are other spheres of national activity, and local patriotism, and territorial patriotism beside the Parliamentary and municipal. Take the patriotism of
832
our county regiments. One of the most famous regiments in the British Army is the Bucks and Oxford Light Infantry. Does the fact that these two counties are united to form one regiment impair the patriotism of Bucks or of Oxfordshire? The fact is, my Lords, that this splendid work which Mr. Hayes Fisher, Sir Herbert Jessel, Mr. Burdett-Coutts and others of other Parties have done in London, this splendid work of building up that London patriotism—it is accomplished. It is going on, and nothing that we do in the way of making the two sets of constituencies vary occasionally can destroy it or impair it. I have the greatest possible sympathy with as well as admiration for the anxiety of my right hon. friends, but they do not realise what they have done. They do not realise the extraordinary effect of their efforts, because they have built up, they have accomplished, this London patriotism which has been their aim. They have not been trying to build up a Poplar patriotism, a Fulham patriotism, or a Finsbury patriotism. It has been London they have had before their eyes, and they have succeeded. They have most wonderfully succeeded, as I will show you. The British Army has a glorious history of more than two centuries behind it, and there has been, I think, throughout the whole of that period one regiment—the Royal Fusiliers—known as the City of London regiment. In all the wars that this country has ever waged before has the London regiment even been heard of which in this war has gained immortal glory? My Lords, there is no regiment throughout the whole of the British Army or throughout the Empire that has done more magnificent service in this war than the London Regiment—not, as I said before, the Fulham Regiment, nor the Finsbury Regiment, not the Battersea, nor the Paddington Regiment. If I might adapt Shakespeare I would say—
"For ever shall the names,
Familiar in our months as household words,
Londons and Bedfords, Hants and Worcesters,
Be in our flowing cups freshly remembered."
That has been the result of the work of this band of patriotic and public-spirited men who have for the last twenty years and more been trying to make London proud of itself and have a real London patriotism. There is no danger to that patriotism in the step which we advocate. I would remind you that Mr. Hayes Fisher, in one of his speeches told us that the average

833
number of changes in London constituencies every year of electors moving, not out of London, but from one part of London to another, is 33 per cent., which I think is proof positive that London is the unit and not Battersea or Paddington.
Lastly on this topic, let me refer once more to that note of sadness which appears in Mr. Hayes Fisher's speech about the destruction of the happy intimacy between the London Member of Parliament and his constituency. I have already touched upon that topic, and I fully admit that in the case of Mr. Hayes Fisher and others the relations are, I do not doubt, ideal. I have been behind the scenes—as my noble friend opposite, whom I am so delighted to see again in his place, reminded me in a previous debate on another subject in this House. I have been a Whip. My noble Friend Lord Harcourt—I do not know that he has ever been a Whip—had a great deal to do with the organisation of his Party. I say without fear of contradiction that there is nobody who has been behind the scenes who does not know that money bags have played much too great a part in London electioneering, and a tendency not to get the best man but the richest man as the candidate for a London constituency has been a horrible feature in Party politics and Party management. Therefore anything that will tend to counteract that, or to make it less easy, will be more than an offset against the diminution of intimacy. I would say, with all respect to the London Members, that their preference for the single-Member system cannot be allowed to stand in the way of proportional representation if it can be shown that proportional representation would be a great contribution to national stability and safety; and I think they would be the first to admit the justice of that observation.
This brings me to the point in my speech when I have to make my case, and I take as my text the objection in principle which is urged to the system by its opponents. Before I state that objection in principle, I would quote something from Sir Herbert Jessel and something from Mr. Austen Chamberlain. Sir Herbert Jessel said—
"The present system works out very well. After all, Birmingham balances Leeds."
We will see presently whether that is so. Mr. Austen Chamberlain said—
"The interest of the country is that the majority for the time being shall be strong, so that the Government of the day shall be effective."
834
There is nobody in this House or any other House who would not accede wholeheartedly to that statement of Mr. Chamberlain—"The interest of the country is that the majority for the time being shall be strong, so that the Government of the day shall be effective." If you alter two of those adjectives the case is very different. Is it the interest of the country that the majority for the time being shall be overwhelming, so that the Government of the day shall be tyrannous? Everybody will admit that that is wrong. The question which I am going to debate and try to make my case upon is whether the greater danger at the present moment is that of a weak majority with an ineffective Government or of an overwhelming majority with a tyrannous Government. That is the objection in principle which is made by Lord Eversley in that pamphlet which he has printed, and which is made again and again by the, opponents of proportional representation. They say that proportional representation will diminish the size of majorities and weaken the executive Government.
I will set myself, my Lords, to prove that both of these considerations are overwhelming arguments in favour of proportional representation in the circumstances of the British Empire to-day. I will prove that the real danger to democracy at the present moment is the extinction of minorities; not of small and insignificant minorities, but of great minorities representing permanent and great interests and great principles. The danger is the extinction, the elimination, in Parliament of those minorities, and also the excessive swing of the pendulum. The country has never been so fickle as has been supposed. The pendulum has never swung so much as it has appeared to swing, and I will prove it. My case is cumulative, and therefore I ask your Lordships' indulgence.
At the General Election of 1906 the Unionists of Wales polled 100,000 votes out of 318,000 and did not get one single seat out of thirty, not one. What have been the consequences of that? I do not say that if the Unionists of Wales had had one-third or nearly one-third of the seats the Church in Wales might nevertheless not have been disestablished and disendowed. But can anybody doubt that the Bill would not have been the same Bill? Can anybody doubt that, with one-third of the Members of Wales protesting

835
against the measure, the measure would not have been very different? What possible consolation is it to the Unionists in Wales to know that at the General Election of 1910, whereas the Liberals in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex polled 140,000 out of 353,000 votes, they in their turn did not get one single Member out of thirty? What consolation is that to the Unionists of Wales, or what consolation it is to the Liberals of the South-east of England, to know that the Unionists of Wales had no representation?
Take the case of Scotland. In the January Election of 1910, Liberals and Labour in Scotland, with 394,000 votes, got sixty-one seats. The Unionists, with 265,000 votes, got eleven seats, and two of those were University seats. In December, 1910, the same year, the Liberal and Labour votes fell to 372,000, whereas the Unionists votes rose to 277,000. That is to say, there was a transfer of votes of about 34,000, but there was no change in the representation, which was exactly the same—sixty-one Liberals and Labour, and eleven Unionists. What consolation—how absurd to talk of consolation!—was it to the Scottish Unionists to be told, "Oh! but no Liberals were returned for Birmingham." And look, my Lords, at the consequences. You have had a Land Bill passed for Scotland. I will say nothing about that Land Bill. It was of a very remarkable character. Who can doubt for a moment that the same Bill would not have been passed for Scotland if one-third of the Scottish Members has been Unionists; and that is about the number to which they are entitled.
But the evil is not confined to this country. I regret most deeply to say that when the Constitution of the Union of South Africa was framed proportional representation for the Assembly was not carried. And what has been the result? In the Orange Free State, which is the centre of all the disturbance and danger in South Africa, at the last General Election General Botha's Party polled 36 per cent. of the electors but did not get one single seat. I should like to read to your Lordships a comment on that of a great South African, Sir Percy Fitzpatrick. He wrote to the late Earl Grey only last year a letter, in which occurred this sentence—
"It was a bad day's work to drop proportional I representation from the Union Constitution. It has left us with an incomplete system, and I
836
really believe that we would not have had either riots or rebellion if we had had the whole thing."
I would ask, with all the earnestness in my power, my friends in the House of Commons to exercise their imagination and think what may happen in Ireland under a system of single-Member constituencies. It is perfectly possible that Sinn Fein might get every single seat, outside Ulster, although not polling much more than 50 per cent. of the votes. That is the danger that the single-Member system is opening out before us. Exactly the same thing as has happened in the Orange Free State might happen in Ireland, and it is very significant that three resolutions have come from Dublin on this subject, from three bodies whom I should think never before in the whole history of their country had agreed upon any one subject. There is a resolution from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, representing of course the business men of Dublin; a resolution from the Dublin United Trades Council, representing the trade unions; and a resolution from the Municipal Council of Dublin—all begging for proportional representation; so steeped are Irishmen with a sense of the dangers lying before them under the single-Member system.
But I have not exhausted my illustrations. I told you, my Lords, that my argument was cumulative, and I think your Lordships' House will pardon me for continuing. There has recently been a General Election in Canada. There is a minority in Quebec who are prepared to see Canada taking her part in this world-war. What has been the result of the elections in Quebec sixty-two members returned to support Sir Wilfred Laurier, and only three for the present Government. And that is because of the single-Member system. I ask you to turn to Petrograd. It is not a place one would usually go at this moment for lessons in politics. But when the Russian rebellion first occurred you will remember that Prince Lvoff was Prime Minister, and he induced the adoption of proportional representation as part of the Russian electoral system. The result was that in the Petrograd elections, instead of the Bolsheviks sweeping the whole power, as they would otherwise probably have done, they got six votes; the Constitutional Democrats, four: and the Social Revolutionaries, two. Whereas in Quebec the minority who wanted to see Canada taking her part in the world-war

837
were almost obliterated, in Russia proportional representation has enabled the moderates and the reasonable men to appear in the Duma—in the Constituent, Assembly—in such formidable numbers that the first thing the revolutionaries do is to close the Constituent Assembly. You could not wish for a more eloquent testimony to the force of the system of proportional representation against overwhelming majorities.
Now I ask you to turn back to the Empire again and to see how the single-Member system has worked in Australia. The mining districts of Western Australia are represented by ten miners, while those responsible for the successful management of the mining industry have no voice in Parliament at all. The citizens of Adelaide are represented in their Parliament by fifteen Labour Members. The citizens, forty per cent. of the whole, who are not attached to the Labour Party, have no representation. That might happen here in this country. Under the Bill we are discussing there are to be fifteen Members for Glasgow. The Labour Party have announced their intention to contest every one of these fifteen seats. What would the advocates of the single-seat system say if fifteen Labour Members were returned for Glasgow? And it is not inconceivable that the whole of the Liberal opinion of Glasgow, and the whole of the Unionist opinion of Glasgow—in fact, that every section of opinion except Labour in Glasgow—might be unrepresented. That is quite possible—it has actually happened in the Orange Free State, in Wales, and it has almost happened in Quebec. Therefore, I think you will admit that I have made out this part of my case—namely, that of the great dangers to democracy, one of the great dangers under the Present circumstances, is the elimination of great and important minorities.
I pass to the other great danger—namely, the excessive swing of the pendulum. I myself am responsible for the following figures—I worked them out myself, and I believe them to be absolutely accurate. They are for Great Britain only; I have not taken Ireland into account. On the votes cast in 1895 the Conservative and Liberal Unionist majority ought to have been 111; but it was 213. In 1900 the Conservative and Liberal Unionist majority ought to have been 125; but it was 195. I have no hesitation in saying that it would have been much better for this country,
838
and for the Party to which I belong, if our majorities had been much nearer the true opinion of the country than they were. Look at the nemesis which followed. Again, for Great Britain in 1906 the Liberal and Labour majority ought to have been eighty-nine; it was 289—a majority of eighty-nine turned into a majority of 289 by the mere whimsical action, the absurdly inaccurate action, of the single-member system of constituencies. The whole history of England to-day would have been different, the history of your Lordships' House would have been different, if that majority had been in Great Britain eighty-nine and not 289. I do not expect that argument but I am not quite sure about this—to weigh greatly with my noble friends behind me who belong to the Liberal Party, but I do expect it to weigh with the members of my own Party. I do expect them to think of what it means to England, to the constitution, to the Church, and to many other interests which are dear to us that by this extraordinary system of single Member constituencies, the opinion of the country, which was only to the extent of eighty-nine Members in favour of the Liberals and Labour, should have given them a majority of 289, and should have enabled them to exercise a power which my noble friends behind me will forgive me for calling tyrannical.
There is no virtue in a democracy that I can see if it is not a real expression of national opinion. The instances that I have given show that under the present system you may have an absolute travesty of national opinion put in the seats of power and able to work its will. I maintain therefore, that if you really want to get the opinion of this nation, and if you believe when you talk of Democracy in each section of the population having its just weight in the national council, it is very difficult for you to find a convincing argument against proportional representation.
I come back to the Bill and to the Amendment that I am going to propose. We are asked this question, "Why not accept the well-considered decision of the House of Commons?" There have been three Divisions in the House of Commons on this question, and the majorities against proportional representation were 8, 32, and 76—a very small majority to begin with, an important majority to end with. But that last majority was due much more to

839
the abstention of the friends of proportional representation than to any change of opinion. I find on analysis that in the three Divisions 246 different Members voted for proportional representation, and 290 against—a proportion of 47 per cent. for and 53 per cent. against. I think, therefore, that it is fair to say that although the opinion of the House of Commons seemed gradually to harden against proportional representation, the voice has not been very decisive, and that when the Division lists are analysed there is seen to be a considerable balancing of opinion.
The particular point which I want to make in this connection is this. The House of Commons have never had before them yet any scheme such as that which I am going to ask you to adopt. What I am going to ask you to adopt is something that may fairly be called a complete scheme of proportional representation for the whole country, and in that connection it is very interesting to note that speaker after speaker in the House of Commons, when opposing proportional representation, said that it would have been a different proposition altogether if the scheme had been made to apply to the whole country. I do not say that that indicated that they would have voted differently, but it is proved that the scheme which I am going to ask your Lordships to adopt is not one on which the House of Commons has ever yet pronounced. Moreover, it is a complete scheme that I am going to ask you to adopt if you accept the Amendment which will govern it. If you adopt my Amendment there will, of course, have to be a readjustment of the Schedule, and we hope to have the assistance of the Boundary Commissioners.
Let me say in this connection how thoroughly I agree with some words that fell from my noble friend the Leader of the House the other day in another connection. He said that what surprised him most about this Bill was that nobody had animadverted against the increase in the number of Members of the House of Commons. I entirely share what I understood to be his view, that that was a very regrettable feature of the Bill. If the matter of the Schedule has to go back to the Boundary Commissioners, at any rate it will afford them an opportunity of considering whether they cannot reduce the number of extra members which at present has been apportioned. But let me say a word
840
about the work of the Boundary Commission. I do not think that too great praise can be given to the skill with which they have done their work. The proposals that I am just about to make will involve the minimum interference with that work, and the minimum of delay. What I am going to propose is not any alteration of the boundaries of the constituencies which they have so ably delimitated, but a regrouping of those constituencies—a grouping of the constituencies as they exist in the Schedule. I do not deny that there may be some delay. We hope, as I will show presently from the encouraging language that my noble friend used some months ago, to have the assistance of the Boundary Commission, but it is certain that they will want in some cases to reopen their local inquiry. There must be some delay. There would be no difficulty about the matter at all if it were not that the Government want to wind up this session and start a new one. When, however, we are engaged in making a Franchise Bill, a system that for weal or woe is to govern the fate of this Empire for years to come, do not let us make the work incomplete for want of a little time. I would ask the Government to give the Commissioners all the time they can possibly spare, consistently with the exigencies of the completion of the session. I would urge that the matter need not be closed then. Supposing that the Commissioners have not been able to do all that they want to do by the time that the session has to close, and assuming that Parliament finally adopts proportional representation, there is surely no reason why the work of the Commissioners should not be completed, and Schedules laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and be adopted and passed into law unless either House passes a Resolution against them. I only want here, without elaborating the point, to protest in advance, if anybody is proposing to put forward that argument, that delay ought not to be allowed to be an argument against making this Bill as perfect a Bill as we can make it and that, if the Government will help us, they can certainly find a way of doing what is required.
The unanimous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference were that proportional representation should be applied to London, the large boroughs, the contiguous boroughs, and the Universities. Now I am going to ask you to add the counties. The

841
reason why I ask you to do this is that there is an almost unanimous cry from the representatives of agriculture throughout the whole of Great Britain that proportional representation should be applied to the counties. Agriculture claims only its fair share of representation. It is not asking any privilege, but it is the absolute conviction of the great majority of those who care for agriculture and its position as a fundamental national industry that it is only by a system of proportional representation that agriculture can get its proper and fair share of representation. I am myself perfectly convinced of the fact that under the single-Member system we shall be in case after case obliterated, as the Unionists were obliterated in 1906 in Wales. I am told that this is a foolish proposal, because, although it may give agriculture an additional Member or two in the North, or in the Midlands, the Unionists will lose a corresponding number of seats to Liberals or Labour in the South-East of England. That argument does not affect me at all. I am not talking now of Unionism; I am talking of agriculture; and I say it has been to the great disadvantage of agriculture, in my opinion, that for the last fifty years it has been almost entirely identified with one political Party.
Take the analogy of the great cotton industry. The operatives and the employers have their differences and their conflicting interests, exactly the same as farmers and land-owners and agricultural labourers have their divergent and sometimes conflicting interests. But when it comes to the status of the cotton industry in the national economy it does not matter to cotton one bit whether the Member is Labour, Liberal, or Unionist. That is what I want to see in the case of agriculture. Agriculture has come to its own by this war. Agriculture will never again be the Cinderella of industry. And while there will be those differences of opinion which I have mentioned, and others, it will be pure gain for agriculture if it gets representation, be it Liberal or Unionist, in the Midlands, or in the North, or elsewhere—even although Liberals or Labour may be returned by the same system for seats in Kent or Surrey which are now held by Unionists. No greater mistake could be made in the interests of agriculture than to try and identify it with the Unionist Party.
Not only do I deny that it is the interest of agriculture to look only to one political
842
Party. I say it is far better for agriculture to have representatives spread over the whole kingdom than to have them concentrated in a few groups of constituencies. It would give it far greater strength to have representatives in all parts of the country than to have them only in the south or in the south-east. Therefore it is that we advocate proportional representation for the counties too; that is, we advocate the complete scheme on definite principles of general application, but subject to occasional exceptions on geographical or historical grounds of sufficient weight. The result of that will be that there will continue to remain a few single-Member or double-Member constituencies. For example, some of the Highland counties will certainly remain single-Member constituencies. The population is not large enough to make it possible to sub-divide Inverness-shire. The area is too large to add to any other county; therefore Inverness-shire will almost certainly remain a single-Member constituency. Other examples, not of geographical but of historical reasons, are, say, York City, the City of London, and the City of Westminster.
I say at once I am certainly not going to be alarmed by any argument drawn from the objection to a divergence from uniformity. That argument might weigh in any other country but our own. We are quite the last country to think it of any importance that because the general principle, is proportional representation there should be a few single-Member and double-Member constituencies. We accept the limitations recommended by the Speaker's Conference, that no constituency should return less than three or more than five Members to which the system of proportional representation is applied. But I would say at once that, if it appears in the course of discussion that there may be some special reason for an occasional six—for instance, Leeds, perhaps—I hope on Report discretion might be allowed to the Boundary Commissions.
The problems of boroughs and of counties returning three or more Members each present no difficulties. Nor does the problem of contiguous boroughs or contiguous counties returning less than three Members each. That is a mere question of grouping. But there are some very important questions in connection with the manner of grouping constituencies within the larger boroughs. For instance,

843
there are fifteen seats in Glasgow, and twelve, I think, in Liverpool. How are those single-Member seats going to be grouped so as to win the greatest approval in Glasgow and in Liverpool Obviously the Boundary Commissioners ought to get the guidance of local opinion again on that matter, if they can. There is also the question of uniting boroughs returning less than three Members and contiguous county divisions. Please understand the importance of that point. The question is, Ought in any case boroughs returning less than three Members to be united with contiguous county divisions? No difficulty arises about boroughs created for the first time in this Bill. It is obvious that in the case of a Middlesex borough which at the present moment is a Middlesex county division there is no reason why it should not be treated as a county division. But a very real question arises about the old boroughs for reasons of sentiment and of historical continuity
I would say here that I think the utmost caution should be used not to disturb the continuity of tradition and of sentiment where it is strong and where there is a very definite local feeling against the amalgamation of an old borough with the neighbouring county division. But, on the other hand, in Lancashire, in the West Riding, and in Scotland, it will be found very difficult in many instances to segregate the population in the borough and county constituencies with any real meaning for the purposes of Parliamentary representation. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the conditions in the industrial parts of Lancashire and the West Riding will know what I mean; and I think it will be found that in these cases there is not the same objection to the union of the boroughs and the county divisions as there might be elsewhere.
My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that the more complete the scheme the more support and confidence it will obtain in the country. If the House accepts the Amendment, I assume that His Majesty's Government will give instructions to the Boundary Commissioners to prepare fresh Schedules by the grouping of constituencies. In this connection I want to remind the House of the promise made by the Leader, Lord Curzon, on July 17, 1917. Lord Curzon said—
"You will be entirely free to discuss and to re-introduce proportional representation in any form
844
that you please. I go further and say that if your Lordships, when the Bill comes up here, decide to act in that way, the Government will be glad to render you any assistance in their power, either in the drafting of the Bill or in framing those parts of the Schedules that may be affected by your action."
We claim that gracious promise on the part of my noble friend, and we ask the Government to render the assistance which they promised in drafting the Bill and in framing the Schedules, if your Lordships are good enough to pass the Amendment which I am about to move. There are some of us who have been studying the matter closely, and we are prepared to put at the disposal of the Boundary Commissioners all the help in our power if that help will be accepted. But what I want most earnestly to press upon His Majesty's Government is this. If we want to make the best Schedules we can in the circumstances, we must have the assistance of the Boundary Commissioners; and I think, in view of the promise of my noble friend, that we have a right to ask it.
I am afraid that I have detained your Lordships for a very long time, but I felt that I could not make my case much shorter; and I am deeply seized with the real and permanent importance of the Amendment I am moving. It is not a fad of cranks. It is a device to save this country from the evident dangers of democracy under a single-seat system of Government. It is a statesmanlike way of enabling a nation to achieve its true representation, and an insurance against that kind of usurpation which is now the terror and the misery of Russia.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, at beginning insert as a new subsection:
"(I) In a constituency returning not less than three nor more than live 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 Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I hope that very few of your Lordships will be tempted to lend your ears to the noble siren who has just addressed you, but that you will rather stop them with the wax of common sense, of experience, and of prudence, against a proposal which has been recently called by Mr. Austen Chamberlain "a hazardous, a mischievous, and an utterly unnecessary experiment."

845
I do not profess on this occasion to speak for all those friends with whom I am usually associated in public affairs. Though many of them agree with me, I believe that some of them hold other opinions. I will endeavour to speak with what brevity is possible on this subject; and in order to do that I will try to make the case against proportional representation as a policy, without being tempted into the details of the new and rather fanciful proposals put forward by the noble Earl behind me, which, I imagine, will receive short shrift in the other House. It is impossible to find anything new to say upon this subject. The whole scale of sanity and insanity has been fully chanted in the House of Commons. I will make no apology for borrowing from the arguments used in that House, though I find their accumulated wisdom a little confusing as well as convincing.
The old arguments against proportional representation are good enough for me; and I was interested, in listening to the noble Karl, to find that no new arguments had been discovered in its favour. Proportional representation is a project the intention and the possible result of which will be to return a number of representatives of small minorities men who by no other process could command a majority of the electors in any single constituency. It is going to be the apotheosis of the crank, the frondeur, and the mugwump. Under this plan I think there is a danger that too many minorities will be represented and not too few, and that you may make your future Parliament into something in the nature of a patchwork quilt. Speaking upon this subject many years ago, Mr. Gladstone said—
"What we want is to have the prevailing sense of the community. We do not want to have represented immature particular shades of opinion, but the sense of the majority which represents the whole community."
When cognate proposals for minority representation were inserted in the Reform Bill of 1867—inserted by this House and not by the Government of the day—they were opposed by Mr. Disraeli. Some of your Lordships may think that he was not a progressive in these matters; but, at all events, he educated his Party with unex-
846
ampled rapidity on the subject of household suffrage. Mr. Disraeli said—
"If the principle is good, you must apply it to all constituencies; but, if bad, why to any?"
He spoke of the system as—
"alien to the manners and condition of the country; opposed to any sound principle; and the direct effect of which would be to create a stagnant representation which would bring about a feeble Executive. Schemes having for their object to represent minorities were admirable schemes to bring crochetty men into the House. They are the schemes of coteries not of politics of nations, and if adopted would end in discomfiture and confusion."
Mr. Disraeli was right in his condemnation; and, after a trial of eighteen years, the policy and the method then adopted found no friends and was abandoned with enthusiastic unanimity.
Mr. Bright, speaking on the same subject said—
"Anything which enfeebles the representative powers and lessens the vitality of the electoral system, which puts power in the hands of the nominees of the little cliques here representing a majority and there a minority but having no real influence among the people; any system like that must ultimately destroy the powers and force of the Executive Government."
Another attempt which was made in favour of minorities, and which has been mentioned by the noble Earl behind me, was the cumulative vote in the London school board elections, but that also failed, and it was abandoned by the Conservative Party.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: It exists in Scotland still.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Lord Eversley, whose views I share and whose absence I greatly deplore, said of the alternative vote that—
"It prevented a majority returning representatives in proportion to their true strength and gave an unfair advantage to cliques."
To-day all specific interests are adequately represented in the House of Commons. I have never heard there any complaint of a deficiency of cranks or a desire for any more of them. It is true that there; are no cross-benches in the House of Commons, but there are plenty of cross-bench minds. By proportional representation it is hoped to secure the return of men standing for particular interests, with no political views or convictions to steady or to guide them. It would be sufficient in one of the huge constituencies now suggested for a man to

847
say, I stand here as a Jew, or a Catholic, a pacifist, or anti-vaccinationist, or a bimetallist, or a Bonar Levy-ist on capital, in order to secure his return by the minority vote. I have no doubt myself that the Socialists will secure in some, and perhaps in many, cases an undue preponderance under these provisions. The Royal Commission on Proportional Representation which was appointed in 1909 said in their Report that under the single-Member system every variety of Opinion obtained representation.
A principal part of the case of many of the advocates of this change—and it was part of the case of the noble Earl who preceded me—is that under our present electoral system a majority in the country is apt to secure an exaggeration of its true representation in the Commons. That is probably a fact, but in my opinion it is no disadvantage but a desirable result. Lord Courtney once tried to prove that in the Election of 1886, which was fought exclusively upon Home Rule, there ought to have been on the votes cast a small Liberal rather than a large Unionist majority returned, and if that had been the result of proportional representation I do not think it would have commended itself to many noble Lords in this House.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I am afraid the noble Viscount has got the figures wrong.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: The figures offered by the advocates of proportional representation so frequently vary, and with such lightning rapidity, that it is difficult to keep pace with them.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The noble Viscount is confusing between the figures of contested elections in Great Britain and the whole electorate in the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I understood that the noble Lord had taken hypothetical figures in cases where there was no election, and so arrived at his result; but it is really immaterial, and I will not pursue the point further. But when we have obtained the opinion of the country as to the policy and complexion of the Government which it desires, in my view it is essential that that Government should be strong, and strong out of all proportion to its numerical rights.
848
Mr. Bagehot wrote on this subject as long ago as 1859, and I think his words were quoted in another place, but I do not hesitate to requote them here. Mr. Bagehot said:—
"If every minority had exactly as much weight in Parliament as it has in the nation, there might be risk of indecision. We want a counteracting influence, and it will be no subject for regret if that influence is tolerably strong. It is therefore no disadvantage, but on the contrary, that a diffused minority in the country is in general rather inadequately represented. A strong conviction in the ruling power will give it strength of volition. The House of Commons should think as the nation thinks, but it should think so rather more strongly and with rather less of wavering."
Lord Hugh Cecil says that under our present system majorities are always intensified and never diminished. That seems as good to me as it is bad to him. He regards proportional representation as "the only thing of important conservative influence in the Speaker's Conference as a check on extravagant revolutionary tendencies and the only substantial safeguard against revolution." If I believed that I should not oppose this Amendment, but I think he exaggerates the value from his own standpoint of small majorities. He wants, quite avowedly, something in the nature of a do-nothing future, and he says that a Government with a working majority of not more than forty could not possibly pass a Home Rule Bill, or a Welsh Disestablishment Bill, or a Parliament Bill. I believe he is wrong. I have a lively recollection of the Parliament of 1892–1895, with a Liberal Government, which had at its commencement a normal majority of no more than forty. By the year 1894 that majority had fallen to only fourteen. Well, it sufficed to carry the Death Duties Budget, and to carry it without a single application of the closure, although weak Governments are said to incline towards the guillotine. The late Lord Salisbury said of this that "Budgets come and Budgets go, and the errors of one Parliament will be corrected in the next." In 1895 Lord Salisbury's Party came into office and held office for ten years, but he never made any attempt to correct that error, if it was one. Narrow majorities do not hinder the advance of extreme proposals. What they do is to weaken the Government of the day in foreign relations and foreign policy, because the Chancelleries of Europe pay scant attention to a Ministry whose exiguous majority threatens its early fall.
Royal Commissions have stated the

849
arguments against narrow majorities with much force. They said:—
"The exaggeration of majorities is, as a rule, no evil; they are at least preferable to insufficient majorities. The object of representative government is not only to represent but to govern. The greatest evil that can befall a country is a weak Executive, and if a strong one can only be obtained at the cost of mathematical accuracy of representation, the price should be willingly paid."
Do not let us be tempted towards proportional representation by any mistaken wish for the even balance; of Parties, and beware lest in trying to make the House of Commons a microcosm of the country you turn it into a bear garden.
Tasmania has been constantly quoted as a triumphant example of proportional representation. You could not wish to reproduce the Parliamentary condition of Tasmania here. Under proportional representation that State has enjoyed or suffered a succession of Parliaments in which the Government of the day has seldom had a majority of more than one or two. I believe in one case the Tasmanian Government did not dare to elect a Speaker from their own ranks lest they destroyed their majority. In another case a single independent Member held the balance between the two Parties. I think it was the Agent-General for Tasmania who said, as if it was a recommendation, that "proportional representation brings Parties to the House in almost equal numbers." In this country I am convinced that if it did so it would bring disaster with it. Imagine, my Lords, one independent Member in this country swaying the daily fate of the Government and the Opposition. Think of his distracted life, harassed by sycophants by day and by the telephone calls of wirepullers by night. Why, in less than six months he would become a lunatic, a convict, or a millionaire, or perhaps all three. I believe that if you were to have for a series of Elections weak Executives dependent on small majorities leading to frequent changes of Government, this country might be driven to the American system of a directly elected Executive independent of Parliament with a defined tenure of office—a result which I and I think many of your Lordships, would greatly deplore.
The experience of Tasmania has not yet induced the other states or the Commonwealth of Australia to adopt proportional
850
representation. They still prefer the system of single-Member constituencies. Nor has this whimsical—if I may borrow an adjective from the noble Earl—nor has this whimsical fad found any foundation in Canada or, as he said in South Africa, except for the indirect election for the Senate there. If our Dominions, which are not averse from electoral and other experiments, have hesitated to try this one, may there not be some reasons for pause here? Surely in any case so vast and so far-reaching a change is not well suited to experiment during this great war and in circumstances under which it has never been and cannot be submitted to or considered by the electors. Sir George Reid said in another place, with all his Australian experience—
"Let the British electorate decide in the future if it wishes for this change."
I do not think, my Lords, that from the speech of the noble Earl you can realise the complexity of the system embodied in the innocent words of this Amendment. I hold in my hand the Tasmanian official handbook of the Hare-Clark system as used in that State. I believe it is the last word in proportional perfection. It sets out the method of the election of three Members from only six candidates and with only nine thousand votes polled—a very small problem in numbers as compared with those we should have to face here. Even to obtain these results I find that they had to make ten separate counts and to juggle with fractions and decimals and the rule of three. I once had the Tasmanian printed results of the machinery of the counting of an election there. It would have covered in small print more than the whole area of this Table. Equations and Algebraical formulae were scattered with a lavish hand over the machinery and instructions. You added two-900ths of some one's vote to some one else, and one-1,200th to a third, and with luck you arrived at a statement that as A was to B so was C to D, and in the end F was elected. If you were to adopt that system here you would have to recruit hordes of Senior Wranglers to do your counting and to obtain your transfer values. Its advocates assume for it a sweet simplicity to which it has no claim.
If you were to pass this apparently innocent Amendment, do you know with what ballast you would over-weight this Bill? His Majesty's Government have been so rash or so malicious as to present to Parlia-

851
ment Command Paper 8,768, of which there are copies on this Table, which sets out the necessary procedure under proportional representation. By careful compression it has been reduced to nineteen full pages of small print. It is called "Draft Rules for the Single, Transferable Vote." It contains seventeen clauses and fifty-eight subsections, and that is what you will have to add to the Bill if you adopt this Amendment. Of course, it is really the Schedule to Lord Courtney's Municipal Voting Bill of 1914, which was never accepted by the House of Commons.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: They never looked at it.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: They never would. In it is set out a series of examples of specimen elections. In one of them a man who obtained only 157 direct votes out of 6,000 electors is triumphantly returned as a Member for the constituency. That, my Lords, can hardly be a result which you would wish often to attain in this country. No wonder it was said in another place that this was a gerrymandering device for hamstringing the views of the majority and securing at the same time second-best opinions and negative results.
It is suggested by many of its advocates, though not by the noble Earl behind me, that Party rivalry and even the Party system might be diminished and destroyed by proportional representation. I do not believe that, and I should regret it if I did. If it leads to a No-Party system of groups and blocks the result would be thoroughly mischievous, and certainly no foreign experience would encourage us to desire or adopt these methods in our country. In proportion as you weaken the Party system you increase the tendency for votes to be given on less worthy issues. But its advocates do not believe that this will be the result. Lord Courtney, who has been called elsewhere, with no malice, the "chivalrous and indefatigable champion of lost causes," because we all remember to his honour that he resigned his office because proportional representation was not included in the Reform Bill of 1884—
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: What about women?
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Lord Courtney at least does not believe that his panacea
852
is going to create a new heaven and a new earth by the elimination of Parties, because he told the Royal Commission "the Two-Party system really exists in the fundamental condition of human nature and will survive all forms." That at least is a comfort to those of us who, like myself, believe that in the contest of Parties in times of peace lies the real germ of true political thought and progress. Then we are told by some people that this would kill or cripple the caucus—always, I imagine, a malignant spectre in your Lordships' House. Like many other good people, it has been misunderstood. It came to you under the œgis of Mr. Chamberlain in his first phase. Later on he parted from it or it from him, but the thing remains, and I beg you not to believe that you can lay its lively ghost with proportional representation.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I never said you could.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: No; the noble Earl did not. He knew better. The noble Earl has been near the machine, if not of it. He said of me, with perfect truth, that I have been an integral part of the machine. I knew every screw and wire of its construction. I could manipulate its mainstring and its escapement; and from intimate experience I can assure you that the revolution contained in this Amendment would be the charter of a future caucus more powerful and more elaborate than anything you have so far experienced. You have made in this House futile attempts at minority representation in the past, but they have been defeated always by organisation. In 1868 four Liberal Members were returned for the City of London. It must seem incredible to you to-day; that was done by caucus organisation, in spite of the system by which no voter could give more than three votes amongst the four candidates—a system under which you thought you could get a minority Member, but you failed. There was the same history at Birmingham, where Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain retained the representation of the city in their own hands. But do not imagine that this was done only or mainly by the force of their great personality. It was in fact done by the assiduous ingenuity of Mr. Schnadhorst. The caucus was created in Birmingham in order to defeat minority representation, and it did

853
so with complete success. This proposal will only increase the machinations, the complexity, and the efficiency of the caucus, because the more complicated the issue the greater is its powers.
What chance, my Lords, do you really think the much-desired independent candidate is going to have against the forces and the, finances which will oppose him? You propose to create great constituencies. For the election of the elite, constituencies of five, or even seven, and up to nine Members are supposed to be desirable and even necessary. That did not appear in the plan of the noble Earl behind me, but the Royal Commission reported that "If the scheme is to work to the best advantage, constituencies of seven or nine Members, at least, are necessary. Adequate; results cannot be expected from constituencies of less than five." Let me say, in passing, that the idea of applying proportional representation to constituencies of four is almost ludicrous, and can result only in an even division of that area between the two Parties.
But, my Lords, in spite of the noble Earl's views, I believe that this great size of the constituencies will necessarily destroy any hope of the close personal association of Members and electors. That would remove a thins which in my opinion is of great value to-day—the intimate (I think Lord Selborne called it), the intimate, personal touch, the understanding and confidence, which in general exist between the Member and the voters. It will destroy the local interest of the Member in the constituency. Those of us who have experience know that when the contest is over and the candidate has become the Member, he becomes the Member for the whole population of the constituency, irrespective of their politics. In all local affairs and many public ones, too, except those of acute controversy, he represents the interest of all the voters. This these great new areas must inevitably destroy. Nor can a single individual ever be able, in a constituency of five members, to make his personalty and his policy adequately known to those to whom he is appealing. The personal interest of the elector in his Member will also be lessened if not destroyed. His representative will be to him no longer "my man" but "my mob."
The new five-Member constituency will cover a population of 300,000 souls and
854
embrace 123,000 electors, against the average; constituency to-day of 12,000 electors. The candidate's only vehicle of communication with his constituents will be the Press, and the power of the Press has increased, is increasing, and in the opinion of many ought to be diminished. Platform work on such a scale as is demanded by these new seats would be a physical impossibility to most men. One of the first results of these proposals would be the squeezing out of Parliament of business men, through lack of time to devote to these great areas, leaving the proportional representatives to be recruited from the class of professional politicians, whom I do not affect to despise, because I have always belonged to that class myself. In order, therefore, to cope with the new difficulties of area, of numbers, and expense it is evident that; candidates can only be successfully and economically run on a strict Party ticket of five. By such a combination the work and the cost of these contests may be kept within measurable bounds. But what is going to happen to your so-called Independent, the man whom you think you want to create and return. He will have to speak, circularise, and try to canvass the whole of the electors. It would cost him in cash alone, to say nothing of time and health, anything from £2,000 to £3,000 for 125,000 electors, according to whether you fix the scale of expenditure at 4d. or 5d. per elector. Under proportional representation the Independent candidate would have to be a combination of a millionaire and a Hercules.
The unsolved, or so far unsolved, difficulty of by-elections in three or five-Member constituencies remains. The absurdity of some of the solutions proves the insolubility of the problem. It is suggested by some people who are advocating proportional representation that there never should be by-elections; that if a Member dies the constituency should remain shorn of one or more of its Members until the next Dissolution. That hardly bears discussion, and it would not meet the case of a man who vacates his seat on acceptance of office unless you have; the courage of the noble Earl who sits behind me and propose to repeal the Statute of Anne. I do not know, in fact, whether he proposes to do that in one of the columns of the Schedule. I do not myself believe, from recent experience, that the House of Commons is prepared to repeal the Statute of Anne now

855
or in the near future. Then there are proposals that individual Members should be allocated to particular parts of the constituency, either by lot, or by selection, or by order of seniority at the poll; and it is only that part of the constituency which should be polled when a by-election takes place.
But what becomes of your minority Member? Ex hypothesi he can never obtain a majority in any part of the area. If he dies, or disappears, minority representation goes with him for that Parliament, and the Party of the majority become the residuary legatees of the seat. You hope, I suppose, to obtain men of rare and special ability as minority representatives, Members who are to be "too good for human nature's daily food," and you will presumably wish to include some of them in your Government. But without the repeal of the Statute of Anne they can never aspire to any post of greater elevation than that of an Under-Secretaryship, because not one of them can face their constitutents on vacating their seat. You are going to create a class apart, a non papabile caste, a class who can never meet the electors unless they are accompanied by a posse comitatus of other candidates in order to cover and shield their avowed unpopularity. These proposals, in the House of Commons, were only to be applied to a few large towns, although they covered 120 Members of the new Parliament. If the plan was sound and if the results were to be good, why were the House of Commons not prepared to try a larger experiment? If proportional representation is necessary to make your new Parliament truly representative, why did the House of Commons stop at a few urban constituencies, and not have the courage to go further? On what principle do you suppose they selected the corpus vile for their experiment? Why was London not included? I will tell you why. Because, as the noble Earl knows and as all the promoters of proportional representation know, London opinion was almost unanimously opposed to these proposals. That was tested in the House of Commons. The noble Earl took the earlier Division; I will take the later one. There are sixty-one Members for London in the House of Commons, and how many do you think after assiduous whipping and with a promise of exclusion, could be tempted into the proportional representation Lobby? On the last occasion only three! The
856
proposal to omit London is to me an example of the sort of huckstering spirit which I fear will be a product of proportional representation, and it shows that its promoters have no conviction that it is really right or they would wish to vindicate their opinion on a larger scale.
The same thing is true of many of the big towns to which this method was to be applied. Of the Sheffield Members, two were in its favour, and three against it; Manchester, one in favour, two against, and three absent from the Division; Liverpool, in spite of the eloquent advocacy of the Attorney-General, two only, including himself, were in its favour; five against, and two were absent. Speaking generally of the opinion in the House of Commons, I think it is true to say that it is only those who were not to be subjected to it themselves who were in favour of trying it on the dog. Why was it to be applied only to large towns by the House of Commons? If you require minority representation I agree with the noble Earl that you want it in such places as the home counties, where there are no Liberals, and in Wales where there are no Unionists. I suppose I shall be told that it was not to be applied to the counties by the House of Commons because it was only an experiment—like the unwanted baby, only "a little one." But in truth it is because there the system breaks down; it is not, in fact, applicable to great county areas. Imagine trying to constitute a proportional representation area in the North of Scotland, which the noble Earl has already shied at in anticipation. You would have to include the counties of Orkney and Shetland, Caithness, Sutherland shire, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, the Hebrides, and Skye. Picture to yourself your independent candidate, working on his own in a winter Election—and the last three Elections have been in mid-winter—canvassing and speaking in that constituency. If I were a candidate standing for that seat I will tell you how I would run it. I would send one postcard to every voter and I would say, "I am the Crofter candidate, and I place their interests before all public questions and politics." I should be certain of election. I should be returned with no political ties or convictions: I should be the hostage and the advocate of a single interest; I should be the minority representative under proportional representation. Do you want artificially to attain this result? If so, you will vote for this Amendment.

857
Laboured calculations by the promoters of proportional representation have enabled them to assert, in figures which are far from those quoted by the noble Earl, that in the Elections of 1895 and 1900 there would have been, on a true poll, Conservative Governments with a majority of two. I would not have envied them their life if they had had the present Prime Minister on their flank or rear. Majorities of two, apart from their inherent instability, create a weak Executive and a weak House of Commons, and are a temptation to unreal alliances and coalitions. It is as true to-day as it was when Mr. Disraeli first said it that "England does not love a Coalition." I have tried it, and so have some noble Lords on the Government Bench; and we know.
But why are we asked to consider and to accept such a proposal as this now? It has been turned down by nearly all those on whom it was to be imposed. Out of 126 Members who voted for it, only ten would have been affected by it. It has been rejected by all previous Parliaments and by such authorities as Gladstone, Bright, and Chamberlain. It has never been discussed by or submitted to the country. The Prime Minister does not understand, and does not mean to try to understand, it during the war. The House of Commons evidently shares his view. And are we, my Lords, to set ourselves above the intelligence and the detachment of the Prime Minister? Let us rather eschew the higher mathematics in our polls and maintain a system which has been long tried, and which has not failed. I do not think it is fair to take advantage of the exceptional conditions of to-day in order to foist a doubtful and dangerous fad upon the country. It is an unfortunate moment to try an experiment when a vast number of new voters, male and female, are being enfranchised for the first time. It was said with truth by one of its opponents in the House of Commons that, "both the old and the new electors will believe there is some mysterious manipulation and calculation operating behind the old straightforward simple vote, and they will distrust and dislike the result."
The Royal Commission said in their Report, with much truth, that "the British elector loves an open and square fight between two men. To give him a list of twenty names will only result in confusion." In their Final Report in 1910
858
they definitely said, "we are unable to recommend proportional representation in existing circumstances for election to the House of Commons." That House, my Lords, during the present session has three times rejected this proposal, with increasing majorities which have been given to you by the noble Earl behind me. Surely they have a predominant right to decide the method of their own election, with the knowledge and past experience of their electoral machinery to guide them. I beg you not to impose upon the country a system which they do not want, and which they profoundly distrust.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Viscount in his elaborate criticism of the merits of this proposal. This matter has been left open by the Government, and therefore upon the general merits and upon the political aspects of the question I propose to say very little. But I have certain things that I must say on practical questions. I must put forward several very serious considerations as to the effect which this Amendment, if carried, may have upon the general fortunes of the. Bill. The noble Earl, in his statement of the case, frankly admitted that his proposals had never been before the House of Commons. They go, as he stated, far beyond anything that was put before the House of Commons, and also far beyond the proposals of the Speaker's Conference. The proposal of the Speaker's Conference, as he knows, limited the new experiment to boroughs, but the noble Earl extends it to counties, to groups of counties, and even proposes to group boroughs with counties. The noble Earl dealt, I think very lightly, with the case or difficulty with which the new groupings could be effected. He said, "I do not propose to disturb the existing areas as they have been delimited by the Commissioners. I only propose to group them." He seemed to think that that was comparatively an easy matter. I have to suggest to your Lordships that, so far from being an easy matter, this grouping may take a considerable time, and cannot be done merely on paper, but must be done, if done at all, after careful local inquiries in the different constituencies.
May I take seriatim the proposals of the noble Earl with respect to the difficulties of grouping? Take, for instance, the first question—that of the boroughs having

859
three, four, or five Members. In those cases, of course, as will be easily seen, there will be no question of a local inquiry, because they can be easily thrown into one constituency of three, four, or five Members. But when you get to boroughs with more than five Members your difficulties will arise. In such places, for example, as Manchester, with, I think, its twelve Members, Glasgow with its fifteen, and other great towns, you must group those constituencies together in some particular order. Great difficulties will then arise, because it is quite obvious that very different results will issue electorally according to the way in which those different constituencies are grouped. The noble Lord, Lord Courtney, shakes his head. May I give him one instance I think a rather pertinent instance arising out of our difficulties, and that is the question of the second or business vote. If you group Manchester, with which as an old Member I have some familiarity, in one particular way you can put out altogether I can do it myself on paper—the great bulk of the second or business votes; while if you group it in another you do not do so. I think that it is very easy to see that this is a matter that may give rise to an immense amount of controversy, and that when the local government inquiries are held there will be great disputes between the Parties. That is only one rather small instance of the difficulties and impossibilities of settling these matters without local inquiries. As to London, perhaps I may pass over that lightly because the difficulties there are immense, and they have been partly touched upon by the noble Earl. As regards the counties, the same argument will apply to them; if they have three, four, or five Members, as applied to the boroughs, no difficulty will arise. But you will get very great difficulties, as your Lordships know very well, when you come to the grouping of counties. Moreover, when you come to group counties and boroughs, as suggested by the noble Earl, you will be thrown back upon the necessity of having these local inquiries.
May I take the different alternatives as to what may happen, assuming that this Amendment is carried, if this House were to keep this Bill until the whole of this machinery had been set in motion, and until the local inquiries had been finished. If a prefect Schedule based upon these local inquiries were to be placed in the Bill, obviously there would be an end of the
860
Bill, because long before that process had concluded, and before this Schedule had gone to another place, and been discussed there, as of course it will be discussed, the session must have ended, and the Bill would be dead. It is estimated that in order to complete the arrangements on the basis of the noble Earl's scheme something like three months would have to elapse; and it is quite evident that as you have to begin the new session very shortly by reason of the immense financial interest and obligation of the Government the time is very short. Therefore that obviously will kill the Bill. I know that your Lordships have no desire to kill the Bill, and that course, therefore, would be difficult. On the other hand, if you do not wait and if you send this Bill down to another place without this carefully-prepared Schedule on the basis of local inquiry, such an Amendment as that of the noble Earl would defeat its own object. There would be no meaning in it. The Amendment only says "where there are three, four, or five-Member constituencies," and there is no Schedule showing where those constituencies are to be.
I assume, again, if this Amendment passes, that the noble Earl will desire to put in a Schedule in order that an indication may be given to another place of what this grouping is to be, and what the noble Earl intends. If that is the intention of the noble Earl, then I assure him on the part of the Government that in carrying out the terms of his Amendment the Government will give him the assistance of the Government's draftsmen in framing the Schedule and putting it in the Bill according to his scheme. I have no official reason for saying so, but I understand that the noble Earl has a Schedule ready, and that that Schedule may very soon be put into shape if necessary and inserted in the Bill.
If such a Schedule is put in, and the Bill goes to another place, let me consider the alternative. If the Schedule is there rejected and proportional representation is again rejected—and we have heard what the majorities are in another place—then, unless your Lordships were to accept that action of another place and restore the old Schedule, the Bill would of course also be lost. Take the other case. Suppose the House of Commons accepts the Schedule put in by the noble Earl, or accepts it with certain modifications, and assuming that

861
those modifications were accepted by this House, then, if the Schedule were accepted in the full sense in which it is put in by the noble Earl, or if it were modified, the question is, What would happen? There would still not be time this session for the. Instructions to be sent to them for the Commissioners to do their work, and for these local inquiries to be held. And then it might be necessary to carry over the Bill till next session. But I wish to point out this serious consideration, that there must, of course, be a corresponding postponement of the new Register which, in any circumstances, probably could not come into operation till about the end of the year.
A NOBLE LORD: That does not follow.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have further to point out that a postponement such as that might, of course, have a very serious effect upon the fate of the Bill, if it was prolonged over to the coming session. Then as to the redistribution scheme in Ireland. I did not gather that the noble Earl intended to apply his proportional representation scheme to Ireland. At the present time the redistribution scheme for Ireland is being considered by a Committee of which the Speaker is chairman, and the arrangement was that the results of that Conference should be put into an agreed Bill which would become law at the same time as this Representation of the People Bill. Obviously, therefore, if the period was delayed within which this Bill was to become law, that arrangement for Ireland would also have to be carried over, and that again might create some difficulties for the Bill in the future.
I have tried to put before your Lordships some of the difficulties that may occur if this Amendment is carried and the action that might or might not have to be taken by the Government in those circumstances. It remains for me to point out one or two difficulties of the practical kind which might result from the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I have to point out, not of course in any political spirit, but rather from a neutral point of view, that the setting up of these larger constituencies under proportional representation runs right athwart the whole tendency of legislation during the last century. The whole movement during the last century has been from the double-Member constituency to the single-Member constituency—a movement which was largely established in the
862
Bills of 1884 and 1885, when, as your Lordships know, the Redistribution Bill was brought in and carried mainly on the basis of single-Member constituencies. Moreover, this will have the effect also, if carried, of further loosening the tics between the Member and his constituents. That has been pointed out by the noble Viscount opposite with great force, because this Bill so far as it goes, by establishing a more fluid constituency, owing to the greater facility of movement, does, to some extent, loosen the tie between the Member and his constituency. If it was loosened so far that no one Member represented a particular constituency, I do not know what would be the feelings of the ordinary elector when he found that he had no longer his own Member but only a share in a considerable number of Members.
The noble Earl referred to the size of constituencies, and I think he tried to establish that we could easily have these large county constituencies by referring to the well-known historical fact that a good many of our ancestors ruined themselves by standing for these very large constituencies, and he said, "If they could move about the constituency, then why cannot we do it now?" I should have thought you could hardly compare those constituencies, large in area, but with comparatively few electors, with the crowded masses with which you have to make yourself acquainted now. Moreover, the noble Earl was doing his best to show that the expenses of the candidates would be no matter, because he says that Parliament can always limit the amount that may be spent by a candidate on his election. It is true that Parliament can do that, and the amount has been limited by this Bill, but, of course, candidates can only be limited to a reasonable degree, and it is obvious that, however far you limit those expenses, they must be, if they are to meet the case at all, far larger in the case of these gigantic constituencies than they were in the more limited ones.
May I remind the noble Earl of this, that one of the Instructions given to the Commissioners was that where the constituencies were inconvenient in size or character they should have special advantages, and, as a result of that, something like either twelve or sixteen constituencies, according as you make the calculation, have been accorded to the agricultural portions of the

863
country in excess of what they would have on a strictly numerical basis. This was the case under the single-Member constituencies; and this was actually inserted by the House of Commons among the Instructions because Members felt—and, after all, they had had experience of the constituencies—that many of the single-Member constituencies would be far too large. What would be their feelings then when they found that, so far from these single Member constituencies being thought too large, they would be grouped together so that they would become much larger still?
I should like, if I may, to make one observation on my own account in reply to what the noble Earl said about London. As the noble Earl knows, I have had a long experience, at any rate, of municipal London, and have sat for three different constituencies in different parts of London, and I think I have some knowledge of local feeling in London. The noble Earl, I thought, to some extent misunderstood that feeling. He showed us that London was a unity, that many persons have been working for years to produce that unity of feeling, and he said, "If London is a unity, what does it matter how the different constituencies are grouped together within that large unity of London?" It is quite true that London is a unity, and I hope is growing more of a unity every day. But what is that unity largely based upon? It is based on the smaller local patriotism of the different portions of London. If you take Woolwich, a part of London with which I am very well acquainted, I can assure your Lordships that there is an intense local patriotism prevailing there; so much so, that when people go from there to another portion of London, they talk of going to London and coming back to Woolwich. In the same way the local feeling in Westminster is intense and strong; and on the other side of the water, in Kennington, which I now represent on the London County Council, there again it is almost impossible for me to express to your Lordships the depth and intensity of the local feeling which prevails. And the reason why, as a Londoner and connected for many years with the local life of London, I most strongly object to the application of this system to London is that you must, by any system of grouping the whole of London in these different constituencies, cut right athwart that local patriotism which many have been working at for years, and which takes so much to build up.
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is only one more detailed matter with which I want to deal—namely, the question of by-elections. The noble Viscount has dealt with that question; but I want to point out this because I think that, if this scheme is to be a practical one, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will agree that it must be faced and dealt with. The noble Earl has suggested that, whenever there is a by-election, it will be impossible to limit that by-election to a particular portion of the constituency, but that you must take the vote over the whole area, whether it be a borough or a county. The first thing I have to point out is that this by-election will not be, therefore, any test of the change of feeling over that area. All it will mean will be that there is a surplus—if there are two Parties—of Conservative over Liberal votes. I think your Lordships will agree that the by-election plays a very important part indeed in our public life. It is one of the great tests by which a Government knows whether it is growing more or less unpopular; and if that by-election is not to be a real test—as it cannot be under this proposal—of the feeling of the constituency, compared with the display of feeling in that constituency at the General Election, you have lost a very useful way of testing the popular feeling.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: It can be a real test.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Let me put it in this way. I think the noble Earl wanted to eliminate the number of by-elections, of which he felt the difficulty; and he thought that persons who sought re-election on appointment to office should be exempted from that necessity. But even if you exempt those, the number of by-elections would be very considerable. I think in the Parliament from 1900 to 1905—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It was always one a fortnight.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is twenty-six a year, a larger number than I was going to give. According to the noble Earl's calculation it would be something like 130; but call it 100. Think what that would mean. You are going very largely to reduce the number of constituencies. Supposing you had 500 single-Member con-

865
stituencies and turned them into 100 five-Member constituencies, obviously you would be bound to have a far larger number of by-elections than before. It becomes a far more serious question, not only as regards a test but as regards expense on the unfortunate candidate who has to stand alone for this gigantic constituency. You might easily have, on the figures I have given, one by-election in each of these large constituencies. That, of course, would not happen. But obviously you would have, on any doctrine of chances, more than one by-election in any one of these large constituencies. That is a matter which I should like to press from the point of view of practical convenience—and that is the only point on which I am speaking to-day every strongly on the advocates of proportional representation. They are putting this forward as a complete and practical scheme. This may be a detail, but it is a detail of great importance—of, I think I may say, far reaching importance and therefore I invite the advocates of this system, even more fully than could the noble Earl in his elaborate statement, to deal with that particular difficulty.
The last point I wish to make is on the question of the new systems of voting which have been introduced. I agree—as I think everybody must—that to put "1," "2," "3," or "4," against the different names is a matter of no great difficulty.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The question of counting is a difficulty, but that may be got over by having trained counters. But you have to do much more than that. You have to make the ordinary elector understand how that counting has been carried out. You have to make him understand the quota; and you have to make him understand also a great number of curious results. For instance, he may want to know how it happens that while 1, 2, 3, and 4, are elected by the quota, number 5, who appears to be lowest on the poll, is elected by a larger number of votes on the quota; which may easily happen because it may be necessary in certain circumstances to do no further counting. There are a number of difficulties of that kind which would be set the ordinary elector. The noble Lord, Lord Courtney, nods his head at that.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: No. I am sorry to say I did not hear the last observation. I made no comment on it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But consider what is this new system which is being introduced. You have all sorts of new methods of voting for the first time introduced into this Bill. You have the voting by post; the proxy voting; and other matters of that kind. In ordinary times if you were introducing a matter like proportional representation, there would be some opportunity of expounding all these difficulties to the constituencies and to the electors. But that cannot be done now. You have not only the great mass of new voters—with which Lord Harcourt has dealt—but you have millions of them away at the Front, and thinking of all sorts of different things; and you have no opportunity of trying to expound to those gentlemen the niceties and the difficulties of proportional representation. That surely is a very serious matter.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
VISCOUNT PEEL: One feels so far as these new voters are concerned, and so far as the voters who are across the seas are concerned, that possibly they would prefer, for the first occasion on which they exercise their votes, or exercise them in a new manner, that they should do so on the old system and not a new one, which, I will not say they would not understand if it were explained to them, but which so many millions of them have had no opportunity of thoroughly understanding or appreciating.
EARL GREY: If I neglected to say what I could in support of this Amendment, I should not only be running away from my own convictions, but I should be failing to discharge a duty which was laid upon me by one who sometimes addressed your Lordships from these Cross-Benches. I should like to say with what deep appreciation I listened to some of the very generous references which were made to him by some of his old colleagues in the course of the Second Reading debate—more particularly by my noble friend Lord Courtney.
I shall not attempt to reply now to some of the difficulties which have been sug-

867
gested to your Lordships if you persist in the course which the noble Lord suggests the House should take. But all the same I think that he made a good many points which will not prove quite so formidable in practice as he suggests to us. He talks of a large number of local inquiries. I think your Lordships will be surprised, when you come to look into the actual formation of a Schedule, to find in how many cases local inquiries will be able to be dispensed with. Again, when you come to deal with the great towns like Glasgow and Manchester, I do not think that in any case more than one day would be occupied in any one centre, and therefore the sum total of the delay will not really be very serious; especially when you come to a place like Glasgow and you find a natural division—a group of five constituencies south of the river, which is an obvious and geographical division. That is only typical of what you may find in a great many places.
The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill then referred to the difficulty of the grouping of counties, which was talked of by Lord Selborne. I think, as far as England is concerned, that would probably only arise in one single instance, where you get Cambridge, which is a single-county seat, and Huntingdon, which is a single-county seat, and the Isle of Ely—three small single-county seats all close together—and obviously it ought to be in the discretion of the Boundary Commissioners to group them into one constituency, if found desirable. The question does arise, however, when you come to deal with Scotland; but my own experience in discussing this question, as I have during the past weeks, with representatives of various parties in Scotland among other places, is that this is not a principle which would arouse serious local opposition. The question of grouping counties with boroughs has more sanction even than either of the others, in that the Commission on electoral systems distinctly mentions that "smaller boroughs returning one or two Members would have to be absorbed into the surrounding country, with which, as has been pointed out, their interests are really common." In that matter the Commission, which considered this question very carefully, did not feel any doubt as to the proper solution.
I would like to say a word about the arguments which came from the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt. I confess I was
868
rather surprised that Lord Harcourt took such a very strong line against proportional representation, for no later than the last time that we met in Committee on this Bill the noble Viscount moved to strike out the plural vote, on Clause 8, on the ground that proportional representation was not included in the Bill and it was therefore going against the Speaker's Conference. Therefore, we all thought that as we insisted upon keeping the plural vote in the Bill, he would at least try to minimise that evil, if it be an evil, by asking for the inclusion of proportional representation, rather than moving to keep it out.
Then the noble Viscount went on to taunt the noble Earl with having brought up a lot of old arguments; but I am bound to say that I could not see that he had done any better, when it came to his own turn. In fact, anybody who has read Lord Eversley's Report would say that it was pretty obvious where the noble Viscount had got most of his facts. The noble Viscount also adduced the opinion of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, which was very strongly opposed to proportional representation. My Lords, it is really not worth while quoting one man rather than another, because if the noble Viscount is going to quote Mr. Austen Chamberlain, we could very easily retort with Mr. Asquith, and so go on playing battledore and shuttlecock for a long time.
The first real point which the noble Viscount made was that this system of proportional representation would lead to the growth of a large number of groups in Parliament, and he pictured the dreadful effect of faddists being returned in all parts of the country. But bearing in mind the large size of an electorate, it is hardly conceivable that a quota in any of these constituencies, whether single-Member or under proportional representation, would be less than 10,000; and, my Lords, if any man is capable of getting 10,000 men to support him, by what right should we say he is not entitled to get a seat in Parliament? In any case, the noble Viscount entirely misreads the real main desire of those of us who support proportional representation. We are not so anxious to support the return of the independent Member. What we are really anxious to secure is that large minorities shall be represented. Incidentally, no doubt, if small minorities get the representation to

869
which they are entitled, so much the better, but what we are really concerned about is that we find that large minorities and large sections of the country fail to get any representation, and that is the basis of our case.
The Royal Commission also reported on that question of the individual Member, and in paragraph 116 they say—
"We are inclined to think that the multiplication of small parties feared by opponents and the encouragement of the independent Member hoped for by advocates are alike exaggerated in the evidence given before us."
The noble Viscount then went on to deal with the question of Tasmania. I will not follow him there, as we have noble Lords who have had actual experience in that part of the Empire, who will, I hope, address your Lordships at a later stage. I should, however, like to say this, that surely you cannot draw any real analogy between a Parliament which is composed of only thirty Members and one which is composed of 670 Members. A majority of one in one case corresponds with a majority of twenty-five in the other, and although you may draw a very harrowing picture of what happens with a majority of one, whatever system you have in this country it is not very likely to happen here. Going on with the Tasmanian question, the noble Viscount suggested that although they were in groups of three—in which I think he was misinformed; I think they had five groups of six—there were as many as ten counts, which required all sorts of juggling, and he talked of the necessity of employing Senior Wranglers to solve abstruse mathematical problems. I do not think that anything further advanced than the rule of three is necessary to achieve any problem that may be met with under this clause. On that point also the Royal Commission was very clear, because in paragraph 74 they said—
"It was at one time habitually asserted that the actual mechanism, the method of counting the votes, was so complicated as to be incapable of correct and expeditious application under the conditions of political elections. For this assertion we believe there is no foundation."
The other rather similar question raised by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is the difficulty which the voter has to face in correctly writing the numbers of his choice. That was considered so small that it is the only question in connection with proportional representation which the Commissioners did not think it even worth
870
while to mention in the whole of their Report. I think that shows very clearly how they regarded the supposed difficulty. In the case of the National Union of Railwaymen in this country, mentioned by the noble Earl, they divide the whole country into a certain number of groups, and sometimes they have as many as thirty or forty candidates for two places, and they have had as many as 15,000 votes on a single count with only twenty-one papers which were incorrectly marked. It is really so easy, my Lords, that it is not worth while debating whether there is any difficulty in it or not.
Further, so far from increasing the opportunities of gerry-mandering, as the noble Viscount said was the experience in Tasmania, we have it on the evidence of Sir John McCall, the Agent-General for Tasmania, that proportional representation has killed gerry-mandering. Writing on November 22 last, Sir John McCall said—
"The Act of 1907 has been applied to four Elections. I have, watched the results, and if there are any sound arguments against proportional representation or the methods taken to secure it, they have not so far been found."
Later on he said—
"The proportional system strengthens the hands of Ministers."
The next point made by the noble Viscount, speaking with his intimate knowledge of the caucus, was that it would strengthen the caucus. I rather fail to see why that should particularly alarm the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It does not alarm me.
EARL GREY: After that, he dealt with the question of minority representation and the effort that was made for minority representation in 1867, and the growth of the Birmingham caucus in consequence. Well, those two arguments really can be answered at the same time, in that it was not the single transferable vote which led to that breakdown, but it was the giving of two votes to three-Member constituencies. No advocate of proportional representation defends that system for a minute. It is true these efforts aimed at securing minority representation, but the fact that they entirely failed to do it effectively in one way is no reason why we should give up trying to do it in another way. The noble Viscount then went on to picture the confusion that would arise in the Govern-

871
ment of this country in a four-Member constituency supposing you had two Members elected by each of the main Parties. That seems to me to be the real fallacy at the base of the whole case made against proportional representation, and more particularly it was in this connection that Lord Eversley's pamphlet so entirely missed the problems before the country to-day. At this time in our history, when we are about to double the electorate in the country, it is hardly conceivable that we should go on talking of "the two main Parties." It is true that the Labour Party to-day is not more than a group in the House of Commons, whereas it is a very strong Party in the country. Can anybody doubt that after the next Election it will be just as much a Party in the House of Commons as it is in the country? This Bill is to kill the two-party system. There will be three main Parties in this country, and you have to face the reorganisation which that entails. That same Commission, talking of the single-Member system in paragraph 28, says—
"The single-Member system claims at most to secure a rough indication of the relative strengths of Parties of comparable size, and to provide for small Parties, interests, and pursuits the widest possible range and the opportunity of obtaining a hearing in Parliament, but without some such provision as the alternative vote it breaks down if more than two large Parties are in the field."
That was in 1910. Later on in their Report they admitted that a very large increase of the electorate does furnish a legitimate demand for minority representation. That is the submission which we put before your Lordships to-day.
We do not believe that it is possible to carry on exactly as we have been carrying on in this country. We shall be faced with an enormous number of questions of vital importance after the war, and I am perfectly sure we should not have any prospect of arriving at satisfactory solutions if we had one Party which could impose its will on all other Parties. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, in a very eloquent passage—I think he was speaking on the clause enfranchising women—said—
"I quite agree that from the ferment and the fret of this war a new social and moral order will, and ought to, emerge. What form it will take I no more than anybody else will dare to predict, but if it is to be anything substantial and successful, I personally hold the view that it is much more likely to succeed if it is not imposed from above, but if it springs from the volition of the people themselves below."
872
My Lords, I believe that to be absolutely true. The whole tendency of the development of Government in this country of late years has surely been in the direction of co-operation. The Whitley Report was held to be the most valuable State document that has been produced for a long time. The Whitley Report does not suggest that great industrial questions can be solved by a majority. It suggests that the most promising way to solve great questions is that parties should meet together in equal strength; and I believe that in the next Parliament, which will have to settle tremendous issues (including probably the actual peace terms which this country is going to accept) it is important that every Party which is capable of representation in this country should have the representation it is entitled to, and should not have to trust to any other Party to voice its feelings.
The question of by-elections was then made very much of both by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It is quite true that that is a difficulty. Supposing the candidate who had retired, or whatever reason was causing the by-election, had been a minority Member, the noble Lord said how very hard it would be if a majority candidate were elected instead. Perhaps it would be, but it would be very much better to have had a minority Member up to then than never to have had him at all. Again, the Commission on that point talks of this question of by-elections as the only really difficult question, but it says that it is of comparatively minor importance, and I should think that this is really putting it in its right perspective. If proportional representation is worthy of adoption in this country as a whole, the fact that it does entail certain difficulties in by-elections ought not to stand in its way. The noble Viscount also pictured the frightful cost of such elections, which he put at possibly £2,000 to £3,000. But later on he suggested that he knew quite well how he personally would deal with a very fanciful Highland constituency which he sketched for our alarm, but which no one else had ever thought of. He said he would send postcards to every elector, saying he was the Crofter candidate, and he would be returned. As he would get that postage free from the Government, he showed that it would not cost him one halfpenny.
We were taunted with the fact that the majority in the House of Commons for the

873
exclusion of London increased, and I think as the measure of proportional representation in the House of Commons was whittled down the majority against it was increased. That, my Lords, seems to me a very good argument for our putting forward a complete scheme. It shows that there is more sympathy for a complete scheme than for a partial scheme; and that certainly has been my experience in going about the country, in the West Hiding, in Lancashire, and in Scotland, between the Second Reading debate and now. Wherever I have discussed this question with local organisers I have found a very much greater preference for a complete scheme than for a partial scheme, and in many cases organisations which were opposing proportional representation as suggested in the House of Commons said they would take an entirely different view of the question if it was going to be applied to the whole country. Therefore, my Lords, I am convinced that we are wise in suggesting to apply it to the whole country.
We stand on a principle which can easily be justified. We wish to have the scheme as watertight as it is possible to be. We do not wish to except London because London wishes to be excepted. We do not believe you will gain any large measure of support by applying it to one part of the country and not to another. It is far better to apply it all round.
I apologise for occupying so much of your Lordships' time, but I am convinced there is only one question really we ought to turn our minds to here. It is not whether the scheme can be worked. There is no doubt it can be worked, and the Association of Under-Sheriffs informed the Royal Commission that they saw no difficulty in working the scheme. It can be worked. The real question we have to face is whether we wish to go on trying to apply rules which worked very well when we had two main Parties, but which will not work very well when we have three main Parties in this country. Without proportional representation I see nothing on earth to prevent the condition of things arising which the noble Earl sketched out—a solid block of industrial Members in the industrial parts of the country. It is the atrophy of political opinion in the minority Party in certain parts of the country which encourages the majority Party there to become more and more extreme in their views. I believe if it can be arranged for a trial to
874
be given to this measure we shall have the same experience in this country as in other countries, and that is that no country which has ever tried it has gone back upon proportional representation, or wishes to.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD COLCHESTER (who was indistinctly heard): I venture to address a few words to the Committee on this subject. I always felt that it was a most important constitutional question, and I think it is doubly important in view of the immense changes which are made in the basis of our representation by the present Bill. I go so far as to say that there should be no such change made unless it is accompanied by some such proposal as proportional representation. To my mind, it is not too much to say that a non-proportional representation is a sham representation. When we hear of one vote one value; how can one vote be of one value when three or five, as a majority, are equal to a thousand or more as a majority. The late Lord Beaconsfield said, "the unit was not the individual, but the community or the corporation." But when you come to the more modern system and base representation on population, then if we do it without proportional representation it will, I think, be altogether a tangle, and we will not get the opinion of the country.
Some allusion has been made to the system which prevailed in the elections to the School Board. I was connected with that system of election for three years on the London School Board, and I must say that the result was fair. The Westminster Division had five members, and those with whom I acted put up five members, and returned three on the first occasion, of whom I was not one. The second time we returned them all. I think it may be said for that system that there was no elector in the area who did not have some representative on the School Board with whom he was in sympathy. Some of the constituencies were large, and returned a very large number of members. That may have caused some inconvenience and may have been partly the reason why the authorities abandoned it; but that objection would not apply in the same way to the present proposal.
I believe that the enormous majorities which there have been of later years accom-

875
panied by a certain swing of the pendulum have been a misfortune to the Party in whose favour those majorities have been. Such majorities are often dangerous to a Party. Macaulay said that the essence of politics was compromise, and I think that we should do well not to push matters to extremes. The position is rendered more dangerous owing to the great change in representation which is being introduced. You are creating an enormous number of voters, who will be very largely drawn from one class, which will probably outnumber everybody else. And we must remember what the effect will be. We shall no longer have the old representation of property, and you are putting the power into the hands of people who may wish to throw the whole burden of taxation upon the landlords. Mr. Bonar Law pointed out the other day that 82 per cent. of the taxation is borne by the direct taxpayer, and 18 per cent. only by those who may have the government of the country in their hands if this Bill is passed. It is fair that they should bear their share.
This state of things was anticipated many years ago by Mr. Mill, who said—
"The majority in every locality would consist of manual labourers, and when there was any issue pending in which these classes were at issue with the rest no other class would succeed in getting represented anywhere."
I do not say we shall go as far as that now, but it points to what might be a great danger, and it is only fair that those who are in the minority should be represented in proportion to their numbers, and their voices at least should be heard, so that, although they may not carry anything by their strength of voting they may be able to exercise such influence as they can in behalf of the reasonable cause which they represent.
For that reason, if for no other, we ought to be very careful not to pass this measure without some corrective of this kind. It is precisely the character of this Bill which makes this Amendment the more necessary. By this means you will secure the representation of all sections of the community, and you will bring in all the different variety of sentiment and opinion that exists in the country and reproduce in the House of Commons all the elements which make up the national life of England.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I should like to say a few words on this very important question, more especially as, I am sorry to say, I differ from many friends with whom I am accustomed to work and on whose opinion I greatly rely. But on this occasion I cannot bring myself to think that the results which they anticipate will be realised. I will confine my attention to the question of how far this Amendment would benefit agriculture and the agricultural interest, because that is a matter in which I take the deepest interest. I know that my friends around me take the view that this Amendment will greatly benefit the agricultural representation.
The inevitable result of this Amendment will be that the constituencies will be enormously increased, and, I greatly fear, that, as a result, the caucus and the Party machine will have so much power that they will successfully counteract the views of the minority; consequently the caucus will prevail and the minority representation will not succeed. It is certain that the larger the constituency the greater the power of the Party organisation, whatever it may be. Nobody, I think, would question that. Then, again, it seems to me that moderate and independent candidates and Members will be greatly discouraged under this system if they try to represent the minority. They will have the whole of the caucus against them, and they will be in a very difficult position, through having to fight such enormous constituencies, in getting over the ground, in making their views known, and in trying to obtain support. I think that it is of the utmost importance for the cause of agriculture and for the rural population that we should have independent and moderate men who understand the conditions of rural life and who are able to advocate such measures as may be necessary for the interest of those classes.
I cannot think that, with the enormous constituencies that would be created if this Amendment were passed, such men would be likely to come forward in large numbers. On the contrary, I believe that they would be greatly discouraged; and the result would be that we should have a less desirable class of man coming forward to represent these large constituencies. Most of the agricultural societies have petitioned in favour of this Amendment. Why? Because they think that the hopes of those who advocate proportional representation

877
will be fully realised, and that they will get increased representation. Will they get it? Will they be able to get a solid agricultural vote? Have they the machinery ready? Will they get the agricultural labourers to vote with them? If not, is it not almost certain that the single-Member constituencies will be better for the agricultural interests than these enormous constituencies which would be created under this Amendment?
I have had very little experience of electioneering and of constituencies, either small or large. Therefore, I naturally turn for advice to those who have had that experience; and I see in the Press—as no doubt many of your Lordships have seen—letters from those experienced statesmen, Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Walter Long, both of whom have had experience of large constituencies, and have arrived at exactly the same conclusion as to the consequences which this Amendment would have with regard to minority representation. I cannot ignore those views. Such being the case, I feel that I must follow their counsel, and the opinion that they have formed that this Amendment will not in practice result as its promoters hope. Of course, I have just the same object in view as the promoters of the Amendment as regards agriculture. I want it to be adequately and properly represented in Parliament, and I should vote for any measure which I thought would give that representation; but, as I have said, it is a matter of opinion how this thing will work out. On paper it looks perfectly simple—the minority will get adequate representation—but from the experience of politicians who have worked these large constituencies before 1885, it would appear that they anticipate that these results will not be obtained. Therefore, under those circumstances I feel obliged to vote against this Amendment. In doing so I am quite content to follow Mr. Long's advice. I dare say your Lordships have read his letters. In one of them he said that he was in disagreement with some of his agricultural friends, but on the other hand he knew that he was voicing the view of a great many agriculturists. From the point of view of the agriculturist I go with him, and I support the view that on the whole agriculture will benefit more from the system under this Bill as it stands than it would do if the Amendment by Lord Selborne were carried into effect.
LORD BURNHAM: I think I ought to begin by apologising for rising again at this stage of the Bill to address your Lordships' House, but one is in some difficulty because no Minister seems to be responsible for anything but the intricate machinery and detail of the Bill, and as I proposed the compromise of the Speaker's Conference I feel bound to speak in support of the Amendment. Proportional representation was regarded by the Speaker's Conference as being essential to the scheme agreed upon, When the enormous change was made of introducing universal suffrage it was especially conditioned by proportional representation. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the Report, as it was presented to the House of Commons, as a composite whole, would have had no chance of being approved by a majority, still less unanimously, had it not contained the principle of proportional representation.
My noble friend Lord Peel took up a very peculiar position. He said the Government were neutral but I am bound to say that I interpreted his speech as being hostile to the Amendment; and he put forward some objections which would hardly pass currency in either House of Parliament. I believe he went as far as to say that this Amendment might kill the Bill, and he raised the official objection that if it were carried there would be great difficulty in bringing the session to a conclusion at its wonted time, and of making the financial arrangements for the year. I would ask him whether an Amendment which is to settle the future of popular Government in the whole Empire—it comes to that; in this country first, and then in the whole Empire—is to depend upon the temporary convenience of sessional arrangements. Apart from that, nobody knows better than the noble Viscount that there would be no difficulty in carrying this Bill, in part or in whole, over to next session. Even the Schedules can if necessary, be carried over by themselves, and the work of registration would not be delayed by a single day. I would have you observe that the registration provisions apply just as much to the single area constituencies and the limited areas as to the larger areas necessary for the purposes of this Bill, and therefore on that account nothing can be said. I should not have inferred that my noble friend (Lord Peel) was opposed to this Amendment had he not gone on to say that as a representative of London on the

879
London County Council, particularly as the representative of Kennington, he objected to this provision because it would interfere with local life and local patriotism. I think I have perhaps as much claim to speak for London as my noble friend, and I would point out to your Lordships that so far from destroying local life this is going to revive it. The local life of London as it exists in its various parts is the borough life, and at the present moment you arbitrarily divide the boroughs into single-Member constituencies. The greater part of the Schedule in this Bill will restore their unity and integrity to the London boroughs.
I quite agree that there is a local life in the boroughs. Perhaps I go further than my noble friend Lord Selborne in that respect, because although there may be a London regiment there is also a Kensington battalion or a Tower Hamlets battalion. The spirit which is incarnated in these bodies of men will be restored and not destroyed by the Bill. My noble friend went on to say that it would destroy the local life of Kennington. I am bound to say that, apart from "The Horns" and the Oval I do not know what particular local associations Kennington has, expecially as it is only one part of the borough of Lambeth. That is carrying the question of local life and local tradition a little far. I can hardly think that, in spite of the fact that my noble friend represents the borough in the London County Council, Kennington would make any such claim for itself. The truth is that if we want municipal spirit in London your Lordships can do nothing better than give back their integrity to the London boroughs which they have lost under the single-Member system.
Generally speaking, my Lords, I think this is the first Reform Bill in which proportional representation has had a chance. In the past it has been greatly prejudiced by the assumed pedantry of its antecedents. Its sesquipedalian title is against it, and may I say it has suffered from association with the figure of John Stuart Mill, who was always called a philosopher in politics, and anything he advocated was supposed to be incapable of understanding by the multitude. Well, now we get it explained clearly so that every voter in the country can understand it just as well as he can understand the half-dozen different systems of election now applied, because your Lord-
880
ships must not think that multiple elections are foreign to our system of local Government. Just the reverse is the fact. Then of course, it suffered from the exaggerated enthusiasm of its advocates. Proportional representation is no panacea. It is not going to change a wilderness into a garden. It is not going to stop all sighing and sorrow in the streets, but it will give you, for the first time, a system of representation which is a reality and not a sham, which is an actuality and not a phantasm.
I cannot for the life of me understand the flagrant and even impudent paradox which tells you that representative government can only succeed if it does not represent. Mill said that surely in really equal democracies every section will be represented not disproportionately but proportionately. A more recent political writer, whom we all remember, Mr. Lecky, who sat for so long in the other House, prophesied that representative institutions would probably perish by ceasing to be representative. If, as the noble Viscount Lord Harcourt believes it is only possible to run representative government successfully so long as it does not represent, then you get to the absurd conclusion that the less representative it is the more successful will it be. That is really the argument of Lord Eversley in the pamphlet which has been circulated to every member of your Lordships' House. He says, "It is impossible to have strong representative government unless the rule of majority be exaggerated." An American writer said, "A vote of one on God's side is a majority." But is the vote always going to be a vote of one on God's side? That is the rule of the bare majority, and the Royal Commission which has been spoken of so often, which reported in 1910, said, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that the only chance of good government was in the exaggeration of majorities. I cannot believe that there is any strength in government except stability, and I cannot believe that there is any test which you can properly apply except the truth with which it mirrors the opinion of the country and in which it is really a small scale map of the community. If that is not true, then representative government must be pronounced a failure; but I believe it is true, and I believe that nothing more than the history of recent years has shown the mischief of exaggerated majorities.
We had exaggerated majorities in the Elections of 1895, 1900, and 1906. Can

881
anybody say, looking back, that the size of these majorities was an advantage to the country? I will take only one case, and it is a very simple one—the case of your Lordships' House. If the Unionist majority during those ten years had been smaller, does any member of this House believe that nothing would have been done to bring its composition and constitution more into accord with what is sometimes called the spirit of the age, but which, at any rate, you can call the tendencies of the times? I always thought that this was a great act of omission, to which the Unionist Party must plead guilty at the bar of history. Then the converse is equally true of the majority of 1906. Can anybody believe that it was a good thing for the country that during those years nothing was done except to threaten your Lordships' House and to lay the foundations of the Parliament Act, which has upset the whole balance of our Constitution?
In both cases the real vice was in the exaggeration of the Party majority, and it would have been far better for our constitutional development, far better for the Empire history, if the majority in the other House had corresponded with the state of things outside. When the Royal Commission said, "Changes of feeling in the country are really on the occasion of Elections far larger than is shown by the counting of heads at the polls," they said what no figures can prove, and what I believe to be profoundly untrue. The noble Viscount who spoke second in this debate went so far as to say that the majority in Parliament ought to be out of all proportion to its numerical strength in the country. That is paradoxical. It is humorous, no doubt, but it cannot be seriously defended by anybody who genuinely believes in popular government. While I was listening to the noble Viscount I began to doubt whether he really did. I venture to say that the system which gives us stability, and which keeps the centre of gravity where it ought to be, is that which makes for good government and for the welfare of the State in the long run.
Then we come, of course, to the objection, raised continually, that the size of the constituencies under this system will prevent our Parliamentary institutions being properly worked. I gather from my noble friend who has just spoken that
882
that would apply to the case of agriculture. He gave a very unfortunate instance. He said he had been converted, or very largely persuaded, by the arguments of Mr. Walter Long. We all respect the name of Mr. Walter Long, but it is a strange thing that, instead of representing an agricultural constituency, he sits at this moment for the Strand. His personal popularity is as great, I think, as that of any man in this country, but is he unable to find an agricultural seat which is so clearly congruous to his record and to his opinions? If any proof were wanted of the failure to put the right man in the right place it is in the fact that Mr. Walter Long is not sitting for his native county—I dare say he might be—and though he speaks with a wide knowledge and experience he is not, according to our constitutional ideas at this moment, responsible to an agricultural constituency.
With regard to the question of the cost of the new constituencies as an argument against proportional representation, I would have your Lordships recollect that a great amount of the burden which falls on candidates is not in fighting an Election, but in nursing the constituency, and this has been cultivated, in the case of the single-Member areas, to a point of refinement and elaboration which is not good for the constituency and not good for the candidate. That is what the noble Viscount Lord Harcourt, calls "keeping touch" between the constituency and the candidate. It precedes the assumption of what was cynically described by the late Mr. Labouchere, "It is wonderful how tight that horny hand of labour closes on half a sovereign." That is a cynical remark, but it is really the basis for the nursing of small constituencies. In large areas under the Bill it would be impossible to canvass from door to door, as many of us have had to do—a process degrading to the candidate and not less degrading to the constituency; it would be impossible to go to every bazaar and to every small local function, and therefore we should revert to the old state of things when it was found to be sufficient for a Member to address meetings in the principal centres of his constituency and not go from village to village, or from street to street, trying to pick up here and there a single vote which may turn the Election. I once sat for a constituency sixty-five miles long, and I am perfectly certain that if any of your Lordships had had that experience you would know it is impossible for a Member who is in that position to do

883
his duty to the country and to the constituency. Every hamlet expects the Member to visit it as often as if it were a separate borough.
We are only asking that we should go back to the geographical distribution which obtained before the year 1885. Before that time each knight of the shire was proud to represent the whole of the county; prouder to represent the whole of the county than any division of the county; and if I am answered by being told that then he had to address only a small number of men who were in possession of the franchise before the Reform Act of 1885, my answer is that the means of locomotion have tremendously improved since then. Those who have had to drive about a rural constituency before the days of the motorcar realise what an immense change it has made to the personal convenience of the candidate. I venture to think that it is far easier, under present day conditions, to perambulate the largest constituency under the Bill than it was in the old days to drive along the chalk roads in a single-horse fly. Only those who had experience of the old conditions would appreciate how infinitely better it will be for any county candidate in the future.
I do not think that in taking a step which has been urged—which I have urged before, but will not do so again—as a protection to minorities, you need fear that it will be opposed by those Labour organisations who are to obtain for the first time such a preponderant influence. I hear, not with fear but with interest, the fact that 400 Labour candidates have been already announced to be run in different parts of the country. I am perfectly certain that, by the casual and haphazard system of a bare majority, whole districts will, if not at the first, at least at the second election after this Bill, have an exclusive Labour representation.
It happens, however, that organised Labour is on the side of proportional representation. At the conference that is about to be held by the Labour Party—I have had an opportunity of looking through the agenda sheet—there is resolution after resolution in the name of Trades Councils from various parts of the country in favour of proportional representation, and there is not a single one on the other side. In these circumstances, seeing that they at least believe in the representation of minorities by the single tranferable vote,
884
I think that your Lordships will be ill-advised to pledge yourselves once more to a system which does not pretend to secure fair or equal representation of opinion anywhere. I believe that in adopting this proposal you will render the future of popular government safe and secure. It is not only here that apprehension comes into all minds. It is a commonplace to say that there are those who fawn and flatter just as much in the corridor of trades congresses as in the antechambers of princes. We all know that. But there is not a country under Parliamentary government that is not debating and discussing this question now. There are, indeed, very few where it has not been already adopted, or where resolutions have not been passed asking that it should be put into force in the election of Members of the Lower Chamber or for both Chambers.
Lord Harcourt referred to the Dominions. I do not know whether he is aware that in Australia the leader of the Liberal Party, as in Canada, has declared in favour of proportional representation for the Lower House. I think that in most of the States a pledge has been given that it shall be introduced. I think that in New Zealand all Parties are agreed upon it. I ask your Lordships to adopt this Amendment and make the country and the Empire, to use the current phrase, safe for democracy. It is not safe without it. I believe that, as the late Earl Grey said, democracy can be faced without foreboding if you will only supply it with the means of expressing its own proportion of sentiment and opinion, and not cripple it by an outworn system that does not pretend to any other virtue than to exaggerate the power of the majority against the minority wherever it is in force.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I want to reinforce if I can in a few words—I hope, like your Lordships, that they really will be few—two of the points made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. By far the most important question about this Amendment seems to me to be whether you do or do not like the prospect of Governments supported by huge disproportionate majorities in the House of Commons. We have had examples of that in the case of Liberal and of Conservative Governments, and we are confronted with the prospect of a majority of the Labour Party similarly swollen. My noble friend who has just

885
sat down pointed to the rather unfortunate examples of the big Liberal majority of 1906, and the big Conservative majorities of the two previous Elections. I want to go back and take the opposite case of the Government which, I believe, of all Governments of recent years had the smallest majority behind it—the Liberal Government of 1892–1895. We are told that a Government with a small majority in the House of Commons is necessarily a weak Government. Many of your Lordships remember those times very well. That Government did not pass many of the great pieces of legislation which it wanted to accomplish; in that respect it did neither better nor worse than the Liberal Administration before it and the Liberal Administration which followed it ten years later; in that respect they were exactly on a par with one another.
But it is not for the purpose of carrying contentious legislative measures that we want a Government strong. The real purpose for which a Government is required to be strong is for carrying on the executive work of the country. I take that example, the only example that our lifetime affords, and that Government which, according to the argument of the noble Viscount (Lord Harcourt) should have been a very weak Government, was not a weak Government at all. It was confronted in its executive duties by many very serious problems. In its foreign policy it was confronted, as we all know now, by very great difficulties with France, and, I believe, so far as we are acquainted with the facts, that it faced them with great firmness and, on the whole, with success. It was confronted with some considerable difficulties in India. Two Indian Secretaries in succession, supported by that tiny majority, faced the crisis that they had to face with very considerable firmness. I believe that law and order was maintained in Ireland also with great firmness; and I am quite sure that very difficult questions of law and order arose here in England during the course of that Government, and that there was not the very smallest sign of less courage and strength on the part of the Executive Government in those days than on the part of Governments which have gone before them, or followed them. Those may be bold assertions. I am not going to take up your time by trying to make them good; but I make this challenge for the consideration of your Lordships—that, tested by this single experience, a Govern-
886
ment with a small majority behind it in the House of Commons is not in the least more likely to be feeble in the discharge of its executive duties than a Government with a huge and swollen majority.
There is one other point which appeals to me rather strongly. If I had at the last moment to reconsider my long prepossession in favour of proportional representation, one of the objections which would weigh with me a good deal is the argument that you do away with the close and intimate touch between a Member of Parliament and his constituents. We have heard a great deal of eloquence about that intimate association which it is desired should subsist in the future between a Member of Parliament and all the men, and now all the women, whom he is supposed to represent. That argument had some weight with me, for this reason. I confess that I look back with feelings of almost affectionate memory to the relations that I had with my constituents in a large county constituency, of which I was for a short while Member, and for which I was on several occasions the candidate. The effort to canvass that constituency brought one in touch with a great many of one's supporters, and with a good many of one's opponents, too, in an extraordinarily pleasant way which is a very useful experience to any man. But I am not sure that this supposed intimate knowledge after all, amounted to very much. It was very interesting; but I doubt whether a man does get, by the arduous experiences of electioneering in a large constituency, anything like that full and close knowledge of his constituents that he is supposed to get. But what I do know for certain is that the attempt to get it is an absolutely back-breaking task which may take up years of the life of a young and energetic man to the exclusion of any other kind of work. I believe that the attempt to get that kind of impossible acquaintance with the people of a large district tends, and will tend more and more, to give way to those far less valuable and estimable things upon which I do not wish to dwell to-night. It seems to me that a man in a county constituency aspiring to that sort of knowledge which we are told a Member should have, is attempting what is practically impossible, and that our political life will really be considerably more wholesome if we are forced frankly to recognise that it is impossible, and to give up that idea altogether.
LORD SHEFFIELD: There are, I suppose, opponents of proportional representation who will be found in the Division Lobby, but it is a matter of regret that we do not hear them in the course of the debate. I agree that this subject is rather a hackneyed one, and that it is difficult to say anything upon it which is new or fresh. I do not mean to go over the old arguments. I believe that many of the arguments in favour of it are admitted. The criticisms which we have heard have been rather criticisms of detail and practical applicability. But I think that the opposition in the House of Commons, as far as I can make it out, is not an opposition on account of the interests of the constituents and the welfare of the country, but an opposition which springs very largely from the personal convenience and comfort of Members. A Member of Parliament who has established what a tradesman would call "a connection" with a particular group of electors, does not want to have to launch out into a wide area with which he is not in touch. I think that our real object in forming a representative body is not the convenience or the happiness of the sitting Members, but the best way of getting at the opinion of the community. I do not think that is an unreasonable demand to make.
We are told how terrible will be the cost of these large constituencies. The cost, as has been pointed out, either of a large constituency or of a small one, very largely depends upon the length of the purse, and the eagerness to get in, of the candidate. We know that comparatively small constituencies may be freely sprinkled—sluiced, in fact—with money by a candidate who, nevertheless, does not come within the reach of the law. But I am quite sure of this, that it is quite possible for candidates to bring themselves to the knowledge of the constituents and appeal to them with a very moderate expenditure of money. I can only say from my own experience for many years on the School Board for London—I sat for the largest constituency in London. Marylebone, which was afterwards divided into nine or ten Parliamentary constituencies—that, of course, we candidates had not a large amount of money to expend—there was no Party purse behind us—and we used to fight that immense constituency and run four candidates oh our ticket for about £600. No doubt, if we had been rich and lavish we could have spent more, and I dare say we should have added to our poll; but, as a matter of fact, we used to fight
888
elections in these large constituencies with efficiency, and bring matters home to the minds of the constituents.
There is another very laborious and troublesome practice which used to prevail, and that was the personal canvass. Now we know that with large constituencies the personal canvass has disappeared. In reference to this, Mr. Long, I think, wrote a letter to the papers and stated how he had visited 200 villages, and made 200 speeches, and what a valuable thing it was, and that if you multiplied your constituency by three there would be 600 villages, and 600 speeches to be made in them. It is not in the least necessary. It is like advertising. When two tradesmen compete with one another and have plenty of money they go on advertising, but I am sure that a good deal of advertising is simply due to the rivalry of people who have plenty of money to spend. All the constituents can be made acquainted with the views of the candidates without speeches in every single little village of the place.
Another strong argument in favour of proportional representation which has not been mentioned in this debate is that you will have several candidates, and the electors will have the choice of returning a substantial number. I am sure of this, that every one will agree that under Parliamentary institutions it is very desirable that you should be able to secure continuity of sitting of the best men—the men who have made their mark and are of the best value. Privates in the game get shot down at a General Election and disappear, and it does not much matter, but it is important that there shall be continuity of sitting for men of some note. Where a constituency returns something like five Members there will be some drop out, but the leading man of the Party will be much more likely to retain his seat, and that is, I think, a great advantage. That is one of the reasons why I hope that if this is effected in the Bill, proportional representation will spread to municipal elections, where continuity is even more important, because in municipal affairs every man is an administrator as well as a legislator. Therefore I think it is of the greatest importance we should take this initial step. We do not in this Amendment establish universal proportional representation, but we introduce the principle, and I feel confident myself that as it works it

889
will recommend itself to the good sense and the approval of the masses of the electors and it will spread.
May I say a word about the Amendment as it stands? The noble Earl who brought it forward covered much wider ground in his speech then the Amendment strictly demands. I understand that further Amendments will be put on the Paper—a Schedule, and so forth—and the noble Earl has intimated that he intends this to apply not merely to those constituencies which now return from three to five Members, but it is to apply to those very much larger constituencies which return ten, fifteen, and I think in one case nineteen Members. He also proposes to group single-Member constituencies of counties and possibly counties and boroughs, so as to extend the system of three or five-Member constituencies very widely. Of course. I should be glad to see that. Having had notice of it, whether it comes up on the Schedule or Report, I am glad to learn that he will give it as wide an extension as this House is willing to join with him in applying. I would say this, however. Having regard to the speech of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, I should be very sorry to think that by spreading the net too wide and by including those constituencies which go beyond five Members—and where, therefore, it will be necessary to send the question back to Commissioners, and possibly to a local inquiry—such a delay were necessarily interposed as might endanger the Bill itself. I should be very sorry if an argument or an excuse were given to the opponents in the House of Commons. While really they object to proportional representation at all they would fall back on the necessity of saving the Bill.
I understand, at any rate, that we shall have plenty of time to consider this before it goes to the House of Commons. If this Amendment is carried now, a Schedule will be Tabled, I understand, before we give consideration to that Schedule, and we shall have time to consider it on Report. Therefore I do not think the criticism of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is very serious as yet. We shall see before it goes back to the House of Commons exactly what the position is, and whether we really are interposing such a serious obstacle of time as to prejudice the whole progress of the Bill. We all agree that we want this thing to go through at such a date as would
890
enable registration to be taken in hand and the other details to be carried out so that there might be an Election at any rate this autumn. Every one feels that it is high time the electors were consulted again. I say that by the way, because I think the noble Viscount's criticism may have to be considered at a later stage. I have noticed, however, that proposals will be put forward and an attempt trade to deal with the difficulty. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill made some observations on the noble Earl's statement that he was not prepared to apply the scheme universally. A sketch was given of an imaginary group to include, I think, the Orkneys, the Shetlands, Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, Lewis, and I am not sure that the noble Lord did not go to Inverness. He took practically the whole of the North of Scotland and its islands. Then he gave us a gloomy picture of the candidate going on these stormy seas in the winter, and, having conjured up this phantom, he dispersed it at once by saying how he would deal with the situation, how at the expense of the postage stamp he would cover triumphantly so wide an area. I think we all agree there will be some districts which are not suitable for grouping, but this question will be considered when you come to the Schedule.
I do not really think that the criticisms of the noble Viscount who amused us with his discourse in opposition to the Bill were in substance at all serious. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill disposed of some of the terrors. In fact, I said to the noble Viscount I thought he was rather like the Eat Boy in "Pickwick," and that he intended to make our flesh creep rather than to conjure up real terrors. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill said the elector would have no trouble whatever in marking 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on his paper, and that as to counting you could easily get people properly trained under town clerks and others who could grapple with that. Really, this difficulty is also fictitious. It is not as though the system had not been tried in many places. It has been tried and found to work perfectly smoothly, and, what is more, it has worked with satisfaction to the people who have adopted it.
I think perhaps the most interesting country where proportional representation has been adopted has been Belgium. We know how strong Party spirit was in Belgium, where you had a Catholic Party and a Liberal Party and the tension of

891
feeling was most violent. They adopted proportional representation. It is quite true it has diminished majorities, but I do not believe in fictitious majorities. I believe the majorities of the representatives ought to correspond with the numbers of those represented. Certainly I believe that one effect of proportional representation has been probably to increase discipline in the Party that has the majority; where the majority is smaller you have to have a little stricter discipline in the voting. But certainly I think in Belgium the bitterness of Parties, all the intense strain, has decreased, and you cannot have a keener strain than the strain between two Parties, one composed of the modern Radical, rather revolutionary, free-thinking sort of Continental democracy and the other composed of rather Ultramontane and reactionary Conservatives, supported and largely controlled by the clergy themselves. Nevertheless, in that country, I believe people who know Belgium will say that proportional representation has worked to great advantage. I am not supporting proportional representation merely because it will be a help to the agricultural interest. The bulk of the agricultural interest believe it will be, and in so far as the agricultural interest is composed of human beings, voters, they are entitled to express their views, and to have effective expression of them, by fair representation just as much as the cotton trade, or the coal miners, or the shippers, or any other people. I want each group in the country, whether it is a group of ideas or a group of interests, to have such a voice in Parliament as their numbers entitle them to; and I do not want to give more to the agriculturists than to any other group, or to give them less.
But I do think we are on the eve of tremendous changes, and I agree with the noble Earl who spoke from the cross-benches that we are not going to be faced in this new Parliament with the old, disciplined, traditional Parties of Radicals and Tories. Some people talk of Unionists, but I think that word has almost disappeared from suitable language, for all Parties are anxious to have some sort of Home Rule established, and are only praying that the Irish will patch up their quarrels and give us something they are agreed upon. The question of the future will, I think, be largely a question of organised Labour and those who do not belong to Labour; and as no doubt the Labour vote will be much the larger I
892
think, on the same principle as gives fair play to the agriculturists, I would urge that those who exist outside the ranks of manual labourers—employers, capitalists, and people living on hereditary wealth—will be wise if they are able to put in men who will represent them and give expression to their views, so as to leaven the opinions, some of which I do not doubt will be rather crude, of the other side, because you will have an immense mass coming in which will be new to the responsibility of power. In such a case it is all the more important that you should have some of the ablest, most responsible, and most respected of those the French call les couches supérieures, the upper layer of society, the layer that used to be at the top but which, when the soil is turned over, may find itself underneath. I think it is extremely important, therefore, that we should now try, in the interests of stability and of reasonable progress, to secure that every section of the community should be represented as far as and as equally as possible.
I will only add one other word in conclusion. The noble Lord put it quite rightly. He took the case of Wales, of Scotland, and the South-east counties of England. It is not desirable, I think, that any section of opinion should be represented by people who, more or less, share their opinion from a distance. There is a sort of flavour of the soil. The Scottish Conservative is not like the South-east Conservative. He is a Scotsman; he knows Scottish laws and traditions, and he can speak on Scottish questions from a Scottish point of view. It is the same of the Welsh Conservative or Welsh Churchman. He takes a different point of view—he takes the Welsh point of view. In my neighbouring county of Lancashire there is the most marked contrast between East and West Lancashire. Every one knows that the atmosphere of Liverpool, and that area which comes within its sphere of influence, is as different as possible from the atmosphere of Manchester. I think it is to be regretted that Liverpool is so predominently Conservative, and I think it would be a good thing if some of those who represent Liberal feeling in the West of Lancashire were better represented, and that those who represent Conservative feeling in East Lancashire, were also better represented. You do not get in the representative House of Commons the truest impression of the shades of political opinion, which vary from one part of the country to another.

893
It is a matter, not merely of getting the broad black and white of the painter, but of getting the shades by which one opinion passes into the other. For these reasons, and for others, I am strongly in support of the Amendment before the House.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: If no other advocate of "things as they are" is willing to attempt the duty of stemming the tide which seems to be setting in favour of the Amendment, I suppose it behoves me to point out some peculiarities which I have observed in the debate so far as it has gone. There are three usual methods of attacking a proposal, especially when it is a proposal which seeks to remedy a mischief. The first line is to say that there is no disease, no mischief; and in connection with that I dare say your Lordships will have observed that no speaker, up to the moment, has attempted to deny the injustice of the present system. The second line of attack is usually to say that the remedy will not drive out the disease. It has not yet been denied that proportional representation, if it can be applied and so far as it can be applied, will produce a much more accurate reflection of popular opinion than that which the present system secures. The third line of attack is to say that the proposed remedy, if it does remove the disease, will probably replace it by a worse; and it is under that head, and only under that head, that anything like opposition to this Amendment has been effectively developed. The objections have all been not "now"; or not "thus"; all machinery objections, illuminated either by the corruscations of wit of the noble Viscount who moved the rejection, or by the lurid colours in which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill painted the difficulties and the horrors which await us in the path we seek to take.
There surely are injustices in the present system. There is the fact that Scottish Unionism gets little or no representation in the House of Commons; certainly not what it is entitled to in quality or quantity. There is the case of South-east and Southern England, in which Liberalism, Radicalism, and still more Labour have the same complaints to make. There is equally clamant the case of Wales, large numbers of citizens going unrepresented. There is the further fact that great changes of opinion in the electorate remain entirely unreflected in the representation in the House of Commons. In January, 1910, in Scotland about 400,000
894
Liberal votes were cast, and they carried sixty-one Liberal seats, and only eleven Conservative seats were held by that Party in that Parliament. At the next Election in the same year the Liberal votes had fallen from nearly 400,000 to a little over 370,000, nevertheless the number of Liberal seats was still sixty-one. The Conservative votes had gone up in like proportion, yet the Conservative seats remained at the low figure of eleven.
The objections to this proposal usually class themselves either on the side of machinery objections, or else of objections to the substance, and it is really objection to the substance, of which we have heard the least to-night that is really effective. I propose to address myself to these complaints—that proportional representation, if it leads to anything, will lead to group systems, and will militate against the existence of strong find stable Ministries; that it will lead to gerry-mandering devices, will operate to nullify the decisions—"hamstring" was the word, I think—of majorities, and will favour caucus manipulations in connection with which the awful example of the three-cornered constituencies is held up to our recollection.
I should like to have a word to say about these three-cornered constituencies. Your Lordships have doubtless read the pamphlet circulated by—we are all sorry he cannot be here—a veteran member of your Lordships' House (Lord Eversley) who comes from a time in which people thought a good deal of their own political opinions. It was rather the time of the political perfectibilities, but a good many opinions held at that time have received some rude shocks since. Altogether, the infallibilities of that period do not quite hold their ground with the same strength in consequence of some experiences which have been gained since. But even as regards the three-cornered constituencies which were in force and existed under the first three General Elections under household suffrage, I must entirely deny, from my own observation, either that the fearful things that were predicted of them were realised, or that they were dismissed with that enthusiasm which has been mentioned, and much less that the system which has been put in their place has been so conspicuous a success.
Let me remind your Lordships what happened, for instance, in the most characteristic of all the cases. Take the case of Leeds. Leeds in 1868, at the first

895
Election under household suffrage, returned two Liberals and one Conservative. In 1874 it returned two Conservatives and one Liberal. In 1880 it returned two Liberals and one Conservative. Is not that an indication that upon Imperial matters and national matters the opinion of Leeds was very closely balanced, and that its representation ought to be divided at Westminster just as its opinions were divided at home? Who can imagine for a moment that the interest of Leeds would suffer by its being thus divided at Westminster? Who cannot see that upon any question upon which Leeds was united, and in which the local interests of Leeds were engaged, Leeds would not lose but would gain by having advocates not upon one side only of the Speaker's Chair but upon both. In fact, it would have been a monstrous injustice really, if that small modicum of minority representation was not in that way secured. If you want to institute a comparison you have only to see what happens next under the perfect system which we are asked to perpetuate by rejecting this Amendment. Under the single-Member system in 1906 the Unionist Party secured—I am only able to take the contests that arose in four of the five Divisions of Leeds on that occasion, because the fifth was complicated by a third candidature, but in those four seats the argument is just as good—in respect of those four divisions the Unionist Party got two-fifths of the votes recorded and none of the seats. In 1910 the Unionist Party had more than three-eighths of the votes recorded, and again got none of the five seats. If any one thinks that that is not a disease, they must have a very jaundiced view of public affairs.
Another thing that is objected to in regard to the probabilities under proportional representation is that it will give a great power to caucus manipulation. What does that mean? In Birmingham in those early years of household suffrage there was a big Liberal majority, and they were in a position to get the whole of the three seats if they took the trouble—and they did take the trouble; and they were entitled to them. Our old friend. Captain Fred Burnaby, the hero of Khiva in Central Asia, who made a very plucky fight in Birmingham, was not able to get within 4,000 of the lowest Liberal poll and within 7,000 of the highest Liberal poll. But if a Party was able to organise itself strongly it deserved to have all the three seats for a place like
896
Birmingham. Caucus manipulation, however, is not limited to three-seat boroughs, because I myself was an instance of caucus manipulation. When I first entered the House of Commons I had to attack a double-Member borough against two Radical opponents, and if all my supporters had not been asked to plump for me I should not have had the honour of a seat in that House. So that you must expect caucus manipulation, in every case in which it seems suitable, for the attainment of political objects, to produce discipline among a particular set of the electors.
It is said of this proposal that it will produce all the dreadful results stated, but there is one thing the opponents of this Amendment never seem inclined to do; they shut their eyes to the injustices of the present system, but they leave out the fact that all their fears are nullified by the experience of proportional representation wherever it has been tried. It is true, we have had the awful example of Tasmania held out. Things may have been rather close in the small Legislature of that happy island, but no one has denied that proportional representation has given the true representation of political parties and of public feeling in that island State. And the representative of Tasmania in this country has shown us that all the time that this true representation has been given by proportional representation in the State Legislature, side by side with that you have had the single-Member system, giving you untrue representation, under which a minority of the electorate got a majority of the representation in the Commonwealth Parliament. And more, he has shown us that dissolutions and political upheavals, and whatever political inconveniences attend them, have been much more frequent in the Commonwealth Parliament than in Tasmania, and were entirely due to the public discontent and the result of the single-Member system which gave unfair Parliamentary majorities to electoral minorities. Then to what really does the Tasmanian case amount? The real source of the evils was not proportional representation but solely the mere fact that Parties in Tasmania happened to be rather closely balanced; and not the fact that the State had not chosen to set up another scheme to mask, to conceal, and to falsify that fundamental state of things in the island.
The agricultural case has been held up as a matter in respect of which the scheme

897
proposed by this Amendment is bound to fail. I am willing to admit for the purposes of argument (but for no other purpose) that it is very possible that you will not get an increase of Members with special qualification and knowledge of agriculture in the House of Commons under this Amendment; but what you will get, if you get an agricultural Member who gets a quota of agriculturists in a constituency in which agriculturists reside in any large numbers, is a Member who will have an independence in the House of Commons such as no other system can give him. He will not always be obliged to keep his eye on certain small or great urban constituencies whose vote will probably throw him when he has given a vote supposed to be entirely favourable to agriculture. He will be able to rely upon a determined and united community to maintain him in Parliament if he remains faithful to them.
I come lastly to the argument which is, perhaps, the most important of all. It rests upon a paradox, it is true; because, as Lord Burnham said, it practically amounts to saying that the representative system can never really be successful except when it most departs from being representative. It is said that you cannot have a stable Government, or a vigorous Executive, if you apply proportional representation. I think the revered and noble Lord, Lord Eversley, goes so far as to say that under it; no Ministry will ever be able to evolve a policy. I do not feel so sure, if Parties are evenly balanced in a State, that you want policies to be evolved. Some policies insist upon inflicting as many humiliations on as many people as you can find; of devastating as many homes as come in the way; and, as some distinguished statesman said, "of making people squeal as often as you can." Some politicians are not happy unless they are living in a fevered atmosphere of political brickbats or of rhetorical rotten eggs. I think there are cases of what Lord Everaley calls "inertia and stagnation" being desired by the nation, for a limited period at least. After all, what controversialists call "inertia and stagnation" are what other people call "the contentment of the people." That seems to me to be one of the chief and first, though one of the most often forgotten, objects of democratic government. If democratic government does not exist for the contentment of the people I do not know for what it exists.
I should say that proportional re-
898
presentation in the Tasmanian case did produce great independence in the Ministry. I mean independence in the sense that they were able to stick to their opinions and to defy the minority in the House, however large. In the Tasmania case that was particularly important, because, as I dare say your Lordships know, in communities like our Dominions there is a constant struggle going on to get Dominion subsidies—Commonwealth subsidies—and the like for State for provincial objects—it is just the same in the States where State subsidies are demanded for parochial objects—and there we are told that owing to the fact that the Ministry were able to say "Although we have a small majority in the Assembly we know we are firm and strong in the country," they were able to put up a stronger and more convinced resistance to any unjustifiable financial demands. I should say in the same way that in our own Legislature the presence of a strong minority will prevent nothing except extreme action by the Executive which in the conditions supposed is surely undesirable.
What was the result of the institution of the single-Member system in this country? The case of 1892 has been referred to. It must not be forgotten that the single-Member constituency in 1892 did give you a small majority and an unstable Government. I do not want to say things about the Parliament of 1892, because it might lead to controversy, but there were those who believed that the Government of that day thought they would produce an appearance of strength by proceeding to violent measures. But their weakness was that they were not in a position to say "Although we have a small majority in the elective House we have a great majority in the country outside." On the contrary, their opponents were able to say "You have no majority in the country outside."; and through the action of this House we were able to put the matter to the test. It was proved that they had not got a majority, although there were not wanting those who suggested that probably the single-Member system gave a wrong construction to the Election of 1895. Let us bear in mind also that it was that system which had the effect practically of returning Mr. Gladstone to power in 1885 with no majority unless he proceeded to conciliate the Irish Nationalists.
I support this Amendment because I believe that all these fears about unstable

899
Governments and Legislative Houses with no minds of their own are pure chimeras and delusions. I believe in imposing moderation upon the Executive when necessary, and I do not believe that the purpose of democratic government is to do anything more than to replace tyranny by something better. It is not to replace the tyranny of one or of a few, for the one can be, if you like, decapitated and the few otherwise displaced. If that is the object, you do not want to replace these people by the tyranny of many, who cannot be reasoned with or made responsible by anything short of forcible resistance. The object of democratic government, as I said when I rose, is the contentment of the people—if not of the whole people, then of the greatest number of the people—and let us not forget that where minorities are large, your strict majority rule means the larger number of discontented persons.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am most extremely reluctant to rise at this hour and to speak, when what I have to say is only what has been said over and over again. It appears to me as if any opposition to the Amendment had entirely dropped. I should have thought it was a much better plan for the House to adjourn, so that we can hear something that has to be said against the Amendment. I am quite prepared, if the House wishes, to go on and state what my reasons are for the vote I shall give for the Amendment, but it is only going over ground already covered.
Everybody must admit that really everything has been said that requires to be said on the subject. For some time we have not heard a single word on the other side. Therefore, I should only propose to go on if it should be the wish of your Lordships that any further statement should be made on the subject. The only justification there can be for any observations from me is that there is some value in a debate of this kind—where no doubt there is to be a vote in the Division Lobby—that there should be some indication from what I will modestly call the obscurer portions of the House as to the direction of their votes. As it appears to be the wish of the House, I may offer a few further remarks.
I am not able to make such a convincing speech as I have heard from most of those who have spoken in the sense in which I should wish to speak, as well as the other
900
side. In the first place I am not an expert in the figures which are the stock-in-trade of this business, or in the history of the controversy. I will only say about the history that I think the position of this Question is very different now from what it used to be. The fact of the matter here, as in many other cases, is that the crank of yesterday is the high priest of to-day. There is a second reason why I feel I cannot make a convincing speech on this subject. It is really one of those causes to which the noble Earl opposite, Lord Selborne, referred with great frankness the other day, when he said that one does not expect that anything one says will influence anybody else, nor perhaps does one care very much what is said upon the other side.
I think, my Lords, I should try to state why it is such an one as I, who may be said to be a Lord-in-the-street, should range himself with the proportionalists. There are two main reasons. One is that he thinks it a good thing in itself, and the other is that it was a definite recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. Now—if I speak about the Conference first—as to the Speaker's Conference, I cannot say that I am an admirer of dealing with great constitutional questions in Conferences or Committees, but in this case there certainly was a sort of general agreement—perhaps rather a flabby agreement, but still, I think, a general agreement—that the problem of electioneering questions should be referred to this particular Conference. Now, proportional representation was definitely recommended there. It was not recommended in wholesale terms such as really, myself, I should have been glad to see. It was recommended in limited terms. I was rather sorry that the debate on the Instruction which was moved by the noble Lord (Lord Weardale) the other night was so curtailed as it was, because although I personally did not agree with the sort of form of selection out of the Conference which he proposed, still, on the other hand, I did think it would have been of some advantage to the debates in this House if we had been able to arrive at some sort of agreement as to the amount of weight which should be attached to the recommendations of the Conference.
I think the subject of proportional representation was really one which was very well suited to the Conference, if there was to be a Conference at all. It was one of

901
those subjects which might reasonably and practically have been dealt with by them—though, as I said before, I wish it had been a recommendation all round and not merely limited and experimental as it was. But I should have thought your Lordships might very well, if you did not feel disposed to go the whole length of proportional representation all round, still agree upon a moderate proposal such as was recommended and such as appeared, I believe, in the Bill as it was originally introduced in the House of Commons.
I should like now to go to the question of the ground on which I shall vote for this as a good thing in itself. I believe the principle upon which our House of Commons is supposed to exist is the principle that it really does represent she country, that it is a minor of the country, and that it is a microcosm in itself. I have never been able to understand how anybody could doubt that if proportional representation was fairly brought about it must produce a better representation, a better mirror of the people, than the present system. Our present system unquestionably does result in the House of Commons showing at the beginning of the Parliament an exaggerated view of what the opinion of the country is supposed to be at the time. It has, as has been said again and again to-night, a much larger majority of a particular complexion than represents what is really the state of opinion in the country, and it has again and again resulted that at the end of the Parliament the whole of the thing has really been out of gear, and very serious conditions have frequently arisen in those circumstances.
I think also one must remember that you would never constitute any other body on that kind of principle. If you take the Speaker's Conference itself, I do not suppose any authority would attach to it if it were supposed that the selection had been made of people who were largely and overwhelmingly representative of one set of opinion. There is another thing to be remembered, and it is that many of the Governments and Administrations in this country which have been most successful, the most stable and strong, have been Governments where the majority in the House of Commons has not been a very large one. That, I believe, is, historically, the, case. This point of view is of more importance now than it used to be. Take the case of the Labour Party, with its undoubted growth and its
902
separate significance. I believe it is vital to the safety of the Commonwealth that its true strength should be ascertained, and that it should be truly represented in the House of Commons. There is no doubt also that the agricultural interest, which has been referred to in the debate, has a very strong and individual importance in the country. It is no longer associated, as it used to be, with only one political Party, and it now reflects the needs of all classes, may I not say of the masses, of the people of this country.
One of the main attractions to people about the system of proportional representation is that it is supposed it would do something to extinguish the evils of our Party system. Probably too much is made of that, because proportional representation pre-supposes Party—the proportional representation of Party; but, when you talk about Party very often you are talking about the caucus. It is the evil of the caucus which people are tilting at; and although there seems to be a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether the influence of the caucus will be greater or not under a system of proportional representation, my own opinion, and my own individual hope and expectation is that a better state of things will exist under that system if we do adopt it. We have already heard the argument of the strong Government—the idea that you cannot have a strong Government unless you have a great majority. I do not in the least believe in that myself. I believe that Government is strong which really gauges the temper of the country, and in which the true majority of the country have confidence. Some of the very best Administrations have been in cases where, there has not been a very strong majority.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any further, except to refer to two of the difficulties which have been already mentioned in connection with this matter. One is the practical difficulty of altering the distribution under the scheme that is in the Schedule of the Bill. I think it has already been pointed out, although I was not in the House at the time, that those who have been interesting themselves in this matter have prepared schemes which they are ready to put forward, and which show how such redistribution as would be required can be carried out, and that the difficulties are not really very serious. The Commissioners, who have

903
already sat and dealt with this subject, may be safely left to carry that out.
The other matter—and it is the last matter that I shall venture to mention to your Lordships—is the question of the by-elections. I know that this has been referred to, and the only reason that I am speaking of it now is in order to give expression to a feeling in different parts of the House. It is an objection and a difficulty, but I believe that the only important class of cases that come under it are those with respect to the by-elections of people who have been appointed to paid posts under the Crown. I am sure that we must be all agreed by this time that this is a thing that ought to be got rid of. There have been since the war innumerable offices created. Bills come here creating new Ministries. I believe that I am right in saying that in every one of them it is stated that the Minister is not to be subjected to one of these elections. Why not take advantage of this opportunity to get rid of them? I should like to put down an Amendment for that purpose myself, but
904
my traditional sense of the decencies of order in this House makes me shrink from doing so. Yet what in the world connected with the subject of electioneering is excluded from this Bill? The Bill is bristling with all kinds of things that, on any conceivable previous occasion, would have been supposed to have been out of order. I really do not think that you can make very much out of that, and I should be glad to sec the Government either consent to put an Amendment in this Bill, or give some prospect that in some early legislation they will put an end to what is nothing but an ancient nuisance.
LORD PARMOOR: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate. I hope that the Government will accept this Motion now, as it is very near eleven o'clock, and we have had most of the speeches from one side.
House resumed; and to be again in Committee to-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.