Sitting of 23 January 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HONG KONG WAR RATE.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute relative thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report the University Court of the University for the year 1916–17 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on the 5th January, 1918 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether it will now he possible to give Indian soldiers who have served for three years in East Africa leave to return to their homes in India?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): It is hoped that under present military arrangements effect will be given to the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member.
    33. Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware or the growing dissatisfaction amongst the families of Irish soldiers caused by the failure of the War Office to grant leave according to service in the field; if he is aware that hundreds of cases have been brought to the notice of the Member for
    954
    the Harbour Division where Irish soldiers have been at the front since the outbreak of the War without one day's leave; and if he will see that the cause for dissatisfaction is removed?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I am not aware that Irish soldiers are treated differently from their comrades from other parts of the United Kingdom. As I have already explained, all leave that is possible is being given, but facilities are, unfortunately, limited in the more distant theatres of war.
    Brigadier-General M`CALMONT: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to deny the statement made in the question to the effect that there are hundreds of cases of Irish soldiers who have been at the front since the beginning of the War without leave? Is that statement true?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My information is that it is not.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that when M. Trotsky, the present Foreign Minister of Russia, was returning to Russia after the Revolution of March, 1916, his ship was stopped by a British war vessel and M. Trotsky was taken prisoner and charged with being a German agent; on whose instruction was this action taken; and whether he will arrange to remove any possibility of ill-will by requesting the officer in command of this British war vessel to offer his regrets to M. Trotsky?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The vessel in which M. Trotsky left the United States called at Halifax, where M. Trotsky and others were detained, pending inquiries as to wishes of the Russian Government, which were immediately met. The remainder of the question does not arise.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that M. Trotsky was sentenced by a Russian Court to six months' imprisonment for revolutionary action, and had to leave Russia on that account? Is he likely to have any sympathy with Germany?
    Mr. LYNCH: By having M. Trotsky arrested, were you not merely making yourself the cat's-paw of the Czar?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No!
    Mr. LYNCH: Yes, you were!
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, that it is very desirable to be agreeable and polite to those who have high authority and great power in the world?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to dispel suspicions created by various acts of the Government that it is less favourable to the Republican regime now established in Russia than to the old autocratic government of the Czar, he will take steps to cultivate sympathetic relations with the de facto rulers representing the Republic from stage to stage, and discourage attempts on the part of British institutions to afford help or to honour by distinctions the enemies of the Russian Republic?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): There is not, and never has been, any ground whatever for the suspicions which the hon. Gentleman supposes to exist. I have not the slightest idea to what the suggestion contained in the last clause refers.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report issued yesterday that the Government are making representations to the Revolutionary Government on behalf of British mining syndicates whose land has been confiscated, and would they do that in respect to any other Government than a revolutionary one?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly ! I do not know the facts, and I have not seen the report; but if British property is confiscated in any country it would be within the sphere of the Foreign Office to make representations.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only carrying out the policy of the conscription of capital, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has advocated, in the form of the land policy of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not see the relevancy of that suggestion.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the attacks made upon the Russian revolutionary government at the meetings of Anglo-Russian syndicates as
    956
    a result of the abolition of private property in land; and will he take steps to assure the Russian people that these attacks do not reflect public opinion in this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I have no knowledge of these attacks, but in any case, I do not see why at the present moment I should express an opinion on any of the Russian schemes of land legislation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was reported Yesterday in the Press that the British Government has made representations n Petrograd as regards the expropriation of land and capital? If the Government has taken action, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not see the statement referred to.
    Mr. KINGasked whether Colonel Poole and the members of the Russian military mission are still in Russia; and, if so, whether they will be recalled?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no present intention of removing the Mission.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what service they can now perform in view of the military position in Russia and our attitude in not supplying them with any more munitions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think it would be useful to make a statement.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they are doing useful work at present?

    ROYAL NAVAL AND VOLUNTEER RESERVE.

      TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, granted during hostilities to civilians with no previous naval experience, and the number of long-service writer ranks and ratings to whom commissioned officer rank has been granted during the same period; the number and description of ratings of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval

      957
      Volunteer Reserve who have received commissions as assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve; and the reason for the transfer of these men from duties in which they have been trained to commissioned rank in the accountant branch of the Navy, where further training is essential, and in which capacity they become of higher rank than all the long-service commissioned warrant writers, warrant writers, and writers, Royal Navy?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Seven hundred and eighty-two temporary commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, and 238 as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, have been granted during hostilities to civilians with no previous naval experience. The former number does not include commissions granted to the pursers in vessels taken up as fleet auxiliaries, etc., in the early stages of the War. My hon. Friend must not infer that these direct entries have no qualifications for the work they have to do in our Service. They were selected from bank clerks, chartered accountants, actuaries, and so on.
      The number of long service writer ranks and ratings promoted to commissioned rank up to the present is six, but my hon. Friend will no doubt remember that the possibility of commissioned rank for the writer class dates only from the 14th April last. I ought to add that the rank of paymaster has been instituted for the writer branch, ten being allowed; and, further, the number of warrant writers has been increased from fifteen to fifty-one.
      As regards the second part of the question, about ninety temporary commissions as assistant paymasters have been granted to ratings of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunter Reserve class, including deckhands, Royal Naval Reserve; chief petty officers, petty officers, leading seamen, able seamen, ordinary seamen, signalmen, and writers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. These temporary commissions are granted to ratings in the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve only when it is considered likely, from their previous experience in civil life, that they would be able to carry out the duties satisfactorily.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend not see that there is a very potential ground of discontent when thousands of civilians from the outside get commis-
      958
      sions and only six of the men who have served and had experience inside get promoted?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: It is six in a short time.
      Mr. HOGGE: It is one thousand in a shorn, time.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No; rather longer.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that a great many people now holding commissions will be reverted back after the War 7 Many men during the War would be willing to accept those conditions, and why should not the men who have had experience in service not get a preference over those who have had no service
      Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention. has been called to the fact that a temporary lieutenant, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, upon being promoted to temporary lieutenant-commander gets no increase in his pay until he has served eight years; is he aware that these officers,. upon promotion, are likely to be put into, more difficult positions, with more men under them, and are put to expense as regards uniform, etc., and that many of them have given up lucrative positions to join the Service; and will he take the necessary steps to obtain an immediate increase of pay to these officers upon promotion?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: A lieutenant in the Royal Navy has to serve eight years as lieutenant before he can be given the rank of lieutenant-commander. A temporary lieutenant R.N.V.R., however, has already this advantage that he is eligible for promotion to temporary lieutenant-commander, R.N.V.R., at an earlier date. Further, he receives an increase of pay after four years. It is probably true that many of them have given up lucrative positions to join the Service, but it is not considered necessary to increase the pay of these officers immediately upon promotion. I would remind my hon. Friend' that, as from the 1st October last, the pay of the lieutenant, R.N.V.R., on entry has, been raised from 1ls. to 12s. a day; after four years' combined service as lieutenant, R.N.V.R., and lieutenant-commander, R.N.V.R., from 12s. to 13s. 6d. a day; and: after eight years' combined service from, 13s. to 16s. a day.

      SHIPPING LOSSES.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain the discrepancies between the official Return published on 17th January of British vessels sunk during the week ending midnight 12th January, namely, six vessels of 1,600 tons gross register or over, including one vessel sunk during the week ending 22nd December and one during the weak ending 5th January, and the much larger number of vessels sunk reported to underwriters during the week ending midnight 12th January?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The official Weekly Return is made up on Wednesday morning, and includes reports received up to that time of ships actually sunk during the week ending midnight on the previous Saturday. It is understood that reports are entered in Lloyd's Loss Book under the date of their receipt and not under the actual date of loss.
      During the week ending midnight 12th January twelve ships over 1,600 gross tons were reported to Lloyd's by the Admiralty as sunk by submarine or mine, and these would appear on the Loss Book at Lloyd's during that week. Six of these ships were actually sunk during the week ending midnight 5th January, and were included in that week's official Return. The remaining six were included in the Return for the week ending midnight 12th January.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sixteen and not twelve ships were reported; and, in this connection, may I ask whether it is the Admiralty who has inspired or is responsible for the attempt by certain authorities to suppress the sources of my information?
      Sir CHARLES HENRY: Would my right hon. Friend make arrangements so that the reports issued on Thursday morning and those issued by Lloyd's may be in agreement?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I will have the last-mentioned point looked into. If my hon. Friend will give me the facts concerning his last statement, I will investigate the matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's former statement, he says the number is not twelve but sixteen. That may very well be the case, and this may be the explanation. Lloyd's is closed, I understand, from midday on Saturday to 10 a.m. on Monday, so that additional ships reported to Lloyd's on the afternoon of Saturday,
      960
      5th January, would not appear in the list until Monday, 7th January, but those ships would be in the current return of the Admiralty. My hon. Friend, seeing them in the Monday list of Lloyd's, would expect to find them in the list, but they had already appeared.
      Mr. HOUSTON: My right hon. Friend is quite aware that I cannot at this time discuss the modus operandi in connection with his invitation, but as regards the other part of my question I propose to deal directly with the Prime Minister.
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend not deal with the public directly instead of with people who have special information? If it is true that sixteen vessels were sunk in that week why were we told officially that there were only six?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no. With great respect I submit that my hon. Friend is quite wrong. I explained that sixteen may have appeared in Lloyd's List, but if we sent them down on Saturday they would not get them till the following Monday, and my hon. Friend would not be aware that they had been in our Return for the previous week.
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the ten be in this next week's Return?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: If they have not already been in they will be, but a number of those of which my hon. Friend speaks have been in the week before, and my hon. Friend is dealing with those which have been in the week before, and he is not aware of it.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a refrigerated steamer was torpedoed in the early morning of the 20th instant at about the same place and about the same hour as a steamer belonging to the same owner was torpedoed on Christmas Day; whether the first of these steamers was under escort or Admiralty protection at the time she was torpedoed; and, if so, what was the nature or description of the protection?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." The vessel was not under escort.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Seeing that during the last month a large number of ships have been sunk at this spot will the Admiralty consider the alteration of their policy of

      961
      instructing shipmasters from various ports to converge on this spot and thus fall right into the submarine, and can the right hon. Gentleman explain why that submarine has not been dealt with during the last few weeks?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot explain why a submarine has not been dealt with. As regards the former point, I have already invited my hon. Friend, if he has information about the convoys or any views on that question, to be so good as to place it before the Admiralty.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have complied with that invitation in a communication in which I filled about ten pages of letter paper?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very glad to hear it and to know that my hon. Friend did accept my invitation.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the loss of a steamer which sailed from Liverpool on or about 15th December for Waterford and the loss of a steamer which sailed from Waterford on or about 17th December for Liverpool, together with the loss of all lives on board both ships; whether these vessels were escorted or in any way protected by the Admiralty; if so, what was the nature and description of the protection; and will he state the total number of lives lost on both vessels?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no information respecting the loss of these ships, except this, that one of the boats and part of another of the boats of one of the ships in question have been washed ashore. My hon. Friend is probably aware that the weather about that time off that coast was very bad. The vessels were not under escort. We have no information as to the numbers forming the crews of these vessels.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Do not you know the number of lives lost? Cannot you communicate with the owners and make inquiries?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I can make inquiries, as my hon. Friend can.
      Mr. HOUSTON: I know them.
      Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether it is a fact that a large number of children were lost by the sinking of these vessels?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I cannot say. I should require notice of that question.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the official lists giving the sinkings by the enemy of British vessels of 1,600 tons gross register and over, regularly published by the Press Bureau weekly, after readjustment or correction, show a total number of sinkings for the twenty weeks ending 12th January substantially less than those reported sunk in the underwriters' room during the same period; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: If in this question my hon. Friend refers to submarine sinkings, he will see that I have already answered it in anticipation in the reply I gave to his question No. 5.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman account for the discrepancy?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have tried to explain that, looking at Lloyd's List for a particular week and comparing it with our Return, proves nothing at all, because some of the ships in the list have already been in our Return.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman grasp the question? Does he recognise that it refers to the total for twenty weeks?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: What is true of one week would probably be true of twenty weeks.. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make any statement regarding the sinking by enemy operation of a steamship in the mouth of the Mersey on the morning of 28th December, with the loss of forty-two lives out of the forty-three on hoard, including some nineteen pilots and a number of apprentices?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: This vessel, I regret to say, struck a mine which, no doubt, was laid on the same night a few hours prior to the loss. Our record shows that two were saved out of forty-three, which included sixteen pilots.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the evidence of men who were in a vessel close alongside is that it was torpedoed and not mined; and, in this connection, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that one of these pilots,

      963
      Mr. Alfred Davies, was rescued and died in hospital and had a military funeral accorded to him so as to suppress—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the three large steamers, the names of which have been given to him, have been included in the official list of sinkings; and, if so, on what date?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. The vessels were included in the Return for the week in which these ships were sunk, the week ending 5th January, 1918.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Has not the hon. Gentleman already informed us in this House that this class of vessel is not included in the sinkings?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: These vessels were sunk.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total number of lives lost on the two steamers sunk by enemy operation in the Mediterranean on or about 31st December last?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I greatly regret to say that in one case the losses are approximately 484; in the other case, approximately 224. I should explain to my hon. Friend that the public notification of the losses of these vessels is being delayed until all the relatives have been notified. This course has been adopted because we found that notification in the Press immediately upon the loss gave rise to the greatest anxiety amongst members of the community who, from the area in which their relatives were serving, were left in doubt as to whether members of their family circle might not be amongst those lost.

      BOMBARDMENT OF YARMOUTH.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number and class of German war vessels which bombarded Yarmouth on or about the night of 15th January?
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the species of hostile craft that attacked Yarmouth on the 15th January last?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: A report. received from one of our patrol vessels off Yarmouth indicates that the vessels which attacked that town were torpedo-boat destroyers. The number of vessels is unknown.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is reported that the enemy destroyers numbered four; and, seeing the repeated attacks on the East Coast and North-East Coast by enemy raiders, who invariably escape, will he say, who is in command of the East and North-East Coast, and who is responsible?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of the statement that. the enemy destroyers numbered four. I have not seen that statement. I have given the statement from the responsible officer, of whom I inquired. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's question, if the suggestion that I should give the name of the responsible officer implies a. dereliction of duty on his part, I think that is particularly ungracious and ungrateful of the hon. Member.
      Mr. HOUSTON: I protest against these remarks. I was asking who is responsible for this, and we are entitled to know.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give himself the trouble of putting down some of these extra questions. If he has these questions in his mind and wants to ask them, he can always put them on the Paper.
      Mr. HOUSTON: On a point of Order. You ruled on Monday that. the object of questions is to enable facts to be elicited. I had not anything in mind until I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman asked who was in command, and that is a question which he can put on the Paper, if he wishes to know it.
      Mr. LYNCH: May I ask why private Members are to be debarred during questions from any displays of emotion, while they may be indulged in so freely on the: Front Bench?

      PORTBURY (CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT).
      Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether many skilled men, boilermakers, riveters, caulkers, drillers,

      965
      and fitters, have been now for about three months at Portbury, and, having only done navvy labour and being without prospect of the real work for which they went there, many as volunteers, they are discontented; that there are no bathing facilities and yet men are punished for being dirty; that there are complaints as to food and harsh discipline; and what action will be taken to remedy these conditions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This work is being carried out by personnel of the Inland Waterways and Docks, Royal Engineers. The majority of the men of the trades mentioned are employed at their trades or have been transferred. Owing to shortage of labour, it is possible that a few of the less skilled may have been employed temporarily at other work. I am not aware of complaints as to baths, food, or discipline. Most of the men are in billets. Baths are arranged in their billets; and the bath-house was the first building to be erected at the camp and is now nearing completion. Special attention is given to food, which is under the supervision of an experienced messing officer.
      Mr. KING: Are further inquiries being made?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Not so far as I know, but, in view of my answer, I do not think that it is necessary

    PRIVATE SHIPYARDS.

      CLASSES OF LABOUR REQUIRED.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of extra, men employed by the private shipyards in Great Britain each week for the three weeks ending 19th January last?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot now provide my right hon. Friend with the figures for each of the three weeks ended 19th January. I can tell him, however, that there was a net increase during the two months ended 30th November of about 4,000. I can tell him further that during the two weeks ended the 4th and 11th January the additional entries were 1,378 and 848 respectively. I ought to say, however, that these last figures do not represent net additions, but include transfers from one yard to another.
      Shipbuilders have been asked to render weekly demands of the classes of labour they require, with a statement showing
      966
      how the demands of the previous week have been met, and if my right hon. Friend will at any time put a question down sufficiently in advance of the day of answering, I will gladly give him the figures he requires for the weeks covered by his question.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Did the right hon. Gentleman include in his answer the month of December, or was it only for November?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I believe that the figure I gave of about 4,000 was for the two months ending 30th November. Then I gave two weeks ending 4th and 11th January.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Why not give December?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I have not got those figures. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.
      Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the net figures?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the weeks ending 4th and 11th January? No, I have not got those figures.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Did not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller say that building during December was less than during November?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. B. LLOYDasked the First. Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that under the new Regulations for children's allowances of naval officers a lieutenant will receive £2 per month per child, subject to a maximum of £8 a month, but upon promotion to lieutenant-commander, although he would get no increase of pay except after eight years' service, the children's allowance would drop to £1 per month per child, with a maximum of £4 a month; and will he take steps to remove this grievance?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The officers referred to are temporary lieutenant-commanders of the R.N.R. and R..N.V.R., and, as they receive pay on the scale for lieutenants, they will be eligible for full children's allowances.

    FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

      SELECTION OF CANDIDATES.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seize the occasion caused by totally new conditions in foreign affairs to reorganise his Department completely, destroying the tradition that it is the appanage of a favoured section of the community, and open the way to young men of ability, energy, and character, inclined to sympathy with forward movements of civilisation?
      Mr. BALFOUR: There seems to be much general misconception on this subject. The examination for entry into the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Services is, and has for many years been, competitive, and (with certain exceptions due to the necessity of a special knowledge of foreign languages) similar to that for the rest of the Civil Service. Candidates are nominated by the Secretary of State, on the recommendation of a Board of Selection, whose duty it is to advise whether the candidates possess the necessary qualities for these services. The whole matter was very carefully examined in 1913 and 1914 by a Royal Commission.
      I hope that an improvement in the present very inadequate scale of pay of the Diplomatic Service will shortly remove the necessity for requiring of candidates for that service a small private income, and will thus enlarge the field of selection. I know no method of securing the services of young men "inclined" (in the hon. Gentleman's words) "to sympathy with the forward movement of civilisation" by the machinery of competitive examination.
      Mr. LYNCHWill the right hon. Gentleman remove at once, not in the future which may not exist, this bar of requiring a small private income?

      EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the payment of a pension of £20,000 a year to ex-King Constantine through the Greek Government is still authorised; whether he will associate this payment with the facts that ex-King Constantine is the centre of a group of pro-German propagandists in Switzerland, and that to this
      968
      propaganda in part has been attributed by British and French authorities the weakening of the Italian lines on the Isonzo and the military defection in Russia; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will now consider the advisability of bringing this matter before the Greek Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: This question is a domestic concern of the Hellenic Government, and I do not consider that it would be desirable for His Majesty's Government to advise them in the matter.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of France have intervened to prevent any part of their funds being devoted to subsidising this enemy of the Allies, and that, in spite of that, this Government persists in subsidising him? Is not that Boloism in its worst form?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know to what transaction of the French Government the hon. Member's remarks refer. I do not believe that any of the money with which we endeavour to assist our Allies in the prosecution of the War goes to the ex-King of the Hellenes.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, if not entirely by himself, by other representatives of the Foreign Office, it has been admitted that this Government has control over that money which the Government of Greece supplies to this arch-enemy and agent of the Kaiser?
      Mr. BALFOUR: No, I am not.
      Mr. LYNCH: It is so.

      DOWAGER DUCHESS OF COBURG.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the contract whereby the Dowager Duchess of Coburg is paid a large annual pension; whether he will state the exact amount; whether he will make it clear whether this contract was made with the Russian Government or with the lady herself; whether, if made with the Russian Government, it is still valid in spite of the disappearance of that Government; whether, if made with the lady personally, he will indicate the consideration, as, for instance, the services rendered by her to this country; whether since that date he

      969
      has been made aware that she is herself an active agent of the enemies of this country, and that her son is lending troops against this country; and whether, in view of the effect on the public mind of such subsidies granted to alien enemies, he will take steps to stop the payments?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will find a copy of the treaty on which the question turns in the Library, No. C. 901 of 1874. I think this will supply him with all the relevant facts of the case. As regards policy, I must refer him to the reply returned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the lion. Member for Roxburgh on 18th November, 1914.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is it also a fact that this lady is a conspicuous enemy of the Allies, and that she also is being subsidised by the British Government?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I am not going to argue the question. We have a treaty obligation, and we keep it. The reasons for keeping it were stated by the Prime Minister. I have no more to say in answer to the question.

      ENEMY TERRITORY.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the acreage of colonial possessions of France and Germany, respectively, at the outbreak of hostilities; (2) the acreage of the territory in Europe which belonged to Germany at the outbreak of war and which is now claimed by France, and the acreage of what Austrian territory is claimed by Italy?
      Mr. BALFOUR: With regard to these questions, I have no other means of information than those at the disposal of the hon. Member.

      AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS (CONSCRIPTION REFERENDUM).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give to the House the figures showing how Australian soldiers in the field voted en the question of Conscription?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will you obtain that information?

      INFANTRY UNITS (TRANSFERS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in transferring men from the Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, to Infantry units, any regard is had to the distinction between men who volunteered for' this service in the early days of the War and conscripts?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The considerations governing transfers arc the necessity of placing the younger and fitter men in the Infantry, and the question of volunteer or conscript does not arise.

      BADGES AND MEDALS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any distinctive mark, apart from the silver badge, is to be devised to protect men who are no longer fit for service from invidious treatment in public?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know why my hon. Friend considers that anything is necessary beyond the silver badge. I would remind him that there are also wound stripes and chevrons for service overseas.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can make any announcement regarding any distinction to many officers and men who were called up at the beginning of the War and have served since but who were prevented from going abroad owing to other duties being allocated to them in connection with the Expeditionary Force?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The question of the award of medals for the present War is receiving careful consideration. The claims of those officers and soldiers who have served since the commencement of the War, but who have been prevented from going abroad, have not been lost sight of.

      LABOUR COMPANIES (COMMANDS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what justification there is for employing so many majors in command of Labour Companies in view of the Army Council Instruction which gives authority for the acting rank

      971
      of captain to be given to officers who hold lower ranks but are appointed to such commands; (2) whether more suitable employment than commanding Labour Companies could be given to field officers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The reason for the employment of field officers is that there are a large number of suitable majors available whose services can be made use of in this way.

      LABOUR DIRECTORATE (FRANCE).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many officers are now employed on the Labour Directorate; and what number, if any, had any special experience of controlling labour before their appointment?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The total of the Staff appointments to the Directorate of Labour in France is approximately forty-nine. In regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mont-gomeryshire.

      EAST AFRICAN OPERATIONS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether colonels commanding columns in the late operations in East Africa have been or are to be given the rank of brigadier-general while they were so employed?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know precisely what columns my hon. and gallant Friend refers to in his question, but I understand that the main portions into which the force is divided are commanded by brigadiers-general.
      Colonel YATE: If a colonel was commanding an independent column equivalent to a brigade, is it not fair that he should be given the temporary rank of brigadier-general while doing so?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is a question entirely within the discretion of the local General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.

      SOLDIERS (BODY PROTECTION).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the question has been adequately considered of providing the soldiers in the trenches with
      972
      suitable body protection against rifle bullets; and, if so, whether anything will be done in the matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Suitable provision has been made.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSTRUCTIONAL ENGINEERS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether constructional engineers engaged before the War in erecting iron work, and who are not in Class A 1, but doing only clerical work in the Army, are being allowed to return to their employment, in view of the necessity for such class of man for the erecting of aerodromes, huts, and other such buildings at the present time?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The policy is to place such men at their trades in the Army, and I should be glad of any details which my hon. Friend can give me where this is not being done.

      REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS ACT.
      Colonel LESLIE WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a non-commissioned officer or man who has been re-examined under Army Council Instruction No. 643, of 1917, issued in connection with the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, and who is given a discharge paper endorsed with the statement that he is discharged in consequence of being reexamined and found permanently and totally unfit for service, is, under any Regulations, liable to be recalled for further examination; and, if so, under what conditions can a man consider himself totally and finally exempted from further service?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. An officer, noncommissioned officer, or man given a discharge certificate after medical examination under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, showing that he is permanently and totally unfit for military service, is not liable under any Statute or Regulations to be recalled for medical examination or for military service.

    MILITARY DENTAL SERVICE.

      REOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has received a copy of the Report which a non-party Parliamentary Committee on the relation of military dental service to man-power propose to publish; and, if so, what steps the War Office propose to take in regard to the recommendations contained therein?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend will realise that in an answer to a question I cannot do more than indicate in general terms the views of the War Office on the recommendations of the Committee over which he presided:

      (1) The importance of conservative treatment of soldiers' teeth in this country is fully recognised, and frequent instructions have been issued.

      (2) Qualified dental surgeons and lorries are supplied as they are demanded by the Commanders in the field, and I have no reason to suppose that they have asked for less than they thought necessary.

      (3) Specially qualified dental surgeons are already associated with surgeons in the treatment of jaw cases. There are several centres specially staffed for this work, and if the local medical authorities wanted more the War Office would supply them.

      (4) Dentists and dental mechanics are already being withdrawn from combatant units as this becomes necessary.

      (5) There is already an inspecting dental surgeon in each command, who supervises the dental work and advises the Deputy Director of Medical Services.

      Mr. PENNEFATHER: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there is an inspecting dental surgeon in each command in this country or abroad?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say offhand. If the hon. Member will put a. question down I will inquire, but my impression is that it refers to this country.
      Mr. TENNANT: Have all the demands for dental surgeons been able to be complied with?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am informed that is so.
      Colonel YATE: Is there now a dental surgeon to each division?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot at the moment say. I think that in the answer I have given I have fully stated all the steps which have been taken. if the hon. Member would like further information. I will gladly give it.

      ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to dispense with the services of the half-time men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve of the Anti-Aircraft Corps who for the past three and a half years have manned the searchlights in London, and to replace them with whole-time men; if he is aware that most of these are business men above military age whose experience and efficiency have repeatedly received official commendation, who are desirous of continuing their service to the end of the War, and whose supersession will make an unnecessary additional demand on our man-power; and if he will have the matter reconsidered before taking action?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: These men do not give half-time, but a third of their time. Recent developments in searchlight training have necessitated a higher degree of training and efficiency, which can only be achieved by whole-time men. A sufficient number of half-time men will be re-engaged from the present personnel for duties which can be efficiently performed by men who can only give that amount of time.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are they all being invited to volunteer for half-time?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of that, but I will inquire.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: What is to become of these men who have been giving their services all these years, and are quite willing to go on, but are business men who must give sonic of their time to their business?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I will inquire into all that, but the hon. Member must realise that the Army is concerned in the main with whole-time service.

      INJURED AND DISEASED SOLDIERS (UNREGISTERED PRACTITIONERS).
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an officer or man who is entitled to or in

      975
      receipt of a pension or gratuity as a result of injury or disease which the Army doctor has failed to cure, arid who, after obtaining permission in accordance with Army Council Instruction No. 1,802 of 1917, at his own cost consults an unregistered practitioner, will suffer reduction or loss of such pension or gratuity in case the unqualified practitioner succeeds no better than the Army doctor?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No, Sir.

      ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that many officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been detained on garrison duty in India beyond the regulation term of five years, he can now state by what date arrangements will be made to relieve those officers and give them a chance of service in France or elsewhere?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 3rd December last to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York. Steps are being taken to relieve as ninny as possible of the medical officers who have been a lung time in India, but in view of the transport and otter difficulties, such as the loss of time and services involved in carrying out reliefs. I regret it is quite impossible to give a date in connection with this, or even to promise that all such officers will be relieved.

      1914 STAR.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the members of the Expeditionary Force, including a battalion of the South Wales Borderers and other units, who took part in the capture of Tsingtau, are entitled to receive the ribbon and medal that is being awarded to those men who were in service in France between August. and November, 1914; and, if not, will he state the reasons why those who were instrumental in the victory in the East should not receive similar recognition to those engaged in the campaign in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of this question is in the negative. With regard to the latter part of the
      976
      question, the 1914 Star is granted for certain service which is specified in Army Order 350, of 1917. Unless the conditions for the award of this decoration are fulfilled, it cannot be awarded. However, the claims of all who have taken part in any military operations against the enemy will in due course receive suitable recognition.
      Sir C. HENRY: Does that refer to the period of the operations between August and November, 1914, or to the present period?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly. The 1914 Star was given for special service in France. The other point the hon. Member raised will be looked into.

      BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOT.
      Mr. TICKLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Office have yet decided to reinstate Brigadier-General Elliot, as they promised to do?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: T am afraid that there has so far been no opportunity.
      Mr. TICKLER: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is over three months since he made the statement in this House that the War Office was considering the reinstatement of this officer?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is quite true, and, as far as I know, of the three officers, I think two have been re-employed, but it is correspondingly difficult to get an appointment for a brigadier-general
      Mr. HOUSTON: Seeing that Major Grimshaw has been reinstated, what reason is there, beyond what the hon. Gentleman said, for not reinstating General Elliot'? Was it because of the evidence he gave before the Dardanelles Commission?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; there was no, ulterior motive, so far as the Army Council is concerned, for keeping him back from getting a brigade. The Army Council recognises that he is a very gallant officer, but it is very difficult to appoint a brigadier straight to a brigade.
      Mr. HOUSTON: In the meantime is he receiving brigadier-general's pay?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say he is. I have no doubt after the decision of the Army Council he would be placed immediately upon half-pay.

    CAMBRAI.

      IMPERIAL GENERAL STAFF.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Prime Minister if he can, consistently with the public interest, say who constituted the Court of Inquiry which inquired into the recent operations at Cambrai?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The inquiry into the Cambrai operations assumed the form of taking the evidence of all concerned. This evidence was submitted to Sir Douglas Haig and by him forwarded to the War Office, by whom it was submitted in its entirety to the War Cabinet.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Prime Minister whether he can, consistently with the public interest, state what. changes have been made in the Headquarters Staff in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The following changes have been made:
      Lieutenant-General Sir H. Lawrence to be Chief of the General Staff.
      Colonel E. W. Cox to be Brigadier-General, General Staff (Intelligence).
      Lieutenant-General Travers-Clark to be Quartermaster-General.
      Major DAVIES: Are these changes made in consequence of the inquiry into the operations at Cambrai?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am answering a question later.
      Mr. WALTER ROCHasked whether the changes in the Headquarters Staff in France, which have been announced in the Press, were made in consequence of the Report to the War Cabinet on the recent operations at Cambrai?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir.

      SOLDIERS' RATIONS.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there have been any alterations in the rations of the forces in the United Kingdom as compared with the end of June last; and, if so, will he give the modifications that may have been made?
      Mr. FORSTER: There have been no alterations since the date mentioned.
      Sir C. HENRY: Is it proposed to make any alteration?
      Mr. FORSTER: That is under consideration.
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the protein value of the present rations to. the forces in the United Kingdom as compared with that of the Expeditionary Force?
      Mr. FORSTER: The protein value of the present rations as issued to the troops in the United Kingdom is 126.6 grammes daily; that of the normal field ration as issued to the Expeditionary Force, France, is 140 grammes of protein daily; and that. of the lines of communication ration as. issued is 126.6 grammes of protein daily.
      Sir C. HENRY: Does the right lion. Gentleman consider that the forces in this country and on lines of communication require the same as those in France?
      Mr. FORSTER: Many of them are doing,. practically, precisely the same work.

      CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to respond to the demand for equality of sacrifice, he will take immediate steps to prepare a scheme for the conscription of wealth and of all capitalistic plant in the country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

      EX-TSAR.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact of the deposition of the Emperor of the Russias and the setting up of a Republic in that country, he will take steps to have the name of the ex-Tsar removed from the list of honorary officers of the British Army?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply is the same.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the Government sufficiently weighed the gravity of that. reply? They are giving 1,000,000 bayonets for a dynasty.

      IRISH CONVENTION.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minis whether a Defence of the Realm Regulation which forbids any person in

      979
      any newspaper to purport to describe or to refer to any proceeding of the Convention assembled on the invitation of His Majesty's Government for the purpose of preparing a Constitution for the future government of Ireland has been withdrawn; and, if not, will he say if the owners of newspapers published in England who have been able to accurately describe, and also to comment on, the proceedings of the Convention will be held liable to the penalties prescribed for a breach of the Regulation?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Regulation is still in force, and it is of the utmost importance at the present time, when the Convention has reached a critical stage, that the Regulation should be carefully observed. The Irish papers have loyally adhered to it, and the Press Bureau has issued a special warning on the subject to the English Press. If there should he any serious contravention of the Regulation, steps will be taken to enforce it.
      Major NEWMAN: Has my right hon. Friend read last week's "Nation" and the remarks by "Wayfarer," which are a perfectly accurate description of the deadlock?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I am not so well informed as to what has taken place. I have not read the paper in question.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      BEER.
      Major DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements made by Mr. Hoover, the Food Controller of the United States, that grain exported from America is being used for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor in this country; and whether, having regard to the patriotic efforts which are being made by the people of the United States to provide the Allies with supplies of food and the feeling which exists against the manufacture of liquor in time of war, he will give an assurance to the Government of the:United States that all grain fit for human and animal consumption will be utilised in this country for the purposes of food?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury):I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first, part of the question is in the nega-
      980
      tive. As I have already stated, in view of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest, the Government cannot regard the restricted quantity of beer now allowed to he brewed as involving an avoidable waste of foodstuffs.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor speak of the large waste of foodstuffs?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot answer for my predecessor.
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked (1) the Prime Minister if he is aware of the resentment at the effect of the Food Controller's Regulation, which allows brewers to pay 5s. 3d. per quarter more than millers for barley, in diverting the best quality from use, in bread, -thus deteriorating its quality and accentuating shortage; and whether, now that brewers have bought nearly half the entire crop, he will cancel that Regulation, and put bread consumers on an equality with beer drinkers, and bakers with brewers, by allowing the same maximum prices to all buyers; and (2) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will stop discouraging the use of the best foodstuffs for food by discontinuing the preference of 5s. 3d. per quarter hitherto allowed to brewers and putting all purchasers of barley on an equality in regard to maximum prices?
      Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The point raised by the hon. Member is at the moment under consideration, and it is hoped to make an announcement shortly.

      ARMY RATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM).
      Sir C. HENRYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is being considered to reduce the rations of the Forces in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. FORSTER: The matter is at the moment under consideration.

      STORE CATTLE.
      Mr. DIXONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that during the next three months farmers and graziers will be buying in store cattle for feeding; if he can give some definite assurance that he will not alter his present fixed prices, at any rate before next Christmas, so that buyers of stores may know what to be at; and if he intends to regulate in any way the price or sale of store cattle?
      Mr. PARKER: The question of the regulation of the sale of store cattle is at present receiving the consideration of the Food Controller. It is hoped that it may shortly be possible to make a definite announcement with regard to the future maximum prices for fat cattle.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: When will that announcement be made
      Mr. PARKER: I am sorry that I cannot give the exact date, but it Neill be shortly.

      MEAT.
      Mr. E. WASONasked what is the position of a householder in London whose butcher refuses to serve him as a customer owing to his name not being on his books for the month of October last, the customer being out of town for that month?
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, by the recent Order to butchers to reduce their present supplies of meat to 50 per cent. of their October sales, it is his intention that those householders who were living strictly within their meat rations last October should now he reduced to a ration of 2 2–7 oz. of meat per person, whilst those who were not living within their rations will automatically obtain a much higher allowance than those who have acted patriotically?
      Mr. PARKER: The present Regulations merely limit the amount of the butcher's purchases of cattle and meat, and leave room for adjustment in sales to individual customers pending the introduction of definite schemes for controlling distribution. It is hoped that such temporary adjustment will be effected on the basis not of a customer's past purchases in any given month, but of his reasonable and proper requirements at the present time. I may add that Lord Rhondda has under consideration a definite scheme for rationing meat.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the local food committees are interpreting the Order in the manner suggested in question No. 78?
      General M`CALMONT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is so in Marylebone?
      Mr. PARKER: I will convey what has been said to the Food Controller. His scheme with regard to the rationing of meat is well advanced and will probably be produced before long.
      Mr. GULLAND: is the hon. Gentleman aware that some butchers are approaching customers and telling them that; this is all the meat they will get?
      Mr. PARKER: The butcher gets half, but it is assumed that he shall have regard to the necessities of the families which he is supplying.

      FOOD CONTROL COMMITTEES.
      Major CHAPPLEasked whether a town council, in securing representatives to serve on a food control committee, is within its rights if it stipulates that a cooperative society must limit its nominees to ratepayers of the burgh, while no such limitation is placed on other bodies?
      Mr. PARKER: The appointment of members of a food control committee is vested by the Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order, 1917, in the local authority- for the area concerned. The stipulation referred to does not appear to be outside the discretionary powers of the appointing authority.

      REFERENDUM, IRELAND.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a referendum is at present being taken in Ireland for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Irish people as to the future government of that; country, and with a view to having these views represented at the Peace Conference; and whether Civil servants are free to record their opinions on the questions involved through this referendum?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I understand that a memorial is being circulated of which the text is in these words:
      "We appeal to the Peace Congress to secure the establishment of Ireland as an independent State."
      It is obvious that such a document could not be signed by any loyal servant of the Crown

      INCOME TAX (SMALL INVESTORS).
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience to small investors entitled to claim abatement of Income Tax which arises from the facet that certain dividends, notably those of insurance companies, are paid at a considerable interval after they are earned; and

      983
      whether he will, either by legislation or instructions to surveyors of Income Tax, place such small taxpayers in the same position as Section 66 (2) (d) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, specially accords to Super-tax payers?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that any general inconvenience is caused to small investors from the circumstances stated by the lion. Member. Any exceptional case of the nature indicated is specially dealt with.

      NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
      Mr. ARNOLDasked the average daily amount of the national expenditure during the seven weeks ended 19th January last?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Taking the figures of Exchequer issues, the daily average expenditure during the seven weeks in question was £7,517,000, of which the average daily expenditure from the Vote of Credit was £6,368,000.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will any of that be recoverable in the shape of purchases of food and such like?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt it will; but the right. hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the daily average from the Vote of Credit was £6,368,000.

      PREMIUM BONDS.
      Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the passage in the Select Committee's Report on Premium Bonds, which states that the Committee were satisfied that, so far as the general public and the small investor are concerned, the present Government issues fail to enlist all the financial support that might. be obtained, and to the estimate in the Report that. £100,000,000 a year new money may be expected from sources at present untouched; whether, in view of the fact that in so far as the Report is adverse to the immediate issue of premium bonds, the decision is based on the consideration that legislation to sanction it would be difficult to obtain; and whether it is the intention of the Government, to overcome this diffi-
      984
      culty and introduce the necessary legislation or in what way is it intended to render available money which is not now forthcoming for Government securities?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Somerset.
      Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question—in what way is it intended to render available money riot now forthcoming for Government securities. since they have turned down Premium Bonds?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am using all the ingenuity of which I can make use, in order to find the best methods, and I think with considerable success.
      Mr. PETO: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the methods of ingenuity he is using are more likely to be successful than the issue of Premium Bonds?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a different question. As I told the House, I had a perfectly open mind, and for that reason a Select Committee was appointed, and it has come to quite definite recommendations. The Government are not prepared to reopen the subject.
      Mr. FABER: Will the Government conform their view to that expressed by the Committee, namely, that it is not advisable at present?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that would be a wise course for the Government. to take. I think the question ought to be settled in so far as you can look ahead one way or another.
      Sir J. SPEAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the interest on Post Office Savings Bank deposits?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The lion. Member must put that question down.

      LOAN ISSUES (ALLIES).
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total of the loan issues of the Governments of the Allies in this country to assume liability for which is a moral obligation of the. British taxpayer, as in the case of the Russian bonds on which default has been made?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to under-stand that this precedent will land us in an unlimited liability which the Government cannot state, and will this action of the Government require Parliamentary sanction?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. I think it will not land us in unlimited liability. The question was one in regard to which there was a certain amount of moral responsibility, and every such question must be treated on its merits.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why should not this House deal with a question of moral obligations and not the Government, when they arc to be met by the taxpayer?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The House has always the power of judging. If it disapproves of a decision of the Government it can be reversed.
      Mr. D. MASON: What authority had the Government for undertaking this liability?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have made inquiries and there is no need for special authority. It is done in the ordinary way.

      AGRICULTURAL LAND (SALE OF CHESHIRE ESTATE).
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the high price now ruling for agricultural land, and, in particular, to the sale of a Cheshire estate of 4,000 acres for £170,000; and will he reconsider his opinion that there is nothing to be got out of a tax on land values?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention had not previously been drawn to the particular case referred to; but I see no reason for departing from the opinion I previously expressed on the subject of obtaining revenue from land values.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that since the passage of the Corn Production Bill the price of agricultural land has been going up by leaps and bounds, because you are giving advantages to the privileged classes and do not tax them?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement.

      PETROLEUM SUPPLIES.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the new Defence of the Realm Regulation 2 AAA, which relates to the getting of petroleum in the United Kingdom and was published in the "London Gazette" of 18th January, any and, if so, what arrangements have been made with persons having interests in the land or persons desirous of boring for the oil; and whether the payment of royalties is a feature of any of these arrangements?
      Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): Negotiations are in progress. I am not in a position to make any statement in the matter.
      Mr. WHITE: Is the question of the compensation of landlords to be left to the general discretion of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission as in other cases where lands are entered upon under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, or are there to be special rules of compensation in petroleum cases?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly hand that in?
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter before any binding arrangements are entered into which will involve the payment of royalties?
      Sir W. EVANS: I think there is not any intention to pay royalties. If there is a responsibility, it will come before the. Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.

      ARMY CHAPLAINS (PAY).
      Mr. KINGasked whether Army chaplains are to receive the increased Army pay for officers; and, if not, for what reason are they excluded from the recent Order?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will ask the hon. Member to await the appearance of the Royal Warrant now about to be issued.

      TERRITORIAL FORCE (TRANSFER TO ROYAL FLYING CORPS).
      Colonel SANDERSasked why the rank of an officer of the Territorial Force

      987
      who was gazetted captain on 1st August, 1914, and subsequently seconded for service with the Royal Flying Corps. should be now dated 2nd January, 1915?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me the name of the officer and details of the case, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

      FREIGHTS (IRELAND).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the profiteering going on in shipping centres; if he is aware that the increase in freights in many cases has been increased over 500 per cent. and that the increase particularly applies to coal going to Ireland; and if he will state the Government's proposal in the matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. So far as ocean-going ships are concerned there is certainly nothing in the nature of profiteering under the conditions of Government control as now exercised. Control is gradually being extended over the coasting and cross-Channel services, and as from the 1st of February all voyages in Home waters will be subject to the licence of the Ministry of Shipping. It is anticipated that the operation of the new licensing scheme will afford an effective means of dealing with any cases of excessive freights.

      METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS (OVERCROWDED TRAINS).
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding of trains on the Underground, District, and Metropolitan Railways during certain hours of the day; can he arrange with the railways concerned to provide more accommodation on their services; is he aware that inspectors travel on these trains who charge passengers first-class fares even if they are standing in first-class carriages or their approaches; and whether lie can arrange, for the general convenience of the travelling public on these railways, that only one class of
      988
      carriage shall be used, the same as on London tube railways, and so save the extra labour and work now caused by issuing, checking, and inspecting first-class tickets?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I am afraid that it is scarcely practicable under present conditions for any substantial increase in accommodation to be provided during busy hours on the Metropolitan and District Railways. I understand that the companies have already examined the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman in the last part of his question, but I will call their attention to it again.

      SURVIVORS OF LOST SHIP (COMPENSATION).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause inquiries to be made into the treatment of the survivors of the ship which was sunk on the morning of the 14th December, 1917; if he is aware that these men only received the sum of £7 10s. for the loss of their outfits and bedding and arc at present only receiving 25s. per week compensation, although their wages were £3 17s. 6d. per week; if he is aware that these men cannot replace their outfits for less than £30 to £40; if he will say when proper compensation will be paid to seamen; and if he will take steps to insure every seaman's life for not less than £1,000?
      Mr. WARDLE: Claims for compensation for loss of effects on this vessel referred to have been received and have been dealt with in accordance with the scheme described in the circular which I am sending to the hon. Member; £7 10s. is the maximum amount of compensation for loss of outfits for the ratings of seamen and firemen, and I am not aware that such ratings cannot replace their outfits for less than £30 to £40. I have no information regarding the payment of 25s. per week to the survivors, but if the lion. Member will furnish me with the names of the men to whom this amount is being paid, I will make inquiries in the matter. Each of these men, in accordance with arrangements made by the Board of Trade, would receive three weeks' wages from the date the. vessel was sunk. With regard to the final part of the question, I am sending the hon. Member a pamphlet describing the

      989
      Government Compensation Scheme for loss of life or injury which came into Operation early in 1915.

      FOOD, COAL, AND RENT PRICES.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can furnish a statement of the present predominant prices for food, coal, and rent in Birmingham, Leeds, Swansea, and Glasgow comparable with the prices for the same which were published in 1908 in the Board of Trade Report on working-class rents and retail prices?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. The most recent town inquiry on lines of the Report published in 1908 relates to the year 1912, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Report thereon. During the War no town inquiry has been made which would yield the desired comparisons.
      Mr. TERRELL: In view of the irresponsible statements made, can the hon. Gentleman have some definite inquiry made as to the food values in some of these centres?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Food values appear in the "Labour Gazette," and the lion. Member will be able to get. the figures. If he will state exactly the comparison he wishes to have made, I will see if it is possible to give it.

      MATCHES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the continued shortage of matches in London and the inability of shopkeepers to obtain necessary supplies for their customers; and can he take any steps in order to improve delivery of this article to retail dealers in London?
      Mr. WARDLE: There is no doubt a shortage of matches in London, as well as in other districts, compared with the supply a year ago, owing to the prohibition of the import. of foreign matches, which amounted to over 50 per cent. of the normal supplies, and the exhaustion of the stocks which existed when the pro-
      990
      hibition was imposed. Every effort is being made to increase the output, but there are great difficulties, owing to scarcity of labour, difficulty in obtaining new machinery and the raw material;. and, in addition, lately there has been a strike in the match manufactory at Liverpool, which seriously interfered with the supply. The Tobacco and Matches Control Board, through their Administrative Committee of Match Manufacturers, are doing their utmost to ensure an equitable. distribution of the available supplies, which they consider should be sufficient, provided the public will only realise the position and reduce their consumption as far as possible.
      Mr. GILBERT: Has the lion. Gentleman considered the advisability, in view of the public necessity for these goods, of removing the prohibition for a short time, in order that Swedish matches may be imported?
      Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that there would be very great difficulty in complying with that suggestion.
      Colonel YATE: Has the export of matches been stopped?
      Mr. WARDLE: I do not believe that. there is any export of matches.

      OLD AGE PENSIONS.
      Mr. WINGasked the Minister of Reconstruction if he will consider the advisability of appointing a representative Committee to revise the terms on which. old age pensions are granted, in accordance with the universal demand of friendly and trade societies throughout Great Britain and Ireland, namely, increasing the maximum income from 13s. a week to £1 a week; if so, when this will be done; and, it not, will he state the reason?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: It has been the policy of successive Governments to meet. the difficulties of old age pensioners due to the War by administrative concessions, and I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose for a Committee to be appointed to consider the desirability of revising the Old Age Pension Acts whilst conditions are still abnormal.
      Mr. WING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the change made was received with great gratitude in the

      991
      country, the Special Committee referred to could consider the whole question in accordance with the unanimous demand of the trades and friendly societies of the country, namely, that the income should not be limited to the 13s. a week, to which it. is limited at present, but that it should—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a debating speech.

      RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEES.
      Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Reconstruction when the list of Committees set up by his Department, with the names of members and the references to such Committees, will be published and circulated?
      Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The list will be issued to-morrow (Thursday).

    BILL PRESENTED.
      REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL,
      "to provide for the Redistribution of Seats at Parliamentary Elections in Ireland, and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by Sir GEORGE CAVE; supported by Mr. Duke, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and the Solicitor-General for Ireland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House is to sit on Friday, and, if so, what will be the business?
  Mr. SONAR LAW: We think it necessary that the House should sit on Friday, when we will take the National Registration Bill, in its final stages, Report, and Third Reading. I may say that to-morrow, if there is time, it is proposed to take also the Second Reading of the new Bill in regard to the redistribution of seats in Ireland.
  Sir C. HENRY: Is it intended to take the Third Reading of the National Registration Bill on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I hope that this may be done.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentle-man put down shortly the promised new Standing Order with regard to Secret Sessions? Last Monday we should have had plenty of time to take it. If it were put down now it might be taken on some day when the House was about to rise early.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That seems quite a reasonable suggestion and I will consider it.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is it part of the agreement with reference to the Representation of Ireland Bill that there should be two additional members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot discuss that in answer to questions. That is a question which can be debated.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not rather short notice to give us, to take the Second Reading to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so. We only propose to take it to-morrow because the House regards it as an agreed measure.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Will the Bill be M the hands of Members to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; it has already been introduced and will he available to-day.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: As the Bill is likely to contain a new provision increasing the number of members by adding two for the new universities, this would necessarily raise an important question.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have taken that into account. I do not see that that should in any way affect the Second Reading. That is a point which will come on later.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will a day be granted for the Motion standing in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnard Castle and other leaders of the Labour party concerning the Russian Constituent Assembly?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I had not noticed it, but I certainly think that it would be un-desirable that the House should discuss that subject.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: I must enter my protest against the course which has been suggested with regard to the Irish Bill.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it proposed to take the Trade Marks Bill this Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite impossible.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: Am I not entitled, Sir, to ask whether it is in order to bring forward an important measure of this kind without any notice whatever to the officials of the party most concerned in the matter, and who have pledged their word with regard to it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think this must be due to a misunderstanding. I recognise that both the hon. Member's Friends and my hon. Friends above the Gangway are specially interested in the principle of the measure, but I certainly understood that the principle of the measure. was agreed to. As it is only the Second Reading which is to be taken, details could be discussed in the Committee stage. I should be greatly surprised if the hon. Member for Waterford objected.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: What objection is there to letting it stand over till Monday'
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The only objection is the very obvious one that we have very little time to get through a great deal of business that must be done.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it fair to put down on the Order Paper to-day notice of the introduction of this Bill, which solely relates

  1013
  to Ireland, and to give no notice to the officials of the Irish party of the Second Reading to be taken to-morrow, as he must know that Members now in Ireland cannot possibly be here to-morrow. Is that in accordance with the usual custom?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have tried to make it quite clear that the object of the Government, if there is no objection by the Chairman of the Ulster party or the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, is to get through a Bill which they thought was without opposition.
  Mr. MOONEY: The right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair to himself and the House, for he must know very well that the members of the Irish party are engaged in Dublin, and it has not been communicated to the officials of that party that the Second Reading is to be taken to-morrow.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not going to have a dispute about the matter. My Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) thought it was an agreed Bill, and lie would not have put it down but for the fact that it is an agreed Bill. If there is any real feeling about this matter, we are not so pressed for time that we will insist on the Second Reading being taken to-morrow, and we will take that stage on the first available opportunity.
  An HON. MEMBER: What will you take to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We have other Bills.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry 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.]

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
As amended, considered.
NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition against Dealing in Certain Metals and Ores without a Licence.)
  (1) It shall not be lawful for any company, firm, or individual after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or such longer periods as the Board of Trade may in any particular case allow, to carry on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way
  1014
  of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies, unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade:
  Provided that the purchase of metal by persons for the purposes of use in their trade shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal by way of wholesale trade where the trade carried on by the purchaser is not primarily the trade of dealing in metals.

  (2) In the case of a company, firm, or individual with respect to which any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply, no licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is expedient, but save as aforesaid any company, firm, or individual carrying on or proposing to carry on such business as aforesaid shall, on making application in the prescribed manner, and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to a licence under this Act.

  (3)A licence under this Act, unless suspended or revoked, shall remain in force until the first day of January following the date of issue of the licence, but shall be renewable annually, and the same provisions shall apply to the renewal of the licence as apply to the grant of a licence.

  (4)The Board of Trade, if satisfied by evidence not before them at the time when the licence was granted that such company, firm, or individual is, or has become, subject to any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act, may revoke or suspend the licence.

  (5)If any question arises between the Board of Trade and any company, firm, or individual, as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual, the question shall, subject to rules of Court, be referred by the Board of Trade to the High Court for determination, and on any such reference it shall rest with the company, firm, or individual to show that none of such conditions as aforesaid apply, and the decision of the High Court on any such reference shall be final, and no appeal there from shall lie to any other Court.

  (6)Where at the expiration of the said six months or longer period allowed by the Board of Trade, or at any time when a licence expires, proceedings on any such application are pending in the High Court,

  1015
  the Court may, on application being made for the purpose, extend the said period of six months or longer period as respects that company, firm, or individual, or as the case may be, the duration of the licence, for such period as may be necessary to allow the question to be determined by the Court.

  (7) References in this Section to the High Court shall in relation to Scotland be construed as references to the Court of Session.

  Mr. A. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "extracting, smelting'' ["winning, extracting, smelting, dressing"]
  There was a meeting of various smelters, of copper, tin, spelter, and lead, to consider this Bill, and how it affects their industry. It represented all sections of those engaged in the industry, and arguments for and against the Bill were advanced. Nevertheless they passed the following resolution, which I will read:
  That this meeting, while approving of the avowed objects of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill. is of opinion that these objects are in no way attained by the Rill as it now stands. and deprecates any interference with the present means of obtaining supplies of raw materials until it is clearly shown that other satisfactory means will he substituted for them."
  It must not be forgotten that these smelters are interested in getting the ores they require, and unless there had not been some slight disadvantage to their business under this Bill I do not think they would have passed this resolution. I was present at the meeting and heard the arguments put forward, and I consider that they are really unanswerable. So far as the bulk of the ores are concerned they have mostly been contracted before they were shipped from the mines, but large quantities of ores could be brought, over which the enemy would have no control. But in addition to that, there were very large quantities of ores, particularly copper and tin ores, which were sent to this country unconsigned, to he sold to the highest bidder. When they arrived here of course nobody could bid for them, except some foreigners and the English smelters. That was the chief source of this industry from which the English smelters obtained their supply of ores, because the foreigners could not compete with the English, having to pay freight, insurance, and various charges; so that the ores which came to this country unconsigned were really the
  1016
  best market with the English smelters. What we are doing by the Bill would affect this supply of ores which we have been in the habit of receiving in this country, cause those who sent the supplies knew that they would find the greatest competition in this country to obtain them, and that they would get the highest prices. Under this Bill they would discontinue to send the ores here, because there would be no competition here, except a restricted competition, the English smelters being few and far between, and the ores, instead of being sent to Liverpool or Swansea, will be sent to Hamburg and elsewhere. We would thus find a great scarcity of ore, which would be a disadvantage to us, and the enemy would buy those ores in Hamburg. It would be an absolute advantage to British industry and British smelters that smelting and extracting should be done here, and that the supply of ores should not be interfered with. Under these circumstances, I submit that there can be no objection to leaving out these two words. The object of the Bill, as we understand the Government, is that· enemy control should cease in the future. I admit that if these two words are omitted the enemy may be able to smelt tin or copper here, but where is the harm? They could not buy the ores here, nor would any man influenced by the enemy be in a position to do so, and they would only be able to smelt imported ores and export them again. Though a certain amount of labour might be employed they would be absolutely unable to take any advantage of their process, or in any way to obtain control of the metals. They would only be able to smelt as much metal as they would be able to buy abroad and to again export it. The object which the Government have in view of putting an end to enemy control cannot possibly be affected by leaving out. smelting and extracting.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): I am sorry we cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite clear that the object of the Amendment is to remove from the purview of the Act the process of extracting and smelting non-ferrous metals in the United Kingdom. On the Second Reading, and certainly at the later stages, it was made clear that one of the means adopted by Germany for securing control

  1017
  of non-ferrous metals was either to secure by ownership the control of the smelting and extracting plant or by agreement to secure that control. I pointed wit that it was really essential in the interests of this country that we should establish smelting and extracting plant. One of the objects of this Bill is to encourage the industry, so that these particular plants will be established in the United Kingdom and established absolutely free from German control. Our control in this direction was allowed to pass into the hands of Germany, and because of our neglect in this respect we placed this country under grave disability, and we are trying to secure that that shall not occur again. With regard to the meeting of the Smelters' Association to which the hon. Gentleman referred, my information is to the effect that that meeting was not really representative. Whether it be representative or not, and I have grave doubts on that point, I am quite clear that to accept this Amendment would mean that the real object of the Bill would be destroyed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words within the United Kingdom."
  If hon. Members will carefully read the Clause, they will see that these particular words relate only to dealings in the United Kingdom, and not to the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing or refining. These words become unnecessary in view of the second proviso to this Clause, which was moved at a later stage in Committee, and which not only covered dealings, but also covered winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, and refining. So that the words are really redundant.
  Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: As the proposer of these words, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the second proviso seems to achieve the object I had in view, and therefore I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "where" ["where the trade"], to insert the words "such purchase or sale is incidental only to".
  1018
  This is to be followed by another Amendment, and the proviso will then read, "Provided that the purchase or sale of metal shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal where such purchase or sale is incidental only to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller." It will be remembered by Members of the House that in the course of the various discussions on this matter questions of importance were raised as to what was the meaning of "primarily" and under what circumstances a transaction might be called isolated. I have in mind more than one speech by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) on this subject. We undertook to endeavour to find a form of words which would put at rest all these doubts and controversies, and I venture to submit that these words carry out that object.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I congratulate the Government on having found this form of words, which I think will dispense with the necessity of the taking out of a licence in the case of people affected.
  Mr. PETO: I should like to be quite sure that this does not do a great deal more than put us back into the position we were in before the Debates in Committee. The original proviso was intended to cover only the question of purchasing metal for use in a person's trade. It was pointed out by several members that in those cases you must have power to sell surplus metal. The chemical industry was instanced, and other speeches were made on similar lines. Subsequently it became quite clear that those who advocated the proviso in the form in which it now appears unamended in the Bill had wholly other purposes in mind. For instance, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. J. M. Henderson) made a speech of four lines, in which he said:
  "I have no objection to this Amendment. and for this reason, the more you go on the more futile and absurd the Bill will turn out to be."
  At the end of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) made it quite clear also what was his view about these Amendments to the proviso. He said:
  "I am glad to think that the Government is accepting it. It strongly justifies the strong opposition shown to the Bill in the early stages and illustrates the futility of attempting to conduct national trade on a licensed basis."
  That may or may not be so, but those in favour of the purposes of the Bill always understood that the Government should

  1019
  have the power of controlling this trade in metals, and particularly the sort of trade that has been conducted in the past and which has given practically complete control of the metal industry of the Empire to persons of alien origin and who are not British subjects. We thought that in drawing the teeth of the Bill, so to speak, this proviso was regarded as the crux of the whole matter. In Committee the proviso so altered was universally accepted by the opponents of the Bill. It was only opposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland) and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), and one or two other Members. Although the right hon. Baronet is not in favour of the Bill, yet. he alone among those who used to be considered Unionist Members saw what the purpose was of these wrecking Amendments. I want to be quite satisfied that by these words, which are now accepted as satisfactory by the opponents of the Bill, we have not still left it open to any foreigner to have executed for him any order of any magnitude whatever for purchase or sale or entry into a contract for the entire output of a group of British mines for a series of years, provided only that it can be said that it was incidental to his trade. It seems to me that these words cover a great deal more than the purchase of metal for the purpose of the chemical industry or for the purchase of lead for covering roofs and the sale by people in essential industries of the surplus metal afterwards. That was the original intention of the Government, and I should like to know how far they have gone away from their original intention and left it open to people to engage in transactions of any magnitude as long as they are alleged to be isolated transactions.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: My lion. Friend objects to this Amendment as a wrecking Amendment?
  Mr. PETO: Not this Amendment, but the altered proviso as it appears un-amended and which was moved in the Committee stage.
  Sir C. HENRY: I am the Member who proposed this Amendment, and I think I should be the last person to be accused of desiring to wreck this Bill. One of the arguments, indeed, used against this Bill has been that it has received to some extent my support. I do not know if the hon.
  1020
  Member was here when I first introduced this Amendment, but I then stated particularly what my object was, and that was not to hamper the trade of individuals in this country unnecessarily. My hon. Friend said that under this provision at present anyone in Germany could send orders to this country for any quantity and of any magnitude. This Amendment does not affect that point one iota. As the Bill was originally introduced, anyone in France or the United States, or Germany, or any other country, could send an order to a broker in this country and have that executed without any violation of the provisions of this Bill. This Amendment has the effect of placing the Britisher at no greater disadvantage than the foreigner.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I very much approve of this Amendment. As I understand, the President of the Board of Trade is anxious to encourage smelting in this country. What happens to smelters? A smelter of copper, whose business it is to buy the ore, smelt it, and convert the copper into all kinds of things, is constantly compelled from time to time to make up his quantities, or to have an excess quantity to dispose of. My right hon. Friend will quite understand that when you buy 1,000 tons of ore you can never tell what the exact quantity of copper will be produced in ingots when smelted. You may have got your orders in advance for so many tons to come out of that. It falls short of the quantity. Therefore to fulfil your orders, you must go into the market to make up the deficiency. On the other hand, the ores may work out more copper than you anticipate. In that case you have a surplus which you must also dispose of in the market. It would be a very stupid thing and very hard on traders, who are conducting business on these lines, who have no concern with Germany or any other country, to compel them to take out licences for the purpose of carrying on their own legitimate business which they have been carrying on for many years. When you buy ores you can never tell exactly the amount of copper you will get. When the ore is worked up a great deal falls into the bottom of the furnace, and is not recovered sometimes until a year or two years afterwards, so that you can never quite tell the exact amount of copper a 1,000 tons of ore will produce, and if it does not produce the amount you estimated you have to buy copper. If, on

  1021
  the other hand, it turns out more you have to sell your surplus. Therefore, I quite approve of this Amendment.
  Mr. STRAUSS: The wording of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is certainly a great improvement on the word "primarily," which leaves the door open to a great deal of fraud. All that a smelter metal merchant would have to do would be to join a big timber or sugar merchant or any other merchant whose business would be primaily in timber or sugar, and of course that firm would not have to obtain any licence under the Bill if the word "primarily" were retained. I think the words now proposed are better calculated to stop any fraud of that kind.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I would like to ask the meaning of the words in the proposed Amendment "incidental only to." If I read it aright, a man who wishes to speculate in copper, if this Amendment is passed, will have to take out a licence, and I do not see any reason why those operating on the smelter markets in London should not be asked to take out a licence. The actual application for a licence from any British well-known firm must be a very simple matter, and I cannot see why it should not be done in order that the President of the Board of Trade may really know who are operating on the market. One speaker has just said that anybody from any part of the world may telegraph to a licensed broker on the London metal market to exercise an order for him. That is perfectly right, and every London metal broker will be very careful, if I understand this Bill, to see that he does not act under any foreign influence in such a way as would jeopardise the reissue of his licence, and the reason we supported the acceptance of the previous Amendment that was moved in Committee was this fear that speculators in England would not require any licence whatever. To my mind, after peace is declared, for the five years this Bill contemplates, those of us who are in the trade will have to recognise that we shall not be allowed to run our business quite as easily and smoothly as before, and that it is essential, in order to safeguard labour and industries, that we must put it in the power of the Government to see that such necessary restrictions are carried out. I approve of the proposal if I can be assured that the ordinary gambler and speculator on the metal market will have to take out a licence.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the House will be well advised to pass this Amendment, because it is directed surely to simplifying the ordinary matters of trade, and would not have the effect at all, in my judgment, of touching the case of the smelter who makes a miscalculation in 1,000 tons as to how much copper he is going to get out, because that man must obviously be engaged in the trade and must take out a licence. But it is surely unnecessary for builders, who might collect from old houses a little lead which they might dispose of in the ordinary way of business, to take out a licence. Then there is the case of firms. who have an international trade, and who might in the course of that trade receive a small lot of ores from some client in payment, and which they release when imported. It is purely an incident in their business, and not at all the ordinary run of their affairs, and it is. unnecessary surely in such a ease for them to have to take out a licence and go, through the whole of the formula of having their books and accounts examined, and so forth. This seems exactly to meet the need the House foresaw.
  Sir G. HEWART: Perhaps I may, by leave, make two observations in reply to the remarks which have been made, first,. by my hon. Friend Mr. Peto, and, secondly, by my hon. Friend Mr. Big-land. With regard to my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Peto), I should like to. observe that this Bill deals only with wholesale trade, as is made plain in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, and these words, "such purchase or sale is incidental only to," have been, I assure him, most carefully considered with a view to meeting the reasonable objection which came from, more than one quarter of the House. The arguments which my hon. Friend put forward did too little justice to the word "only." It is not enough for the purpose of this provision that the purchase or sale should be incidental to the trade. It must be "incidental only to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller," and that in another form is the answer I venture to offer to my hon. Friend Mr. Big-land. There can be no real apprehension that under these words the gambler or speculator in these metals goes free. How can such a person be heard to say that a transaction of that kind in which he is engaged is a transaction "incidental only to" his trade? I hope the

  1023
  House will accept this Amendment, which represents on the part of those who are concerned with this Bill a real desire to meet what appeared to be a real objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "is not primarily the trade of dealing in metals."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "on" ["is carried on wholly"], to insert the words "in respect of metal or metallic ore which is."
  When we had a discussion in Committee on these particular words, there was evidently a good deal of difficulty as to the proper interpretation of the words, "dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom." I remember the Lord Advocate, who dealt with the question with his accustomed courtesy and urbanity, himself found considerable -difficulty in exactly defining dealings in metals inside the United Kingdom and outside the United Kingdom. The case originally put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin and Nairn (Sir A. Williamson) was that of a firm which bought concentrates in Bolivia and shipped them to California. The exact amount of interest the English house has to take in the transaction, in order to make it dealing inside the United Kingdom, as opposed to dealing outside the United Kingdom, appears to be a very fine point. Apparently the English branch get some share of the profits, and certainly, as I understand from the Lord Advocate, if an English firm gives any instructions and exercises any brains in the matter, it is not a case of dealing out side the United Kingdom. What we want to do is to establish the fact that f the metal itself does not come inside the United Kingdom, then that is a transaction which does not require a licence. Take the case of an industry in this country which owns mines in Australia, South America, China, or wherever it may be. As I understand, if that company is going to negotiate a sale of property, or even give instructions from the head office in this country, it will require to take out a licence. Now I understood that the object in moving this proviso was that where the whole of the transaction took place entirely outside the United Kingdom, a firm resident in the United
  1024
  Kingdom would have the same liberty as a firm resident outside. I do not think the words now in the Bill give that liberty. I think they put a firm resident in the United Kingdom at a disadvantage in completely external transactions as compared with a firm outside the United Kingdom. If that is so, you run the risk of causing such a firm to transfer its head office. We all know quite well that the effect of taxation on similar trade has caused firms to remove their head office, and I am quite certain that where you have a trade which mainly or largely consists of transactions outside the United Kingdom, it will give a stimulus to the removal of head offices outside the United Kingdom, and so get out of the restrictions of the Board of Trade which firms will be able to do without injuring their business.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: In seconding this Amendment, I would like to say it seems to me that not only would there be a tendency on the part of firms to remove their head office, but also a tendency in certain cases to remove branch offices, and so bring them out of the purview of the taxation of this country, which seems to be altogether undesirable in the interests of this country.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I do not think that the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment quite appreciates what the effect will be. Perhaps he will allow me to give him some explanation of how we understand the Amendment will operate, and I hope he will then withdraw the Amendment. The effect of it, as I understand it, is that a German company or firm, established in this country, which was really under German control, could carry on transactions in these nonferrous metals or ores in a foreign country. They could, through these transactions, secure clients in this country, and they could carry on these transactions without requiring any licence whatever. It is a common practice in businesses of this kind for a firm to make a purchase of metals abroad, and for them to arrange for the transfer, the shipping, of this purchase direct to their clients. These metals, this purchase of this firm, which, as I have said, might be a German-controlled firm, need never really come into the possession of this firm at all. For this purchase might be transferred to that client, who may require this particular metal. As I read

  1025
  the Amendment, it would really mean that a German-controlled firm, company or individual can carry on business just exactly as before the War, and no licence would be required. I am quite sure that that really is not what the hon. Member intends. That, however, is what we understand as the effect of this Amendment.
  It will be remembered by the hon. Member that, during the Committee stage, when this question arose as to what was really meant by the words "carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom," we promised to do our best to find words to meet the particular objections raised at that time to these words. We have given most careful consideration to the matter, and we have not been able to find any words which would really be any improvement upon those in the Bill. I think I made it quite clear in the discussion that in the particular instance which, I think, was mentioned by one hon. Member, where some company or firm had their headquarters in this country, and had branch houses abroad, where those transactions in metal were carried on by one of these branch houses, where those transactions were not direct, or where the contract was not made by the principal office in this country, transactions carried on wholly by the branch house, where, as the result of such a transaction no metal was brought to or taken from this country, no licence was required. That is our view of the situation. That is how we interpret this Clause. I would remind the hon. Member that the Board of Trade is the Government Department responsible for the administration of this Act, and after the explanation. I have given as to the manner in which we interpret this Clause, I trust he will not press this particular Amendment, or for any alteration of the words in the Clause.
  Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The discussion as to the effect of these words was one to which, to some extent, I contributed. The interpretation of the words, "carrying on business" is a difficulty which originates very largely in respect of the interpretation of Income Tax law, and is one which has made it very difficult to provide words to carry out what the Government say is their desire, and certainly was my desire, in moving this proviso in Committee. What the President of the Board of Trade has just said
  1026
  covers the case I had in mind—that is the case where the branches of a British house had a local or entirely foreign trade in metals, which is not directed from here and which the Home Office may even be ignorant about. If the President says that the Board of Trade are themselves to be the authority which decides on the case of prosecution, or rather whether the case is such that it requires a licence or not; if, I say, the Board of Trade is the authority, and if it is on record in the annals of the House that the President of the Board of Trade, speaking to the subject, has declared that such cases that I have in mind are thoroughly provided for in the proviso, probably we may be satisfied. I myself thought of other words that might be possible, but I have not been able to find words that I think would be better. For my own part, therefore, I shall be content to accept the proviso as it stands. It agrees with the explanation given by the President as to the intention of the Board of Trade, and, I think, really it meets the case.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: The President of the Board of Trade speaks of a German firm establishing an agency here, and requiring a licence. Quite true. But what is to prevent a German firm, say the Metallgesellschaft, having an agency in Bolivia, buying up ore there, and sending it direct to Germany? Nothing! How does this proviso help you to bring these metals to this country? I do not know. It is an inexplicable thing. Every Amendment we make seems to drive further away from the object of the Bill. I do not understand it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "the" ["the Schedule"], insert the word "First"—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "unless" ["granted unless the Board of Trade"]. and insert instead thereof the word "if."
  In a very few words I think I can show that the word I suggest is very much more desirable than the one that is in the Clause. We had the same question discussed in Committee. After the discussion the Government accepted the addition of several words, "for any special reason," which, of course, made a very considerable difference. But I ask the

  1027
  President whether he will lose anything at all by acquiescing in this suggested form of words which, he will remember, was desired by a very considerable section of the House, and I think has obvious advantages. In this particular case I would ask the Government to remember that they are imposing certain disabilities. They are saying to people who formerly had rights of trading in certain trades that they are not to trade in that way in the future. Therefore, I would suggest, the proper thing is that the burden of proof, such as it is, should remain upon the Board of Trade, and that no licence should be granted if the Board of Trade think the grant of a licence is inexpedient. Surely it is a very much better way to do it than to say that no licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade say that the granting of a licence is expedient. Where, in a case like this, you are imposing some disability you ought not to put the burden of proof upon the individual. Is it not far better to put it upon the Board of Trade? Something was said in Committee on the last occasion about this Amendment, taking away the whole effect of the Bill. I think it will have very little effect in that way. As the Bill is drafted there is no appeal from what the Board of Trade may think inexpedient or expedient. It is not one of those questions where you can force an appeal to the Courts upon the question of a thing being done reasonably or otherwise. It does seem to me it would be far better in a case like this that the Board of Trade should have in mind the fact that it is putting upon a trade or a trader certain disabilities which were not there before, and say where burden of proof should be, if only for the purpose of instructing the mind of the Board of Trade officials to see that a case has been made out. I do not want to move this Amendment under any misapprehension at all. I subsequently do wish to see inserted, and I have an Amendment to that effect, some appeal from the discretion of the Board of Trade. Whether, however, we put that in or not, it still seems to me to be undesirable that we should have the Bill in this particular form. This particular wording in no way depends upon whether the Board of Trade do or do not accept subsequently the appeal I suggest.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  By the acceptance of this Amendment the interpretation extends to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Schedule. The only question is in regard to paragraph 1. Here the word "expedient" would rather help them than otherwise, for the Board of Trade must not forget that these conditions can be easily evaded. A person who has been in business and has been naturalised can transfer his business to his son or nephew, or anybody he pleases, and can still derive benefit by the interest he has in the profits of the business, although he may have given it up. The benefit is not going to the enemy; therefore such an evasion would be very easily carried out.
  Sir G. HEWART: This proposal appears now by no means for the first time. More than once it was indicated in the Debate on the Second Reading, and it has appeared, substantially, in various forms in Amendments during the Committee stage. May I just point out how and why the change proposed is quite unacceptable, and, I submit to the House, quite objectionable? The scheme of the Bill is that the Board of Trade are to have control of the particular industry which comes within the scope of the Bill. They are to have that control in order that they may exclude from these industries persons who satisfy certain tests or criteria of disqualification. If persons are going to be disqualified from carrying on their business, it is right that they should know what is the ground of disqualification, and, therefore, the Bill sets out in clear language the grounds upon which a person may be disqualified. To summarise them roughly, they are enemy character, enemy influence, enemy association, and enemy control. Having laid down those tests, the Bill provides that all persons who are or who seek to be engaged in this industry are to be divided into two classes—those who come within the disqualifying criteria of the Schedule and those who do not. But we have introduced into the Bill a further provision, that persons who would automatically be disqualified may have their particular circumstances laid before the Board of Trade, and, although the mark of disqualification is there, the licence may, nevertheless, be conceded. That, I submit, is a reasonable and proper qualification in the interests of the

  1029
  applicant for the licence. What would be the effect of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend? It would substitute for the criteria set out in the Bill a vague, undefined, criterion resident in the mind of the Board of Trade. The really operative element in the decision of the Board of Trade, if this Amendment were adopted, would not be something which is contained in the Schedule of the Bill, but it would be some super-added reason which is not in the Schedule. I submit that that is fundamentally wrong. The reason why these tests are in the Schedule is that they represent the policy agreed upon by this House.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman arguing as though the words were that the licence shall be granted? Here I keep the words "no licence shall be granted if the Board of Trade are of opinion that the grant of the licence is inexpedient." I suggest what must govern the Board of Trade are the conditions in the Schedule and no other.
  Sir G. HEWART: If that is really the meaning of my hon. and learned Friend, then I submit that the Bill, as it stands, manifestly meets its purpose, because what happens is, if the applicant comes within the disqualifying tests of the Schedule, he is not going to have a licence unless for particular reasons the Board of Trade have any special reason for granting it.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is actually going back to the old argument. He says "if the Board of Trade have any special reason," and those words were in Committee considered to be objectionable. I assume the Board of Trade would grant a licence unless they regarded it as inexpedient. Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means?
  Sir G. HEWART: That was not in my mind. The submission I am making is that under the Clause, as it stands, it is clear that, if the applicant comes within the Schedule, he is disqualified unless the Board of Trade think in that particular case a licence should be granted. If the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend were adopted the effect would be to turn it the other way about. It would not matter that the applicant came within the Schedule. He could not be disqualified unless for some additional reason not
  1030
  stated, or described, or set out, or communicated to him, the Board of Trade thought it was inexpedient to grant him the licence. I think it is right that the burden of proof should be left as it is, and the real disqualification should be that stated in the Bill, and not something else which is concealed from the applicant. It is quite a different thing, if the applicant does come within the disqualification stated in the Bill, that the Board of Trade should, nevertheless, in that particular case, concede the licence. My hon. and learned Friend said that if the Amendment were carried it would have very little effect. If that is, indeed, the case, it constitutes a very good reason for not pressing the Amendment.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I think the Board of Trade will find, when they come to examine into the case of companies that are carrying on the non-ferrous metal industry, nearly all of them come within the Schedule. Is he, therefore, only going to make a few exceptions in the case of companies? I think the course the Board of Trade ought to adopt is to grant the licence except in a few cases, but, on the contrary, they propose to grant no licence except where there are special circumstances which make it expedient to do so. It ought to be a general rule for the licence to be granted unless there is some serious fault to find with the company. It should, in fact, be granted as a matter of course. May I refer to one company in which I am interested, a company engaged in the manufacture of non-ferrous metals? One half of 1 per cent. of its capital is held by alien enemies, and therefore its licence is entirely under the control of the Board of Trade, which can, if it thinks fit, withhold it. Now nearly the whole of that one-half of 1 per cent. is held at the present time by two ladies who, until their marriage, were British subjects, and who, by reason of their marriage, became Austrian subjects. But the fact remains there is alien enemy capital in the company because these ladies are alien enemies. In this particular case I think the licence should be granted because there is absolutely nothing the company has done in the past or is likely to do in the future which would render its dealing in non-ferrous metals a danger to this country.
  Mr. D. MASON: I quite agree with the Solicitor-General that there is little new

  1031
  in this Debate. But there is a great deal in another sense. There is the question of creating an atmosphere—of creating the idea that the Board of Trade should grant these licences freely and not adopt the attitude of only granting them as a great favour. I take it the object of my hon. and learned Friend in moving this Amendment was that we should assume that the bulk of the traders here are not tainted with this enemy connection. I gather that the difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the supporters of the Amendment is but small—
  Sir G. HEWART: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? The difference between us is this: The intentions of the Bill are set forth in the Schedule, but my hon. and learned Friend proposes to put the test elsewhere.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I do not accept that.
  Sir G. HEWART: The assumption of the Bill is that the trader will not be within the Schedule, but, if he is, then he will be disqualified. That I take it is what my hon. and learned Friend objects to.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: With the greatest possible respect, I would suggest that my right hon. Friend totally misconceives the object of this Amendment. What we want is that it should be a simple matter for the Board of Trade to say, as a matter of course, that the licence should be granted to a company in such a case as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, where but one half of 1 per cent. of the capital is held by two Austrian ladies.
  Mr. MASON: I hope the Solicitor-General will in the interests of his own Bill try and make it popular, and not unduly create friction. If he desires to avoid creating friction, and is wishful to create a favourable atmosphere, then let him accept the Amendment and thus show that the Board of Trade are anxious to facilitate the trade and only withdraw licences where it is inexpedient they should be granted. Let him assume that people are innocent until they are proved to be guilty.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: As I do not want to exclude other Amendments from discussion, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that the grant of a licence is expedient."
  The effect of my Amendment is to ensure that where persons do come under the Schedule no licence is to be granted. I attach very great importance to this Amendment because the form in which the Bill is now drafted gives to the Board of Trade power to say to one man, "You may earn your living," and to another many "You may not," although both of these people are in exactly the same position under the First Schedule of the Bill. No such power has ever before been given to any Government Department. Take the case of the liquor licences. Who grants them? Not a Department of the Government, but the magistrates, and, in certain cases, the London County Council. They are granted by the Courts of Law. In the first instance they are granted by the licensing committee of the justices, with an appeal from their decision to a higher Court. But the whole of these matters are in the hands of the legal authorities in this country. Now we come down and say in. this Bill that a Government Department. shall have the power of declaring that one particular person shall not carry on a business by means of which he earns his livelihood, while another person may do so. See what a temptation that puts before a Government Department. Think how easily such a provision may lead to, corruption.
  5.0 P.M.
  In the first place, this Bill lasts for five years after the War. We do not in the least know who is going to occupy the position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not in three or four years' time but in three or four months' time. We do not in the least know, under the provisions of the New Reform Bill, what sort of House will be returned here at the next General Election, and we do not in the least know who are going to form the Government of this country. In all those circumstances, is it wise to give to a single Department this enormous power? One of the great failings of democracies has always been that they have often—in fact, nearly always—led more or less to corruption. The power of Government of facials to interfere in the life and in the business and trade of the country naturally gives opportunities to favouritism. I think myself it is quite possible that if this does become law, at any rate, bribes will be offered to

  1033
  the Department to admit certain people. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about that. I am not at all sure that under certain circumstances that would 'not be so among—I do not say the heads—the minor officials of the Department. We have had something of this sort in the Clothing Department, and I am not talking at random. We have had minor officials—I think, in the Clothing Department at Chelsea—convicted of taking bribes in order to pass certain goods. What is to prevent a similar course occurring among the minor officials of the Board of Trade in order to put favourably before their superiors the case of a person who has applied for a licence? Surely, if we are going to say that it is in the interests of the country that certain people who are alien enemies, or that certain companies who have alien enemy money in their capital, are not to do certain things it is Parliament who ought to say whether those people are at liberty to do it or whether they are not.
  If the object of the Bill is, as has been stated, to stop this, why do we want to give power to the Board of Trade to permit it? If it is right that these people should not deal, if it is in the interests of the country that they should not do so, if it is going to save life in the future, as we have been told is the case by the late Minister of Munitions, if all these things are agreed, surely there can be no doubt that none of these people ought to have this power of dealing. If, on the ether hand, the Bill is brought forward with an object which has been concealed and which has not been frankly stated to the House, then I can understand that it may mean that certain people will be granted licences and that other people will have those licences withheld. I say that is a procedure to 'which this House ought not to lend itself, and that if the Bill is honestly designed to prevent alien enemies having dealings in these metals, this House should say there is to be no exception, or if there is to be an exception there must be a new Bill brought in modifying the old Bill. One of the chief reasons why I objected to this Bill and why I fought against it on the Second Reading was this very provision. If this Bill is passed and this provision is put in, is it going to stop there? Will not other Departments come forward and ask for the same power, the same privileges, and the same control over the trade of the country
  1034
  which we are going to give by this Bill to the President of the Board of Trade? If that is so, shall not we be met by the argument that we have already created a precedent, that we have done it under this Bill, and that, therefore, there is nothing unusual in doing it under another? It is because I feel that the future of this country, so far as regards trade, is really at stake at the present moment, and that if we now—as we shall do if we pass this Bill with this provision in it—permit for the future a Government Department to have the right to say, "You may do your business, and you may not," we shall be entering upon a course which is bound to lead to failure and corruption, that I move this Amendment.
  Mr. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir A. STANLEY: The object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to remove entirely any discretion the Board of Trade might exercise with respect to the issue of these licences. I will say at once that we cannot accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be that all of the companies, firms, and individuals who came within the First Schedule of the Hill would not be entitled to, and would not receive, a licence. Some company, firm, or individual which had prior to this been engaged in the metal trade of this country, but which by a mere accident found itself within the Schedule, would not be entitled to a licence to continue to trade in these metals. Surely that is not a fair way of dealing with the trade. I would remind the right hon. Baronet that it would not be possible for any company, firm, or individual, which, as I have said, found itself by accident coming within the provisions of the Schedule, to bring itself by its own act outside the Schedule. That could not be done, and there it must remain a permanent disability. Throughout the whole time this Act is in force they could not continue to trade in these metals. Take the instance given by the hon. Member opposite of a company, with which he sass he is associated, and which by some accident of some few shareholders, by virtue of their marriage I believe, being enemy subjects, is brought within the Schedule. Is it going to be argued that simply because of that disability alone you are going to bar that company from even being considered as really entitled to a licence? Surely it cannot be suggested that this

  1035
  House would approve an Amendment of that kind. It must be borne in mind that we are living under new conditions. We are living in a new world, and are faced with entirely new circumstances. Things that were possible before the War are impossible in the interests of our trade to-day. I at once accept the statement of the Mover of the. Amendment that the trade of this country is really at stake. I accept that at once, and it is because we do accept that situation that we have brought in this particular Bill to try to put at least this industry on a secure foundation. I wish to make it quite clear that there are undoubtedly instances where a company, firm, or individual would come within the Schedule, but the mere fact that they do come within the Schedule should not in itself mean that they should not be entitled to a licence, and it is desirable to give to the Board of Trade the power of discretion. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet that even the subordinate officials of the Board of Trade would be subject to the bribes which he suggested. I would remind him that in a matter of this kind in such a Department as the Board of Trade—and I am sure this would be true of any other Government Department—the administration of such an important measure as this would not be left to subordinate officials to determine, and he may be assured that the administration of the power conferred on the Board of Trade by this Act will be exercised fairly, honestly, and with due discretion.
  Mr. BRUNNER: I am very glad that the President of the Board of Trade does not see his way to accept this Amendment. If he did he would certainly have to modify a great many of the stipulations of the Schedule, but I want to disabuse his mind of the opinion that there is any very large class in this country which wants to see the Board of Trade controlling commerce after the War. The sooner we get rid of Government control the better for everybody concerned. We absolutely deny that the non-ferrous metal industry is in any need of assistance of the Board of Trade. There was never any time when this country had to pay more for its metal than any other country in the world, when freights were considered, and therefore, if the President of the Board of Trade drops this Bill, he may be quite certain that the trade of Great Britain will not come to any harm whatever.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I should be, very much inclined to support the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), because, as a matter of fact, I, with him, strongly object to any Department having such a. power as that of giving licences according to their discretion, but if he will look at Sub-section (5) he will find that any question arising between the Board of Trade and any company, firm, or individual as to whether any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule apply, it can be referred to the High Court, and there you get a judicial decision as to whether the Board of Trade are entitled to act or not. Of course, there may be a great many cases on the border-line where people and companies who were at one time enemy, and even up to the date of November, but I take it that if those companies and firms purge themselves of all enemy association the Board of Trade will either grant a licence or an appeal to the High Court, who will obtain that licence for them. I think, therefore, the words could be left as they are, and that the right hon. Baronet might be satisfied with Subsection (5).
  Amendment negatived.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), after the word "unless" ["unless suspended or revoked"], insert the words "shall remain in force unless and until it is."
  Leave out the words "shall remain in. force."—[Mr. Wardle.]
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: On a point of Order. May I move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. G. Terrell), at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words "for the period of this Act"?
  Sir A. STANLEY: We have dealt with that.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: If that is so, I do not wish to move. It was only in order to get an explanation that I proposed to do so.
  Further Amendments made: In Subsection (4), after the word "the" ["set forth in the Schedule"], insert the word "First."
  After the word "Act" ["Schedule to this Act"], insert the words "or in the case of a company, firm, or individual, to which a licence has been granted not withstanding that it was subject to any

  1037
  such condition as aforesaid, that it is expedient that the licence should be revoked or suspended."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words "as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual, or as to whether or not the company is controlled by a company, firm, or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply, the," and to insert instead thereof—

  "(a) as to whether or not the business carried on by the company, firm, or individual, is such as to require a licence under this Act; or

  (b) as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the First Schedule of this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual; or

  (c) as to whether or not the company, firm, or individual is controlled by a company, firm, or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply; or

  (d) as to the requirements of the Board of Trade for the production of books or documents for inspection."

  My Amendment consists of four paragraphs. The effect of the new elements introduced in this Amendment is to give a reference to the High Court as to whether or not the business carried on by the company, firm or individual is such as to require a licence, and, secondly, as to the requirement of the Board of Trade for the inspection of books or documents. These proposals are brought forward in response to pledges which have been given to the Committee. One question raised was in regard to wholesale trading and other trading, and another point was with regard to the documents, it being argued that it might be vexatious to call upon traders to produce their books. The words in the Bill are "such inspection as may be reasonably required" and this Amendment gives an appeal as to whether that requirement is reasonable or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (6) insert the words "and where the application is made with reference to the suspension or revocation of a licence the licence shall not be suspended or revoked until the question has been determined by the Court."
  1038
  In Sub-section (7), leave out the words "but in the latter case such publication shall not take place, pending the final decision of the Court."
  At the end of Sub-section (8), add the words "and the reference to a Divisional Court of the King's Bench shall be construed as a reference to a division of the Court of Session."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

  CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Require Information and Inspection of Documents.)
  The Board of Trade shall have power at any time to require any person who, being a director, partner, manager, or officer of, or the holder of, or person interested in, shares or securities of any company, firm, or individual which has applied for the grant of a licence, or to which a licence has been granted under this Act, is able to give any information as to the constitution, control, or management thereof or the business carried on thereby or the beneficial interest of any person therein or in any shares or securities thereof, to furnish such information within such time as the Board may direct, and for the purpose of obtaining or verifying such information any person appointed by the Board in that behalf shall be entitled to inspect any books and documents belonging to or under the control of such company, firm, or individual.
  Amendments made: After the word "require" insert the words "the applicant for a licence, or a licensee, or."
  Leave out the words "firm, or individual" ["shares or securities of any company, firm, or individual"], and insert instead thereof the words "or firm."
  After the word "Act," insert the words "or by which the applicant or licensee is controlled, or being the manager of the business carried on by an individual, applicant, or licensee."
  At the end of the Clause, add the words "the inspection of which may reasonably be required for the purpose aforesaid."— [Sir A. Stanley.]

  CLAUSE 3.—(Offences.)
  (1) If any person carries on the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing in any metal or metallic ore in contravention of this Act without a licence, he shall on an information being laid by or on behalf of the Board of Trade be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three

  1039
  months, or to a fine of one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "of" ["a fine of 2100 "], and insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding."—[Sir A. Stanley.]
  Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "pounds," to insert the words "for each day during which the offence continues."
  Mr. PRINGLE: This is a very large change in regard to penalties provided by the Bill. Originally the penalty was £100, and by the Amendment now proposed it is provided that the penalty shall be "not exceeding £100 for each day during which the offence continues." This may involve a very large sum of money, and if the Board of Trade is convinced that £100 is insufficient as a maximum pecuniary penalty, instead of making it an indefinite penalty, I think it would be much better to increase the amount of the maximum. In these circumstances I think we should have a reply from the Government on this point.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE:I should like to say a word in support of what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire. During the Committee stage I pointed out the difficulty with regard to this penalty, and I suggested that if the fine had to be £100 there would certainly be cases in which that sum was in excess of the penalty which ought to be inflicted. Whereupon my right hon. Friend in a jocular way said, "By all means we will make it £100 a day." I did not raise the matter at the time again, and I decided to wait to see what would be put down on the Paper. I think this amount ought to have been increased from £100 to a sum not exceeding £1,000. Under this proposal for what might be almost a technical offence the Court might inflict a penalty out of all proportion to the offence committed. My hon. Friend's suggestion is almost identical with what I put forward on Monday last, when I suggested that the penalty might he increased to £1,000.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I think it might be better to keep the fine at £100 with a maximum not exceeding £1,000. Like my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, I thought the President of the Board of Trade's suggestion was a jocular remark.
  1040
  It would be very unusual in a Statute fixing the term of imprisonment at not exceeding three months to have a fine of £1,000, which would certainly be rather disproportionate as far as it compares with other Statutes. A sum of £1,000 is very high as compared with the amount of imprisonment, and I should have thought that £500 would have been nearer the mark.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has considered this matter very carefully. When you look at the Schedule you find there disqualifications which might not be disclosed for months. There is the disqualification with regard to hearer shares. Certain Amendments which have been embodied in the Bill enabled companies to call in bearer shares and issue certificates. All this might take time, and it might even fake twelve months or 300 days, and imagine in such a case a fine of £230,000! I know there are fines in some cases of £50 a day for not filling up certain papers, but that provision is a dead letter, and the only time in which maximum penalties are inflicted applies to hon. Members who come here and vote when they are not entitled to do so. The offences provided for here are not those that a man will do deliberately, and he may be disqualified for something of which he was quite unaware, but which is provided for in the Schedule. It might take weeks to find this out, and a man might go on quite innocently for five or six months. I suggest that the penalty should be £100 a day and not exceeding in all £500. I do not like the proposal for each day, because there may be a great many days in which a man may not know that he is doing wrong
  Sir G. HEWART: I think this Amendment ought to be accepted. I would ask the House to put itself in imagination in the position of a Court which has to deal with an offence of this kind. There are two possible penalties. One is the penalty of imprisonment, and the other is the penalty of a fine. No doubt in a proper case there might be both imprisonment and fine. The fine which is stated in the Bill is the maximum fine. There is nothing to prevent a Court in a proper case from imposing a penalty of 40s. It appeared in the course of the discussions in Committee that it was desired and was desirable that in the case of a continuing offence there should be a money penalty calculated per day. It follows from that,

  1041
  if the House is so far with the Government, that there ought to be as an alternative to imprisonment in the case of a continuous offence a fine which is increased per day as the offence continues; but it is said that there ought to be a maximum of £1,000, or, as I think my hon. Friend said, £500. I would ask the House to consider the effect of inserting that maximum. It would simply be this: If there were a gross and a long-continued offence upon the part of a rich company, firm, or individual, unless the Court were satisfied that a money penalty of £500 would meet the case, there would be no further punishment except the punishment of imprisonment. I submit that it is not desirable that the hands of the Court should be fettered in that way. The House is not saying what penalty should be imposed. It is only prescribing the limits within which the penalty may be imposed. No exception is taken to the figure of £100 in the first place, and, if that is right, I submit that there is no reason why it should not also be the cumulative daily penalty. The objections to the insertion of a maximum are very strong, and I submit that this Amendment should be accepted.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I do not profess to be a lawyer, and perhaps my reading of this Section is quite incorrect. The penalty is to be imposed after summary conviction has taken place, and there is to be a penalty for each day during which the offence continues. I imagine that any offence previous to that conviction would be purged by the conviction, and that any offence which took place after conviction would become a new offence for which the person might be brought to book. Would not that be so?
  Sir G. HEWART: It does not follow that the offence is purged if there is a conviction subsequent to it. It would depend on whether the offence was charged in the information leading to the conviction.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The original offence would be purged by the conviction, and a fresh offence would take place, for which there might be, and probably would be, a fresh conviction. Supposing you have an obstinate person who, at the end of ten days, had not discharged his offence by obtaining or trying to obtain a licence. He could be brought to book for a fresh offence and he could be fined a fresh £1,000. Therefore, if you put a limit of £1,000 to this penalty, it would really im-
  1042
  pose upon him a heavy and maximum penalty for every fresh offence that he commits. At the same time, I think you ought to limit the sum to £1,000.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Provision as to Warrants to Bearer.)
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:
  "(4) For the purposes of this Act the expression share warrants to bearer includes any bearer securities which confer on the holder thereof any voting power with respect to the management of the company."
  Mr. BRUNNER: I would like to ask what is the necessity for including in the expression "share warrants to bearer" any bearer securities which confer voting power"? Surely it is not necessary to say that. It surely cannot mean if the holder of a debenture is entirely unable to control the management of a company, that the debenture, so to speak, would come in. If the right hon. Gentleman could meet us on this point, I think we should be able to accept this Amendment.
  Sir A. STANLEY: The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that it would not be possible by a mere technicality to evade this question of the issue of bearer shares. It would be possible for a company to issue a bearer debenture and not a bearer share. They might call it by some other name. It is only to make it quite clear that we have a wide enough definition that these words are added.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Evidence of Documents.)
  No information as to any person or any business obtained under this Act shall without lawful authority be published or disclosed except for the purposes of legal proceedings under this Act, and if any person knowingly publishes or discloses any information in contravention of this provision he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment, and fine.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "without lawful authority."

  1043
  I cannot quite understand for what purpose information which has been acquired by the Board of Trade from the books of various traders, to which they are to have access, and which, of course, they will very thoroughly examine and investigate, outside that of a Law Court which is provided for, should be published or disclosed to anybody at any time. There must be some reason, but it does not appear on the face of the Bill, and for the purpose of ascertaining the reason, I move to leave out these words. I am told that the words "without lawful authority" are common form in matters of this sort, and therefore, although there is nothing in the Bill to show whether the President of the Board of Trade or the Treasury or the High Court is the lawful authority, I do not propose to ask what the words mean. It seems to me, if the lawful authority is the Board of Trade or some non-judicial body or person, then under these words the whole of the transactions of the trader might be made known and very considerable harm might be done to him.
  Sir G. HEWART: There will be no difficulty in accepting this Amendment provided that a consequential Amendment is made. My right lion. Friend is quite right in thinking that the words "without lawful authority" are in such a context common form. What they mean, and the whole of what they mean, is that the person who obtains the information on behalf of the Board of Trade is not to publish it to the world without lawful authority. If he disclosed it to the Board of Trade that would be a disclosure with lawful authority. If he published it to third persons, that would be without lawful authority, and he is not authorised to do it. I propose, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to omit the words "without lawful authority" and then to go on to omit the words "or disclosed," and later on the. words "or discloses." The effect would be that the communication of the information to the Board of Trade would be permissible, but that any publication to third persons would be prohibited.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That exactly satisfies me, and I accept the suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Sir. G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out the words "or disclosed."
  Mr. BRUNNER: What is the exact meaning of this word "published"? Does it mean by word of mouth?
  Sir G. HEWARTindicated assent.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "publishes," leave out the words "or discloses."—[Sir G. Hewart.]

  CLAUSE 8.—(Declarations.)
  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the following new Sub-section:
  "(4) For the purposes of this Section the expressions 'shares' and 'debentures' include stock and debenture stock and 'shareholder' and 'debenture holder' have corresponding meanings." —[Sir G. Hewart.]

  CLAUSE 9.—(Metals or Ores to which Act Applies.)
  The metals and ores to which this Act applies are zinc, copper, tin, lead, nickel, aluminium, and any other non-ferrous metals and ores to which this Act may be applied by order of the Board of Trade. The expression "metal" shall not include metal which has been subjected to any manufacturing process except such as may be prescribed; and the expression "ore" shall include concentrates, mattes, precipitates and other intermediate products.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out the word "nickel."
  The subject of nickel has been very inadequately dealt with in the course of these Debates by the Government. It was dealt with at some length by myself on the Second Reading, on which occasion I received no reply. I raised the matter again on the Committee stage, and I said then that whatever might be said of some of the other metals, certainly no case had been made out in regard to nickel. It had not been proved that this country or the Government had been embarrassed in regard to the supply of nickel. It had not been proved that the German metal combine had obtained the control of nickel. It had not been shown that British companies dealing in the metal were not able to look after themselves without any protection such as is offered by action of this kind. These things have not received an answer, though I think they demand an answer, but I have another matter to raise. which I think is equally important. I have information in my possession which

  1045
  indicates that the British Government itself is now a shareholder in a company which would not be entitled to a licence under this Bill. It has now been proved, by answers to questions in this House, that the British Government has an interest in a company known as the British-America Nickel Corporation. I maintain that this is a company with enemy association. Large shareholders in it are also shareholders in a company known as the Christiania Nickel Refining Works, as well as other mines and smelting works in Norway. Though these are operated by a company which is ostensibly a Norwegian company, they are nevertheless controlled by a German company in Frankfort. If that is so, and I have reason to believe that there is foundation for these statements—certainly statements to this effect have been published in newspapers in Canada without any contradiction on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the British-America Nickel Corporation—you have this curious situation, that the Government is now passing a Bill laying down certain conditions in relation to the trade in nickel which would prevent a company in which it is itself interested from carrying on business in this country. That is a very good reason for not including nickel in the Bill. I would draw the attention of the House to the third paragraph of the First Schedule, which lays down the condition,
  "That the company, firm, or individual is or was at, any time after the twelfth day of November, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, party to any agreement, arrangement, or understanding, which enables or enabled an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business."
  As I understand it, the business of these Norwegian shareholders, who are really holding for the Norwegian company, is being controlled or influenced by an enemy company. Here you have, therefore, the British Government, a large shareholder—indeed, some people say guaranteeing dividends on the shares of a company in which another company, influenced by the enemy, are large shareholders. I have given two solid grounds for excluding nickel from this Bill—first, that no case has been made out in respect of nickel as one of the metals which should be included either on the ground that the Government was embarrassed in relation to the stocks of nickel early in the War or on the ground of German
  1046
  control of nickel during or before the War and the second consideration which I have now been enabled for the first time, after great diligence and research, to discover—
  sir J. D. REES: It is not new matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is new matter to most Members of this House, if not to my hon. Friend, that the British Government is a shareholder in this corporation which- cannot carry on business in this country under this Bill. If that is the situation we are bound to insist that nickel should be excluded, so that the Government should not incur the penalties laid down by the Bill, namely, a fine of £100 or imprisonment for three months. The President of the Board of Trade cannot be allowed to go to gaol if this Bill were passed. We wish to save him from imprisonment, although prison may be one of the safest places in which to be later on and it might be a fate for which. many of his colleagues might envy him. We do not desire to see him made a victim of this protective and punitive legislation: therefore, I move this Amendment.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  We are coming a little nearer to the real foundation of this Bill. The British-America Nickel Corporation is somehow or other at the root of this Bill. If what my hon. Friend says is right—and I believe be is quite correct—in saying that the British Government has lent a large sum of money to this British-America Nickel Corporation, and if that corporation is under German influence, director indirect, this Bill is a peculiar parody upon That fact. It seems that this company and its ramifications have got into. the Board of Trade somehow or other, and they are trying to get out of it. I believe there is no genuine foundation for this Bill in the idea of metal control. You have never suffered from enemy control of nickel. France has the nickel mines of New Caledonia; Canada has nickel mines; and these two between them control the whole of the nickel trade. In fact, the great firm of Rothschild for many years—I do not know: whether they do it now—controlled the whole of the nickel trade, and if anybody tried to smelt nickel in this country he did it at his own peril, because the Rothschild's came in and undersold him in such a way that he could not possibly go on. The control of nickel, so far as there has been any control at all, has been

  1047
  with that great firm and has been in this country, Canada, and France. There is no pretence for saying that Germany controlled the nickel trade in the slightest degree.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am sorry I am not possessed of the necessary information upon which to give a complete reply to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), who has moved this Amendment. If the British Government is interested in, or has any control over, any nickel corporation, that transaction, whatever it was, has not been carried out during the time that I have been in office, therefore that transaction was not within my particular knowledge. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he has said—I have no knowledge—in regard to certain statements contained in Canadian papers on this particular point, but I would remind the hon. Member, even if it is true, and assuming that it is true, that the British Government has an interest in some nickel corporation, it would point to two things—one is that during the War the Government found it necessary to take some interest in a corporation in order to secure a supply of nickel to this country.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that his Department has answered a question to the effect that this corporation cannot supply any nickel to this country within two years?
  Sir A. STANLEY: That may be true. I do not know. What I have said was that if the British Government did find it necessary to interest itself in a nickel corporation, it probably did 89 with the idea that if might secure a supply of nickel for this country. It may not have succeeded in achieving its desire, but I should have thought that was one of the reasons that would have prompted a scheme of that kind, assuming that it was done. I would also remind the hon. Member that, even assuming that the British Government is interested in a corporation which has some enemy connection, that might bring this particular company within the Schedule, it does not necessarily follow that that company would be debarred from trading in nickel in this country. While I Personally am deeply appreciative of the effort which my hon. Friend has made to keep me out of prison, I would remind him 'hat the President of the Board of Trade
  1048
  can adopt the very simple expedient of licensing that particular company, and therefore relieve himself of that burden.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: He will licence himself.
  Sir A. STANLEY: That is not the particular point I desire to make. If the British Government has any connection with this company, and although it may come within the Schedule, it does not follow that that particular company would not receive a licence if, in the discretion of the Board of Trade, it was deemed desirable that a licence should be granted.
  Mr. BRUNNER: The exhibition of ignorance on this matter by the President of the Board of Trade is deplorable. I will further enlighten him upon the matter. I will read to him some of the evidence which was given before the Royal Ontario Nickel Commission, published by the Ontario Government early in 1917. It says in the course of this evidence that
  "Fourteen millions and a half dollars of the twenty millions of common stock of this company—"
  that is the British-America Nickel Corporation—
  "is in the name of a British subject resident in London. Allan Anderson is the holder"
  Has the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of Allan Anderson? Has he ever come into contact with him in the course of his Presidency of the Board of Trade. He told me some time ago, when this Bill was last before the House, that the investment in the British-America Nickel Corporation was merely a Treasury matter. Surely this is not the whole truth. If Sir Allan Anderson is the holder, and is an official of the Board of Trade—
  Mr. PRINGLE: He is the Comptroller of the Admiralty now.
  Mr. BRUNNER: If he is an official of the Government, holding this stock, it really ought to be a matter about which the President should know something. I hope that before allowing this Bill to pass we shall really get to the bottom of which Department is responsible for investing British money in the. British-America Nickel Corporation, and that we may get some real answer as to the necessity for this investment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I really do not see how this arises on the Bill. The matters referred to may be right or wrong, but are not a matter for legisla-

  1049
  tion. The question is whether A is right in this legislation to include nickel in this list of metals?
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it not relevant to point out that by including nickel in this Bill you will be excluding from trading this company in which the Government has actually taken an interest?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that is the effect of the Bill. The point is whether it should operate with a licence or not. That is the only point.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 10.—(Short Title and Duration.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1917.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out "1917" and insert instead thereof "1918."—[Sir A.. Stanley.]

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Conditions.)
  1. That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy, or who was at any time before the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen the subject of a State which subsequently became an enemy State.

  2. That in the case of a company, any capital of the company is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen held by or on behalf of an enemy, including any stock or shares of the company vested in the custodian by virtue of any order made under the Trading With the Enemy Acts, 1914 to 1916.

  3. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding, which enables or enabled an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business.

  4. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power in any undertaking whether or not in the United Kingdom, engaged in business of a kind to which this Act applies, in which
  1050
  enemies are also interested, directly or in directly to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power.

  5. That the company, firm, or individual, is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of their or his business to enemy influence or association.

  6. That, in the case of a company, the company has issued share warrants to bearer and has not given notice under this Act requiring the holders of the share warrants to surrender their warrants for cancellation.

  For the purposes of this Schedule—
  The expression "enemy" means a subject of an enemy State and· an enemy controlled corporation.
  The expression "enemy State" means Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.
  The expression enemy controlled corporation "means any corporation—

  (a) where the majority of the directors or the persons occupying the position of directors by whatever name called, are subjects of a State as aforesaid; or

  (b) where the majority of the voting power is in the hands of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid, or who exercise their voting powers directly or indirectly on behalf of persons who are subjects of such a State as aforesaid; or

  (c) where the control is by any means whatever in the hands of persons who are subjects of such a. State as aforesaid; or

  (d) where the executive is an enemy controlled company or where the majority of the executive are appointed by an enemy controlled company.

  The expression "capital" in relation to a company means any shares or securities issued by the company which carry, or would, if the necessary formalities were complied with. carry any voting power with respect to the management of the company and shall also include debentures and debenture stock and money lent to the company.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "any manager or."

  1051
  I was under the impression that the Solicitor - General had accepted this Amendment on the Committee stage. At any rate, the Solicitor-General will see by referring to the OFFICIAL REPORT that he expressed willingness to accept it. I was under the impression that it was actually accepted and when I found the words in the Bill again I was very surprised. Without these words the condition will read
  "or the individual, or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual."
  I do not know whether I am wrong in saying that the Solicitor-General said he would accept those words.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and learned Friend's recollection is not quite correct. Friend's recollection is not quite correct. committee was so to amend Condition I as to make it read, "That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any principal officer employed by," and so -on. It is quite true that in the course of the discussion upon that Amendment I said, on the spur of the moment, having regard to the particular phraseology of this condition, that the simpler thing would be to omit the words "manager or other," so as to make it read "any principal officer employed by"—because upon the phraseology of this condition it is assumed that the manager is a principal officer, hence the word "other" before "principal officer"—and I said that the manager was regarded as being a principal officer, whoever else might or might not be a principal officer. But if my hon. and learned Friend will refresh his memory by looking at what took place, he refused to accept that Amendment. I will not conjecture the reason, but the useful effect of his refusing to accept it was that we have had a little further opportunity for consideration, and although the word "other" in this condition may be somewhat incorrect, because it assumes that the manager is a principal officer, I am not any longer prepared to accept this Amendment, because it has been held in some cases that the manager is not a principal officer, and although no doubt the words in this Bill assume that he is, it is quite useful that the word "manager" should remain. My hon. and learned Friend probably remembers the little couplet,
  1052
  "Those who will not when they may, When they would they shall have nay."
  There was a moment, no doubt, when an offer was made to put in these words, but the offer was not accepted. I am glad it was not accepted, because I think the word "other" is wrong and the word "manager" should remain.
  Mr. HOLT: I think the Solicitor-General is in a less satisfactory frame of mind than he was on the Committee stage. I think he was right then and wrong now. I do not think a manager is necessarily in fact a principal officer. After all, the word "manager" has no statutory meaning itself. It is a mere title which may be given to one man of a trifling character and withheld from another who is doing much more important work. Surely the words "principal officer" are sufficient to cover any case. The only case in which a manager would not be held to be a principal officer would be when he was in fact not a principal officer, and seeing that what you want to get at is a person who is in fact a principal officer, and not merely a person who may be called by the name of manager, I should have thought it was very much better to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, after the word "person" "["is a person who is or has been"], to insert the words "not being a British subject."
  I am sorry to take up time in discussing a matter which was fully discussed in Committee, but this Amendment raises a question not of administrative convenience, but of principle. I want again to raise the question on treating one class of British citizen in a different manner from that in which all other classes of British citizens are treated. It appears to me that there is a very great objection to introducing a thing which I believe is unknown at present in the law of this country—two classes of citizens, one of which has not got precisely the same civil rights as the other. A naturalised citizen, whether of enemy origin or not, is entitled to all the rights of any other citizen. He is allowed to have a vote for Members of Parliament, and he is entitled, if chosen by a body of electors, himself to sit in Parliament. He may even be a member of the Government or of the War Cabinet. But under this Bill it is proposed that a person so situated is not to be allowed to deal in non-ferrous metals unless he has some

  1053
  rather special licence or favour from the Board of Trade. That is really an intolerable state of things. It is a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government towards the citizen to whom naturalisation papers have been issued. If it is proper to make a distinction between citizens who become citizens by naturalisation and those who become citizens by birth, it ought to be made in the naturalisation laws, and it ought to be explained to the new citizen, when he accepts citizenship, that he is to have it on less favourable terms than those on which citizens by birth hold their citizenship. You have no moral right, having granted to anyone full citizenship, to take it away from him without the clearest evidence that he himself has committed some wrongful action. It is a very cruel case as regards many of these men. There are men who will have a stigma fixed upon them by this Bill, who have spent nearly the whole of their lives in this country, who have lived here as honoured citizens, and whose sons have fought and fallen on the battlefield for us, and they are to have this stigma fixed upon them without a particle of evidence adduced by anyone that they have been doing something wrong. This is also a very unsatisfactory proposal when you come to consider the case of any persons who may become British citizens by force. If we are to annex, as I hope we may, some of the German colonies and possibly some of the Turkish dominions, persons who have British citizenship forced upon them will be made to realise that they are not admitted into the British Empire on the same terms as other citizens. That is not a policy which is likely to be conducive to a satisfactory settlement of boundary questions which will arise in the Peace settlement. It is a policy which, if it had been adopted towards the last enemy with whom we were in conflict, would have prevented one of the most distinguished members of the War Cabinet from dealing in non-ferrous metals. This is a proposal for which there can be no defence, and, indeed, no defence has ever been offered. It has never been suggested that any public advantage is going to be derived from this proposal. It is unworthy of the greatness of the British Empire and ought to be rejected.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In my opinion this is by far the most objectionable Clause in the Bill, and it
  1054
  is made all the more objectionable by the attitude the Government has displayed towards the House. There have been many ways in which the Government might have eased the passage of the Bill and made this Clause less offensive, but on each occasion when they had an opportunity they always took the other line. There is a later Amendment on the Paper to-day which exemplifies the same spirit. The Government actually reaches this point now, that not only is it going practically to refuse the right to trade to anyone who has ever been a subject of any of these enemy States—that surely would have been enough even in this House of Commons acting under war influence—but it is actually telling the House that it is going to put the burden of proof upon these people to show that it is expedient that they should trade, and that is one of the reasons which made me move an Amendment earlier to-day. It seems to me to be as objectionable as anything can be that you are going to claim that the Board of Trade shall interfere in any way with the full rights of citizens without any case being proved against them, and it does not seem to me to be made very much better by what we were told on an earlier occasion by the President of the Board of Trade, that there were certain people whom the Board had reason to suspect and apparently could not convict. There is not an oligarchal Government in the world that does not say, where it cannot convict a man on evidence, "let us do it without." Not only does the Board of Trade now claim to convict people without evidence, but it has also been most industrious throughout the Bill to prevent there being any single appeal to anyone with any judicial experience from the exercise of their discretion in which they decide that these people, whom they cannot convict on any evidence, are yet to be held guilty without evidence, and from that conviction there is to be no appeal whatsoever.
  I know perfectly well that it is merely beating the air to repeat the protest that one has already made. I am perfectly aware of the fact that they intend to treat naturalised subjects in this way, for the first time in modern English history, without giving any reason to the House, and then—because their case on every one of these metals, as far as I am able to understand, has been absolutely riddled—merely because they desire to have this power, as they say, in the public interest,

  1055
  they give no reason for it, and they proceed to treat these people just as though they were enemies, and further than that, they treat them infinitely worse than if they were foreign subjects who were now in hearty sympathy with the Germans. You have this position, that the Government says a man who was naturalised thirty or forty years ago, and has every way done his duty as a British citizen, may not trade in non-ferrous metals unless the Board of Trade thinks it expedient. Take the case of a Dutchman whose sympathies are and have been entirely pro-German throughout the War. He can trade in non-ferrous metals whether the Board of Trade think it expedient or not. What we are actually going to do is to put penalties upon loyal naturalised subjects which you have never dreamed of putting upon others who are flagrantly and openly and confessedly hostile to this country. That is certainly a new method of administration of the law in this country. What on earth we think we are going to gain by bringing such principles into our law I cannot imagine. You are going to describe these people in these terms, as
  "any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager, or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy."
  I understand that it is the intention of the Government that the words shall stop there. In other words you are going to say boldly that any person who has ever been or is a subject of one of these States is a person who is or has been an enemy.
  Sir G. HEWART: The fact that this matter was argued at great length in Committee is, I know, not a reason why it should not be argued now. But that fact is a reason why what was said in Committee should not be restated in full on Report. My hon. and learned Friend was made aware in Committee, if he was not aware before, that the object of the words in the Bill is not to disqualify a naturalised British subject, who was formerly a German, but it is to bring the case of such a person under review. In the remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade it was, I think, made abundantly clear that, in the case of such a person as has been described by my hon. and learned Friend, who is a
  1056
  naturalised subject, who has lived in this country for a long time, and whose behaviour has been not only free from suspicion, but positively and actually good, the effect of the review would be that, notwithstanding that he had been a German subject, he would be granted a licence. What is of importance is that the person occupying that position should be a person whose case shall be reviewed. No doubt, as my hon. and learned Friend has observed, the policy of this country in relation to naturalisation has been an. extremely liberal policy, and nobody desires to detract or subtract from it. But we are dealing here with a special emergency, and with a particular and, single matter. The object of the Bill is to secure, if we can secure, and as far as legislation can secure, that these particular industries shall be free from enemy association, influence and control. I quite agree that the Bill is not perfect. It does not go the whole length, but within its limits, is it not idle to suggest that where legislation of that kind is introduced you can close your eyes to the fact that there are in this country a large number of naturalised British subjects. who formerly were Germans. I am not going to say a word against them, and I desire to make no imputation upon them, but there are plain facts of origin and of race which no certificate of naturalisation can obliterate. Where the object is to bring persons of a certain type under review and give the Board of Trade, in a proper case, the power of preventing those persons from carrying on a particular business, I submit that it is idle to say that at some earlier date, under circumstances quite different. they were naturalised as British subjects. My hon. and learned Friend will remember as well' as I do the assurance given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the mode of treatment which might confidently be expected in the case of naturalised British subjects whose conduct had been such as it should be.
  My hon. and learned Friend argued, for the purpose, I suppose, of reductio ad absurdum, that, although the Bill brought in a loyal British subject who had been a German, there were many other persons omitted. He said that it omitted a Dutchman. Does he propose to bring in a Dutchman? The fact that a Dutchman is omitted is no reason why former Germans should not, in a proper case, be included. I cannot understand

  1057
  the arguments against the Bill, so far as it contains what it should contain, based upon the ground that there are other things which it omits. Finally, my hon. and learned Friend committed himself to the argument that the omission of certain words in the Schedule had qualified the meaning of the words "enemy State," and that it was intended to be, and would lave the effect of being offensive.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I did not say it intended to be offensive.
  Sir G. HEWART: Well, that it would have the effect of being offensive. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Clause, he will see that in consequence of an Amendment, which was accepted in Committee, the definition of "enemy State," in paragraph 6 of the Schedule has been altered. The expression, "enemy State," is no longer defined in general terms. It is defined as particular countries—Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. That change having been made, it became totally unnecessary to continue the, general words in proviso 1. It is for that reason and for no other reason that the words have been omitted. If the policy of this Bill is right, if the object at which the Government is aiming is an object which we ought to aim at, it is essential not only that we should disqualify former Germans from carrying on this trade in proper cases, but that we should bring the cases individually before the Board of Trade for review.
  Mr. L. JONES: The Solicitor-General has said that this matter was dealt with at length in Committee, and that it was not necessary to repeat the arguments now. As I did not take part in the Debate on this particular Amendment in Committee, I must allow myself to say a few words now, because in many ways I regard this as the most important part of the Bill. I think it involves a departure from the agreement made with these men and women when they were admitted as citizens of this country. The arguments which the Solicitor-General has used might be directed against the naturalisation of Germans or of foreigners generally. There would be a great deal of force in what he said if it is true that all foreigners retain sympathy with the country of their birth, and cannot adopt the feelings and habits of the people with whom they are naturalised. That is a
  1058
  very strong argument against naturalising them, but it is no argument. for breaking your agreement with them when you have naturalised them. These things should have been foreseen. The right hon. Gentleman argued that circumstances have changed. Is not that the argument invariably used by every man when he wants to break a bargain into which he has entered? Was not that the very argument used by the German Chancellor, that a country in danger of its existence could not be bound by agreements? You made these agreements with these foreigners, and you have no right to disregard the agreement because it is inconvenient for you and it is difficult for you to carry out your intention if you do not disregard the agreement. You should have thought of that at the time you admitted them. No argument that I have heard has given the slightest justification for this Clause.
  Party is dead in the country, but I cannot forget that it is a Liberal Minister who has addressed the House. May I remind him of another Liberal Minister who spoke many years go in this House in regard to the treatment of a naturalised alien? Lord Palmerston spoke in House for five hours on his famous Civis Romanus Sum, and he interpreted that as "I am an English citizen." The person in question was Dom Pacifico. I do not know how he became to be naturalised, but he was a naturalised British citizen. That was good enough for Lord Palmerston, and he spoke here for justification and for reparation in regard to the attack upon Dom Pacifico. That is how Liberal statesmen in the past felt in regard to naturalised British subjects, and I do protest that the President of the Board of Trade should profess that this is a small matter. It is very regrettable that they should have so little regard for the traditions of this country, and for the pledged word of this country, in regard to these naturalised aliens that they should try to draw a distinction between one kind of British citizen and another. It has been, and it ought to have been, the proud boast of this country that a man was a British citizen and that that gave him all the rights of his British citizenship. That will be so no longer after this Bill. I do not envy the. Government the part they are playing in this great breach with the traditions of the past, and I think we

  1059
  shall all live to be thoroughly ashamed of having been party to such an attack upon a people because we are at war with them. It is quite true we are at war with the Germans, the Austrians, the Bulgarians, and the Turks to-day. We have Allies to-day. With our present Allies we have been at war in the past. With our present enemies we have been alliance in the past. Thank goodness the world does not always maintain its enmities! Unfortunately it does not always retain its friendships. It is deeply regrettable that you should betray the honourable traditions of this country because you are in a particular difficulty. I regret what the Government. are doing, I protest against it, I have no share in it. and I say that they will be ashamed of it.
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Solicitor-General said that we are not disqualifying these men, but only making them come under review. Is not that disqualification?
  Mr. HEMMERDE: And putting the burden of proof upon them.
  Mr. HENDERSON: You are not bringing other people under review. Why bring them under review'? The fact is that it is a very cowardly trick. Our men at the front are not afraid to meet the Germans, but there is a feeling amongst our commercial and industrial men that they are frightened to death of the Germans in competition. and this is an attempt to tie up the intelligence of these people and grip it so that it shall not come in competition with them in the future. Why are you doing it now? You have complete control of all these metals, and this Bill is going to be for after the War—for five years. Most likely the terms of peace will be against anything of the kind, and you will have to tear up your Act. In the meantime you will have appeared to the world, and to those who take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with facts, as having cast this slur upon the great integrity of your own country. Naturalisation was not easy thirty or forty years ago. The conduct of a person and his life are to be inquired into very strictly. He took the oath of allegiance. It is not suggested for a moment that he has ever broken that oath. Why should you come down on him? We are all angry with the Germans, and, naturally, I am as angry as
  1060
  anyone else, and then it is said, "We cannot get at the Germans over there to punish them. We will get at you here, whom we have admitted to citizenship, perhaps thirty or forty years ago, and we will penalise and disqualify you." We cannot get at the real offenders, the Metallgesellschaft, and these men are to be punished instead.
  The object is that these metals shall be free from all enemy association and control, but the metals are impersonal things. They are under control wherever they are. found. It is where they come out of the ground that you can control them. You. will never control them in any other way, by saying that you will only licence certain men. It is a most stupid thing. The very stupidity of it is abysmal. To do that you are going to put a stain on the honour of Great Britain, whose word is its bond.. I know some officers who have come from internment in Germany. They have told me that the Germans hate us more than they hate either the French or the Russians, but the Germans will take an English officer's word where they would not take the word of the others. That is the standard of character that we have had in the past, and even if you are going to lose a little control of a little wretched spelter, is that going to compensate you for breaking your word? I would rather lose control of the whole thing. But we have never lost any control through the Germans, but only by our own folly in not securing it when we could do so. But we have got it now. There is something else which may be said on the Third Reading,. but which I need not say now, but I regret that even for all that you think you are going to get out of this you should lay this. stain upon the escutcheon of the British Empire.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Before saying one or two words with regard to this Amendment, I should like to correct a mistake which I made in the Committee stage of the Bill when referring to the difficulty of getting rid of enemy associations and influence. I illustrated what I had to say in the case of copper by a reference to some of the great controllers of copper in America. I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry), whose firm is probably the greatest in the world in this business of copper, as representing Messrs. Guggenheim in this country. My hon. Friend has since corrected my information on

  1061
  that subject. He tells me that this is not correct. I feel that it is due to him to make it clear that in the illustration which I gave, which was not at all to his detriment, I introduced the name of Messrs. Guggenheim under a misapprehension. I join with my hon. Friends in their protest against the form of the Schedule. It is a matter of general agreement that naturalisation is one of the obligations which in this country have always been held to be sacred. The accident of birth gives to a man who is British born privileges which are enjoyed by probably no other citizen in the world, and, although we have been liberal and even generous in extending naturalisation to men who have been born outside the British Empire, we have up to the present, until this Bill was introduced, bound ourselves honourably by the obligations into which we entered. The supposition which is apparently in the minds of the promoters of this Bill, is that a man who has been naturalised is more likely to be in close association with the metal brokers and metal financiers of Frankfort than a man who has been born here and obtains his citizenship by natural right.
  There has been no evidence in the whole course of the Debate of that being based on any one fact or on any group of facts. I am sure that if there had been either my right lion. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. and learned Friend the learned Solicitor-General would have adduced it. They have done all they could to support their arguments by statements of fact. There has not been given a single case of the kind. They have omitted to give any instance of naturalised British subjects behaving, or having been under suspicion of behaving, as though they were in close association with enemy controllers or financiers of metal. But even if they had. surely that would not have justified any amendment of the naturalisation law, as provided for in the first Clause of this Schedule ! The question of national obligation is much too serious to be dealt with merely in a single Clause in the Schedule of a comparatively trivial measure. If the Government are not satisfied with the patriotism of those who have been naturalised, let them come to the House and straightforwardly amend the naturalisation law. Let them do it as covering the case of all naturalised British citizens. and riot merely those who have been in the metal trade. I have listened carefully,
  1062
  both in the Committee stage and to-day, to the case made by the Government for dishonouring a national obligation, and, as far as I can gather, the only reason for that is that now or during the next five years those who have been naturalised will behave dishonourably or unpatriotically.
  I do not hold a brief for any naturalised British subject. I have received communications from those who claim to be patriotic British subjects, and many of them state their case with great dignity. To some extent their case was met in Committee. It is not their point of view I am thinking of, but at the same time I think it would be well if you would have enough imagination to realise what must be the feelings of a man who accepted British citizenship on the undertaking, given in a most solemn State paper, that lie was to be regarded for all future time as though he were a natural - born Britisher, if he is to be under suspicion which is cast. on no other citizen, and also is cast on no other foreigner except those who are citizens of Germany, Austria, Turkey, or Bulgaria! A very large number of these men have proved their patriotism in a hundred ways. Most of them have given the most complete pledges of their devotion to this country. Many of them are now mourning sons who have been lost in our cause, and to cast a stigma on these people, without any notice and in direct breach of the obligation into which we entered, appears to me to be such a mean. and dishonourable transaction that I can scarcely understand that the Ministers who are responsible for it can have realised how profound is the disgust—I can use no weaker word—with which some of us, who believe that the obligations entered into by a nation ought to be observed, a thing for which mainly we are fighting now, at the way in which in this Bill an effort is made to amend the naturalisation laws. The phraseology which I have used is much stronger than any which I would think of indulging in in reference to any other part of the Bill, because I think that the Bill is a very weak and feeble way of dealing with the control of metals. I believe that the proper way is to control the metals and not to bother about the nationality of those who are in business in these commodities. This amendment of our naturalisation laws is a thing which no member of the Government can be proud of being a supporter.
  Mr. PETO: It is to be regretted that certain Members representing, no doubt, as they do, a group in this House and a certain body of opinion are the only persons to speak here in a Debate of this kind, as they are, I believe, entirely out of touch and out of sympathy with 99 per cent. of the people of this country. What mountains have been made out of a molehill! The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe, in an almost impassioned oration which preceded the speech to which we have just listened, in which the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was speaking very strongly on this question, dealt with it from the point of view of a breach of faith or a breach of contract. This condition is only one of six conditions. The Bill deals with companies who are trading under all these conditions and brings them within the purview of the Board of Trade in a particular matter. I am convinced that people generally in the country would think it a perfectly proper thing that persons who are of alien enemy origin, no matter whether they are naturalised or not, should come within the purview of the Board of Trade before they are given a licence and should only be given a licence if the Board of Trade think it expedient. That is what the public understand as being one of the main objects of this Bill. They do not share the views of those who draw this exaggerated picture in order to throw discredit on the whole of this Bill, and the whole effort of the Government to deal with this question, and make these accusations of breach of faith.
  There is no analogy between what is proposed in this Bill and the historic pronouncement to which reference has been made, as if the Board of Trade and its representative did not make it perfectly plain that in the case of these oft-quoted naturalised persons, who have been many years in this country, and whose sons have been fighting for us and all the rest of it, that in all such cases where the Board of Trade are satisfied they would be treated as British subjects, and not placed under any disadvantage. But right hon. and hon. Members are blinding our eyes to the facts of the case. It would be perfect folly on the part of the Government to assume that all persons who were naturalised even within a few months of the outbreak of the War are such whole-hearted British subjects, without the slightest connection or sympathy with the country of their origin, and that it would be perfectly safe
  1064
  in a Bill which purports to try to remove from alien control the metal resources of the Empire and the metal trade of this great city, if in such cases as that we were to say, "We have given to these people. under wholly different conditions, full citizenship, and, therefore, we shall go so far as to say that we shall not even look into the question whether they are persons who are wholly British in sentiment, or whether they are persons who are largely, if not entirely, enemy and alien in sentiment." There is no question of the Government coming here to alter the whole naturalisation law, and, as I said, the whole thing is a most absurd mountain made out of a most ridiculous molehill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, to leave out the words "or who was at any time before the 4th day of August, 1914, a subject of the State which subsequently became an enemy State."
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I just want to draw attention to one point in connection with this Amendment. It may appear a small point, but it seems to me one of some importance. The paragraph will now read with these words left out, "is a person who is or has been an enemy." I suggested that it would be much better that the Clause should read, "is a person who is or has been a subject of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, or Turkey." Anyone looking at the Clause would see that the words "is or has been an enemy" might be regarded as a somewhat offensive phrase, and if the words I suggest were adopted the Clause would have precisely the same effect and would achieve the object in a less offensive way.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): It might be that there would be some advantage in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but by the form in which the Bill stands at present it will be seen that the provision is explained by the definitions given in a later paragraph.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I am not asking that the principle of the provision should be altered, but merely to make the paragraph read, "where the person is a subject of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, or Turkey," which is a less offensive form

  1065
  than that contained in the Bill and would do no harm in any way to the measure. It is a mere drafting point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, in paragraph 2, to leave out the word "any" ["any capital of the company"].
  I move this Amendment, in connection with another which follows, to insert the words "carrying in the aggregate one-fifth of the voting power," so that the paragraph would read, "that in the case of a company, capital of the company carrying in the aggregate one-fifth of the voting power." I made a similar proposal in the Committee stage of the Bill, and the Government objected to it because the holder of one share might have control of the voting power. I am endeavouring now to meet that objection by proposing the Amendment in a different form, and so get rid of the objection. I have put it at one-fifth, but I do not care if it is a tenth, or a twentieth, if that would satisfy the Board of Trade. I want to deal with the case where a very small portion of the shares pass through enemy hands. There was a case in the Law Courts the other day, and I saw by the report of it that several trustees, one of them a member of this House, asked permission to pay money in connection with the settlement of a daughter of a Peer who had married an Austrian. They were successful in their application in regard to a part of the shares from which the settlement was derived. If the company in which these shares were held was trading in nonferrous metals then the company would be obliged to get a licence. I know the case of a lady, a widow, who was married to a German, her second husband. So far as I can make out, when a lady under those circumstances marries a German the automatic effect of that is that any company dealing in non-ferrous metals in which she has shares would have to get a special licence from the Board of Trade. I do not think anybody contemplates that. That is not the sort of case the Board of Trade wants to make a special inquiry about. I therefore submit that if the Government accept my Amendment it will remove from the Schedule all cases in which the enemy ownership is negligible.
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. There is a good deal more in this provision than the hon. Member seems to think is in-
  1066
  volved. Even less than a fifth might give control, but possibly one share might practically carry the whole of the voting, or control the management of the company. A mere fraction might carry with it, not necessarily the whole of the voting power, but a majority of the voting power, and carry with it, through the property, control of the management. We have given careful consideration to this paragraph, since the Committee stage, and if we could have found words to meet this particular Amendment, where only a mere fraction of the capital is involved, we should have met it. I think the hon. Member may rest assured that the Board of Trade will deal fairly with these cases to which he refers, but where a part of the share capital is under enemy control, that in itself is a disability.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in paragraph 3, after the word "agreement" ["any agreement, arrangement"], to insert the words "or contract for delivery."
  I have always said that one of the main reasons for this Bill is that we do not want contracts for delivery far ahead to be made for the produce of mines within the British Empire, and such contracts practically take the whole of the products of certain of these. mines for use in what are enemy countries. If the Lord Advocate tells me that any agreement would certainly include contracts for delivery, and that the Amendment I am moving is unnecessary from that point of view, that will satisfy people outside this House, who have been looking into the whole of this Bill and who do attach a certain amount of importance to having the matter specially emphasised by the words "or contract for delivery."
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): I think I can without hesitation give the hon. Gentleman the assurance which he asks for. There is really no doubt at all that in the conditions covered by any agreement would be included contracts for delivery.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 4.
  I say with the greatest confidence that I shall offer a very sound reason, and one which I think is unanswerable, why this paragraph should be omitted. It puts upon everyone who wishes to have a

  1067
  licence, or is licensed, a constant watching that he may not be tripped up by something which even the most careful watching may not prevent. On the Second Reading I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that in English companies the bulk of the shares would be 90 per cent. registered shares, and 10 per cent. bearer shares. My right hon. Friend saw the effect of bearer shares; he saw that you could not tell who might be the owners of that form of shares, and he has accordingly put a provision in the Bill by which the company is entitled to give notice in the "Gazette" or otherwise, to call in bearer shares and grant certificates of registration. In so far as that method is adopted, it may be enough, but the fact is, in regard to British companies, that you cannot tell from the register who are the owners of the shares. Possibly shares might be bought and put in the banker's name, that being a very common practice, for the obvious reason that the owner may borrow and pay off on the security of those shares. That method of nominating bankers to hold the shares enables the owner to avoid certain formalities in obtaining loans on the security and in paying them off. A very large proportion of the shares held in public companies stand in the names of bankers, so that it is impossible to find out who the real owners are. My right hon. Friend has put in a provision that any company carrying on business to which this measure applies can give notice requiring the shareholder or debenture holder to make a statutory declaration as to the beneficial ownership of the shares. That does not get over the difficulty. I may want to take shares in a company, and I find a great many names, but if I call upon the company to obtain a declaration as to the beneficial ownership of the shares in some names, they may tell me to go about my business, and how am I to compel them? Therefore, it is impossible for me to take such precautions as will prevent me incurring penalties. or perhaps have the licence revoked. Take the case of foreign companies. In America the practice is the reverse of that which obtains here, and the bulk of the shares are bearer shares, and it is impossible for me to find out who those shareholders are. I cannot ask the company then to call in the shares and issue certificates, because that is not the law there. Suppose I want to get control of a supply of ores for smelting in
  1068
  this country, and take a certain number of shares in an American company, how am I to find out before I do so that I am not putting my foot in a trap, or whether those bearer shares are held by a German company, which may also require certain ores? Yet the obligation is put on me that if I am to retain my licence or not have it revoked, I am not to take shares in an American company unless I am satisfied that the Germans have not two-fifths of the capital of that company. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose that I am to protect myself in that case? I do not think it is possible in the instance I have mentioned to do so, and as for ordinary shares, I do not see how anybody can compel a company to obtain these declarations before he takes an interest in that company. I think the Government would be very well advised to strike out this proposal altogether.
  Mr. BRUNNER: It seems to me not to be a Clause which does our enemy any harm, but one which directly injures us. I cannot conceive how the holding of shares in a company in South America in which Germans also hold shares can possibly do this country any harm. If a man wishes to acquire a company in South America, or anywhere outside the Empire. in which Germans are registered, I should think that is a good thing to do. But under this proposal you cannot do that, as you may lose your licence and the whole of your business. I think it is a monstrous and stupid Clause to put in the Bill. It seems to me that the Board of Trade have not thoroughly considered this matter. I would ask them to reconsider it, and in another place perhaps they may come to a different decision and take the Clause out. It is not only that it is quite unworkable, but in the sense in which it does work it injures British trade.
  Mr. CLYDE: I am afraid, notwithstanding the very strong expression of opinion to which the hon. Gentleman has just given vent, that we could not accept this Amendment without serious risk of impairing the efficiency of the Bill. The hon. Member took the view that this could be of no use and would be productive of harm. The purpose of it is to prevent arrangements by which influence is effected not directly by a German concern taking an interest in a British trade concern, but indirectly by establishing effective control in the form of a third company in which both Germans and British

  1069
  are interested. If those who have knowledge about the way in which these things are done, think that that experience is inaccurate or exaggerated then they may say that a proposal of this kind would do no good. But, after all, one can only proceed on the advice which the Department supplies, and with the information on which no doubt that advice was based, and the fact, therefore, I am afraid must be taken, certainly so far as I am concerned, that German influence on British trading concerns for German purposes was by no means effected only by direct and immediate participation either in profits or in voting power in British concerns on the part of Germans, but not infrequently was by means of a third concern in which both were interested and the affairs of which were so managed as practically to be in the interests of the German influence. That being so, those who hold those strong views will at least see why it is, T am bound to tell them, that the Board of Trade could not do without this Clause. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) tells us not only that he does not think this proposal is necessary, but he asks, "How are you to make it operate?" He put the complaint not of a company, but of somebody who desires to take shares in a company. I am not sure that that has very much to do with the question before the House. I quite see that somebody who wants to take a share in a company of the constitution or association of which he is not cognisant. may find himself in difficulty, but that is always so. A person may be desirous, for instance of taking shares in a company which turns out to he in German hands and association. It may be very hard for the shareholder to find out, hut I do not think it is the business of Parliament to help that shareholder in that respect. But it is the business of Parliament to help such a company, because the company may lose its licence.
  Mr. HENDERSON: A licence holder may desire to get shares in a similar company.
  Mr. CLYDE: I quite apprehend he is quite at liberty to get shares in any company he likes, but no doubt like any other person he must take his chance of what kind of company that is, and must, like every other person, make up his mind whether it is wise or not to do so. But there is 'no difficulty, as far as the com-
  1070
  pans is concerned, because by Clause 8 all the company has got to do is to give notice requiring shareholders or debenture holders to make a declaration as to the beneficial ownership. If the ownership is innocent there is no difficulty or trouble; if the ownership in point of fact involves German influences or association, or is of such a kind as to bring the company within one of the other conditions, then no doubt the company will either have to alter that state of affairs, or it may lose its licence. So far as the shareholder is concerned who wants to satisfy himself beforehand whether a particular concern runs any risk of being refused a licence, I do not think that is any business of Parliament, and we certainly would not be prepared to put anything into this Bill as to that. Where the hon. Member speaks as to the necessity to enable the company to find out where it stands, then under Clause 8 the company has complete power to discover who holds anything, be it bearer share or otherwise. Unless the power of limiting and excluding German control of British concerns is to he made illusory you must retain power enough to enable you, if necessary, to make inquiry. It is true that there is preserved and must be preserved to the Board of Trade a wide field of discretion.
  It is true, and always will be true, that that discretion can only be exercised where the facts are placed before the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade can only reasonably be asked to exercise discretion where the facts are properly disclosed by the person who wants the licence. After all, if there is no harm connected with a concern, there will be no difficulty in that; under the Bill they are absolutely entitled to have their licence. For these reasons, therefore, I think we could not do without paragraph (4), and I am afraid, therefore, we could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (4), to leave out the words "whether or not" ["in any undertaking whether or not in the United Kingdom"].
  Suppose a person wants, for some object or other, to get some interest in a company in America which has issued bearer shares. He buys a certain number of bearer shares, but before he does that, if he is going to run no risk, he must find out whether the Germans have a one-fifth interest in the American company. He

  1071
  cannot find that out, because the shares are bearer shares, and he has no power to compel that information. Therefore, he must either take that risk or abandon his enterprise. Let me give a simple case. There is an amalgamated company in America who have three sets of shareholders. The Germans hold one-third, the Americans one-third, and the British one-third, and each hold that one-third for the express purpose of getting a certain quantity of ore to smelt. Those shares are all bearer, and may change and chop about at any moment. If I want to get one-third, how can I be sure that in doing so T am not destroying my licence in this country? If I take an interest in any company in America which issues bearer shares, how am I to protect myself against being disqualified from a licence? That is the sole point.
  Mr. D. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. CLYDE: I think I have already said, but, at all events, I will try to make it plainer, that the question whether or not anybody should put his money into an American or any other concern outside this country is, and necessarily is, a question for him to determine before he does so whether it is safe or wise for him to do it. If the hon. Member proposes, as I think he does, that this Bill should give a proposing investor in a certain concern some means of assuring himself of its real character, I can only say I do not conceive it would be possible to secure that.
  Amendment. negatived.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I beg to move, in paragraph (5), to leave out the words "or association."
  In Committee I had an Amendment down to change the word "influence" to "control." The President of the Board of Trade assured me that the word "control" did not go far enough, and insisted on the word "influence." Another hon. Member moved to leave out the word "association." I then took the liberty of asking the Solicitor-General for an explanation of the word "association" and what was the legal meaning of it. This was the answer given by the learned Solicitor-General:
  "I find it difficult to substitute better words. What it means is a protection against businesses being directly or indirectly subject to enemy influence or association."—[OFFICIAT, REPORT. 16th January, 1918, col. 458.]
  1072
  Of course, that does not carry us any further. We all knew that association meant association, but we wanted to have something better than that. If this word remains in the Bill, I think it will be very unfair to any metal merchant or metal broker, because he ought to know what he may or may not do at the risk of having his licence revoked and losing his livelihood. We have never yet been told plainly whether any merchant, after this Bill becomes an Act, and after the War, of course, will be allowed to deal with German merchants or not—whether he will be allowed to buy for Germans or to sell for them or not. We have never had a plain statement as regards that question. As far as I can read the Bill, he will be allowed to do so. There is nothing in the Bill which can stop him, but we ought to have a clear explanation. Then let us carry our minds to what is likely to happen three or four years after the War. Are we to be allowed to associate with Germans and Austrians, to receive them and to meet them? All this, I suppose, is association. If we associate with them, it will clearly come under association. Is that forbidden three or four years after the War? Are we allowed to take an interest in any Austrian or Turkish mine, and, if so, is that association? Do we lose our licence if we do so? Surely we ought to come to a clear understanding as to what a metal merchant or a metal broker is or is not allowed to do, and as to what the Board of Trade may think comes under the definition of association. As we have had no such explanation, and as the word "association," in my mind, may mean anything and everything three or four years after the War, I think it is far safer that this word should be omitted, especially as the previous paragraph really embodies everything which is necessary for the object in view. The word "association" is far too wide and far too indefinite, and, in my opinion, ought. not to appear in this Bill without. anyhow. further explanation being given.
  Sir C. CORY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that this is much too indefinite a term. It is impossible for anybody to know what it really means, as it might mean anything, and a man might be deprived of his licence if he happened to associate with a German, if he happened to marry a German lady, or if he happened to have one share, I take it, in

  1073
  a concern with which Germans were interested, as it might be considered to be association with Germans. It is certainly not to the interests of British trade that this sort of thing should be carried too far, because we know companies exist in which English money has been invested with a view, not of helping Germans, but of helping British trade, and bringing raw material to this country. Are you going to prevent those things, which have been done with a view to helping British trade? It is a suicidal policy, surely It would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill had studied it before he submitted it to this House, rather than submitted things which are disastrous to the interests of British trade. In the case of the Coal Bill he gave an undertaking on the floor of this House which was absolutely broken.
  Mr. WARDLE: I think it is a great pity the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made an attack on my right hon. Friend in regard to another Bill. There is no substance whatever in the attack. With regard to the particular Amendment now before the House, it cannot possibly be accepted. The word "association," one is bound to admit, presents some difficulty, but it is a word which is quite well known. It has its meanings, and those meanings, of course, will have to be interpreted, but it has been interpreted now, because it is taken from the Trading With the Enemy Act, and we have found no difficulty in defining and applying it. The idea has been put forward that speaking to or marrying a German would come within the meaning of association under the Bill. The mere association of marriage would not constitute a ground under this Bill. There might be a ring with another enemy company. There might be a ring or a body with financial associations established. But it is the ordinary sense in which the word is used. I do not think there is any necessity to argue the question. We must have some word, because it is necessary to have the association of such a character as to bring it. within the Schedule.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I cannot associate myself with this particular Amendment. I have listened practically to every word of these Debates, and these are the only three lines of the Bill which have met my cordial approval. If they had been the only condition in the Schedule the Government
  1074
  might have made quite a good Bill. I hope there will be nothing done to destroy this one little blossom in an arid wilderness.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Arrangements are made by certain firms in Germany and certain firms in England who have their agencies in each country as to the regulation of their products, and as to what they shall sell and what they shall not sell in the way of certain goods. if the Germans were to sell their goods in England, would not that be association
  Amendment negatived.
  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. PETO:
  At end of paragraph 5, to insert the words:
  "That a person is, without the consent of the Board of Trade, a director or alternate director of any company to which. this Act applies who is not a British subject not of enemy origin and who has not made a declaration, and if required produced satisfactory evidence to the directors that he is a British subject and not subject to the influence of a foreign State, body, person, or corporation under foreign control.
  "That every director of any company to which this Act applies who is not a British subject or who is of enemy origin shall present himself for re-election at each annual general meeting of shareholders and be re-elected by a resolution to that effect passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of such members entitled to vote as are present in person or by proxy at the general meeting at. which the resolution is proposed before he is entitled to continue to act as a director."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes is, as to the first paragraph incapable of being construed; and, as to the second paragraph, is wrongly drafted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed; "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I am not going to inflict a long speech at this moment, but there are just two or three things I do wish to draw attention to in making this, my final protest against a Bill which, in my opinion, has been introduced without any justification and for which no justification has been put for ward in the course of these Debates

  1075
  This Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Bill deals with certain non-ferrous metals. I will just say, shortly, dealing with those metals, that no case has been made out for any one of them. As regards zinc we know perfectly well that the Government have already got over the difficulties raised by the Australian situation. As regards copper no one has suggested any possibility of the Germans, or any of our enemies, cornering that. As regards tin no one would be foolish enough to suggest any danger. As regards lead, no one has made any suggestion in the direction indicated. As regards nickel and aluminium I have never heard any serious objection made. There is one metal, wolfram, I do not notice in the Bill. I am rather surprised at that not being in the Bill. I need not say anything at the moment. I do not want to go into any detail as to these metals, but there are two or three points in the Bill to which I desire to draw attention.
  In the first place, I hoped to have had the opportunity to-day to move an Amendment to give some sort of appeal from the Board of Trade on matters of discretion. Unfortunately at the moment it came on I was out of the House for a short while, and I did not have the opportunity I desired. I do, however, wish to say that I regard the whole of this question, giving the Board of Trade uncontrolled discretion, as being most dangerous. I admit that the President has given us a good many assurances and reassurances on the subject. That makes the Bill, certainly during his tenure of office, probably much less dangerous than otherwise it would be; but I would ask him—and I wish the Law Officers were present, so that we might have their opinion—how it is that an appeal is given to the High Court of Justice only as to whether a company comes within a certain Section, as to whether a company comes within paragraph 5 of the First Schedule or not. That paragraph says
  "That the company, firm, or individual is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of their or his business to any influence or association."
  Upon that question, as to whether a company comes under that condition, there is an appeal, and the discretion of the Board of Trade on this subject, apparently, is controlled by the High Court. Upon all ether questions there is no appeal what-
  1076
  ever from the decision of the Board of Trade. I think it is made doubly objectionable in that the Board of Trade has resisted every attempt to put the burden of proof in this case upon themselves. I think the Bill would have emerged far less offensive at the present time if the Board of Trade had accepted my very simple Amendment to the effect that no licence should be granted if the Board of Trade are of opinion that the issue of a licence is inexpedient. We end this Bill as we began it. The position is this: no charge is made. against certain people of having enemy influence—no charge whatever is made—but the President of the Board of Trade says—and we are told the same by the Solicitor-General—"Well, we want to spread our net wide." Minister after Minister has got up and said this—and with one or two exceptions Ministers are the only people who defend this Bill—and one is not surprised they get up and say, "We are not going to deal harshly in this matter, but we want to bring everyone under review." If the Board of Trade really only wanted to bring everyone under review, why could they not have drafted the Bill in such a form as to bring people under review by saying to the people, "If you come under all these conditions, we shall not grant you a licence if we think it inexpedient"? The Government have put it upon the person claiming a licence to show that it is expedient to grant it. The position at the present time is that the Board of Trade in ordinary cases has to grant a licence, while in cases that come within the conditions they will not grant a licence unless they think it expedient. We do not know what ground they will take. It is not whether they think it expedient or otherwise on national grounds! Upon what ground will they say, "We find it inexpedient that this man should have a licence? If the only inexpediency is that he is an honest trader, there is no particular reason why he should not be trading. I am quite sure that the President thinks that if a man can come forward and say that he is not in any way subject to enemy influence, in spite of coming within these conditions, that the licence will be granted. I do not feel any such confidence. It may be so. so long as the present President occupies his position. It seems to me that putting the burden of proof on the claimant undermines all the assurances that are being given to us on this subject.

  1077
  I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, even at this late stage of the proceedings, to see whether he cannot, in consultation with his legal advisers, have such small change made in the Bill before it emerges as an Act, which, I do suggest, will make such a vast difference! It is most unfair to say that people who have not committed any offence, and whom you simply want to bring under review—that because of some accident—some accident of birth, it may be—they happen to come within your net, "You have got to prove your case to us." I say that the Govern-ought to be prepared to say, "We will grant you a licence unless we think it inexpedient; if there is any ground which we think inexpedient we will refuse it." I think that would be a most excellent thing. Consider, you are dealing here with the case after the War as well as the case during the War I would suggest the alternative I have put forward, that you should allow an appeal to a judicial Court, such as you give in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1, on the question of this wide discretion now taken by the Board of Trade.
  Some members of the Government, and one or two other Members who have spoken, take altogether too low a view of this great invasion of the trading rights or the country. I have listened most patiently to all the Debates on this question, and I can only say that at the end I have the most profound mistrust of what has been come to. Let me give one case. Let me draw the attention of the President to the grave danger of giving officials uncontrolled discretion in matters such as taking away the right to trade. In the course of the last month a case came to my notice from which I think I can show the grave danger to which we are subjected at the present time by the giving of this wide discretion to public Departments. The case I allude to is a case which has been brought before the President, and he will recognise it, though I do not want to go into particulars. Some time ago very violent attacks were made in this House upon a certain firm of diamond merchants. Subsequently they were actually refused a licence, and their business wound up on the ground of some technical trading with the enemy. I do not want to go into the merits of the case at all. Only to-day, however, I heard that the Belgian Minister had actually stated it as his opinion—the President will correct me if I am wrong—that
  1078
  the whole ground upon which these people had been attacked was an attempt by the citizens of another country to torpedo the trade of these Antwerp merchants and to get control of the diamond industry after the War. I want just to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the grave danger that you have got of conditions arising where, under the guise of patriotism, you are going to get rival traders suggesting all sorts of accusations, openly or covertly, against different firms. You are going to get that in all directions. I think that the Board of Trade are acting most injudiciously in their own interests to take under their control matters that they are not in the least competent to deal with They think that because people get up in the House of Commons and ask questions that they have got some ground for those questions. They are not the people who are in the position to weigh the niceties of evidence and to weigh questions as to whether evidence is tainted or not. I am not making any suggestion about this Bill or against any single person, but I do say you are going to put the Board of Trade in a most invidious position in connection with this Bill—as to when the Bill is to be enforced and when there is the question of granting or not granting a licence. We shall have all sorts of suggestions from all quarters against this firm and that firm, suggestions that will never be weighed by men who are competent to deal with evidence, suggestions that will never court publicity of a Court of Law, and that, without the publicity of a. Court of Law, in view of the questions dealt with—the liberty of the subject to trade and so on—will never be really fairly treated at all. This is the whole idea of having a sort of pseudo law in the proviso of the Board of Trade, for whomever they may appoint to deal with these questions of fact or right, affecting the rights, almost the liberties, and the whole fortunes of individuals, without any appeal whatever to the High Court. I think it is an absolute outrage. We ought not to permit it.
  I make the most emphatic protest against this, that at a time when the most skilled lawyers would find it difficult to disentangle motives, because certain information to be brought before certain people, the Board of Trade officials, I admit, are probably the most competent lot of officials there are in any Government Department, they should take upon themselves the burden of doing what skilled

  1079
  lawyers in the country would very much hesitate to do. I ask the President whether he cannot before this Bill ultimately passes into law do something to reassure the public that ultimately before great firms and important individuals or small firms and small individuals lose their rights of trading, that they should have some appeal to the Law Courts even on the question of discretion. This question of discretion, being left to Government Departments, is a grave danger. You are going to find that under the guise of patriotism all sorts of injustices are going to be done, and the good will and the honest intention of the Board of Trade officials to do justice under this Bill is going to be put to a very serious strain. I do not suggest for one moment that they are not going to do their very best, but I am sure it will be a very great relief to the trading public if they find that there is going to be some sort of judicial control over all this tremendous discretion that is given by the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade very much softened the opposition in the later stages of the Bill by saying that, although the conditions were stringent, it was only because he wanted to bring everyone within his net for review. To that I raise no objection, but I do think there is the strongest objection to that part of Clause 1 which affects naturalisation rights. We might have run the slight risk involved in abandoning that particular proposal. There are, possibly, a few people the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he moved this Clause, but I think he could have got them all under Condition 5. I cannot allow this Bill to go on without making one protest more on that point. I do not want to go exhaustively into the matter, but I will ask, is it too late still to abandon this first condition?
  People talk about it as if it were a slight matter. They do not realise the tremendous strength of the feeling there is in all quarters of this House, and I believe right through the country, against any attack on the laws of naturalisation. It is not true to say it is merely a case of naturalised citizens being brought under review. You go beyond that, you say that not only shall cases be brought under review, but that these people shall have to establish their right to have a certificate to trade. It would not be half so objectionable if the Board of Trade
  1080
  simply reserved the right to review, and it is for that reason that I am pressing this question very strongly on the Government. That we should, for the first time in the history of the country, have tampered with rights we have given in a most solemn form under our naturalisation laws is a most deplorable instance of the way in which Parliament is being defrauded of its right to be regarded as the champion of the liberties of the individual. For a man to suddenly find some detraction from his rights of citizenship because other people have behaved badly seems to be an absolute innovation, and I cannot understand why the Government have proposed it. Surely, when we give letters of naturalisation we make a contract under which if we win we win and if we lose we lose? But, under this new system, while we have made a contract, while we have given these people the benefits of citizenship, we now wish to vary the contract, and that seems to me to be absolutely contrary to every idea of British fair play. I therefore cannot allow this Bill to go without making this final protest against any tampering whatever with the rights of naturalisation. The only condition under which such a thing would be justifiable would be if the naturalised person had himself or herself departed from his or her allegiance, for then you could say, "You have broken faith, and we take away your rights." It is all very well to say you are merely bringing the cases under review: you are doing more, you are putting these people in a different category, and you are throwing a slur upon them. I do not think the Government have ever given us a satisfactory answer on this point. Condition 5 is the one we really want, but these other conditions are merely aggravating ways of interfering with British trade. I ask the Government to see if they cannot do anything to alleviate the very strong feeling which has arisen on this naturalisation question. 1 entirely dispute what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) about our not representing the opinion of the country upon matters like this. I do not believe that the Government represents the opinion of this country when it proposes to tear up any document in which the honour of the British nation is concerned. Although it seems impossible now to interest this House of Commons in any question affecting the liberty of the subject, or in national

  1081
  obligations, because there seem so many other matters to distract them, I claim that we do speak for the vast majority of the people in this case. I ask the Government to reconsider their attitude. I ask them also, as a matter of elementary fair play, not only to the country, but to the Board of Trade, to see that matters that no layman can possibly fairly deal with without appeal shall be dealt with in future with some sort of appeal to the High Court. If the Government can, at this eleventh hour, when the Bill gets to another place, make some concession on this point, although it may not remove our complaint that the Bill is an irritating and improper interference with trade, it will have done a great deal to moderate much of the resentment which it has given rise to.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I wish first to acknowledge the patience and reasonableness of the President of the Board of Trade, and to frankly admit that, so far as I am concerned, the Bill has been immensely improved by the concessions he has made to the views which have been put forward from this quarter of the House. When I have said that, and when I have admitted, further, that he has removed, to a certain extent, the atmosphere of suspicion which has surrounded the initiation of this Bill, and when I remember that he has repudiated quite frankly the idea that the Bill was proposed in any vindictive spirit against any particular firm, I am afraid I have said as much as I can in commendation of the measure as it now stands, because while he has told us quite frankly that the Bill is not aimed at any particular person or firm, the right hon. Gentleman has not told us that the result of this Bill will not, and is not perhaps intended to, have for one of its objects the creation of syndicates in this country, which would have just as harmful and crippling an effect upon internal trade, owing to the advance of prices and the restriction of competition, as would the action of any German firm on the external trade of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has shown a remarkable and satisfactory ignorance of some of the allegations which have been advanced inside and outside this House as to the existence of these suspicions—remarkable because of the rumours so r generally current—and satisfactory because I hope it is an indication that there
  1082
  is no foundation for those rumours. should, however, like a frank and full repudiation of the idea that behind this Bill there is the creation of these syndicates as the right hon. Gentleman gave us of the intention to strike at one particular firm. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde) has dealt with the atmosphere of suspicion which this Bib creates, and I think he was fully justified in every word he said upon that head. Undoubtedly hereafter persons may be condemned upon suspicion and not upon proof, upon belief and not upon certainty, and the result of that upon firms may be just as disastrous as in the ease to which my hon. Friend referred, a case of which a good many of us in this House have some knowledge.
  But these are minor points. There really are two objectionable principles in regard to this Bill, and I suppose they animated the President of the Board of Trade when he formulated the measure, so that he was therefore unable to make any concessions upon them. The first is that it does interfere for the first time in a new fashion and to a considerable extent with the internal trade of this country. It obliges people to take out a licence for the carrying on of a perfectly innocent and harmless trade. It affects small operations as well as big; it interferes in minute matters; it requires a trader to produce his books, to throw them open to inspection and investigation, and perhaps hostile investigation, on the part of the Board of Trade. That is a circumstance which must cripple and harass trade, however kindly the investigation or the inquest may be conducted. There is undoubtedly the risk which the Government is now going to take that this Bill may result in the formation of syndicates which are favoured by the operation of the measure, however unintentionally, and then prices to consumers in this country must be raised. I have always regarded this Bill, not from the point of view of one engaged in manufacture, but from that of one interested in consumption—one who has to buy and is not going to sell. I am afraid that the result of this Bill will be that to consumers the prices of articles in this country are going to be raised without any compensating advantage. This may be merely an isolated Bill affecting only one group or set of trades, but even if it be only that its effect will be spread over a very wide area, and it will get so many people into

  1083
  its net with such a result in regard to certain manufacturers, that I am afraid it may be only the precursor of similar Bills affecting other industries—it may be the forerunner of a whole series of Bills based on the same objectionable principles. It encourages the speculator and the occasional dealer in the market in non-ferrous metals, while it regulates and hampers the regular merchant engaged in the business. It operates adversely, it interferes to the extent that it hinders the transactions of the home manufacturer and merchant, but it has no control over and places no restrictions upon the business conducted by the foreigner or the hostile trader and merchant.
  Over and over again in the course of these Debates the President of the Board of Trade has had to admit that he has no control over the German or Austrian firm operating outside this country, and that this Bill only extends to the British merchant. I say the measure will only accentuate hostility all over the country to the continued control by the Government of and its continued interference with British trade. That is a sentiment which is spreading widely. I am sure the President of the Board of Trade is not ignorant to the growth of that feeling. While the opposition to this Bill has been confined to a comparatively small number of Members, and while the House has assented to proposals on the part of the Government repugnant to the whole spirit of our previous legislation, I am pretty certain, when the trading and commercial community become aware of the great interference with their trading transactions which this Bill permits, there will be very strong feelings which may adversely affect other Government proposals which are really required, and which, if they are rejected, will have serious influence upon measures which are badly wanted in consequence of the opposition which has been raised by proposals that are not really necessary for the national advantage.
  8.0 P.M
  General CROFT: I do not intend to detain the House for more than one minute, but I do desire to make a personal explanation with regard to a statement I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. I then was referring to certain exports of zinc ore from this country, and I quoted a case of which I had been informed of a certain firm in this country exporting zinc
  1084
  ore. The firm I referred to was the Societe Anonyme des Mines de la Vieille Montagne, of Nenthead, in Cumberland, now known as the Vieille Montagne Zinc Company, and I am very glad to say that I have heard from them that my informant was entirely wrong, and that they have not exported any zinc ore from this country during the War, and, further, that they are free from all enemy influence. I simply desire to place that on record, and I regret extremely that I received this inaccurate information from someone who, I considered, had authority to speak. I desire to make that perfectly clear. With regard to the Bill, I heartily congratulate the Government on bringing in this measure. I think that right through the length and breadth of the country they will receive the congratulations of everyone who desires to see, at least for a short time after the War, German influence eliminated from our trade. I can only say with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Hobhouse) has just said that it is true that traders are having to suffer great. inconvenience, and I believe traders will be only too ready, for this short period, to undergo this small inconvenience in order to see that we give an opportunity to British trade in these nonferrous metals to establish itself firmly without German penetration at the conclusion of hostilities.
  Mr. J. HENDERSON: I do not intend to waste the time of the House by saying very much on the Third Reading of this Bill, but I do wish before it goes through to record my strong protest against the whole principle and details of the measure. The apparent object of the Bill, as we were told, was to obtain control of certain metals, and to put an end to the alleged control of these various metals by the Germans. There was riot a single one of these metals that was shown to be in any way under German influence. There was. some talk about spelter, and the Minister of Reconstruction made a statement which he afterwards reconstructed. He said that there was an absence of spelter that we found ourselves without any spelter when the War began, and that thousands of our young soldiers were shot, and so forth, in consequence. He. amended that afterwards because he found that spelter was offered in large quantities. after the War broke out, in September and October, to the War Office and the Navy, and was turned down because it was not required. It was only, of course, after

  1085
  wards, when every nation began to see the necessity of enormous armaments, that the great demand for all of these metals began. There is not the slightest justification for the assertion that any of these metals were at the beginning of the War refused to Great Britain because they were under German control. So much for that. I have said my say with regard to the injustice to naturalised subjects, and I need not. repeat my views on that point.
  What is the effect of this Bill which, of course, does not begin until after the War? The Government at the present time, and until after the War, have full control of all these metals. None of us can buy any of these metals without going to the Government and getting them, and so this Bill only comes in for five years after the War. I think it is a very great pity that all this trouble has been taken, and all this bad faith shown to our naturalised British subjects. I think it is very unfortunate, because I am very certain in my own mind—at least., I shall be very much surprised if it is not so—that when the War is over this Bill will be torn up. The Prime Minister has said, the President of the United States has said, the Noble Lord at the head of the Ministry of Blockade whose name is on the back of this Bill has said—they have all said—and lastly, the Labour party have said—the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Henderson) wily the other day—that there is to be no economic boycott after the War. Then what is the meaning of this Bill? If there is to be no economic boycott after the War this Bill is futile. The real genesis of this Bill has not been told to this House. I hinted at it on the Second Reading, and it has been practically admitted that the Government have entered into heavy financial obligations and have lent large sums of money to a company in Canada, the British-America Nickel Company. I am told also that they have entered into huge obligations for large supplies of nickel.
  The House will remember what happened with regard to the British Trading Corporation, or whatever the Board of Trade called it. They appointed Lord Balfour's Committee; then there was a Report which advised that a certain company should be formed, and the extraordinary thing was that the directors of this company were mostly the members of the Committee which advised its formation. Hon. Members know how the House dealt with that; but a similar thing is on
  1086
  the tapir for this very thing. A Report was obtained from a certain Committee, and they advised—we do not know what they advised; we have never seen the Report; that is kept back; but, let the House mark my words, the same operation will be repeated in another way. The board of directors of this syndicate will be very largely composed of the members of this Committee who advised It is suggested that. they should get up a large sum of money to start a smelter. This American company is building a large smeller in the town of Sudbury, Ontario. This syndicate is going to start a new smelter here. That is the proposal. Some of them say, "We will not put up a penny-piece until you protect us in this country from the operations of all these naturalised Germans." That is the understanding, and it is the genesis of this Bill.
  The protection in this Bill, I am very glad to say, when you come to look at it, is of the poorest kind, and I should not trouble myself to say any more about it, because it is quite futile. I believe it will never come into operation or give them an atom of control. Those who care to go for licences will be able to get licences, and in the case of those who do not get them the want of those licences will not give the British Government or any smelter any more control of the metal than they had before. Do what you can, you cannot stop Germany having control of metals if she cares to go abroad, pay the money, and get the mines. The way to get control of metals is to get control of them at the fountain head; but if you cannot get them at the mines, you may be able to get them in the market. This Bill does not stop them going into the market. It does.. not stop Germany or any German agent going into the market and buying up all. the lead in the market and creating a scarcity. It is open to anybody to speculate. The licence in an open licence, and I drew from the right hon. Gentleman that. he did not propose to prevent the licensee selling to or buying from Germany. The idea is absolutely ridiculous on these lines. The whole genesis of it is outside. It is not an Imperial measure, and it is not a Governmental measure, except in so far as they are passing it; it is for the benefit of a particular syndicate, and there is no doubt about it. Whether it will benefit them, I very much doubt. in fact, I do not believe it will benefit them in the least, because in operation the grant or refusal of a licence to A, B, or C

  1087
  can never affect the trade of this country if the British people choose to get control of these metals at the fountain head. They have, though. Zinc concentrates come from Australia; nickel is French and Canadian; copper is American and Japanese. Germany has no means of controlling them except by buying them up. There is only one way in which you can -hold out the German—education. Education and improving your banking facilities. Improve your banking facilities and have your technical education so high and advanced that the manufacturer can start on his business knowing that he cannot be beaten anywhere. If you are going to face the future, all this increase of licences is -poor stuff. You have to go higher and better than that. Our soldiers are not afraid to meet German soldiers in the field, and let our commercial and industrial men so educate themselves and those who support them that they will not he afraid to meet the Germans anywhere in the field of commerce and industry. That is the only way. I do not propose to take or support a Division, because I know there is a large body of Members who will go into the Lobby and out-vote a great number of those who have taken a great interest in this Bill. Generally, I am sorry to say, they do not understand about it; but the one comfort I have in uttering my protest is that I am perfectly certain that when peace comes the Bill will be dead.
  Mr. STRAUSS: I think the Leader of the House on the Second Reading of this Bill told us that this measure for the first time introduced a very big question. I do not remember any Bill attracting such a small House as this during the Committee stage and Report stage. It went forth that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of doing away with enemy influence and enemy control in nonferrous metals, and that was quite sufficient to secure support for it outside and of most hon. Members here. If, however, hon. Members had only taken the trouble to read the Bill or if only they had listened to the Debates upon it they would have known that this Bill was nothing of the kind and that the statement that it was going to do away with enemy control was simply a sham. There is not a single line in the Bill which really destroys enemy control, and if people had only known that I think we should have had a much larger audience and more discussion
  1088
  upon this measure than we have had. The Bill will go forth under the same pretence, and it may turn out to be an example to the Government when they want to bring in an obnoxious Bill just to give it a show of excellent motives, no matter what it contains, in the hope that the public and the House will not object to it.
  I take this opportunity of giving sonic information to the President of the hoard of Trade. I am fully convinced that the right hon. Gentleman in bringing in this Bill is animated by the very best motives, but he has not the slightest idea of helping any particular individual or acting vindictively towards any firm. There are, however, certain things that perhaps he does not know, and I hope he will not take it amiss if I give hint a little information. We were told by the Leader of the House that this Bill was recommended by the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee. That Committee consisted of a certain number of gentlemen, including sonic metal merchants. It was not appointed for this particular purpose, but they thought fit to commend the Bill and the Government took their advice. There is a suspicion that this Bill has possibly been brought forward to assist the various members of that Committee in bringing forward a syndicate to control the metal trades under the name of the British Metals Company. We were told by one of the Ministers distinctly that the object of this Bill was to assist such a syndicate as was in contemplation without any names being given. We have had a similar history in Australia, where a Bill was passed not quite as drastic as this Bill but on similar lines, and, strange to say, the people who recommended that Bill in Australia were the very people who are mixed up in the control of the Metallgesellschaft. One of them owned the concentrates sold to the Metallgesellschaft. When the Australian Legislature passed that Bill, which prevented all enemies from having any interest in the mine, the very men whose advice the Government have taken over those mines, formed a company called the Broken Hill Company with £1,000,000 capital, and they are now doing the business which the Australian Legislature has more or less confiscated.
  It is strange that the very gentleman who formed that company in Australia with £1,000,000 was called in as a member of this Non-Ferrous Metals Committee, and he was one of those who recommended

  1089
  that the Government should bring forward this Bill. He is the very gentleman who is supposed to have established that syndicate, and he is supposed to have already collected £5,000,000 sterling to bring out this British Metals Syndicate. That is the gentleman who has been advising the Government, and he said that he could not establish that syndicate unless he was rid of all this competition, and he is trying to act here exactly as he acted in Australia. I do not know whether the President is aware of all these facts. I do not suppose he can be, because his mind is occupied with too many branches of trade. I mention these things because the Board of Trade will have some difficulty in exercising their discretion when the Bill becomes an Act, and they may probably be advised by some members or the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee, who have a personal interest in getting rid of any competition. I would strongly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, in exercising his discretion, that he should not take the advice of any members of the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee, because that advice. might possibly be tainted and animated by selfish motives.
  There is one more warning I would like to give, and it is that this Bill is a double-edged sword. It may be found to suit the United States, or Germany or Austria to exclude all British-born subjects from a certain trade. More than that, I think it is very likely that such a Bill may be introduced in the United States at some future time, and, if so, there would not be ten or twenty thousand suffer, but there would be millions of British-born subjects now in the United States who would suffer. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give some consideration to the question whether this Bill does not provide a very dangerous precedent which may be directed against ourselves to a far worse degree than we can possibly direct it against any other nation. I hope that he will not think that I have attacked any individual in the information which I have given him, though I do not know that he has listened to my speech, and I hope, anyhow, as regards any advice which he may get from any member on the Non-Ferrous Committee, that he will look upon it with the greatest suspicion, and that if he takes any opinion at all he will take it from some independent outside source and not from anybody who may possibly have the slightest interest in the trade.
  Sir C. CORY: I feel it is my bounden duty to state my strong objection to this Bill. I object to it, among other reasons, because it seriously affects the interests of my Constituents. I further think that it is very detrimental to the general interests of the trade of this country. The hon. Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) on the Committee stage said that there was a small group of Members who were opposing the Bill, and he thought that in taking up the time of the Board of Trade on the matter they showed a want of patriotism. I take exactly the opposite view. It may be lamentable that the time of the Board of Trade should be occupied in discussing this Bill here, but the blame is on their shoulders and not on the shoulders of those who oppose the Bill. A lot of the legislation which has been brought in lately by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides is of such a very undesirable character that it will be most disastrous to the trade of this country, and I feel in the interests of this country—after all, we have to look at the interest of this country, not only during the War, but after the War as well—that those Members who have a knowledge of the trade and commerce of the country must point out to the Government that Bills of this kind will be most disastrous after the War is over, and must oppose there in every way that they can. I yield to no one in my claim to patriotism in doing what I think is best for my countrymen, and it is from that point of view that I have opposed this and other measures. The Bill, as it has been said, does not come into force until after the War. The Government have full control during the War, and I do not believe that it is going to accomplish what is is designed and is desired to accomplish. Quite the contrary: I think it is interfering with the liberty of the subject.
  This and other Bills introduced since the right hon. Gentleman has been President of the Board of Trade have met with great opposition on the part of the commercial classes of this country. Perhaps, without any egotism, I may say that I mix among the commercial classes of this country as much as any Member of this House, and the right hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear, from the expressions of opinion that have been made to me, that it is considered that the legislation that has been introduced here will be disastrous to the

  1091
  interests of the country. It is said that those who are opposing this Bill are Free Traders. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that such remarks as I have heard do not come front Free Traders generally, but, if possible, more from those who are in favour of Protection. There is a strong and growing feeling against such interference with the trade of this country. Men are embarrassed in trying to do their work. The interference is growing and growing, and there appear to be some people who have quite a desire to interfere with trade not only during the War, but after the War. There is that very strong feeling amongst the commercial classes of this country to which this kind of legislation lends colour. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. J. M. Henderson) said, it is folly to pass this kind of legislation which is to take effect after the War, because, after all, it may be that it will have to be torn up. If by any chance I happened to be on the Peace Committee negotiating terms of peace, I should endeavour to make as good terms of peace for this country as anybody in this House. I feel, however, that it is wasting time to pass legislation for the period after the War, because it all depends how far the country is victorious and what terms of peace we are able to enforce. It may be that this sort of legislation may be contrary to the spirit of the terms of peace and may have to be torn up. It is a greet waste of time discussing what we shall do after the War. The thing to do is to win the War and to make the best terms we can for the benefit of the country after the War. I would really press upon the right hon. Gentleman that the commercial classes do not desire this sort of legislation. There is other legislation coming on about which there is a strong feeling in the country. I am sorry that this Bill is going to be passed.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of Limit on Sum to be Raised for Police Expenses.)
  Section one of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1912, which alters the limit of the
  1092
  sums to be raised by rates for the expenses of the Metropolitan Police shall have effect as if for "eleven pence" there were substituted thirteen pence and for "ten pence" there were substituted twelve pence.
  Sir HENRY HARRIS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "twelve," and to insert instead thereof the word "eleven."
  I have been asked by the London County Council to move this Amendment, and also to make an appeal to the Home Secretary. I find myself in some difficulty, because at present I know that my right hon. Friend is not able to be here, though I understand that he will be here presently. I dare say that my Noble Friend below me (Lord E. Talbot) will kindly take note of what I say, and at any rate it will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am rather sorry to trouble so busy a man as the Home Secretary with this Amendment, but it raises a question which is of great importance. to the London ratepayers and which has been frequently discussed in this House. The Bill deals with that question in a way which certainly cannot. be regarded as satisfactory to London, and it is not possible to allow it to pass without a few observations. The Amendment I move is not one of great importance, but it will serve to enforce the point I desire to make.
  The object of the Bill is to provide money for a war bonus to the Metropolitan Police. I say at once that the London County Council is in complete sympathy with that object, as everyone must be who realises the dangers and responsibilities to which the Metropolitan Police are exposed at the present time. Briefly, the position is this. The Bill makes the maximum rate which can be levied for Metropolitan Police purposes 13d. instead of 11d. as fixed under the Act of 1912. My Amendment does not interfere with that proposal. But the Bill varies the Act of 1912 in another particular. The Act of 1912 provides that the Home Secretary shall lay before Parliament a Minute of the reasons for increasing the rate if he increases it above 10d. in the £. This Bill proposes to raise that limit to 12d. My Amendment suggests that 11d. should be fixed instead of the 12d. fixed by the Bill and the led. which now stands in the Act. The effect of my Amendment would be that a. Minute would have to be laid before Parliament if the Home Secretary exceeds. what is now the maximum rate fixed by

  1093
  the existing Act. I will briefly state the grounds on which I think it is reasonable to ask for that. I feel bound to point out that the whole cost of this war bonus is to be thrown on the rates. The Exchequer contribution remains at 4d., although the rate is to be raised from 11d. to 13d. Sevenpence was raised out of the rates this year, the Exchequer contribution being 4d., and it is expected that 8d. will be raised out of the rates next year, the Exchequer contribution remaining the same. The Government are really indulging,in vicarious generosity. My right hon. Friend reminds me of the man of whom it was recorded that. out of his bounty he built a bridge at the expense of a county. My right hon. Friend out of his bounty is going to give this war bonus at the expense of the county, in spite of the fact that all the authorities have found that the Government ought to make a much larger contribution towards the expense of this service, quite apart from the question of a war bonus.
  I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, which reported in 1914, recommended that one-half the cost of the police service should be borne by the Exchequer. This proposal was adopted by the Government and embodied in the Finance Bill of 1914. It was subsequently withdrawn, for various reasons. The amount drawn from the rates has increased in ten years by 3¼d., which represents an increased annual charge of £830,000. On the other hand, the amount drawn from the Exchequer has increased practically not at all. One hundred thousand pounds is voted annually in respect of special, Imperial, and National services, but that does not represent any contribution to the increased expenditure incurred during recent years. During the current year the net charge for this police service will be over £3,000,000. The proportion which the Exchequer will contribute is about 35 per cent. It is unreasonable that the cost of a service which is administered entirely by the Government should be borne by the local rates to the extent of two-thirds. I urge that the Government should make some temporary Grant out of the Exchequer. It is not possible for me to move any Amendment to do that, because it would throw a charge upon the Exchequer, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the request which has been made to him by the London County Council.
  1094
  I do not think the Home Secretary ought to object to laying a Minute before Parliament if he raises the rate above the maximum fixed by the Act of 1912, especially as he is not bearing any proportion of the increased charge. No case is really made out for the increase of two-pence. The Memorandum by which the Bill is prefaced does not show the extent to which the increased revenue is necessitated by the increase in the war bonus granted to the police. The general bonus was increased from 8s. to 12s. a week, and the special allowance for a child from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. It may be argued, therefore, that these increases involve a charge at the rate of rather less than £200,000 per annum. This sum is equal to a rate of about four-fifths of a penny, therefore no case is made out for raising it by 2d. in the £. There are other questions, such as the cost of special services. I should like to know whether that cost has not increased, and, if so, whether a larger Grant ought not to be made under the Act of 1909. For all these reasons I hope my right hon. Friend will not object to laying the Minute before Parliament in order that those who have to make this increased contribution should at any rate be able to see that what they are asked to contribute is fairly and properly demanded of them.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The scheme of the Bill is to increase the limit on the Metropolitan Police rate from eleven pence to thirteen pence. Under the Bill, as drawn, we shall be enabled at once to increase the rate by a penny and raise it to twelve pence, but if we desire to raise it by the further penny, that is, to thirteen pence, we shall be compelled to lay a Minute upon the Table of the House, showing how the increase is made up. My lion. Fri end has suggested that we should at once lay a Minute even to raise the rate by the original ld. That is quite unnecessary. We are laying our Minute to-day, so far as the first 1d. goes. We are spending to-day up to the statutory limit that is allowed by law, but the raising of the bonus from 8s. to 12s. will cost as nearly as possible a rate of Id. in the £. My hon. Friend says it is less than £200.000, but it is rather more, and it will leave a deficiency not of four-fifths of 1d., but as nearly as possible 1d. in the £. It would be waste of time and trouble to lay a Minute. as he suggests. for the first 1d.

  1095
  We make our case to-day. I am sure the House appreciates the services rendered by the police and the difficulty they have in living on the present allowance, and will agree to give us the funds for paying the bonus which has been already announced.
  My hon. Friend asks whether the special services have not increased in cost. He refers, I have no doubt, to the fact that a sum is paid out of the Exchequer to the 'police for special services rendered to the nation, such as attendance at special functions, and things of that kind. That cost has not increased, but has a little decreased, and no case, I think, can be made out by him or by the London County Council for increasing the Grant for special purposes. The other point he made was that we are granting a bonus at the expense of the county. That is quite true, but throughout the Kingdom similar bonuses are being given at the cost of the local authorities. A case might be made for revising the whole system of police payment and throwing, as the Commission recommended, a larger proportion on the Exchequer, but that would have to be a measure applying to the Kingdom as a whole. If that were done we should ask that some control should be given to the Exchequer over the payments made to the police forces throughout the country. We should ask to have some voice in settling the increase of police pay or bonuses, so that you should not have the difference which you now have between the pay of the police in adjoining counties. That would have to be a carefully considered measure, and provided these matters were gone into I for one should not be at all disinclined to consider the question of increasing the share which the Exchequer would be called upon to pay towards the cost of the police. But you cannot do that in this Bill. This Bill applies to one county only, or rather to one Metropolitan Police district, and you could not possibly make a change here alone. For that reason I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I could not accept it to-day, because it would interfere with the first object of the Bill, namely, to enable us to increase the bonus.
  Mr. KING: If this Amendment be pressed to a Division, I shall certainly support it. The only remark I wish to make beyond that is with regard to the special services performed by the Metro-
  1096
  politan Police. I was pleased, though rather surprised, to find that the cost had decreased. Surely it includes all the air raids The cost of public functions and matters of that kind may be less than in time of peace, but in connection with the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard I should imagine it was very greatly increased. There have been twenty-four raids in London within a very short time, and I should be glad to know whether all the work which was thrown upon the police in connection with them was done at comparatively small cost.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I will not press my Amendment after what my right hon. Friend has said, but I should like to point out that the case of London differs entirely from that of other cities, because the administration of the police is in the hands of the Home Office, which is not the case elsewhere.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2 (Short Title and Construction)
  ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act.)
  "This Act shall cease to have effect at the expiration of the financial year next after that in which the present War terminated."—[Sir Henry Harris.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir H. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time.''
  The object of this Clause is merely to secure that the question how the cost of these services is to be met after the War shall not be prejudiced by anything that is done now.
  Sir G. CAVE: This is a reasonable Clause, and I am prepared to accept it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  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."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced at Question Time to-day that there would be a Friday sitting he was under the impression that the Franchise Bill which we are waiting for from another place would come sooner than we now have reason to believe it will. We have every hope that we shall have it in this House to begin business with on Wednesday of next week. That being so, we do not find it necessary now to sit on Friday. Therefore I have to state, for the convenience of the House, that there will be no Friday sitting this week.
CAMBRAI.

  IMPERIAL GENERAL STAFF.
  Major DAVID DAVIES: I desire to call attention to the inquiry into the military operations at Cambrai. I approach this question with some diffidence, because we have been told by the Leader of the House that it is not in the public interest that it should be discussed, and naturally one hesitates to embark upon a discussion with regard to this very important and vital matter, but, having regard to the statements which have appeared in the Press during the last few weeks and the vigorous Press campaign which is going on, I think it is only the right and the duty of a Member of the House to raise the matter here in order to endeavour to elicit from the Government some statement which will reassure the country that the right course has been taken in regard to this inquiry. We know perfectly well that there are most disquieting and disturbing rumours. Stories have been told by officers and men who have returned, who took part in these operations, which have caused a certain amount of misapprehension in the country and in the Army. I think nothing is to be gained by the Government adopting a policy of secrecy and hiding the truth in the long run, and that they should frankly and clearly tell the House what. they propose to do to do away with all this misapprehension which has been aroused. It will be remembered that the Leader of the House informed us that a great victory had been won at Cambrai. He afterwards told us that he regretted that he did not tell the House that they should not be too
  1098
  optimistic as to the result. It will be remembered that after this great initial success, which we all hoped would lead to a decisive victory, there was a counterattack on the southern sector of our front in France, and that this counter-attack was fraught with the most disastrous consequences. We lost the larger part of the ground which we had won, and we suffered the loss of many thousands of prisoners and guns. Here we have two distinct operations. First of all, we had the initial success which we had every hope might develop into a decisive defeat of the enemy at Cambrai, and we had this counter-attack, which turned the whole operation into a serious disaster. The, Leader of the House promised us an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances surrounding this operation. Then we were told that an inquiry had been instituted by the Commander-in-Chief in France on his own accord and that afterwards the documents were placed before the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and communicated to the War Cabinet through General Smuts, who is usually turned on to do these unpleasant tasks Here is a case in which a general whose conduct was coming under review institutes an inquiry on his own account. Therefore, the element of impartiality, at any rate, would appear to be lacking. We also find from the Report of the War Cabinet, and in the communications which they have deigned to give to this House, that the Higher Command had not been surprised and that the Higher Command had made the proper dispositions in case of attack. We can only judge whether proper dispositions are made by the results. That is the only criterion which we as ordinary citizens can apply to the operation, and when we find that the results were almost disastrous we can only ask ourselves whether the plans of operations and the dispositions were the best that could he made. We were told that General Cadorna made most excellent disposition, but when the third Italian Army failed him at the critical moment he was compelled to retire from the Command of the Italian Army.
  9.0 P.M.
  Reports of all kinds have filtered through from the Front, and I would like the Under-Secretary for War, who, I understand, will reply on behalf of the Government, to tell us quite definitely whether these statements are true or false, in order to dissipate the feelings of

  1099
  misapprehension which undoubtedly exist both in the country and in this House. In the first place, it has been said—I cannot say whether it is true or not—that this sector of our front was very thinly held at the time of this counter-attack, and, in the second place, we had been told that the sector was manned by entire Divisions, who had come from the North, where they had been engaged in attacks at Ypres, and that those Divisions were told off to hold the line in this sector where the attack took place. We are also told that repeated warnings were sent to the Higher Command from the units who were holding the front that the activities of the enemy were being noted and that these repeated warnings were disregarded by the Higher Command and no proper arrangements were made. We are also told—I have heard it—that the French near at hand had reinforcements, which they would probably have placed at our disposal if they had been asked, which would have helped to prevent the disaster which occurred. These are the sort of things that are being said, and it is high time the Government made some clearer and fuller statement in order that these misapprehensions, if they are misapprehensions, may be dissipated, and that the country may again breathe freely. The naked facts which arise out of all this business is that there were the elements of great victory at the beginning, that that victory unfortunately at the end turned into a great disaster and that in spite of that we have been told by the Under-Secretary for War that no officer has been retired as a result of these operations, or at any rate that no superior officer has been retired as a result of these operations. We find, on the other hand, that there is a process of change going on in the Higher Command, because we read in the "Times" of some of these changes. The "Times" goes on to tell us why they are being made. It has nothing to do with the operations at Cambrai, because we are told that the official reticence, it may be supposed, was due to a desire which goes back to deeper causes than the Cambrai set-back, and would be justified if that had never occurred. So, apparently, the changes that are taking place now are due to some other and very deep causes. We are not told what they are. The question arises why, if these causes were operating some time ago, these officers were still in command when the Cambrai operations
  1100
  took place? That is a point which we have a right to make the Government explain.
  We gather from an article which appeared some weeks ago the real reason why these officers had been kept on so long. After eulogising the Commander-in-Chief, it goes on to say that Sir Douglas Haig's position depends in a large measure on his choice of subordinates, and that his weakness, if it be weakness, is a devotion to those who have served him longest—perhaps too long, or too long without any rest. I do not think that any paper could possibly have published a more damaging statement about any Commander-in-Chief than to say that he was not capable—for that is what it amounts to—of appointing the higher officers in his command, and I am shocked to think that the changes now going on may be due to some sort of newspaper pressure on the Commander-in-Chief by the powerful Press which exists in this country to carry out certain changes which possibly he might not wish to carry out of his own accord. Judging from the Press campaigns which have gone on for the last week or fortnight, that is not a very wrong conclusion. 1, personally, was entirely opposed to any inquiry of this kind, because I think, so far as the Cabinet are concerned—and the Cabinet represent this House and the country in this matter— there is only one man whom they can hold responsible for any great. military disaster which may take place in France—that is. the Commander-in-Chief himself. I cannot understand why it was necessary to appoint any inquiry, because it is perfectly obvious that it is not a matter into which civilians can inquire. An inqury instituted by the Commander-in-Chief himself and afterwards supplemented by a sort of editing committee appointed by the War Office—I do not think anybody with experience of the War Office in this War has any great confidence in inquiries which they institute—is wrong. It is a very dangerous thing, as weakening the discipline of the Army in France, to interfere with the powers of the Commander-in-Chief. He is responsible for that Army and its doings. The Government should give us a little more information and take the House of Commons more fully into its confidence and say to it at this time, when they are calling upon the country to supply more men for the Army, that they will see to

  1101
  it that there is no in competency and no inefficiency in the Higher Command, however highly placed it may be.
  Mr. KING: We are greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing this subject. to our notice. It is a matter which has been weighing on the minds of many of us. I hope that the reply which we shall receive from the Under-Secretary for War will do something to reassure the public in this connection. I have never for a long time past failed to make clear my view as to our Higher Command in France ever since, eleven months ago, General Haig told us that during the campaign of 1917 he would break through the Germans at many points, that the campaign of 1917 would be decisive of the War and would be decisive on the Western Front, and that he would pursue the policy of striking against the German Army until they were utterly broken. When, in defiance of Army Orders, he gave an interview and made these statements, I felt hopeless about him. It is not to the credit of the Government that they allowed General Haig to talk as he did, and possibly instigated him to talk as he did. When at last we had a great military operation which, on General Haig's authority, is presented as such an overwhelming victory that all the London bells are set ringing, and then we find it stigmatised in this House not as a great victory, but as a great disaster, what confidence can we have left in General Haig? When we see the War Cabinet allowing the Commander-in-Chief to set up an inquiry himself on the spot into his own deficiencies and then find the War Cabinet accepting his judgment upon his own deficiencies, and taking no action whatever on the matter, we are entitled to ask, and we do ask, how long is this going on? We have an Army which for morale and discipline is magnificent. Everybody, even our enemies, admits that. We have an Army which is admittedly in numbers superior to our enemy.
  Mr. KENNEDY JONESdissented.
  Mr. KING: The hon. Member was not 'here the other night, when we had given in Secret Session the actual numbers by which we are superior.
  Mr. JONES: If the hon. Member refers to the speech of the Minister for National Service he will find that he stated that the armies were equal on the Western Front.
  Mr. KING: I will not be led away from my point, even if it is not a good one. That does not invalidate my argument. My argument is that on the Western Front we are, at least in numbers, equal to our enemy. We are, in the moral and courage of our men, I believe, superior. According to the Prime Minister, in munitions and equipment we are more than equal to our enemies, and yet what do we find? The boasting of a Commander-in-Chief who does not make good his boasts. That is our humiliating experience on the Western Front. How much longer are we going on in this way? The only thing to do is to find some other Commander-in-Chief, and until the War Cabinet has the courage, in the face of what might be popular difficulties—because they -have allowed the Press to idolisc a man and endow him with characteristics which practically he would not originally have obtained for himself, even in his moments of greatest pride and self-consciousness—until the War Cabinet has the courage to act, then the only way for them to act in regard to the whole extent and power of our magnificent Army on the Western Front, is to get a new Commander-in-Chief. I do appeal, as every sensible man must appeal who looks at the matter fairly and squarely, to the Government to see whether they cannot get a man with more brains—with less reputation, less bombast, less Press puffings, but more brains and more ability, to represent our magnificent Army.
  Mr. JONES: I had no intention at all of intervening in this discussion on the Higher Command until I heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, and it seems to me that the one point that ought to be met in the discussion concerning the military situation at the front and the Higher Command, is this—that the time has arrived when we ought to have a clear and definite statement from the representative of the Government, the Under-Secretary of State for War, as to whether the War Cabinet and the Government are satisfied with Sir Douglas Haig as the best Commander-in-Chief. That is the whole point. If they are satisfied that he is, if they come to this House and make a public statement that they are satisfied, upon examination of the whole record of the 1916 campaign and the 1917 campaign, that the present General Staff and the Commander-in-

  1103
  Chief are the best possible men, then I think the House and the country will be satisfied. That is the whole point. But everyone knows, or I think most people know, that after the Somme campaign in 1916 there was the gravest dissatisfaction with the Commander-in-Chief. He had not obtained the objectives which he said he would obtain, and he sacrificed a great many more men than he said would be necessary to achieve this one objective. That was before the present Coalition Government came. into power. It is a perfectly well-known fact, and it was known in every newspaper in London, that a Cabinet of responsible men were entirely dissatisfied with Sir Douglas Haig. At the beginning of 1917, this present Coalition Government came into power. They had it in contemplation to dispense with the Commander-in-Chief, but the reason why they did not do so was because they were afraid it was going to involve great newspaper opposition. I say that frankly and freely, and it is perfectly well known that Sir Douglas Haig said that if he were left alone, that if he received so many men, and if he were permitted to pursue the campaign he had devised, he could. guarantee certain results by October, 1917. He told that. to nearly every person who went over to France to see him.
  Then you have the great peace-at-Christmas promise, and that has not materialised. More than that, you had the promise as to sweeping the Belgian coast, and that promise did not come off. Therefore, the only point is this: After the experience of 1917, after the balance of gains and losses, is the Government still satisfied with the General Staff and the Commander-in-Chief? Are they the best that can be had? Are the Government satisfied? Are they prepared to take the responsibility of going on with them during the campaign of 1918? I am not a strategist; I have no military knowledge—I do not profess to have it. I do not know whether Sir Douglas is the greatest Commander-in-Chief the world has ever seen or whether he is not; but I do ask the Government, in view of the uneasiness which at present exists, not only in this House, but all over the country, and among the soldiers, to give a definite reply to the question, Are they satisfied with what has been done in 1917,
  1104
  and are they prepared to risk the responsibility of going on with the same man during 1918?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Three speeches have been delivered to-night, and in each of them there was a charge, either definitely expressed or implied, against the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief in France. I should be false to my own position and my own belief if I did not in the very opening of my speech take the opportunity of saying that nothing could be more cruel than that an attack of that sort should be made upon probably one of the most distinguished generals at the present time in the world, when he has no opportunity of defending himself, and when he is at the present moment at the head an Army—one of the greatest. Armies in the world, coping with the greatest difficulties in the world—which implicitly trusts him.
  Major DAVIES: May I ask the Government why they allowed the attack in the Press against the Commander-in-Chief during the last two or three weeks, while we are to keep silence?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend himself used the Press quite frequently on many occasions, I will not say in attacks on the Field-Marshal, but on various others connected with military matters. It is not for me to say anything as to those attacks. I have no authority to express any view on any of the articles attacking the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief. That surely ought to be the duty of the War Cabinet as a whole. If they did not take that action, it is not for me to say why they did not. It is my duty to impress upon the House how cruelly unfair it is on the part of the House of Commons. After all, what is said in the House of Commons has a far greater power and influence in the country than what is said in the Press. I am perfectly satisfied to reply to the question of my hon. Friend who asked me, "Is the Government or is it not satisfied with the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief?" I say that it is, and I say that deliberately, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so the other day.
  Mr. WATT: Do you deny that it was in contemplation by the Government at one time to dismiss Sir Douglas Haig?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I know nothing about what has been in contemplation. I am in the War Office, and so far as I am concerned, I know this, and I speak from the Army Council point of view who have, if possible, a greater knowledge of the military position of the time and of the military powers of certain Generals than any other body, and I say that at no time since Sir Douglas Haig became Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has he ever lost the confidence of the Army Council or those in authority at the War Office. Of course my hon. Friends who have spoken may know far more of what the inner working of individual members of the -War Cabinet may he than I do. I am not associated with any subterranean current of thought. I do not know what may be at any given moment in the minds of certain Ministers of power in the country, but what I do know', and what I think T ought to know, is that so far as we are concerned, and I make bold to say, so far as the Army as a whole are concerned, Sir Douglas Haig from the beginning up to the present has commanded the entire respect of the troops in the field.
  Mr. JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind explaining what he means by "we"; is it the Army Council or the War Cabinet?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have already said, I am not speaking on behalf of the War Cabinet. I cannot do so. I am speaking on behalf of the body with whom I am intimately connected and of which I am a member. I repeat again that at no time, and not at this moment, has Sir Douglas Haig ever lost the confidence of that body. The hon. and gallant Member for Montgomery attacked the War Cabinet indirectly, because he said it had sought to criticise the military strategy of the last breakdown at Cambrai, but, nevertheless, he never hesitated to criticise that strategy himself. He told us very properly that the Cambrai incident was divided into two distinct divisions. He would, I am sure, be the last to deny that the first part of the attack at Cambrai on the Hindenburg Line was a gigantic success. It is true that joy bells were rung, and. I am not sorry in many ways that they were. People have different ways of expressing their joy, and at that time the feelings of the nation were particularly pent no, and, like all of us, people were delighted that their own brothers and their own fathers and their
  1106
  own sons should have been participating in what undoubtedly was a great victory at that time. I have, I hope, humane sympathy with those people who unfortunately might be wrong in the last analysis, but who were perfectly right at the time in taking every opportunity of any kind to show the feelings of thankfulness that they had.
  Major DAVIES: May I ask whether they were invited to do so by the War Office?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. and gallant Member admits now by his assent, and the House admits by its cheers, that the first part of that Cambrai affair is regarded even now by him as a victory. He speaks with authority on military affairs. If he now admits to me in answer to a direct question in the House that he regards it even now as a victory, does he regard it as preposterous or insane that the people of the country, with far less military knowledge than he has got, should at that time have given public expression to feelings of thankfulness for a victory which they regarded as having been obtained by our troops? As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the last part of the action at Cambrai was not so successful. In fact, to use the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I do not intend to go outside the limits of the answers given to various questions of this point—it was a breakdown. It has been suggested tonight and I see it stated in the Press—that we had no knowledge that any such attack was to take place or intended. I can say this quite frankly and with responsibility, and I know with accuracy, that our General Staff did know on the 28th November that such an attack was coming on November 30th. I cannot, of course, whatever my own inclinations may be, go beyond the statement given by the War Cabinet. That statement was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the War Cabinet having been placed in full possession of the facts by the Army authorities and the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. To my mind, it is a most extraordinary accusation to make and it really showed the poverty of the argument for the attack on the War Cabinet by my hon. and gallant Friend, who said that the information came through Sir Douglas Haig, and that it was he who initiated the inquiry, and that therefore it was not impartial. Supposing he had taken no steps

  1107
  at all and supposing he had said nothing after the result of the breakdown of the 30th of November, would not my hon. and gallant Friend be the very first man to cavil at his inaction?
  Major DAVIES: The Leader of the House, in answer to a question at that time, said that there would be an inquiry which it was understood was to be by the War Cabinet. An inquiry by the War Cabinet is very different from one by the Commander-in-Chief.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend really condemned the inquiry, because the order was given by the Commander-in-Chief. As a matter of fact, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out—and I think I am stating this with accuracy—the War Cabinet had decided that an inquiry should take place, and the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief had, on his own responsibility, initiated the inquiry. He was collecting all the information and all the documents and all the maps and all the facts. Those were sent over. They were not kept in France, they were sent over to be considered by the War Cabinet. They were first of all considered by a very distinguished Committee of the War Cabinet, presided over by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Afterwards the whole of the papers and documents were carefully considered by the War Cabinet themselves and by General Smuts, and those two distinguished bodies came to the conclusion that though an unfortunate breakdown did take place, it was through no fault of the General Staff; that the disposition of the troops were, I will not say perfect, because nothing can be perfect in war, that they were as good as could possibly be expected. They came to this conclusion which I feel bound to say they must inevitably have come to, having regard to all the circumstances.
  Mr. JONES: Does my hon. Friend really mean to suggest that no blame is going to be attached, or does attach itself, to the Higher Command if it leaves in that position a dangerous salient, which either cannot be held, or is likely to lead to disaster? Does he consider that in such a circumstance as that, which was the circumstance at Cambrai, no blame has to he attached to the Higher Command?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not accept for a single moment the statement of fact
  1108
  of my hon. Friend. It is one of those statements, of which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire gave a selection, which come over here and have never been sifted. They are circulated about the clubs and streets.
  Mr. JONES: What about what happened?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My bon. Friend is putting a specific point which he would lead the House to believe is a definite and ascertained fact. My information is—and I will not discuss it any further—that that is not so. One can only describe it as a break-down at a particular part of the line, but there was no salient in the sense that my hon. Friend would persuade the House there was. There was an equality of forces at a particular part.
  Mr. JONES: They ought to have been strengthened.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think so at all. If my information is correct, this was a proper number of troops to place against the only possible number of troops that could come at that particular point, and the General Staff took all the necessary precaution, and, I believe, the night before the attack, instead of being appealed to for aid, the officers of the Higher Command were on the alert and were as ready as they possibly could be. The House will realise that if at any given moment there is a break in the line, it may not necessarily be due to the fact that the Higher Command have made a mistake. There are various factors. This House is apt on all occasions—I do not know whether through prejudice or for what reason—but the moment a breakdown takes place it is always described as due to the Higher Command. There never was a greater mistake.
  Mr. JONES: Could you ascribe it to anyone?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not going to ascribe it to anyone.
  Mr. ROCH: To the soldiers?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There never was a more gallant lot in this world than our soldiers, but I can only say that, I for one, with the information I have got will never ascribe that breakdown to the Higher Command. 1 can say no more.
  Mr. ROCH: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether anyone at all then was to blame in any quarter?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It is impossible to say in dealing with two or three Divisions who was responsible. My hon. and gallant Friend made one further point. He asked why reinforcements were not ready at that particular place. As a matter of fact, reinforcements were ready, and when the history of the War comes to be written it will be seen that those reserves whose dispositions were, I understand, perfect, were splendid troops whose names will always command the greatest credit in this country for all time. Those reserves were ready behind the lines in perfect disposition, and if it had not been for those reserves I will not say what that breakdown would have been, but to say there was no care on the part of the General Staff to have reinforcements there is not true, and nobody knows better than my lion. Friend the Member for Hornsey. I do not know that any other serious point was raised in the Debate. I can only say once again what was stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there is no intention of publishing this inquiry, and that there has not been any withdrawal from the front of any people of the Higher Command, because, as I have endeavoured to suggest, the real blame for the unfortunate breakdown was not due to the Higher Command. I think that the War Cabinet has shown, and so has the Army Council, that when it is necessary to withdraw men from France we have not. hesitated to do it, and if in this case the War Cabinet had been assured that the Higher Command was to blame, I make bold to say, in view of the fact that quite recently we have altered the Higher Command at General Headquarters, we should unhesitatingly alter the Higher Command in the field.
  Mr. ROCH: I cannot help thinking that those Members who have heard this Debate, despite the very excellent speech made by the representative of the War Office, are left more mystified than before. I myself am in entire agreement with what the hon. Gentleman said, that it is most undesirable to have attacks made on individuals who cannot answer in this House, but all that really has been asked for in this House is, first, that you should publish this Report, so that the public may form their own judgment. To a request of that kind there could be, I think, only one effective answer which the Government could give for not publishing it, and that is that it would give
  1110
  information to the enemy. Now, it has never been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Gentleman that the publication of a statement of these facts would give any information whatever to the enemy, and, indeed, I am told by those who are students of the German Press that the orders of a division were captured and published in the German Press. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that the Government cannot say, and has not attempted to say, that publication of the statement of what really happened would give the slightest information to the enemy. That being so, why cannot the War Office or the Government tell us frankly what is the reason for not publishing this? Let them tell us quite frankly what is the reason. The House of Commons is a reasonable body, and I do think that that answer should be given.
  Can the hon. Gentleman really think, in view of the speeches which have been made which, I presume, will be published, unless they are censored, that really the matter can rest here? After all, the hon. Gentleman spoke very guardedly. He is not, of course, a member of the War Cabinet. He said he spoke for the Army Council, and he spoke with great emphasis when he said he spoke only for them, and he made a reference to the fact that he did riot know of any subterranean currents of thought. On an occasion like this, when it was well known that this question was going to be raised, without any disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, could not some member of the War Cabinet have been present? Some grave remarks were made by the hon. Member for Hornsey, who, if I may say so, moves in the best political circles, and has information, as he has shown to-night, which is denied to the mere ordinary Member. He said definitely that the Coalition Government, when it came into power, contemplated the withdrawal of Sir Douglas Haig. Now a remark like that should really be contradicted, if it can be contradicted; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will represent to those in higher places what has taken place to-night I do venture to hope that some definite statement will be made to clear up public anxiety and public confidence, which has been sapped by this. After all, everyone dislikes these attacks, but once they have been made in the Press, once they have been put on record, the sooner they are contradicted publicly and with

  1111
  authority the better, and I do hope an early opportunity will be taken by some member of the War Cabinet to speak positively, and put an end to what, I think, will be an unfortunate controversy if it is allowed to continue for a single day longer.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was unable to listen to the whole of the discussion which has taken place, but I wish to join with my hon. Friend who has just spoken in protesting against the treatment just meted out to the House of Commons. I think that on an occasion of this kind, when a large question of policy was being raised on the Adjournment, a question affecting vitally our Higher Command in France, and the whole of the higher direction of the War, we should have had at least a member of the War Cabinet here to state the view of that body. Up to the present time there has only been a single statement made in this House as to the Cambrai incident, and on the inquiry made into that incident on behalf of the War Cabinet. It was made by the Leader of the House in reply to a question put by me about a week ago, when, I think, the answer given to the second question was simply a reference to the reply given to me. The main point was this: that an inquiry had been held, though we were not told who constituted the inquiry. We have been told, in answer to a question by my lion. Friend yesterday, that evidence was taken. We have not been told who took that evidence. We have not been told what form that evidence took—whether it was simply the written statements of officers summoned, whether it was taken as oral evidence, or whether there was any cross-examination of the witnesses in relation to the facts. In other words, we have no knowledge whether this was a bona fide searching investigation with the view to revealing the facts of the situation.
  On this inquiry, so-called, we are told by the Leader of the House two things. These were the only two substantial statements which have been made. First of all, we were told that there was no surprise. Secondly, we were told that every adequate precaution was taken. I say that in view of what has been stated in the Press, in view of what has been told to individuals here and elsewhere by people who were there, it is making too great demand upon human credulity to ask us to accept these statements. The
  1112
  matter cannot rest here. This is a serious issue. It deals with the lives of men. We here are responsible. as the Prime Minister reminded us in Secret Session, we share the responsibility of this War. We see, however, to-night how much importance is attached to the responsibility of the House of Commons. When a question is asked on a vital matter of this kind no responsible Minister comes to take us into his confidence. We are invited to be content with a reply from the Under-Secretary for War. I do not speak in any disparaging way of my hon. Friend; far be that from me. We have been too long associated in many things in the past, and I hope we shall be so in the future; but we must assess the relative importance of the position he occupies. My point is this: That in one of the great actions of the campaign of 1917, in respect of a reverse greater than any reverse sustained by British arms since the Battle of the Marne, when the House of Commons asks for information, no responsible Minister comes to that body which the Prime Minister has said shares the responsibility for the conduct of the War. How can we share any responsibility if we are not informed? The Government expects the House of Commons to take a share in responsibility. The House of Commons can only do it on information, which up to the present has been denied to it.
  It is not only in respect of the past that this is an important matter alike for the House of Commons and for the country, If there is one incident more than another in the War which has affected public confidence outside it has been this one. We remember when the first glad tidings were announced, with what joy they were received! We remember how the joy bells were rung! We remember how that we believed that for the first time there was going to be a definite penetration of what the Prime Minister called the "impenetrable barrier of the West." After all these high hopes, there came the tidings which depressed us all. Not full tidings; not the truth—
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business.—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February.
  Adjourned at Eight minutes before Ten o'clock

WAR.
  HALIFAX (CANADA) DISASTER.
  HALIFAX (CANADA) DISASTER.
  WAR SERVICE.
  WAR SERVICE.
  ENEMY CONNECTIONS.
  ENEMY CONNECTIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  RABBITS.
  RABBITS.
  WATER ICE.
  WATER ICE.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTION.
  FOOD DISTRIBUTION.
  PREMIER JUS.
  PREMIER JUS.
  COMMANDEERED FATS.
  COMMANDEERED FATS.
  VEGETARIANS.
  VEGETARIANS.
  FISH.
  FISH.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  DAMAGED GRAIN.
  DAMAGED GRAIN.
  LAMBS.
  LAMBS.
  TILLAGE (WEST CLARE ESTATE).
  TILLAGE (WEST CLARE ESTATE).
  BUTTER.
  BUTTER.
  ARMY RATIONS.
  ARMY RATIONS.
  GOVERNMENT CLERKS (WAR SERVICE).
  GOVERNMENT CLERKS (WAR SERVICE).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  87TH TRAINING RESERVE BATTALION
  87TH TRAINING RESERVE BATTALION
  ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (WAGES).
  ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS (WAGES).
MUNITIONS.
  WOMEN TIME-WORKERS
  WOMEN TIME-WORKERS
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (OFFICERS' SALARIES).
  INTERNMENT CAMPS (COMMANDANTS).
  INTERNMENT CAMPS (COMMANDANTS).
  WOOL PRICES.
  WOOL PRICES.
  DETAINED RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
  DETAINED RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
  POLICEMEN'S DEPENDANTS (GRANTS).
  POLICEMEN'S DEPENDANTS (GRANTS).
DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
  PAMPHLETS CENSORSHIP.
  PAMPHLETS CENSORSHIP.
  HANLEY MEETING (CANCELLATION).
  HANLEY MEETING (CANCELLATION).
  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  POOR LAW (COMMITTE'S REPORT).
  POOR LAW (COMMITTE'S REPORT).
  CIVIL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  MAIL-BOAT POSTAL EMPLOYES (WAR RISKS).
  MAIL-BOAT POSTAL EMPLOYES (WAR RISKS).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Care of the Blind (Ireland).
  Care of the Blind (Ireland).
  Mount joy Prison (Forcible Feeding).
  Mount joy Prison (Forcible Feeding).
  Education Grant.
  Education Grant.
Preamble
The Earl of BRADFORD—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SMALL HOLDINGS COLONIES.
THE EARL OF KINTORE: My Lords, in the enforced absence of Lord HARRIS, I beg leave on his behalf to ask His Majesty's Government when the Report required by Section 10 of the Small Holdings Colonies Act, 1916, will be presented to Parliament.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH): In reply to the noble Earl's Question, I can give the assurance that the Report is now in draft and will be completed and presented without avoidable delay.

TRAINING OF DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government—What is the total number of soldiers who have been discharged during the war. How many are or have been trained in—

(a) Semi-philanthropic institutions;

(b) Institutions set up by Local War Pensions Committees, and where the training will be paid for out of Imperial funds.

Whether in Darlington the Technical College was placed at the disposal of the Ministries of Munitions and Pensions more than a year ago; whether the total number of disabled men on the Local Committee's Register is 402, of whom only eight had undergone treatment, and only one training up to 30th November last; and what is the cause of the delay in securing the treatment and training of these men.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some reluctance that I rise to occupy a few moments of your time in order to draw attention to the terms of the Question which I have placed upon the Paper; and I might
1012
say that I should have been content to leave it to the Ministry of Pensions had it not been for the fact that by correspondence I have failed to elicit anything in the nature of a satisfactory reply. I think your Lordships will agree that the importance of training disabled and discharged soldiers and sailors cannot be overrated, and that must be my excuse for pressing this question upon public opinion through your Lordships' House. Lord Charnwood, a few months ago, alluded to the fact that there were 225,000 of such men in the country, and presumably there are still more of them now. The Army and the Admiralty respectively are naturally responsible for the treatment of soldiers and sailors when they are wounded and up to the time they are discharged from the hospitals, but it has always seemed to me that Education Committees which have had experience of technical training, under the advice of the technical advisers of the Board of Education, would have been better bodies to whom to have been given the training of these disabled soldiers and sailors. It has been, however, left to a Statutory Committee under the Ministry of Pensions to provide the necessary assistance required for their training out of public funds; and my complaint is that up to the present there has been so little done in connection with the training of these men.
In many cases local initiative has been discouraged if not entirely stifled. Local committees have started full of enthusiasm and keenness and interest in their work, but owing to the way in which they have been treated by the Ministry they have been discouraged. The men themselves, many of them disposed at the outset to undergo a course of training, have somewhat suffered in the same way and have been discouraged. The increasing number of men who are disabled and mutilated may be seen in our roads and streets all over the country, and in many cases our ex-soldiers and sailors are appealing in the street for the compassionate charity of the public. These distressing spectacles, my Lords, excite our sympathy and commiseration, and I am sure your Lordships are as anxious as the general public that the power left to these men should be preserved and utilised. The Government, I am quite sure, desire as much as any of us that what remains to these men of their powers should be developed, that they

1013
should be given so far as possible an interest in life, and that in spite of misfortune and mutilation they should be trained to help themselves and to help others and to become good and useful members of the community. When men who are induced to select some subject for their training do not find opportunity for their training—when classes are not formed—they sometimes select another subject. Again, a scheme when it is put forward has been turned down by the Ministry. It is not any wonder that the timidity existing in the local authorities should be communicated to the men, and that they should hesitate more and more to come forward for a course of training. If a rider takes a horse up to a fence, jabs him in the mouth and turns him round, and repeats the process, it is not surprising if the horse becomes a confirmed refuser. So with the men. If men after leaving hospital are not grasped warmly and firmly by the hand and found employment, they will in some cases take up temporary employment in some blind alley of occupation, or in other cases become mere loafers and mendicants, and any disposition to learn a trade evaporates and vanishes. My complaint is that, so far as I can gather from figures supplied to me in my own county, there is not 1 per cent. of these men being trained at the present time out of public funds.
On January 9 I wrote the facts of the position of my native town of Darlington to Mr. Hodge, the Minister of Pensions. I drew his attention to the fact that for over a year we had placed at the disposal of the Ministry a technical college with 120 places, with machines properly equipped for the training of disabled men and the teaching of munition workers. From that time to the present that institution has never been full; all other classes have been stopped, the munition department has occupied never more than fifty places, and after they have been trained in that institution girls have not been found places in munition works. Sixteen of them have been there for over four months, although it takes only two months to train them. Seventy places have never been occupied owing to the way in which the Ministry have turned down all the schemes suggested. Mr. Hodge did not acknowledge my letter until my notice appeared upon the Paper of this House, and it was only this morning that I received this further reply, in which he said—
1014
"If the Darlington Committee will inform the Ministry of any cases of training required, efforts will be made to get the men placed in another area, but I hope that the Darlington Committee will themselves at an early date be able to put forward a scheme for training men in their own district."
It is a remarkable reply in view of the fact that for a whole year the Darlington local committee have been putting scheme after scheme in front of the Minister of Pensions, and one and all of them have been turned down. Major Mitchell, who is a director of the Training Department in the Ministry, wrote to Lady Gainford on the 18th of this month saying—
"I can assure you there has been no scheme submitted by the Darlington Committee which has not been approved by the Ministry of Pensions."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Who wrote that?
LORD GAINFORD: Major Mitchell.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Who is he?
LORD GAINFORD: He is the man placed at the head of the Training Department by Mr. Hodge, the Minister of Pensions. I sent that letter to the town clerk, who is the secretary to the Darlington Local Committee for Naval and Military War Pensions. He replied—
"It is not a fact, as Major Mitchell states, that there has been no scheme submitted by the Darlington Committee which has not been approved by the Minister of Pensions. If you refer to my letters of the 11th and 29th January, you will tee that I inquired whether approval would be given to training in munition work. This proposal was not approved. Again on the 18th August I applied for approval for training men as motor drivers, and pointed out that the local committee had received a number of applications. This was also refused, and in such a way as to lead the local committee to believe that the Pensions Ministry did not wish the local committee to undertake that action with respect to training. However, I made a further attempt on October 29."
I turn to the correspondence, and this is what I see happened on August 28. The town clerk, in his letter, said—
"I am desired by the local committee to inform you that several discharged disabled men have applied to them for training as chauffeurs."
On September 6 the Ministry replied—
"The Minister is unable to sanction a general scheme for training men as chauffeurs."

1015
On October 29 the town clerk, in his next attempt wrote:—
"The local committee are informed that training can be successfully provided in engineering, engine driving, clerical work, carpentry and joinery, commercial work, drawing, and tracing. You will accept this letter as a formal application for your approval."
On November 7 the Ministry again replied—
"The Minister is desirous that the course in carpentry and joinery should remain in abeyance. Engineering and engine driving must also remain in abeyance. The Ministry is prepared to consider any course in clerical work, commercial work, drawing and tracing."
The town clerk tells me that a formal scheme of training in clerical work, drawing, and tracing has been submitted for approval, but no approval has been secured.
With these facts before me it seems to me necessary to draw public attention to this matter. I do not complain of the policy of His Majesty's Government or of their desire. Their proclaimed desire is excellent. The instructions which they have issued in Circular No. 30, signed by one of their important officials, is most excellent in tone. It was issued in November. It said—
"Up to the present the proportion of men who are taking up the training course is comparatively small."
Mr. Hodge, in addressing a meeting in December last, is reported to have said—
"There were many things they could do locally very much better than they could by instructions from London. His main object was to decentralise as much as practicable."
Then, in an interview, reported in the Daily Chronicle of January 5 last, he said—
"Our training schemes aim at re-educating the man and restoring him to as high and if possible a higher state of physical efficiency than that which he possessed before the war. Training of disabled men appeals to me as a paramount obligation resting on this Ministry, and hence my description of the Department as a Ministry of Restoration."
The result of this policy can be shown by an article which has appeared in the Municipal Journal. I take merely two extracts from an article which appeared on January 11, from the pen of the Mayor of Darlington, who said—
"In conclusion, I may say that I am very reluctantly coming to the conclusion that instead of every encouragement being given to local committees to provide training for our disabled men, all their efforts are discounted and a premium is put upon voluntary organisations which are able and willing to accept men for training without having to comply with all sorts of unnecessary
1016
and irritating restrictions and conditions. With regard to training, I am afraid that unless some step is taken we shall find the same weary round of form-filling and sanction-seeking—wasteful alike of paper, printing, time, and patience."
Well, my Lords, policy is one thing; administration is another. There has been a great delay in the past and there has been a great deal of discouragement suffered by local committees. Unless the committees are encouraged they cannot canvass the men and find out how many of them they can get into a course which they are ready to provide. Here you have an institution with seventy or eighty places ready, and while every scheme has been turned down, the Ministry do not know of it, and when you write they merely say "Well, let another scheme be put forward." In my judgment too much has been left to voluntary and semi-philanthropic effort. It is the duty of the State to provide public funds to establish a system and encourage local effort, and as up to the present only about 1 per cent. of these men have entered in these training classes, I thought it my duty, even though I have occupied more time than I intended, to draw the attention of your Lordships to the position of affairs.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I regret that I am not in the position to give the noble Lord the information asked for in the first part of his Question. I should like to confer with him afterwards as to the approximate numbers of persons who are now discharged. I gather from his speech that he desires to know the number in order to contrast the total number of discharged men with the number who are now being trained under the Ministry of Pensions. May I say that the Ministry of Pensions has no power to compel a man to undergo training? It seemed to me rather to underlie the speech of the noble Lord that the Ministry could enforce training upon men. That is not the case, and the exceptional demand for labour at the present time and the inducements to take up temporary work tend to lessen the number of men who would normally desire to undergo instruction which would lead to permanent employment. There are to-day many thousand vacant places in classes and technical institutes and so forth, for which, unhappily, no candidates are available. In spite of this a considerable number of men have received a course of

1017
training or are now receiving it. Under the head of "semi-philanthropic institutions" mentioned by the noble Lord, there is St. Dunstan's Hostel, where 887 men are receiving full pensions and other assistance from the Ministry of Pensions. These men have been trained there. In Lord Roberts's workshops the number is 1,198. In institutions coming under heading (b)—those set up by local War Pensions Committees—the number is 3,000, and 1,950 are being trained now for special munition work. This makes over 7,000 altogether.
With reference to Darlington, the noble Lord said that the Ministry of Pensions have discouraged local energies and activities. I assure him that that is far from the intention of Mr. Hodge. Indeed, if Mr. Hodge was answering for himself, I do not doubt he would say that his efforts are largely directed to stimulating local activity, which in many cases he finds somewhat slow to move. In the Darlington case, as long ago as July, 1916, the War Pensions Statutory Committee—the antecedent of the present Ministry—wrote to the members of the College regarding facilities for training disabled soldiers and sailors, and, in reply, were informed by the secretary of the. Darlington Education Committee, that their workshops, which would accommodate about thirty men at a time, had been transferred to the Ministry of Munitions for the purpose of training men who wished to enter munition work. While expressing sympathy with the object of the Statutory Committee, which was to press on the training of disabled soldiers, the authorities of the College said that all their energies were being used up in training men for munitions.
In February, 1917—that is seven or eight months later—the Ministry of Pensions again approached the authorities at Darlington to inquire whether conditions had changed so far as to permit of their assistance in training disabled men at the College. The Committee replied that they would give special consideration to individual cases suitable for training in munition work, but again emphasised the point that the sole and immediate object of their classes was to produce munition workers. They expressed the hope, however, that the Government might allow the machinery to remain after the war for training disabled men in engineering. That is what they asked for—that the machinery should remain after
1018
the war. Meanwhile, the Ministry has been in communication as to the training of disabled men with the Local War Pensions Committee, who are specially charged by Statute with this responsibility. In October last the Committee informed the Ministry that they were in negotiation with the Education Committee about facilities for training at the Technical College, but, though recently reminded of this, they have not so far submitted any scheme or any definite proposal regarding the institution of such classes. A general phrase, such as that used in the letter quoted by the noble Lord, "May we do munitions or engineering work," or half a dozen other things like that, is not submitting a definite scheme, and the responsibility of these committees is to submit definite and specific schemes to the Ministry for sanction.
LORD GAINFORD: May I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment in order to say this—that when they have submitted these subjects one after another to the Ministry, they have been told "these subjects are not approved." Therefore it is no good sending forward schemes when the Ministry will not approve of the subjects.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Lord knows more about Darlington than I do about the Ministry of Pensions, but I cannot help feeling, with the information before me, that the Minister of Pensions has a case on the Darlington problem. In conclusion, let me say that the Minister of Pensions has not been able to verify the figures representing the total number of disabled men on the Register of the Darlington Committee, but he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures quoted by the noble Lord. There are ten men in that area who are now receiving treatment. With regard to training, the Ministry are still awaiting the submission of a scheme by the local committee, and when it is received it will be given the promptest attention.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I say a word on this subject, as I know a good deal about the question? The noble Earl who has just spoken has said that Mr. Hodge has a very good case. I quite agree with him, but it is a most tremendous subject for Mr. Hodge to tackle, and a very difficult one as well. As regards disabled soldiers

1019
and sailors I cannot see that anything has been done by the Government to give them any training classes. A private body, a philanthropic body, has started to supply these classes, but recently we have been told that the Government will not allow any private philanthropy in this direction. Meanwhile they have done nothing themselves and the men get discouraged. It is difficult to trace these men when they once leave hospital.
Only this morning I have seen a man who was in hospital for eighteen months; he underwent twenty-two operations, one leg being taken off, and four inches taken off the other; was shot in the body, and is deaf. About three weeks ago he was discharged from hospital, and the sister said she did not know what the man would do. He was given £1 and sent out into the wide world with that only. He had no friends or relations. The only thing to do was to bring him into a private home and give him training. In the case of this man there was no offer on the part of the Government to give him instruction; he was simply turned adrift into the wide world, with £1 in his pocket, in a perfectly helpless and hopeless condition.
My contention is that whenever men are leaving hospital they should be given some information as to what institution they can go to in order to obtain training and enable them to earn a living. I will not go into the point in detail, but I think it is most important that, when they are leaving hospital they should be directed where they can get treatment and training which will enable them to follow some career. Also there should not be a long delay in giving them a pension. This particular man of whom I have spoken has not, I am told, had a single penny from the Local War Pensions Committee, and he does not know what amount he is going to get.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I ask leave to say one word in reply to what the noble Lord has just said. I know nothing I of the case. I assume, from what he said, that, seriously wounded as this man is, I he is capable of being trained for something. If he can be trained for anything his local committee is under statutory obligation to look after him. Every hospital, on the discharge of a man, is under the obligation of letting the man know where his local committee is, and any post-office in any parish in the United Kingdom will
1020
give any discharged soldier the address of his local committee. If the man can take up training he is entitled, during his absence from home, to a separation allowance, and, if he cannot be trained, is entitled to it while living at home. After that training, which may extend over weeks and months, he is entitled to a bonus in money, and during his training is, of course, looked after by the medical superintendent provided by the committee—the treatment committee—which again has a statutory obligation to look after these men. Meanwhile, while he is getting his separation allowance and being trained and watched medically after his discharge, his normal pension is, of course, maturing, although there may be a slight delay. If the noble Lord will give me the name and address of the man I will submit it at once to Mr. Hodge and undertake now that any other man leaving that hospital shall not fail to receive proper information as to the course he should take to secure proper training. At this moment, in London alone, you have upwards of 5,000 vacancies in institutions and polytechnics where these men can be trained.
LORD LAMINGTON: This man's local committee is Birmingham, but he was in hospital in London.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That makes no difference.
LORD LAMINGTON: We cannot hear anything from the local pension committee at Birmingham. We cannot get any reply from them.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order of the day read for the House to be again into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think that it may be convenient to the House if, upon this Motion, I give a notice, though I admit that it refers to a future stage of the Bill. The House will recollect that the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, in his speech yesterday on the large subject of proportional representation, on the Amendment then before the House, laid great stress at the end upon the inconvenience that would

1021
be caused by the delay involved in changing the Schedules. It would have been easy enough to say several things upon the merits of that. In the first place, although I do not want to go back to recriminations regarding the past, if the advice given by some of us in this House some months ago had been taken, that delay would have been greatly minimised because Schedules might have been ready even now.
It is beyond all question the duty of everybody concerned to do everything that is possible to diminish any delay that may be caused. We none of us, I think, want to delay the Bill, and certainly we do not want to put any undue difficulties in the way of its operation. Therefore the practical thing for us is to see what we can do to avoid delay in the hope that the policy adopted by the House yesterday will be carried into effect. On behalf of some of those who are keenly in favour of the change adopted by the House yesterday, I beg to give notice that for the Report stage Amendments will be put down providing that—

(1) As soon as practicable after the passing of this Act the Local Government Board shall appoint Boundary Commissioners to revise the distribution of constituencies set out in the Schedule to this Act so far as respects England and Wales, and the Secretary for Scotland shall appoint Boundary Commissioners to revise the distribution of constituencies set out in that Schedule so far as respects Scotland.

(2) The Commissioners shall have regard to instructions which we hope will be inserted in the Schedules, and shall present their Report to Parliament as soon as practicable showing the areas which are to be constituencies and the number of Members to be returned for each constituency.

(3) The Report of the Commissioners so presented to Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act unless an address is presented by one or other House of Parliament within twenty-one days.

(4) The registration of electors under this Act shall be proceeded with on the passing thereof as if the constituencies were those contained in the fifth Schedule to the Bill for this Act as passed by the House of Commons, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provisions as appear necessary or expedient to adapt the provisions of this
1022
Act as to registration to the rearrangement of constituencies effected under this section, and to make any registration work done before the rearrangement takes effect available under any new conditions resulting from the arrangement.

This Amendment will, of course, be given proper notice of; but I thought that it might be convenient at this stage to all concerned to give an intimation of our intention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 35:
Regulations to be laid before Parliament.
35. All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation, or provision and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to omit the words "His Majesty in Council may annul." The noble Marquess said: On behalf of my noble friend Viscount Chaplin, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. It is an Amendment of substance, though I do not think it likely that it will detain your Lordships more than a few minutes. The point is this. There are a great number of Statutes which are brought into effect by means of Rules or Regulations which are laid before Parliament, and both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity of disagreeing with those Rules so that they may have no effect, and the form under which this particular expedient is availed of by Parliament varies a good deal in different Acts of Parliament. I am not in a position at this moment to give your Lordships, nor do I think it would be material, a list of the different forms which this particular method has taken in the practice of Parliament. The matter is, however, of the greatest importance, because of the growing practice of Parliament to place more on Regulations and Rules and less in the body of the Act, and in the present Bill it has reached such a point that the whole of the Schedules can be modified to any extent

1023
by Order in Council; that is to say, there is nothing final in the Hales which we are going to consider presently. Not only can there be any number of Regulations issued under them, but the Rules themselves can be altered by Order in Council, so that the whole thing is left open. Therefore, unless the control of Parliament is precisely and exactly maintained over these Orders in Council, there would be the greatest opportunity to vary what is really the intention of Parliament by means of the subsequent Rules which might be enacted.
The question is, therefore, what control will Parliament maintain over the Orders in Council? That control, whatever it is, is contained in the clause which we are now discussing, and a provision is made of the type of which I have spoken to your Lordships—that Rules and Orders in Council can be laid before Parliament, and if objected to within a certain number of days His Majesty may annul them. There has aways been a doubt as to the effect of the word "may" in this connection. I used to be told that in this connection "may" meant "shall." "May," in point of fact, in English does not mean "shall," but I have always been told that it does here. The reason alleged why "may" always means "shall" in this connection—I am interested to see my noble and learned friend shake his head—is that it is not respectful for Parliament to use the word "shall" to the Crown, and that therefore "may" is inserted. It is a sort of politesse which means "shall." However, in the present case, owing to the very extreme importance of this clause, one or two of us took the precaution of consulting a very eminent lawyer as to whether we might rely upon it that "may" does mean "shall" here, but his opinion was that it was not at all certain. In order to prevent that doubt continuing my noble friend has put an Amendment on the Paper to make it absolutely certain, and to remove the difficulty of our not being permitted to say "shall" to the Crown. We do not mention the Crown expressly and instead of "His Majesty in Council may annul," the phrase is "it shall henceforth" and "shall be annulled." That is to give the express and mandatory meaning instead of "may" and to eliminate any possible doubt. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, or any other great lawyer says there is no doubt whatever, of course we should accept that at once.
Amendment moved—
1024
Page 24, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("His Majesty in Council may annul").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): The word "may" means "may." It does not mean "shall." There may be cases where, when a power is conferred, the circumstances are such that it is the duty of the authority to whom that power is confided to exercise it. The duty arises from these circumstances, not from the use of the word "may," which, taken by itself, is merely permissive, and confers the power but does not impose an obligation to exercise it. I suggest to my noble friends that this clause should remain in the form in which it appears in the Bill, for several reasons. In the first place, this is a form which has been in use for a great many years. It has not been invariably so but for a great many years this has been, as I am informed, the usual form. If the, noble Marquess will refer to the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, Section 10, subsection (3), he will find there is a provision on this point exactly in the same terms with the provision which is contained in this Bill, and I think it is desirable to adhere to that form, with regard to the operation of which no friction whatever has ever arisen. It is the proper mode of dealing with the point. The Crown has made an Order in Council and the power is conferred on the Crown to revoke that Order under certain circumstances.
But I go further, and I submit to my noble friend that it is not desirable to give either House of Parliament the right of its own motion to abrogate an Order in Council of this description. The noble Marquess observes that the power is conferred on either House of Parliament of passing a Resolution. Supposing the two Houses of Parliament take different views on the point, and the feeling in another place is very strong in favour of retaining the Order in Council as it stands, while in this House the feeling is that it should be put an end to. What is the Crown then to do? Surely, if we said that if either House desired that it should be put an end to it would be most inconvenient. There should be some power in the Crown, which, of course will, under ordinary circumstances, act upon a Resolution. But still there must be power in the Crown of saying under such very special circumstances as might emerge with regard to a measure of this kind that the Crown does not desire to annul the Order.

1025
Just observe what the effect of this Amendment would be. It would be this, that if either House passed a Resolution the Order ipso facto would cease to exist. I submit it is not constitutional to give either House the right of abrogating an Order in Council; and, in the second place, it is not desirable, because the conclusion at which one House arrives might be violently in conflict with the opinion of the other House, and in those circumstances you must leave the matter to the Crown, which, of course, will be guided under that, as under other circumstances, by the advice of responsible advisers. I hope that my noble friend will allow the clause to remain as it has been in so many cases. I think that the attempt to alter it would be wrong in principle and might under conceivable circumstances result in considerable inconvenience.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Surely the dictum of the Lord Chancellor carries us very much further than this Bill which we are now discussing. I must say I have never listened to an expression of opinion from so high an authority with so much astonishment. After all, this constitutional precaution of laying Rules and Regulations on the Table of both Houses of Parliament is one to which we are from year to year attaching increasing value, because Parliament is now delegating so much more authority to Government Departments, instead of exercising that authority itself. If what the Lord Chancellor says is true about the Rules and Regulations made under this Bill, surely it is also true of all the Rules and Regulations, all the Orders in Council, all the schemes, and all the various forms of action by by-laws which have been made the subject of this precaution in a perfect host of Statutes. The Lord Chancellor is cutting at the root of a safeguard which is now embedded in scores and scores of Statutes. Has he ever known a case in which the Crown has not withdrawn an Order, or Regulation, or scheme. against which cither House of Parliament has passed a Resolution?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly not. The case has never arisen. I think my noble friend does not appreciate the exact import of what I said. Ordinarily speaking, if one House of Parliament passed a Resolution which should be annulled if there was nothing the other way, the Crown would give effect to it by an Order-in-Council,
1026
but there might arise circumstance. Take the case that I put. Suppose the two Houses of Parliament were of different opinion. Does my noble friend say that there shall be no power in any one of deciding what should be done in those circumstances? What my noble friend suggests would come to this, that though the Houses were of different opinion the opinion of the one desiring abrogation is to prevail. Under ordinary circumstances the Crown will, of course, be advised to annul when one House passes a Resolution, and the somewhat exceptional circumstances which are always possible have never arisen. It has always been acted upon. There was one case, I think, and it was acted upon under a Resolution of this House under the very Act to which I referred. But the residual power ought to remain in the Crown, as it would under this clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The case may never arise. It is also true that nobody ever questioned before the right of one. House, altogether apart from the opinion of the other House to secure the annulment of such a by-law or Regulation. It has never been a question of agreement between the two Houses; it has never been suggested before. It has always been the case that these powers are delegated to a Department with the power reserved in each House, separately and alone, to secure its alteration. What happens when a Resolution of this kind is passed by either House? Why the Crown takes the Order, or Regulation, or scheme back and amends it, puts it again on the Table, everybody is satisfied, there is no hostile Resolution, and the Order comes into force. But what the noble Lord really is asking is that the Cabinet may be able to do exactly what it likes—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With a large and very important section of an Act of Parliament, unless both Houses simultaneously pass Resolutions of opposition. It is a new doctrine, and I do not think it is a sound one.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question arising out of something which has just been said by my noble friend. He stated, if I heard him aright, that in all cases this power was given to one

1027
House. My impression is that we have had a good many discussions in the past as to whether in the eases of particular Statutes the concurrence of both Houses in an Address to the Crown ought not to be necessary before the particular Order in Council was annulled. I am sorry to say I do not carry much of the Statute law in my head, and I am not able to name the instance. Very likely my noble and learned friend may be able to. But certainly it is my impression that cases have occurred in which no small conflict has arisen between the two sides of the House as to whether one House should have the power of annulling an Order in Council or whether it would require the concurrence of both to make the action effective. Perhaps some noble and learned Lord with a stronger memory than mine may be able to supply the gaps which I have left.
LORD PARMOOR: So far as I know, the provision has been always in the form that either House may annul. There may be some to the contrary. Take the question of regulations made under the old Charity Acts, or regulations made for changing the Statutes of Colleges—for instance, Winchester, of the governing body of which I happen to be a member—and the Statutes of Universities. I should not like for a moment to say there are no cases in which the two Houses might not have to cooperate, but the ordinary form is certainly the other way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there are cases, but they are not very many and I do not think they have been at all common lately, where the concurrence of the two Houses has been wanted. But, of course, the form which has been in use for many years is one which has worked with perfect smoothness. In the absence of exceptional circumstances the Crown will, of course, he advised, if one House has passed a Resolution, to annul an Order in Council; but there may be circumstances, such as a strong opinion of the other House the other way, which might lead to the consideration that it was proper that the duty which ordinarily speaking would arise on the passage by one House of a Resolution should not be exercised. In looking at these matters it is always necessary, when a radical alteration such as this is proposed, to see what in extreme cases it would end in. I think my noble friend is unduly alarmed at the
1028
idea that there is not an absolute duty on the Crown to put an end to an Order if either House passes a Resolution against it. In ordinary circumstances that would be done, and in ordinary circumstances it would be constitutionally considered that the Minister of the Crown ought to advise the Crown that it should be done; but there are conceivable cases in which, if the clause were altered in the manner proposed, it would give either this House or another place the power by Resolution to put an end to an Order in Council to which great importance was attached in the other branch of the Legislature.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I welcome very much the indication of opinion of the noble and learned Lord, because I have always been under the impression that when either House saw right to present an Address it practically operated and killed the scheme. I have been very familiar with schemes, mainly connected with the question of education, cases of endowed schools, where perhaps it was thought the rights of the Church of England were diminished; and I remember the case of Lincoln College, at Oxford, in which I think the Bishop of Lincoln succeeded in getting your Lordships to throw out the Statutes when the others were altered, and Lincoln remains at this moment with unaltered Statutes. In these educational matters I am anxious that your Lordships should not exercise the power as you have in the past. The noble Marquess's father was fond of throwing out schemes, and he said this House acted as a matter of pure sovereignty and independence, and need not show that any other interests were violated. If they thought their own interests were violated they were entitled to throw out schemes. I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor's intimation.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I am afraid my memory is not strong enough to go quite as far as the House would wish, but I am in a position to say that during my House of Commons' life I do remember an instance—I cannot recall in connection with what Statute it was of such a dissenting Address being presented by this House; an instance in which the other House had expressed no opinion. The rule was gradually maturing, but it was well known that it would have been vain to attempt to persuade the other House to adopt an annulling Resolution; and I can remember

1029
a message from the Crown coming down, conveying in dignified put evasive language the intention of the Sovereign to disregard the Resolution which had been passed by this House. I cannot remember in what case it occurred, but there was such a case. What I should like to know is, is there any case in which this particular procedure of operating by Order in Council, gradually maturing in a limited number of days, has been cast in the form in which this Amendment would cast it, because this House must sec that if this Amendment were adopted the words would become self-contradictory. There would be elaborate provision for the making of an Order in Council, solemn and humble prayer by one branch of the Legislature to the Sovereign that the Regulation might be annulled, and no discretion left the Sovereign at all either to ask or act upon the advice of responsible Ministers. That is self-contradictory. If you want complete annulment, that involves complete annulment by the other House of any Regulation which this House may very much wish to see come in force; and I doubt whether there is any instance on record of the procedure being shaped as the adoption of this Amendment would shape it.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say that I think the Lord Chancellor forgets the constitutional position. These are really rules and regulations taking the place of what would otherwise be contained in an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament requires the consent of both Houses, and it certainly cannot be brought into operation on the advice of one House. It is really a constitutional matter of importance, and I do not think the Lord Chancellor will find any precedent where you are giving regulations in the place of legislation where the constitutional right of both Houses is not preserved. On that ground I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that the present form is not in accordance with constitutional lights.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no doubt whatever as to the fact that this has been the usual form for a great many years. I am informed by the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has great experience in these matters, that it has been usual. I have given your Lordships one case where you will find this exact form, and I would suggest that we should adhere to the usual form. With regard to what my noble friend
1030
has just said, I would remind him that while the consent of both Houses is wanted to make a law, the consent of both Houses is also wanted to repeal a law. The provision is that the Order in Council may be made, and then if either House passes an Address—I will read the words—" if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House praying that the Rule, Regulation, or provision may be annulled, His Majesty may annul it." The Amendment will make it read that if either House passes an Address to His Majesty praying that the Order may be annulled, ipso facto the Order has to be annulled.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a departure from usage, and I suggest with all deference to my noble and learned friend that it would be a very rash departure. The thing works with perfect smoothness, and one ought not to let one's mind dwell too much on extreme cases. It is necessary to put them, when revolutionary change in language is proposed, for the purpose of showing to what it would lead; but this is the constitutional way of doing the thing—namely, giving the Crown power to annull its own Order. Ordinarily speaking it would be the duty of the Minister of the Crown in certain circumstances to advise that this power should be exercised. All I point out is that there may be special circumstances, and that case to which my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley referred would be an illustration. I am not aware of the case, but the circumstances that he stated exactly illustrate the point I put that there may be circumstances in which it is not desirable that the Order should be ipso facto annulled.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will allow me to say that I am not convinced by his argument from precedent. There have been a great many instances in the past in which Parliament has given power to both Houses of Parliament to present a Petition to His Majesty, and, if that is carried in either House, forthwith the Resolution becomes annulled. I have had the honour, as Lord of the White Stave, of presenting to His Majesty a Resolution or Petition from this House in that sense. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor wishes a different procedure to be adopted in the future.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to speak.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rose only to correct the noble Earl's view of what I said. I did not propose a new departure; I proposed adhering to the practice which has prevailed for a great many years.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The noble and learned Lord is very fond of interrupting. If he will allow me to say so, I quite appreciated the point. What I was saying when I was interrupted was that I have been acquainted for a good many years with the procedure in this House. I know that on previous occasions Resolutions have been passed in this House. Although the other House has had equal power to do it they have not had the opportunity, and, therefore have not done it. But your Lordships' House has passed a Resolution and in consequence the executive Order of His Majesty's Government has been annulled. What the noble and learned Lord wishes is that on this occasion, although your Lordships' House may wish to annul an Order in Council and may pass a Resolution to the effect that the Order in Council ought to be annulled, the Resolution is to have no effect unless His Majesty's Government at that time wish that the Order should be annulled. We know perfectly well that, as things are, the House of Commons is not able to devote its time to the administration of affairs as a great many of us would wish it to be able to do; and in things of that kind it becomes incumbent upon your Lordships' House to take cognisance of these things; in fact, your Lordships' House is the only House which is able to do it, and which has the time to do it.
As I understand it, under the Bill, to which the noble Marquess has moved an Amendment, it will be possible for your Lordships' House to move an Amendment and to wish to annul the Order in Council. His Majesty's Government will take no notice of it whatever, because they will say that the Order in Council has not been discussed in the House of Commons, and, therefore, there is no reason why any notice should be taken of what has been done in your Lordships' House. It seems to me that this is an attempt to place the Crown above Parliament, and to place the power of the Executive above your Lordships'
1032
House. This is an example of the way in which the bureaucracy is gradually taking more and more power out of the hands of Parliament. It is no small matter, and I hope that the noble Marquess who has moved the Amendment will carry it to a Division, in which case I shall have much pleasure in supporting it.
EARL LOREBURN: I agree that the word "may" means "may," and that the word "shall" means "shall." When you use the word "may" it is obvious sometimes, if you are speaking about His Majesty, that it may be supposed to impose upon him a duty. But that is not the real question. It is true that this form in the Bill is common; but there are other forms, also common, which are used whenever the, occasion arises, for delegating the right of making a Regulation without submitting it to Parliament. To my mind it matters little whether the form has been used in the past or not. The question is whether it ought to be, used now; and I should have thought, with my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, that it was desirable that there should be a power in the House to put an end to a Regulation; because a Regulation is equivalent to a Statute, and, therefore, it ought to be within the control of either House.
LORD SUMNER: This appears to be a point upon which a lawyer may be able to contribute something. I agree with my noble and learned friend who has just sat down that one form may be good in one Statute, and another form may be good in another Statute; and I do not think that on the present occasion we are much concerned with any piece of legislation except this one. It is desirable that the effect of the Amendment should be clearly understood. If this Bill should pass as it stands it means this. I will take one instance. Clause 21 subsection (4) says—
"The following special provisions shall apply for the purpose of enabling persons whose names are entered on the absent voters list to appoint voting proxies in certain cases:—(a) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct" so and so.
If then His Majesty does by Order in Council so direct, that Order in Council has the force of a Statute. It is true that it is defeasible and can be annulled in a certain way under Clause 35; but until that happens that is part of the Act of Parliament.
Now, this Amendment proposes—and it is apparently what those who support it intend—that this House can, by an Address

1033
to the Crown, repeal the Act of Parliament whether the other branch of the Legislature likes it or not. It also proposes that this House can by its own act annul an Act of the King in Council which is a different thing altogether. That may be a matter of form, but I should have thought that it was a matter of some importance that one should not without grave reason authorise either branch of the Legislature, of its own motion, to annul an act of the King in Council. But if the Regulation has, under the Statute, as it passes, the effect of law, then the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor falls to the ground—namely, that you must have the assent of both Houses before the Regulation can have the force of law. In advance, and by the effect of passing the Statute in this form, the Order in Council—subject to its being defeated—in a certain way is of statutory effect. Then I should have thought that it was most undesirable, and not at all likely to lead to amity between the two branches of the Legislature, that one House should insist upon inserting by way of an Amendment a power, which it gives to itself (even though the other House strongly objected), to repeal that which has already attained the force of law. It is suggested that the real effect is to enable the Government of the day to do this. I think it is obvious that this cannot be on constitutional principles. What may be the case in the future, heaven only knows. I am sure I do not intend to prophesy. But if this House carried an Address to the Throne within the terms of the Amendment praying that the Regulation, or Order in Council (whatever it was) might be annulled, and, without being able to obtain the support of the other House, the Government of the day advised the Crown to pay no attention to that Address, there is a well-known constitutional remedy for bringing such Government to book, and, perhaps, still further. Of course, no Ministry could do it or would think of doing it unless it was able to count upon the support of the other House.
If the matter were challenged and the Ministry obtained the support of the other House, what is going to be the constitutional position? Is it then really desired that in the face of such a situation as that this House, by getting in its affirmative Address first, is to get the Order in Council annulled? I should have thought that the regular form was manifestly the right form
1034
—that the King in Council, having been empowered and authorised to make Regulations which would have the effect of a Statute, should then be approached by an Address upon which in the ordinary constitutional way he would be advised to act, and his Ministers who advise him must advise him constitutionally, or take the consequences.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to state why I cannot agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. I am not a lawyer, nor anything resembling a lawyer, but I have had a great deal of experience in Parliament, and I can tell him, if he will allow me, what is the general belief in respect of this sort of provision in an Act of Parliament. There is a major way of passing a law, and a minor way. Under both methods the assent of both Houses of Parliament is required. The major form of passing an Act of Parliament is a Bill such as now lies before your Lordships, but in order to deal with minor matters the method adopted by Parliament is to let it be put in the form of an Order in Council, and if either House object to it then the Order is annulled. In that way you get the same essential principle, that both Houses of Parliament, either actively or tacitly, assent to what has been done. There is no indignity to the Crown, as one would almost imagine that the noble and learned Lord argued, in doing so. It is merely a method of legislation. Parliament is so overcharged with work that we naturally resort to these methods in order to endeavour to remove the block of business in Parliament. If we are to be told that by-working through Orders in Council or Rules, either House of Parliament parts with its essential privilege of assenting to or dissenting from what is being done, then the matter becomes very serious indeed, because we should never avail ourselves of this method again in any circumstances. I would like to remind the noble and learned Lord how far his doctrine carries him. It is not merely that Orders in Council are to be found under such clauses as he read out, but if he looks at the end of Clause 36 he will see that it is capable of infinite modification hereafter, and, according to him the same rule would apply—neither House of Parliament would have an essential right to refuse. He says it is not a sound doctrine to say that an Order in Council is an Act of the Cabinet of the day. Whose act is it then? Of course it is done

1035
upon the advice of Ministers. It is an Act of the Cabinet of the day, or indeed it may be of a single Minister.
LORD SUMNER: I never said anything to the contrary—at least, I never intended to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rather gathered that the noble and learned Lord doubted whether it was an act of the Cabinet of the day; and although the House of Commons still enjoys great power I am not sure, when I regard the onward march of democracy, whether it will always retain that power; and even a Resolution of the House of Commons would be ignored by the Cabinet under the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, having regard to what has fallen from such high authorities as the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, who have announced that, contrary to all our beliefs, we are not protected as we thought we were, we must insist upon going to a Division.
LORD ATKINSON: I do not rise to continue the discussion, but I want to say a word as to its novelty, which is the thing which strikes me as most peculiar; because I have painful recollection of the Local Government Act of 1898, in which clauses were introduced which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to apply any provision of even English Statutes which he thought desirable to the local government that was about to be set up under the Bill, and farther enabled him to modify existing Irish Statutes so as to bring them into harmony with the new provisions of the Local Government Act. I find, looking at Section 107, subsection (2), it is provided totidem verbis that the Orders so made shall lie upon the Table of either House for forty days, and that it shall be competent for either House to present an Address to His Majesty asking that they should be disallowed, and thereupon His Majesty may annul. Therefore there is no greater mistake than supposing that this is any departure from the usual practice followed. On the contrary, it has been done in many other cases, but in the Act of 1898 the power exercised went far beyond anything which is now contemplated, because it enabled the Lord Lieutenant to apply English Statutes to Ireland and to modify Irish Statues.
EARL RUSSELL: I want to suggest to the noble Marquess that the Orders which he looked upon as so terrible already exist in additional force. There are Orders in
1036
Council which are laid before the Houses of Parliament, but there are precisely similar methods by which powers are given to Government Departments to make Rules and Regulations which, when made, have the force of Statutes and do not require the assent of Parliament. I think Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act are in that position and cannot be withdrawn merely on the Motion of one House which objects to them. There are many Rules and Regulations of first-class importance which are in that position, and although I share the objection of the noble Marquess to bureaucratic legislation, and desire that no law should become operative which has not been considered by both Houses of Parliament, it is not a new thing. I do not often address your Lordships from the position of a crusted Tory, but I want to make an appeal to the noble Marquess rather on this ground. This form of words is perfectly well-known, and is a regular form of words, and although he brushed aside any suggestion of any disrespect to the Crown if this Amendment were carried, still it will be a very curious alteration of an old form. An Order will be made by His Majesty in Council, and instead of praying His Majesty to annul and modify that Order, either House will on its own Motion be able to brush that Order aside. It is rather a new practice, and I should have thought that in view of his political sympathies the noble Marquess would hardly approve of it. I cannot support him in the suggestion he has made because in this matter I must be regarded as of the Victorian era.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I have no doubt that the formula in the Bill is the formula often and indeed continually used, nor should I object to have it retained in the Bill, but the interpretation given to that formula by the Lord Chancellor and supported by my noble and learned friend behind me raises a new danger which we never had before us before. My noble and learned friend behind me says that, suppose this Bill becomes an Act, power is given to the Crown to make certain regulations by Order in Council, and that the Order in Council thereby becomes the same as an Act of Parliament. He omits to remember that power is given to the Crown to make the Order in Council subject to the condition that that Order shall be laid before both Houses, and if within a certain number of days either House

1037
presents an Address to His Majesty something shall follow. Now an Order in Council does not become an absolute Act until the expiration of the time within which that Address may be presented. In the meantime it is provisionally an Act of Parliament, but it is made an Act of Parliament subject to that condition, and only subject to that condition. If that condition amounts to nothing—and the Lord Chancellor says that in certain cases it might mean nothing, that the Address made by this House or the other House might be disregarded on advice given to the Crown by the Minister for the time being—then the situation has entirely changed, and it becomes desirable, since that construction is put upon it, to alter the phraseology to which we have been accustomed and to which we should be quite ready to assent, if the practice had not been questioned by the very alarming interpretation put upon it by the Lord Chancellor supported by my noble and learned friend.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help feeling that this subject, which has assumed dimensions of somewhat unexpected importance, demands further consideration. The feeling of the House, as I understand it—certainly of a great many noble Lords—is not so much that they are concerned against the form of words as by the interpretation which has been placed upon those words. In view of that interpretation the House may desire to have different words, but it does not follow that, after reflection, it would be prepared to take the precise form of words proposed in the Amendment, which do involve a very definite departure from anything we have seen before. I, for one, certainly could not vote for their insertion in the Bill until all forms of words which have been used on previous occasions in similar circumstances have been examined by the proper authorities. I do not know myself how
far the form of words which appears in the Bill as it stands has been departed from on former occasions. I think probably it has often been departed from, and that there has been some variation of its terms.
Several NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am bound to say that if the form has never been departed from the case for retaining it is all the stronger, whatever the Lord Chancellor's interpretation may be, and I should deprecate the insertion by your Lordships' House, as a part of the Bill, of this new form of words which nobody has had much time to consider. I should have thought it might be possible to postpone further consideration of the subject until the authorities have had an opportunity of studying the precedents and thereby enabling us to form a considered opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word, although I have already twice addressed the House on this subject? Suppose what the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord say is correct, the position is this. You have an Order which comes from the Government or from the proper Department. It is laid before both Houses and, whatever either House thinks, the same Department may or may not annul its own Order. Well, it is a futile provision under those conditions. An Order comes from the Government and it is not to be annulled unless the Government desire to annul it, or it comes from a Government Department and is not to be annulled unless that Department wish to annul it. It seems to me that on constitutional grounds you have no safeguard at all.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

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

Russell, E.

Kenyon, L.

Sandwich, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

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

Newton, L.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Pontypridd, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ranksborough, L.

Newcastle, D.

Harcourt, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Crewe, M.

Peel, V.

St. Davids, L.

Ancaster, E.

Anslow, L.

Saltoun, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Atkinson, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Clarendon, E.

Basing, L.

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

Eldon, E.

De Mauley, L.

Howe, E.

Digby, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Dinevor, L.

Suffield, L.

Lytton, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sumner, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gainford, L.

Sydenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Minto, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Northumberland, D.

Morton, E.

Forester, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Selborne, E.

Glenconner, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Falmouth, V.

Grenfell, L.

Gladstone, V.

Harris, L.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Knollys, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camperdown, E.

Lambourne, L.

Cottenham, E.

Avebury, L.

Lamington, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Balfour, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Parmoor, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lichfield, E.

Burnham, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Lindsay, E.

Carnock, L.

Sandys, L.

Loreburn, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add a new subsection. The noble Viscount said:—This is merely transferring this subsection from Clause 36. It is better from a drafting point of view.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 33, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Any Order in Council under this Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council."—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Interpretation.
36. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(1) The expression "constituency" means any county, borough, or combination of places, or university or combination of universities, returning a member to serve in Parliament; and, where a county or borough is divided for the purpose of parliamentary elections, means a division of the county or borough so divided; and elections for any such division shall be held in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as those for undivided counties or boroughs:

(2) The expression "local government electoral area" means the area for which any county council, municipal borough council, metropolitan borough council, district council, board of guardians, parish council, or any other body elected at the time of the passing of this Act by persons on the local government register or on the register of parochial electors is elected; and the expression "local government election" means an election for any such council, board, or body:

1040

(3) The expression "general election" means an election of members to serve in a new Parliament of the United Kindom:

(4) The expression "university constituency" means a constituency consisting of a university or a combination of universities; and the expression "university election" means an election of a member or members of Parliament for a university constituency; and this Act in its application to university elections, shall be read with the substitution of "voting paper" for "ballot paper," and with such other modifications as are necessary to adapt it to the special circumstances of those elections:

(5) A person who is an inmate or patient in any prison, lunatic asylum, workhouse, poorhouse, or any other similar institution shall not by reason thereof be treated as resident therein for any purpose of this Act:

(6) The expression "transferable vote" means a vote—

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

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or when, owing to the deficiency in the number of the votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates:

(7) The expression "alternative vote" means a vote—

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

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

(8) For the purposes of registration a person's age shall be taken to be that person's age on the last day of the qualifying period:

1041

(9) The yearly value of premises shall be taken to be the gross estimated rental where those premises are separately assessed to rates, and in any other case shall be deemed to be the amount which would in the opinion of the registration officer be the gross estimated rental if they were separately assessed:

(10) The expression "afloat" in connexion with naval and military voters shall be interpreted in accordance with rules made for the purpose by the Admiralty:

(11) The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by His Majesty by Order in Council:

Any order in Council under the Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council.

LORD SHEFFIELD: I want to ask a question here of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I am told that the definition "constituency" here will not affect what was done-with regard to proportional representation. Nevertheless it seems to me that the word "constituency" as defined here is a sub-division of a Parliamentary area which returns its Member. Therefore there will be no constituency in Clause 36 except those returning one Member. I am told that the draftsman of the Bill says there is nothing in the point, and that it will be covered. If the noble Lord says the definition does not affect it, I have nothing to say.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the definition as it is will fit in very well
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to delete from subsection (4) all the words after "members of Parliament for a University constituency." The noble Viscount said:—These words fall out because of the University clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, leave out from ("constituency") to the end of line 29.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved the deletion of subsection (7). The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 5, leave out subsection (7).—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: With regard to the Amendments standing in my name, the first is inserted to make the, clause correspond with the earlier part of the Bill. The Amendment on line 17 is necessary
1042
because a different expression is used in the metropolis from that used in other parts of the country; and the Amendment on line 22 is in order to make the words rather wider so as to include all persons who are serving afloat.
Amendments moved
Page 26, line 16, after ("of") insert ("land or")
Page 26, line 17, after ("rental") insert ("(or in the metropolis the gross value)")
Page 26, line 21, after ("rental") insert ("or gross value as the case requires")
Page 26, line 22, after ("afloat") insert ("and expressions relating to service afloat")
Page 26, line 27, leave out lines 27 to 29.—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
Application to Scotland.
38. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—

(1) Unless the context otherwise requires:—

(a) The word "borough" except as used in the expression "Parliamentary borough" moans "burgh";

(b) The expression "local government electoral area" means the area for which any county council, town council, parish council, or school board, is elected, and "local government election" means an election for any such council or board;

(c) The expression "the Local Government Board" means the Secretary for Scotland;

(d) The expression "Valuation Acts" means the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and any Acts amending the same;

(e) A reference to the Supreme Court shall be construed as a reference to the Court of Session;

(f) A reference to the Court of Appeal shall be construed as a reference to the Court of three judges of the Court of Session constituted by the twenty-third section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868;

(g) A reference to the county court shall be construed as a reference to the sheriff court:

(2) The yearly value of any subjects shall be taken to be the value appearing in the valuation roll where those subjects are separately valued in that roll, and in any other case shall be deemed to be the value which, would in the opinion of the registration officer be entered therein if they were so valued:

1043

(3) The section of this Act relating to local government franchise (men) shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

(a) A man who is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity shall be entitled to be registered as a local government electoral area if he is on the last day of the qualifying period and has been during the whole of that period—

(i) the owner of lands and heritages within the area of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds: Where lands and heritages are in the joint ownership of two or more persons and the aggregate yearly value of the lands and heritages is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint owners, each of the joint owners shall be treated as owning lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than ton pounds; or

(ii) the occupier as tenant of lands and heritages (other than a dwelling-house) within the area of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds: Where such lands and heritages are in the joint occupation as tenants of two or more persons, and the aggregate value of the lands and heritages is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying lands and heritages of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds; or

(iii) The inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of a dwelling-house within the area; or

(iv) the occupier of lodgings within the area of the yearly value if let unfurnished of not less than ten pounds: Where lodgings are in the joint-occupation of not more than two persons and the aggregate yearly value as aforesaid of the lodgings is not less than twenty pounds, each of the joint lodgers shall be treated as occupying lodgings of the yearly-value of not less than ten pounds; or

(v) the inhabitant occupier in virtue of any office, service, or employment of a dwelling-house within the area which is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such offices, service, or employment;

(b)

(i) the ownership or occupation in immediate succession of different lands and heritages, dwelling-houses, or lodgings, as the case may be, in the same parliamentary county or in the same parliamentary borough shall have the like effect in qualifying a man to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area therein, respectively, as the continued ownership or occupation of the same lands and heritages, dwelling-houses, or lodgings within that area; and

1044

(ii) the occupation of a dwelling-house shall not he deemed to be interrupted by reason only of permission being given by letter or otherwise for the occupation thereof as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole;

(c) In this section "owner" has the same meaning as "proprietor" in the Valuation Acts, "lands and heritages" has the same meaning as in those Acts, and "dwelling-house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling;

(4) Subsection one of the section of this Act relating to franchises (women) shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

(a) a woman who is not subject to any legal incapacity shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she has attained the age of thirty years, and if either she or her husband is on the last day of the qualifying period occupying jointly or severally as owner or tenant any land or premises in the constituency (hereinafter in this subsection called "the qualifying premises"), and has during the whole of the qualifying period so occupied any land or premises in the county or county of a city in which the qualifying premises are situated:

Provided that for the purposes of this subsection—

(i) the word "tenant" shall include a person who inhabits by virtue of any office, service, or employment any dwelling-house which is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such offices, service, or employment;

(ii) the word "tenant" shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him or her in an unfurnished state:

(iii) a woman, though she or her husband may have been occupying land or premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered, if she or her husband, as the case may be, commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to occupy them within thirty days after the commencement of such occupation;

(iv) the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for a part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole;

1045

(v) not more than two persons shall be deemed to be joint occupiers of the same land or premises unless they are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises; and

(vi) the word "county" means a county inclusive of all burghs therein except a county of a city, and the word "dwelling-house" means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling.

(b) A woman registered by virtue of this section shall be deemed to be registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification—

(5) The section of this Act relating to registration officers and areas shall not apply-and in lieu thereof—

Each burgh, the town council whereof was entitled under the law in force at the passing of this Act to appoint an assessor for the purpose of parliamentary registration, and each county (exclusive of every such burgh), or, where any county is divided for the purpose of parliamentary elections, each part of the county which lies within a separate parliamentary division, shall be a registration area: and the assessor of the burgh or county under the Valuation Acts, or where there are two or more such assessors, one of them appointed for the purpose of varliamentary registration by the town or county council, as the case may be, shall be the registration officer of that area, and all other assessors (if any) in that area shall, for the purpose of parliamentary registration, be subject to the instructions of the registration officer and shall be bound to act on such instructions.

Provided, that, from and after the date when the first register under this Act shall have been completed, an officer of Inland Revenue shall not be appointed or continue to act as assessor for any burgh or county under the Valuation Acts without the consent of the Treasury.

(6) The provisions regarding the appointment of an assistant judge in the section of this Act relating to appeals shall not apply:

(7) In the application of the section of this Act relating to right to the use of elementary schools the expression "any public elementary school in receipt of an annual parliamentary grant" means "any school in receipt of a parliamentary grant."

(8) The first subsection of the section of this Act relating to expenses of registration shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

Any expenses properly incurred by any registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care, and attention in the performance of those duties and
1046
any cost incurred by him as party to an appeal (in this Act referred to as "registration expenses"), shall be paid by the council appointing the registration officer. Provided that, where a burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, is not a separate registration area, the council thereof shall pay to the council appointing the registration officer a contribution towards the registration expenses, and subsection (4) of section sixty and section sixty-six of that Act shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to such contribution. The amount necessary to defray any registration expenses or any contribution thereto, as the case may be, shall be assessed and levied in any one of the modes allowed by the Valuation Acts with respect to the costs and expenses of making up the valuation roll:

(9) The sections of this Act relating to returning officers and to the discharge of returning officers' duties by an acting returning officer shall not apply, and in lieu thereof:—

The returning officer at parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall as heretofore be the sheriff of the sheriffdom within which the constituency is wholly situated or, where the constituency is situated in more than one sheriffdom, the Sheriff specified in the Sixth Schedule; to this Act, and the power of appointing deputies conferred by section eight of the Ballot Act, 1872, on certain sheriffs shall be exerciseable by any sheriff who is returning officer for more than one constituency or who, by reason of sickness or unavoidable absence, is incapacitated from performing any of the duties devolving upon him as returning officer, and in the event of no such appointment being made by a sheriff so incapacitated or in the event of any vacancy in the office of sheriff at the time when any of such duties require to be performed, the sheriff substitute at the place at which the writ for the election is appointed to be received, shall act as returning officer, and shall perform all the duties and have all the powers (including the power of appointing deputies) of such returning officer.

(10) In the case of parliamentary elections the place of election shall be a convenient room situated in such place as the Secretary for Scotland may by order from time to time determine.

(11) For the purposes of the section of this Act relating to alteration of polling districts where necessary, the sheriff shall within his sheriffdom be deemed to be the local authority.

(12) Except as expressly provided in this Act—

(a) Nothing in this Act shall take effect so as to deprive any royal or parliamentary burgh losing separate representation under this Act of any right privilege, or status, whether for purposes of local government or otherwise, hitherto enjoyed by such burgh as a royal or parliamentary burgh; and

1047

(b) Nothing in this Act or in any Act in force at the passing of this Act as read with this Act shall take effect so as to confer upon any police burgh acquiring separate representation under this Act any rights, privileges, or status, whether for purposes of local government or otherwise, not enjoyed by other police burghs.

In this subsection the references to royal, parliamentary, or police burghs shall be deemed to include references to the magistrates, town councils, and officers thereof, respectively, and the expression "separate representation" shall be construed as meaning the right to return, or to contribute as a burgh to return, a member, or member's to Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: All the Amendments in my name to Clause 38, down to page 31, deal with the Scottish clause. They are either drafting Amendments or are necessary to adapt the Scottish clause to the other provisions of the Bill. If noble Lords wish I will go through them seriatim and explain them.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Agreed, agreed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move the Amendments on the Paper down to page 31, line 6.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 13, after ("Board") insert ("(except where otherwise expressly provided)")
after line 16 insert:
"(e) The expression 'governing body' used in relation to a university means the University Court; "
Page 28, line 1, after ("where") insert ("such")
Page 28, line 10, leave out ("(other than a dwelling-house)")
Page 28, line 25, after ("where") insert ("such")
Page 28, line 32, leave out ("in") and insert "by").
Page 29, line 5, leave out from ("area") to the end of line 11
Page 29, line 12, leave out from ("owner") to end of line 14 and insert ("shall include heir of entail in possession, life-renter, and beneficiary entitled under any trust to the rents and profits of lands and heritages and shall not include the liar of lands and heritages subject to a life-rent, nor tutor, curator, judicial factor, nor commissioner").
Page 29, line 24, leave out ("on the last day") and insert ("during the last fourteen days")
Page 29, line 25, leave out ("jointly or severally")
Page 29, line 25, leave out line 32 and insert ("(b) For the purposes of this subsection")
Page 29, line 36, after ("he") insert ("or she").
Page 30, line 1, leave out from the beginning of line 1 to the end of line 22.
Page 30, after line 27, insert as a new paragraph:
"(iv) Where land or premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying the same, provided that not more than two joint occupiers shall be so treated in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bona fide engaged as partners, carrying on their profession, trade, or business on the land or premises."
Page 30, after line 30, insert as new subsections:
"(5) Subsection (1) of the section of this Act relating to supplementary provisions as to residence and occupation shall not apply except in so far as that subsection relates to the parliamentary franchise for men.
"(6) The section of this Act relating to qualification for membership of local authority shall not apply."
Page 30, line 38, after ("county") insert ("(with the like exclusion)")
Page 31, line 6, leave out ("parliamentary registration") and insert ("the registration of parliamentary and local government electors").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (5). The noble Lord said:—I am proposing to omit the proviso on page 31, lines 9 to 14. This is a matter, like the last Amendments, concerned with the intricacies of Scottish law, especially as regards valuation. I will state the case as briefly as I can, and I shall not take many minutes. As you know, in Scotland we have an annual system of valuation. We do not wait for every five years, but all real and inheritable property is valued every year, and therefore the local authorities, who are responsible for seeing it done, have to appoint valuers for the purpose. Going back to 1857, when this system of valuation was brought into force, the county and borough authorities had the power to appoint officers of the Inland Revenue to be their assessors, and this remained absolutely unchallenged until the Local Government Act of 1889. In that year the Treasury asserted the right to have a consenting power before their officers where taken for this public purpose, and that was agreed to. The proviso in that Act says that it shall not be lawful to appoint officers of the Inland Revenue to be assessors without previously obtaining the consent of the Treasury. The renewal of

1049
existing appointments was specially saved in that Act. Under the proviso now under discussion, even existing officers will be turned out from their, to some extent, profitable employment, after having done one more service. I do not think that is fair. We desire to delete this proviso only for the purpose of saving existing appointments. We do not want to alter the condition now existing that the Treasury shall be asked to give consent to new appointments, but we do not think it is reasonable that existing appointments should be cancelled. It is greatly to the detriment of the smaller local authorities that these appointments should be cancelled at all, and it is also exceptionally unfair to the individuals who hold them, because in respect of the local appointments which they hold they have to a large extent in the past sacrificed the chance of promotion under the Treasury. They have got accustomed to the district, formed local connections, and if they are to be now turned out it seems to me an exceptionally hard case. Many of them are men advanced in life, and it will be a serious detriment to their revenue. Many of them, I am sure, would not have incurred these obligations if they had not thought that their appointment would be permanent. I would call the noble Viscount's special attention to this point. The assessors are preserved under the Act for the first work. If it is not detrimental to the Treasury to preserve them for the first work, which will undoubtedly be heavy, why should they be turned out afterwards? Why should they not continue to undertake the duties subsequently the same as they are doing at present? I have given a sufficient outline of what I think is the injustice of the proviso, and I will say no more until I hear what is said on behalf of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, leave out lines 9 to 14 inclusive.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISOUNT PEEL: The noble. Lord has stated the position of the surveyors appointed as assessors. As the noble Lord knows, I am not very familiar personally with this matter. A number of surveyors have, in fact, been appointed to act as assessors both in boroughs and in counties, and such appointment carries with it the obligation to act as registration officer. Up to the present it has not been found that the work involved in these appointments has seriously interfered with the
1050
duties of the surveyors as revenue officers; but under the present Bill the registration work will not only be vastly increased, but it will be less intimately connected with the duties of valuation assessors than in the past, inasmuch as in the past this Register of voters has been compiled mainly from the yearly returns made for valuation purposes, whereas in future such returns will be of no assistance in the preparation of the second Register in each year. It is anticipated that under the Bill the number of voters will be doubled, and the Registers of electors are to be prepared half-yearly instead, of yearly as at present. Moreover, the Register will contain the names of a vast number of persons who are neither owners nor occupiers of property, and who are, therefore, quite outside the scope of the assessors' activities in relation to the valuation. In these circumstances the Board of Inland Revenue felt that the additional work which may in future devolve on surveyors of taxes as registration officers may be such as to interfere seriously with the Revenue duties for which they are primarily employed, and it is at their instance that the paragraph in question has been added to the subsection. The Board have expressed their willingness to allow those surveyors who are at present acting as registration officers to complete the first Register which will come into force on April 15 next year as the Bill now is. It will then be known what amount of additional work is involved, and to what extent it can be performed by surveyors of taxes without serious detriment to their Revenue activities. In these circumstances the Scottish Office held, as a matter of precaution, that they ought to retain this subsection in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It appears that the attitude of the Inland Revenue arises with regard to this first. Register. But they are retaining the surveyors for the first registration, and surely, until they have found out that they are not able to do their duty at the first registration they ought not to refuse to employ them hereafter if it is found that they are able to do the work I would point out to the noble Viscount that it is a very great hardship on these men, and I thoroughly agree with everything that has been said by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. If they are willing to use the surveyors on the first occasion, why they should absolutely refuse to retain them for the second I do not understand.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Earl looks at the clause he will see that it says "shall not be appointed without the consent of the Treasury." It does not say "shall not be appointed," but only shall not be appointed without Treasury consent.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope that your Lordships will accept Lord Balfour's Amendment. In the past this system has worked extraordinarily well, so well that I think it ought to be kept. What perhaps is not thoroughly realised is that the whole of the work is done by clerks who are paid by the surveyors of taxes out of the moneys they receive, and these clerks are also able to help them to a large extent in their other work. The fact of the matter is that this has proved in the past, and I am convinced will do so in the future, not only a very efficient but a most economical method of doing this work. There have been practically no complaints about it, and it has been universally recognised as an excellent system. I am sure that it will be a very great mistake to interfere with it, and I cannot see that there is any reason for doing so. The surveyors may require a larger staff in order that they may carry out their duties in future as well as they have done in the past, but I think that the surveyors of taxes are almost unanimously in favour of this Amendment, and I do not think that they are a class of men who, unless they could see their way to carry out this work properly without detriment to their other duties, would be likely to be willing to undertake it. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.
LORD LAMINGTON: I echo the words which have just fallen from the noble Duke. If the Government find these duties too heavy in the future they could have an Order in Council to relieve these men of them. They say that they will wait and see. But if we eliminate this now it is not likely to be re-inserted: whereas if we retain it, it will always be in the power of the Government to take steps to have it deleted.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Whenever a change has been made in any Franchise Bill from 1866 onwards existing interests have been conserved. I am not proposing to alter the present condition that the Treasury shall have to give consent to new appointments. I think that that is
1052
reasonable, although it is only done in the smaller counties, and I think that the Treasury work is not seriously interfered with. The new words in the proviso are not only "shall not be appointed" but also "or continue to act." I think that is a very serious injustice. I may tell the noble Viscount that I believe I am voicing the unanimous desire of every borough authority as expressed in their borough association, and of every' county authority as expressed in their county council's association. I have had letters from the secretaries of both, and I do not think that there is a single dissentient.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that Lord Balfour is upon a rather more limited point than other noble Lords. He is anxious to save the rights of those who are acting already, and does not object to fresh appointments being subject to the consent of the Treasury.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is the law now.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But the noble Lord is attempting to do too much if he wishes to leave out the whole of the subsection. It might be done by leaving out the words "or continue to act."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That will not do, because technically the appointment is one that goes from year to year to the same man.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I could accept the omission of the words "or continue to act." I am afraid that, as at present advised. I could not go further.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I beg to give the most positive assurance that that will not meet the case, because the same man is appointed year by year by the same authority. His appointment is technically an annual one, and therefore if this proviso stands, even with the words indicated cut out, it would not be possible, as I understand it to make this annual appointment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But in that case does not the subsection want re-drafting? I think really that is what is wanted. Otherwise if it was omitted, as the noble Lord suggests, it would do what he wants but it would also do more than he wants.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: No, it would not do any more. I will give the reference, Section 83, subsection (4) of the Local Government Act, 1889, provides already that it shall not be lawful to appoint an officer to be assessor without previously obtaining the consent of the Treasury. Renewals of existing appointments are especially saved in that subsection.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I cannot help thinking that there is not much between us on this subject. The object of the noble Lord is clearly to secure that men who have honourably performed these functions in the past shall not be thrust to one side. I think, if the Amendment could be withdrawn now, we could confer with the noble Lord as to the proper method of maintaining existing interests. It might be possible I hope it would be possible—that we could come to an agreement.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Of course, I accept that. But time is very short, and I hope that, if I repeat the Amendment on Report, it will be really looked into before that time.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What I had hoped was that we should perhaps be able to do it before the time came for putting it down for Report, in order to have agreed words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("in receipt of an annual parliamentary grant").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of a new subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, after line 29, insert as a new subsection:
"(10) The provisions of the last paragraph of the section of this Act relating to register for University constituencies shall not apply, and the said section shall have effect as if regulation sixteen of section two of the Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881, were enacted therein in lieu of the said paragraph.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an Amendment in subsection (10).
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 30, at beginning of line insert ("The section of this Act relating to place of election shall not apply, and in lieu thereof") and after ("elections") insert ("(other than an election for a university constituency)").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of a new subsection in lieu of subsection (11).
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 34, leave out subsection (11) and insert as a new subsection:
"(11) In the application of the section of this Act relating to division of constituency into polling districts and provision of polling places, and of the section of this Act relating to alteration of polling places where necessary, the returning officer shall be substituted for the council having a power or duty under those sections to divide a constituency into polling districts, and the Lord Advocate shall be substituted for the Local Government Board."—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I understand that the returning officer in Scotland is the sheriff. Is there any reason why the sheriff should not be named, instead of being referred to as the returning officer? When a writ is issued the sheriff becomes the returning officer, but he is not the returning officer throughout the year, and he does not become so until a writ is issued, and it cannot be intended that he should not divide the constituency into polling districts until a writ has been issued.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps the noble Viscount will let me consider the point. I am not very familiar with Scottish matters.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the addition of new subsections. The noble Lord said: This, of course, raises a very large question. I quite admit that it is one of great importance. This new subsection when inserted would keep the existing custom in Scotland of having only one Register in the year instead of two. The reason why I have put it down is really to enable me to raise a point which I could not raise on an earlier question on the ground of privilege. At the present time half the expenses of making the Register for Parliamentary and local government purposes are defrayed between the Imperial

1055
Exchequer and the local authority. That is perfectly reasonable, because they are both made up annually and each one may be required at any time in the year. Under the present Bill, for Parliamentary purposes the Register is made up half-yearly, because that is the Parliamentary usage. It is absolutely of no use whatever for local government purposes, because the local government elections happen only once in three years and by Statute they happen at a stated time when the July Register will be sufficient. The two Registers are absolutely for county or burgh elections, and I may mention that Scotland in this case is only asking what is given to Ireland in the following subsection. The Irish Registers are made up only once a year. If that will do for Ireland, why will it not do for Scotland? It seems to me very unfair that the expense should be divided equally between Imperial and local sources when the whole object of the half-yearly Register is for Imperial and not for local purposes. This matter would have been raised in another place only by accident it was omitted. They ask that two-thirds of the expense should be paid from Imperial funds, and only one-third from local. That Amendment, if I could have raised it at all, would have been raised for England as well as for Scotland. Of course, I cannot ask that the Imperial funds should be differently applied as between England and Scotland. Obviously, it would not be fair that a different proportion should be paid in Scotland from that paid in England, but it seems to me a reasonable way to free us from the second Register. I do not believe that it would make any material difference, because almost all our removals are at one period of the year, at the May term. Therefore in nearly all the burgh constituencies the movements will have taken place and be ready for the July Register. I do not think any material interests will be damaged by this change.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, after line 17, insert the following new subsections:
"( ) The section of this Act relating to the qualifying period shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—

"The qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending on the fifteenth of July and including that day.

"( ) The sections of this Act relating to spring and autumn registers shall not apply, and in lieu thereof—
1056

"One register of electors shall be made in each year, and all the provisions applicable to the autumn register shall apply as respects the yearly register (except that the yearly register shall remain in force until the fifteenth day of October in the next following year) and the provisions as to the preparation of two registers in each year and to the spring register shall not apply.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh).

VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think the noble Lord dwelt so strongly on one portion of his Amendment as he did the other. May I take it in two forms? One as regards the two Registers for the Parliamentary vote, and the other as regards the two Registers for the local government vote. So far as regards the Parliamentary Register, the case is, of course, easily intelligible. It would make it more difficult for Parliamentary electors in Scotland to keep upon the Register than it is in the southern part of the island, and probably the noble Lord feels that it would be extremely difficult to have only one Register in Scotland in the year and two in England. As regards the local government Register I understand the case is different. The Secretary for Scotland has received a number of representations from Scotland to the effect that it is unnecessary to make up a Spring Register for local government purposes as the local government elections in Scotland all take place in the autumn, when the Autumn Register will be in force. If the form in which the Register in future is made up is such that there would be a material saving by not making up the Spring local government Register there is much to be said for inserting a provision in the Bill to allow this course to be followed. It seems desirable, however, that this course should be optional. This question of whether or not there will be a saving of trouble or expense in making up the Spring Register will depend on the circumstances of the registration area and also the form in which the Register is to be made up. I have been shown some forms under which apparently it does not seem to make very much difference. As at present advised I am not able to accept either portion of one Amendment which deals with having one Parliamentary Register; but if my noble friend chooses to bring up an Amendment on the Report stage making it optional for the authorities to have one local government Register for the year, then the Government will be prepared to accept that.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I cannot undertake to draft an Amendment of that kind between now and Report stage if it is to be taken on Monday, because obviously I must communicate with friends in Scotland who would help me to do it. If, however, the Secretary for Scotland or the drafter of the Bill will collaborate with me, I think the offer is a fair one and I will be glad to assist. I quite accept what the noble Viscount says, that it will be a violent change and a change; to the disadvantage of Scotland to do away with the second Parliamentary Register if there is to be a second Parliamentary Register in England, and that part I have no desire to press; but I venture to say that I hope if this change is made something will be done in consequence to relieve the local authorities of the undue expense they will be put to in connection with the Registers. I do not want to appeal in forma pauperis, but rates are very high in Scotland, and anything we can do to keep them within due limits without sacrifice of efficiency will be welcome in a wide circle.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can promise that the noble Lord will have the assistance of the official draftsman to produce his Amendment by Monday next.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In that case I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only going to add that the noble Lord cannot expect me to make any statement on the financial point, which is rather a matter for another place. As for the rates in Scotland being heavy, I could tell him a great story about the English rates if he wishes to listen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39:
Application to Ireland.
39. This Act shall apply to Ireland subject to the following modifications:—

(1) References to the Lord Chancellor shall be construed as references to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.

The Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall not sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of appeals from the county court under this Act.

In any county in which the jurisdiction of the county court is exercised for
1058
the time being by two or more county court judges, the appeals from the registration officer shall be dealt with by such one of those judges or his assistant judge as may be directed by the Lord Chancellor, or shall be distributed amongst those judges and their assistant judges according as may be so directed.

For the purposes of this Act, county court rules, orders, and scales of fees, costs, and charges may be made under sections seventy-nine, eighty-three, and eighty-four of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877; but the provisions of those sections as to the concurrence of, or certification by, county court judges or the recorder shall not apply:

(2) The reference to the Local Government Board in relation to the approval of a deputy for the execution of any of the powers and duties of a registration officer shall be construed as a reference to the Lord Lieutenant, and other references to that Board shall be construed as references to the Local Government Board for Ireland:

(3) The clerk of the Crown and peace for an administrative county shall be the registration officer for any registration area which is coterminous with, or the whole or greater part of which is contained in, the administrative county, and the council of that county shall be the council by which the registration expenses of that registration officer are to be paid subject in cases where the registration area is not coterminous with or wholly contained in the administrative county to such contribution by the council of any other administrative county as the Local Government Board for Ireland may direct: Provided that the registration expenses to be paid by a council shall not include any charges for trouble, care, and attention, in the performance of duties which are performed by the registration officer in person:

The registration expenses shall be paid in the case of the council of a county borough, out of the rate or fund out of which the general expenses of the council are paid, or out of any other rate or fund which the Local Government Board may on the application of the council approve, and in the case of a council of any other administrative county out of the poor rate as a county at large charge, except in cases to which section twelve of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885, applies:

(4) Where an administrative county is divided into ridings the Lord Lieutenant may, by order, divide the parliamentary county into a corresponding number of registration areas, and make any adaptations of this Act which may be necessary in consequence of the division, and the clerk of the crown and peace for any riding shall be registration officer for such of those areas as may be directed by the Lord Lieutenant:

1059

(5) For the purposes of appeals from the registration officer, and also for the purpose of the revision of jurors' lists, the powers and jurisdiction of the county court shall, unless and until the Lord Lieutenant otherwise direct, be exercised, as respects the parliamentary borough of Dublin, by the persons who are at the time of the passing of this Act Dublin revising barristers, and as respects the parliamentary county of Dublin by the person who is at the time of the passing of this Act revising barrister for that county; but while those powers are so exercised, the provisions of this Act as to county courts shall apply to them as they apply to county courts:

(6) The expenses of any printing required in connection with registration shall be treated as part of the expenses of the registration officer under this Act, notwithstanding that the printing is arranged for by the county council under section ninety-six of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898:

(7) The expression "administrative county" includes a county borough, and the expression "overseer," means a town clerk, secretary of a comity council, clerk of an urban district council, an existing clerk of the union, within the meaning of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and a collector of poor rate:

(8) Notwithstanding the limit imposed in subsection (2) of section twenty-seven of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, the salaries of clerks of the Crown and peace may be increased by orders made under that subsection to such extent as appears to the Lord Lieutenant and Council, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to be proper, having regard to the additional duties imposed on those officers by this Act.

(9) The reference to the local authority having power to divide any parliamentary county or parliamentary borough into polling districts shall be construed in the case of a parliamentary borough as a reference to the council of the municipal borough, and in the case of a parliamentary county as a reference to the council of the administrative county which is coterminous with, or includes the whole or greater part of the parliamentary county, and any existing powers in that behalf of a municipal borough council or county council shall be extended accordingly and shall be exercisable as respects the whole of the parliamentary borough or the parliamentary county as the case may be:

(10) Part IV of this Act, and the provisions with respect to an urban district, which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a registration area, or with respect to the persons who are to be returning officers, or with respect to the discharge of returning officers' duties by an acting returning officer or with respect to the right to the use of elementary schools, shall not apply:

1060

(11) (a) The qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending on the fifteenth day of July and including that day:

Provided that one month shall be substituted for six months in the application of this provision to a person who has been serving as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown at anytime during the said six months; (b) One register of electors only shall be made in each year, and all provisions applicable to the autumn register shall apply as respects the yearly register (except that the yearly register shall remain in force until the fifteenth day of October in the next following year), and the provisions as to the preparation of two registers in each year and as to the spring register shall not apply.

(12) The yearly value of premises shall be taken to be the rateable value where those premises are separately valued, and in any other case shall be deemed to be the amount which would, in the opinion of the registration officer, be the rateable value if they were separately valued:

LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD had given notice to move, after the words "shall" ["shall apply to Ireland"] to insert "not," and to leave out from "Ireland" to the end of the clause. The noble Lord said: I ask leave to postpone my Amendment on Clause 39 to the Report stage, as I think something might be said in the debate which might affect the Irish Convention, which would be very serious. But I will ask the noble Lord in charge, of the Bill whether he could not put the Report off till Wednesday. Monday is a most inconvenient day. If he could put the Report stage off until Wednesday I am sure many noble Lords who wish to speak on that stage would be pleased.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I support the appeal of the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken, and I should like to give certain reasons why I think it is most important that we should have here present, when this subject comes up, the Irish peers. We have at this moment in the House three Irish Beers. All the leading Irish peers, with the exception of those two who are my colleagues at the present moment, are in Ireland on very important work. I do think it is not doing justice to Ireland to pass this Bill without knowing what really is the opinion of Ireland upon it. The only thing I will ask is this. Is it wise in any circumstances, even when the Beers come back, unless we know what is going to happen to Ireland, to include Ireland in this Bill at all? It is now many years since I first sat

1061
upon the Benches in your Lordships' House, and I have been, year after year, distressed in matters of a social character to find the words "This Bill is not to apply to Ireland." Now here is a Bill which appears to me to be the very Bill in which those words ought to appear, but it is just the opposite way. This Bill is to apply to Ireland, and for what reason? Do we know what is going to be the future of Ireland? Do we know what is going to take place? Do we know what are the views of the Irish people?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting him? Do I understand he is going to move Lord Beresford's Amendment?
THE EARL OF MEATH: No; I am supporting it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not know whether we are to have a debate now on the date when we shall take the Report stage. I submit that it is a rather an inconvenient course to interpolate a debate of that character at this moment.
THE EARL OF MEATH: I bow to the decision of the noble Earl, if he considers it is so. But I thought it well to put reasons, because the noble and gallant Lord did not state them particularly, and I think they are important.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have on the Paper a series of Amendment to Clause 39 which adapts the clause to the provisions of the rest of the Bill, or rather adapts the provisions of the rest of the Bill to the case of Ireland. I will, of course, make a full statement if the House wishes to have one, but I think it possible that your Lordships do not wish me to do so. Therefore I have only to say that the Amendments down to line thirty-six are of a drafting and adaptive kind. I beg to move that they be accepted.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 22, leave out ("of Ireland").
Page 34, line 9, after ("county") insert ("not being a county borough")
Page 34, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("registration area") and insert ("parliamentary county")
Page 34, line 12, after the first ("county") insert ("and for any parliamentary borough of which the whole or greater part is contained in the administrative county and no part is contained in a county borough and the clerk of the Crown and peace for a county borough shall be the registration officer for any parliamentary
1062
borough which is coterminous with or the whole or any part of which is contained in the county borough") and leave out the second ("county") and insert ("administrative county or county borough, as the case may be")
Page 34, line 15, leave out ("registration area") and insert ("parliamentary county or parliamentary borough")
Page 34, line 16, after ("county") insert ("or county borough as the case may be")
Page 34, line 18, after ("county") insert ("or county borough")
Page 34, line 19, leave out ("for Ireland")
Page 34, line 33, at end insert as separate paragraphs:
"(c) In the event of any vacancy in the office of registration officer or in the event of the registration officer's incapacity to act, the powers and duties of the registration officer may be exercised and performed by any poison temporarily appointed in that behalf by the Lord Chancellor.
"(d) The power of advancing sums to a registration officer on account of registration expenses shall be exercisable by the council by which those expenses are to be paid.
"(e) This section, in its application to the county of Tipperary, shall have effect as if each parliamentary division of the county were a separate parliamentary county, and as if the clerk of the Crown and peace for the entire county were clerk of the Crown and peace for the administrative counties of the North Riding and the South Riding respectively."
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("them") and insert ("those persons")
Page 35, line 13, at end insert ("with the necessary modifications and particular with the modification that assistant judges may be appointed to assist those persons if, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, such appointment is necessary in order to enable the appeals to be disposed of with proper despatch")
Page 35, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("The expression 'administrative county' includes a county borough and")
Page 35, line 21, after ("expression") insert ("assistant.")
Page 35, line 34, at end insert ("Provided that the liability of a clerk of the Crown and peace to account for sums other than registration expenses received by him as registration officer shall not extend to any such increase of salary")
Page 35, line 35, leave out subsection (9) and insert:
"(9) The provisions with respect to the division of a constituency into polling districts and provision of polling places shall have effect with the following modifications:
"(a) A reference to the council by which the registration expenses of the registration officer for any constituency are to be paid shall be substituted for the reference to the council whose clerk the registration officer for any constituency is, or by whom the registration officer is appointed.

1063
"(b) The powers of a council under the said provisions shall be exercised in accordance with rules made by the Local Government Board, and any exercise of the powers shall be subject to confirmation by that Board who may confirm the proposed division or alteration either with or without modifications, or may withhold confirmation.
"(c) The Board may cause a local inquiry to be held as respects any questions arising in connection with the said provisions, and article thirty-two of the schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, shall apply to any such inquiry."
Page 36, line 12, after ("officer") insert ("or with respect to place of election")
Page 36, line 20, after ("person") insert ("who is a naval or military voter or")
Page 36, line 21, leave out "(or military") and insert ("military or air")
Page 36, line 22, at end insert "and has ceased so to serve").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert a new subsection at the end of Clause 39.
Amendment-moved—
Page 36, at end insert:
"(13) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or vote for a parliamentary constituency in respect of a qualification in a parliamentary borough constituency."—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Repeal and short title.
42. (1) The enactments mentioned in the Seventh Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Representation of the People Act, 1917.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to delete from the last line "1917" and to insert "1918." The noble Viscount said: I understand that this is a matter of printing only.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 35, leave out ("1917") and insert ("1918").—(Viscount Peel.)
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule:
VISCOUNT PEEL: My first Amendment is merely to put the words in Rule (1) in the negative form, because the registration officers say it is more convenient to have it done in that way.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 29, leave out ("entitled to vote only") and insert ("not entitled to vote").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from Rule (3) "include in" and to insert "add as a supplement to." The noble Viscount said: This absent voters list is a supplement; because the voters first appear on the general list, and they appear again on the absent voters list.
Amendment moved—
Line 32, leave out ("include in") and insert ("add as a supplement to").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
line 33, leave out ("as")
line 35, leave out ("a list of those") and insert ("of persona").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert in Rule 7, after "to," ["within his registration area to"] the words "make the necessary inquiries and to." The noble Viscount said: Supposing the officers cannot make the inquiries themselves and they wish to employ the overseers to do it, they shall have the power to order the overseers to make inquiries and report to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 34, after ("to") insert ("make the necessary inquiries and to").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved in Rule 7, after the word "unit," to insert "and publish the lists in the unit." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that the lists are published in the registration unit.
Amendment moved—
and after ("unit") insert ("and publish the lists in the unit").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add at the end of Rule 8 "or made by or sent to him under section twenty-four of the Municipal

1065
Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884" The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to treat the municipal list in the same way as a Parliamentary list.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 4, at end insert ("or made by or sent to him under section twenty-four of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in Rule 10, to insert after "The form of claim," the words "for a person making a claim on his own behalf." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment ought to be read in connection with the Amendment on line 25. In one case a person making a claim on his own behalf, and in the second case where a claim is made on behalf of a claimant by another person, the registration officer shall not enter the name of the claimant on the Register unless the masters required to be stated in the declaration under the foregoing provision are proved to his satisfaction.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 14, after ("claim") insert ("for a person making a claim on his own behalf").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to omit from Rule 10 the words "or in case such person has no settled residence an address to which communications may be sent." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to tie a person down to one address. Under the provisions of the Bill as drafted it is possible that some serious difficulties may arise in the event of a roaming voter. A roaming voter might perhaps by more than one of these extra qualifications give different addresses as a shipping agent, or as a banker, or as a solicitor; and it would be impossible to check an individual of that kind. It should be very easy for every roaming voter to name one place and tie himself down to that place. The Courts have held that residence may often be of a somewhat wide character; and I believe that on one occasion they held that travelling abroad was a definition of "residence." But be that as it may, it seems desirable that there should be some means of checking what I might; call a plurality of voting; and unless a man is tied down
1066
to one place he may give several addresses in connection with his different qualifications, and he would run no risk of being punished in the event of discovery.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 21, leave out from ("residence") to ("A") in line 23.—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. The noble Lord wishes, in case such a person has no settled residence, to treat him really as if he had one. There is no crime in not having a settled residence. There are a number of people who have no settled residence, but who live in hotels and thus acquire an address. Surely it is very hard in that case to assert that a man must have a settled residence. Take the case of a man who has not a settled residence and who has a business vote. Why should he not have his address at an hotel? Otherwise the effect would be to disfranchise this person. With regard to the fear expressed by the noble Lord of a man voting more than he ought to, there are very severe penalties in other parts of the Bill which should act as a sufficient deterrent. If the Amendment is pressed, I am afraid that a good many people will be disfranchised.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not want to disfranchise anybody. My only desire is to check an individual from giving qualifications and addresses. However, I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the addition of words at the end of Rule 10. The noble Viscount said: I have stated that this Amendment connects with the Amendment moved in line 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 25, at end insert ("Where a claim is made on behalf of a claimant by another person, the Registration Officer shall not enter the name of the claimant on the register, unless the matters required to be stated in the declaration under the foregoing provision are proved to his satisfaction").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next six Amendments are consequential upon the changes made in Rule 9.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 8, leave out ("before the fifteenth") and insert ("not later than the eighteenth")
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("fifteenth") and insert ("eighteenth")
Page 41, line 14, after ("claimant") insert ("(if registered)")
Page 41, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("person registered as a")
Page 41, line 19, leave out ("before the fifteenth") and insert ("not later than the eighteenth")
Page 41, line 20, leave out ("fifteenth") and insert ("eighteenth").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved the insertion of a new Rule (15). The noble Lord said: I think that this will be of real assistance in the event of demobilisation. If these particulars are furnished not only will the definition be defined (which I think is of importance) of the qualification of the soldiers or sailors, but the Bill itself states that soldiers and sailors are to be qualified, although it does not say in the Rule what the qualification shall include. I have put down this Amendment in order to meet this. There was a discussion in the other House on the subject, and I think it was then admitted by the Government that there was a real point in it; the only objection they raised was whether a Bill of this character should go into matters connected with demobilisation. On the other hand, not only would this new Rule secure a real advantage in connection with the identification of soldiers and sailors on demobilisation, but it would explain more definitely the qualification.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 25, at end insert:
"16. The particulars to be published in the naval and military section of the register shall include the name of the soldier or sailor, his rank, number, regiment, or ship or station, as the case may be, and his former abode and occupation."—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I recognise the good intentions of the noble Lord, but I think he will see that at any rate a portion of his Amendment is not very practicable. He wishes, for instance, to publish the ship or station of a sailor. I am advised that this would be unwise in the public interest. Secondly, as regards putting all these details on the Register, I can only place before the noble Lord what was said in the other House—namely, that this is a Bill to assist
1068
people to vote and not to obtain particulars about them, however useful such particulars might be. May I remined the noble Lord that there is a Bill of another kind which will soon be before your Lordships, and which provides for matters for which the noble Lord is asking? I submit that the thing would be better done in that way, and kept apart from this Bill, which is, of course, for a totally different purpose.
LORD GAINFORD: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BERESFORD: The next Amendment in my name is merely consequential upon my Amendment carried on Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 28, leave out ("or Army Council") and insert ("Army Council, Air Council or Beard of Trade").—(Lord Beresford.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to amend Rule 16 by inserting, after the words "absent voters and" in line 30, the words "s soon as practicable."
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 30, after ("and") insert ("as soon as practicable").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Government accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I do not know whether further words are required, such as "after the completion of the revision of the Register."
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I think some such words are required; otherwise you leave it rather indefinite, and it might look as if the officer only need do it after the writ was issued, which would not give time.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I must make on this point the same answer as before—you must leave to the officer who is the responsible officer a certain amount of discretion as to how he acts, and leave it to him to do it as soon as he practically can do so.
Drafting Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to delete Rule 17 and to insert a new Rule (17). The noble Marquess said: I venture to suggest to your Lordships and to the Government that Rule 17 is not really a very satisfactory Rule; but, my Lords, it is of a most summary description. Very little is provided in it. I take it that your Lordships, in whatever quarter of the House you sit, are most anxious that these provisions giving soldiers and sailors the vote should be effective provisions. The matter is, I know, very complicated, and I know it from sad experience. In the drafting of the Bill for which I was responsible the provisions which corresponded with Rule 17 covered several pages of print, and I think as a matter of fact, that when the Rule conies to be worked out, if it is intended to be effective, the regulations will have to be at least as elaborate as those for which I am responsible. I do not want to say anything of a polemical character in connection with this Amendment, but undoubtedly the Government must recollect the history of this question. It is not as if the soldiers' and sailors' vote had been received with enthusiasm in all quarters. It was resisted for a very great number of months. It was resisted in very different quarters, but what was much the more important element of resistance was the resistance of the naval and military authorities. I want to speak of them with the greatest possible respect. Of course they did what they thought was their duty; but they were most anxious to prevent soldiers and sailors from having the vote. They were perfectly entitled to that opinion, and of course, they used all their power to prevent the grant of the vote. The reason was that they thought that the amount of work which it would throw upon the authorities in the various fields, both at home and abroad, would be burdensome, and they thought that the idea of introducing polities among troops or sailors was in itself objectionable. I think they fell into an error in that, for two reasons. I think so because the burden of preparation of the necessary papers and information, although not to be despised, is very small when compared with the daily burden of returns thrown upon all officers in the field or at home, as every serving officer knows. I know it of course from experience—the enormous quantity of returns which have to be sent in—and these returns would not figure very largely in comparison with what now has daily to be done.
I want to say with the very greatest respect that perhaps those responsible in supreme command do not realise what a heavy burden is already thrown upon regimental officers, and therefore these returns figure very large to them; whereas all that has to be done in order to prepare the necessary lists, &c., would be small in comparison. I think they are also wrong about the political side of it. They have all been trained in the old state of opinion, that the old Army, which was a regular, select, professional Army, of very small numbers compared with the people, stood altogether aloof from politics. Now practically the whole of the young manhood of the nation is in arms, and it would be absurd to say that they must not take an interest in politics. To keep them out of the political field is to deprive the nation of a large part of the best element, in our electoral body, and so I think with all respect that the military authorities are altogether wrong, in the view they take. But they did take it, and I could quote to your Lordships passages from speeches of Ministers which are absolutely conclusive on that point, because they cited the opinions of high military authorities on the floor of this House.
I have no doubt that the noble Viscount will tell us that the naval and military authorities have now abandoned this attitude, but it does not make it less necessary for us to take every reasonable precaution to see that the provisions in the Bill are effective; and are not likely to be defeated by unwillingness on the part of the naval and military authorities to make them effective. Otherwise we shall be pretending to the country that we are enfranchising soldiers and sailors when we are doing nothing of the kind. Rule 17 provides that "the naval and military authorities shall furnish to the registration officer…" Who are the naval and military authorities referred to? The phrase is rather striking, because in the same Rule they are distinguished from the Admiralty and Army Council. That would be a source of great confusion. Who is Parliament to hold responsible if Rule 17 is not carried out? Who are the people upon whom we are throwing obligations? Naturally one would expect it to be the Admiralty and Army Council as the supreme bodies, but why should there be a distinction in the Rule itself drawn between the naval and military authorities and the Admiralty and Army Council? That is the first ambiguity which in my alternatives

1071
Amendment I propose to make quite clear—that it shall be definitely the Admiralty and the Army Council.
Rule 17 goes on to say "Shall furnish to the registration officer." They do not know who the registration officer is. How should they know? The Naval and Military authorities, the Army Council and the Admiralty, do not know in the least which particular registration officer a particular man has to do with. How should they know? They do not know what the registration areas are. They have no knowledge of the subject whatever. They cannot be brought into relation directly with the registration authorities. The thing is impossible. Who is to begin? Has the registration officer to write to the Army Council or should the Army Council write to the registration officer? I do not think they can be brought directly into relation with each other, because even the registration officer is in this difficulty, that in many cases he probably does not know of the existence of the voter even. I want to bring your Lordships' mind to this point. Take one of the districts in the suburbs of London, like Ilford. I take that district because it is a district well known to be the scene of an enormous number of removals under the present law. The population is always shifting. Let us see how the Bill would work there. An obligation is thrown by the Bill on the registration officer to register the voter. He goes round, let us say, in this district. Will he know all the military voters who used to live there? How should be know of them? They are not there—ex hypothesi, they are at the Front—and their fathers and mothers are not there. They went three or four years ago. They leave no trace. There is no reason to suppose that anybody will know that a military voter has lived there. As the Bill stands there is nothing to enable the registration officer to know, so that he cannot begin the correspondence with the Army Council. He will not know about whom to write. You must, therefore, begin at the other end. You must begin with the Army Council, or the officers under their control, and the Admiralty, who must let somebody know that certain soldiers of full age, that is, nineteen years and upwards, are under their command and are therefore entitled to the vote. That is the first thing to be done. They must send the names and constituencies to which the men belong to somebody. Nobody knows these particulars
1072
except the men themselves. Consequently the Army Council, or the Commanding Officers of units, must be told to forward them.
To whom should they send these particulars? They cannot send them to the registration officer. They do not know who he is. They must send them to some central authority in London. There are no means of getting them from the Army authorities to the London registration authorities except through the central Government. There is no other point at which the two systems really touch. The particulars will be sent, of course, to London, and in London it is quite possible. The Local Government Board is in touch with all the registration officers. The Local Government Board will have no difficulty whatever in finding out to what constituencies the men belong. They would correspond with the registration officer and the thing could be done, but it could only be done in that way. Unless the Army Council and the Admiralty begin you will not know of the existence of the soldiers and sailors entitled to vote, and unless they act through the London authority and the Local Government Board they will not know to what registration officers communications should be sent. I have ventured to sketch, I am afraid very perfunctorily and summarily, the real difficulties which lie in the way of working Rule 17 as it stands. Rule 17 says nothing of these difficulties. It merely says—
"The naval and military authorities shall furnish to the registration officer,—"
whom they do not know—
"for the purpose of the registration of persons as naval or military voters, and their voting as such, such information as may be prescribed—"
That is all. These things are very ambiguous, indeed. There is yet one last ambiguity—the closing words of the Rule—
"after consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council respectively."
Your Lordships will observe the studied vagueness of these words. No conclusive obligation is laid upon anybody, because it is to be done "after consultation." You might consult the Army Council and they might refuse to take any part in the conversation, or, if they did, it might be of the most perfunctory kind. They might say "Well, really we are so much bothered with other things we can't attend to this," and that would comply with all that is said

1073
in the Rule. There is no obligation laid upon any one.
I have ventured, my Lords, to put down an Amendment which tries to meet some of these difficulties. I must make a confession to your Lordships. But for the respect I have for the great toleration of your Lordships when I venture to address you I should have wished to put down an Amendment in a much fuller form, in a really workmanlike form. But that would have covered two or three pages, and it would have been a gross imposition on your Lordships' patience. I have, therefore, tried to put it as shortly as I can, merely to indicate, on the face of the Bill the necessities of the case. I try to provide first of all, that an obligation be placed upon the Admiralty and the Army Council, either directly or through their officers, to furnish to the registration officers in the several constituencies such information as is necessary—not merely consultation with them but an obligation thrown upon them to do this thing—for the purpose of the registration of the men and their voting. Then I go on to say that it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to assist them in this work and to show the kind of procedure which I have tried to indicate in my observations to-day. This is in order to prevent the possibility of any such proceedings interfering with the proper conduct of the war. I put in a proviso—
"Provided that the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall not be required to supply any particulars which in their declared opinion would interfere with the proper conduct of the war."
That is to prevent the possibility of the mention of the names of units that ought not to be mentioned or of any other interference with the supreme obligation of carrying on the war. I earnestly hope the Government will consider the matter, and consider it favourably. If they say they would rather have a little more time in which to draft something much better than I have on the Paper, I need not say I should be only too glad, but I do submit that their little performance is far too sketchy to find a proper place in an Act of Parliament which sets out to secure an effective vote for soldiers and sailors.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 34, leave out Rule 17, and insert as a new rule:
"17. The Admiralty, the Army Council, and the
1074
Air Council, either directly or through officers appointed by them shall in the prescribed manner furnish to the registration officers in the several constituencies such information as to the names and address of Naval and Military voters and such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of their registration and of their voting as such, and it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to render any assistance that may be required by the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council, in conveying such information to the registration officers.
"Provided that the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall not be required to supply any particulars which in their declared opinion would interfere with the proper conduct of the war."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BERESFORD: I quite agree with my noble friend that the clause is not clear or definite enough, but it is not misleading. My noble friend pointed out that at the beginning the suggestion that the men in the Navy and Army should get the vote has opposed by the Naval and Military authorities. I thought they were very wrong, and I said so in another place. They do not really realise that we have got a citizen army now, and one quite different from the old army. Although as gallant and as subject to discipline, it is on altogether different lines and composed of men whose opinions will be invaluable to this country when it comes to taking a vote; for what Government shall be in power. My noble friend found fault with the words "Naval and Military authorities" which he said were not clear. As I conceive it the Naval and Military Commanders-in-chief and the officers of the regiments were meant by those words. They would have to submit a roster of their men afloat and ashore. I do not think the clause is clear, and I suggest that my noble friend's Amendment, or something like it, should be accepted in order to ensure that there is no difficulty that these men, who may be all away in the war, should be able to give their votes, no matter where they may be. There has been no difficulty in the case of the Dominions, and I think it should be made quite clear how it is to be done.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, answers on behalf of the Government, I should like to say one word on this Amendment. It appears that the general line of procedure suggested by the noble Marquess is a definite improvement on the somewhat vague suggestions embodied in Rule 17. I hope therefore, the Government will see their

1075
way, if not to accept the Amendment in its precise terms, to indicate somewhat more clearly, and trace out more clearly than Rule 17 in the Schedule does, the duties which are to be imposed upon the naval and military authorities, respectively. It is most important, the vote having been granted to these servants of the public, to whom we are so grateful, that they should have every opportunity of exercising the right and performing the duty, and, so far as I am able to judge, the experiment which has been described by the noble Marquess ought to bring about that result and surmount some of the very real difficulties which confront those who have to trace the area in which the sailor or soldier is to be entitled to vote.
The only point of the noble Marquess's speech, and also of the noble and gallant Lord's speech, to which I did not entirely agree was the historical preamble. I was one of those who were, unfortunately, responsible for the inability of the Government of the day to accept my noble friend's Bill. I was leading the House at that time, and I do not think either of the noble Lords are entirely fair to the military and naval advisers who expressed themselves strongly at that time regarding the difficulty of giving votes to soldiers and sailors. What I think was in the mind of those advisers was not a desire that neither soldiers nor sailors should vote, but a dread that a General Election might come at any time and that a disturbing element would thereby be introduced into the conduct of the war. It was apparently believed, at that time, that a change of Government could not be brought about except to the accompaniment of a General Election. There were various people who desired a change of Government, and it was supposed that a General Election would follow, and would be accompanied by a certain amount of political turmoil. What I think was in the minds of the naval and military authorities at that time—and I entirely agree with them—was that a General Election during the war would be a misfortune from a naval and military point of view.
It is quite true, as both my noble friends have said, that the Army has ceased to be a purely professional Army and has become a citizen Army. But in spite of this I do not think the higher naval and military authorities can contemplate with entire equanimity the progress of a political campaign
1076
in the different Commands. The prospect which gallant officers had in their minds was that of public meetings being held at the Front, for discussing the possibility of peace and the possible terms of peace. I have very little doubt that officers in High Command would view now such a possibility with equal disapprobation. On the other hand, it is not quite easy to see how they could be forbidden. It is a difficult matter to admit political rights to individuals, and at the same time say that they shall not have an opportunity of instructing themselves, and each other, in the exercise of those political rights, under conditions, of course, consistent with the discipline of the Navy and Army. Therefore, I am not surprised that gallant officers flinched most violently from the notion of a General Election conducted on the various Fronts, and I think it is only due to them to point out that their fears were in that direction, and that it was not in any sense a dislike to the exercise of the vote by soldiers or sailors.
LORD BERESFORD: I should like to say that I am perfectly certain the country would back up both Admirals and Generals in forbidding any such discussion at the Front during war as to whether there should be peace or war. If you allow that you would have no discipline whatever. But that is quite a different matter from enabling the soldier and sailor to get the vote. If we have people at the Front, in the trenches and on the ships, discussing whether they are to go to sea or not, or whether it is to be war or not, we shall get into a position like Russia in less than a month's time. I do not suppose the noble Marquess meant that, although it might have been the idea of the officers. It is entirely a chimerical idea, and would never occur.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would allow no political meetings at the Front.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much indebted to the noble Marquess for the restricted voluminous ness of his Amendment. He is only anxious to see, like other noble Lords who have spoken, that the soldier and sailor should, not only nominally have the right to vote, but should really vote, and I am sure the House will sympathise with those expressions. I am not in a position to go-into the ancient history of this subject,

1077
or as to what was the position of the military authorities two years ago. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, has made a statement on that subject, but if the military authorities showed some backwardness in coming forward in a matter of this kind—I am not in a position to say whether it was so or not—they are now acting with all the zeal which converts usually show. During the last week a considerable number of discussions have taken place as to the best means of carrying out the particular provisions to which he has alluded. The noble Marquess has, in his Amendment, wished to place a duty upon the Local Government Board of rendering any assistance that may be necessary in this case. I can assure him that the Local Government Board itself is taking the most active interest in all these discussions, and is assisting in framing the Rules that may be necessary. If the noble Marquess would like to be informed of the present situation of those discussions, and of the Rules that have been arrived at, I have authority to say that the Local Government Board would be extremely glad to oblige him with that information.
The noble Marquess asked me one or two questions as to the distinction which he thought was drawn in Rule 17 between naval and military authorities and Admiralty and Army Council respectively. The naval and military authorities would, of course, be the different officers acting under the Admiralty and Army Council who are engaged in these discussions and who are carrying out the work. There is no such divorce as I think was hinted at by the noble Marquess between the different sets of authorities. He referred to the difficulty that there was of getting all these names properly placed upon the Register, and he selected perhaps the most difficult case that occurs—that of a newly-formed, or one of the later-formed, constituencies, where neighbours do not know each other quite so well, and where there is a great deal of change of residence. I did point out at an early stage of this Bill that His Majesty's Government hoped that at least 70 to 75 per cent. of these naval and military voters would be put on by the registration authorities, who would be able to find out in the districts who had gone to the war. As the noble Marquess knows, in the rural districts that is comparatively easy. I made inquiry personally in several rural districts, and found that it can quite easily be done there. Not
1078
only that, but as the noble Marquess also knows, these soldiers and sailors can make the claim to be put on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They will never do that unless it is brought before them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that the noble Marquess has commanded new Armies himself and I had a humbler command than the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not the whole of an Army.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, a restricted command. I think it was a Division, and that is a very large command. I can say from my own small experience that all my men are thoroughly competent and capable of making the claim, and are exceedingly alive also to their rights, and I think that it is—I will not say a libel—rather a severe criticism on the new Army to suppose that those who compose the great citizen Army which has gone out do not know what their rights are, and will not be able to claim them. I think that they will know more about claiming their rights than perhaps the noble Marquess suggests.
The question is really whether placing these persons on the Register will be more assisted by the Amendment of the noble Marquess than it will be by Rule 17. I submit that not much greater assistance will be given by the rule of the noble Marquess than by the rule as drawn. It surely is not necessary to put in that the Local Government Board should do their duty, which they are doing so well at present. As regards communication with registration authorities, they are doing now, and will do, their best to see that these lists are properly distributed, and that the registration officers are able to deal with the specific names. The noble Marquess should perhaps, therefore, be satisfied with the much simpler and briefer language used in Rule 17. His Amendment no doubt is more full, but I do not think it really will add practically anything to the efficiency of the working of the Rule, or will enable anything to be done which cannot and is not being done already, or cannot and will not be done under the Rule as it stands in the Bill.
LORD BURNHAM: I should like to point out to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that his hopeful prophecy in

1079
regard to urban constituencies is not likely to be realised. The registration officers in London will, I think, find it extremely difficult to obtain in the various boroughs the information that will enable them to put soldiers or sailors on the Register. It must be recollected that in the London boroughs 30 per cent. of the population change their homes or tenements every year, and as it is now nearly four years since the beginning of the war, it will be practically impossible for the registration officers to obtain the information locally, however much it may be vouchsafed to them by the Army Council and the Board of Admiralty. So far as the London regiments go—and that will apply almost to the same extent to many of the great boroughs in the country—registration officers will have to rely almost entirely upon the information that comes from the naval and military authorities. I do not think, however, that the Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Salisbury carries us very much further than Rule (17). The language is vague, and everything will depend upon the spirit in which the instruction is carried out as to whether it will be effective for the purpose or not. The greatest importance should be attached to obtaining in the simplest form from the commanding officer of each unit all the information he has in regard to the soldier or other enlisted person. I think that that ought to be pretty full, because in the case of casualties we know that, as a rule, the information is accurately and easily given to the various depots, whereas local information in the big towns will be very meagre.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether I must accept what has fallen from the noble Viscount as the last word of the Government. I certainly should have thought that it would have been wise on their part, if I may say so to so experienced a manager of a Bill as my noble friend has become, if there seems no objection to the Amendment I have put clown, to accept it. By universal admission, I believe that it would improve the Bill, because it does indicate the directions in which the several authorities ought to act, and it does throw a definite obligation upon the Army Council. I think, therefore, that the Government ought to accept it. I believe that it is the view of the House that they ought to accept it, and if the noble Viscount cannot say anything more against my Amendment than he has said there is
1080
really no reason why they should not accept it. It does not do anything wrong, and it does carry us much farther than the Rule as it stands. On the line of argument of the noble Viscount you might have something much simpler even than Rule (17) merely by making it the duty of the public authorities to assist in the registration of naval and military voters. By doing that the noble Viscount might assure us that everything would be done to help matters forward. I speak with great confidence when I say that my Amendment is an improvement upon what is in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know that I can say much more, but the noble Marquess will see that a great deal has been done and is being done under Rule (17) as already drawn. And what is done and what will be done must, in so very complex a matter, depend largely on the enthusiasm and the readiness with which the different authorities are working. I think that must be quite clear. Is it worth while, when the noble Marquess himself, as I think, rather feels that his Amendment would not carry the matter very much further than the clause in the Bill—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, I think it would.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then, is it worth while at this stage, when I can assure him that so much has been done already, and I have offered him that he should make himself acquainted with what has been done, to put in a fresh Rule which rather suggests that the work should be done in a different way? Is it wise to disturb those authorities who are now working hard at these matters by putting in an Amendment which in my judgment—speaking, of course, on advice—does not carry the matter very much further? I agree that there are valuable suggestions in the Amendment, but everything is now being carried out, and I suggest that he should leave well alone.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I hope that the noble Marquess will stick to his point. It seems to me that the noble Viscount attaches excessive importance to conversion and new zeal, and to certain activities which he says are going on, but which nobody knows anything about. I do not think zeal and conversion necessarily tend to efficiency of treatment in a matter of this

1081
sort, and, as I understand, what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, wants to do by his Amendment is to lay an obligation on certain people to make sure that that zeal and those activities that we know nothing about are implemented in a way which everybody will understand and will have to abide by.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: What I shall be glad to elicit from my noble friend in charge of the Bill is whether, in his view, the Amendment really contains anything antagonistic to the arrangements now in force. This Amendment is an amplification and a clearing up of a system which already prevails. I think it is admitted by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the Rule as it now stands is open to criticism; and if we are to choose between a better and a Worse form of the same thing, I prefer to choose the form which appears to be the better of the two.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think I suggested that there was anything that was deficient in the Rule as drawn in the Bill. I merely stated as regards the action of the Local Government Board, which the noble Marquess wanted to make explicit in his draft, that it was unnecessary really to put in any definite duty on them in this matter because might be said to come within the general duties of the Local Government Board, and that the Local Government Board was cooperating constantly, heartily, and energetically with the naval and military authorities in order to produce proper Rules. If the noble Marquess is very much set upon his Amendment, suppose he withdrew it now, and between this and the Report stage I should, perhaps, provide him with such information as might assure him that everything was being done, and that any further amplification of this subsection was unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to say, if the noble Viscount will allow me in the presence of other members of the Government, that it is not a good way to conduct the Bill to refuse to accept Amendments to which no objection can be made. It is far wiser to take them and improve them, if necessary, with the assistance and advice that the Government have. I feel that perhaps he may think it very impertinent of me to say that; in that case I apologise. But it is so, and if he wishes me to withdraw the Amendment
1082
now I shall not press it, but if I have to put it in a much fuller and more difficult form upon Report I am afraid he must not blame me. If he does not accept it I will reconsider it, and I shall be much honoured if I could receive information from the Government which will help me to reconsider it; but I cannot promise that I shall not have to return to the charge.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I would prefer not to accept the Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved an Amendment in Rule (21). The noble Earl said: I think this is an Amendment of some importance, because I am informed that as the law stands at present, though we have been at war now for over three years, it would be quite possible for a German who happened to be on the Register still to remain there, and the registration officer would be perfectly incapable of getting him off unless some one objected.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 24, after ("dead") insert ("or subject to any legal incapacity").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept that.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an Amendment in Rule (21). The noble Viscount said: These words are proposed to be inserted in order to prevent duplicate entries in the case of local government voters.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 28, after ("constituency") insert ("or as a local government elector in respect of more than one qualification—

"(a) in the same borough for the purpose of borough council elections; or

"(b) in the same electoral division or ward for the purpose of county council, metropolitan borough council, and urban district council elections; or,

"(c) in the same parish or ward of a parish for the purpose of rural district council, guardians, or parish elections").—(Viscount Peel.)

VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I think this Amendment will allow the elector to be registered only in one ward of a municipal borough, but in a metropolitan borough an urban district or a county he could be registered in every ward or electoral division.

1083
I think that is very undesirable. I understand under the present law he would, in the absence of any choice, be marked to vote first for his residence, and I think it is desirable that the existing law should be continued in the future. The noble Viscount's Amendment makes a difference as to whether he is registered in a municipal borough or a metropolitan borough.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is so. The noble Viscount knows that that is the existing law, and this Amendment merely carries out the existing law in this respect
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved, in Rule (22), after the word "of," where it first occurs, to insert "Parliamentary." The noble Viscount said: This is only to make clear that the meaning of the following word "constituency" is a Parliamentary constituency.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 30, after the first ("of") insert ("Parliamentary.")—(Viscount Harcourt.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to substitute "registration unit" for "parish" in Rule (22).
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, leave out ("parish") and insert ("registration unit").—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved an Amendment in Rule (22). The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to give the same benefit to a district of boroughs as you are giving to the voters in the counties. I have no partisan feeling in the matter. I believe it will benefit the constituency of the present Prime Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, after ("constituency") insert ("or district of boroughs").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have three Amendments. The first two are merely drafting, and the Amendment on page 43, line 1,
1084
merely makes quite clear that the present, Rule is to be followed in the separate lettering and numbering of polling districts.
Amendments moved—
Page 42, line 33, leave out ("to be registered")
Page 42, line 35, leave out ("any person so registered") and insert ("any such person").
Page 43, line 1, after ("register") insert ("(with a separate letter and a separate series of numbers for each polling district)").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved an addition to Rule (24). The noble Lord said: This is, I think, required in order that there should be publicity given, and no secrecy, in connection with what is done by the authority responsible for the registration. At the present time the revising barrister has to do this, and very often he makes mistakes inadvertently, but when the matter is read out in open Court corrections are made. Not only that, but I think it is desirable it should be publicly stated. There is a real point to be made, if I may have the noble Viscount's attention, in connection with the absent voter. The absent voter will often ask individuals at home to look after his interests. If there is anything incorrect appearing in the absent voters list as the result of the registration, the absent voter will not be able to receive his communication in time to have the alteration made which is necessary. But if somebody is acting on his behalf, and the matter is read out in the ordinary way in which it has hitherto been read out, any correction which is required in the absent voters list may be effected. There seems to me to be no reason why there should be any secrecy about this, and the alterations should be made publicly.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 2, at end insert ("The registration officer when revising such lists shall read out audibly in open court the names expunged and inserted by him therein and all corrections and insertions made by him and shall in open court write his initials against the names respectively expunged or inserted, and against any part of the said lists in which any mistake shall have been corrected or any omission supplied or any insertion made by him and shall sign his name to every page of the several lists so settled").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD BURNHAM: Before the noble Viscount replies, may I say that it seems

1085
to me this Amendment is highly necessary. Under this scheme you are given the duty of registration to a number of officials who are not in the least expert. They will no doubt discharge the duty to the best of their ability, but they will not be learned in the law, and many of them will take it over in addition to a great deal of other work. In these circumstances I think the more you insist on publicity and accuracy the better. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think these words, or words similar to them, are drawn from the old revising barristers' court.
A NOBLE LORD: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am right in my inference, and therefore I may be right in the further inference that the noble. Lord is to some extent comparing the work done by the registration officer with the work done in the revising barristers' court. But there is a great distinction, of course, because the revising banister's court was in the nature of an appeal. That is not the case here. This is work done by the registration officer quite informally, not in a court, and therefore really there is no point in suggesting that the revision of these lists should he read out in open court. Where there is an appeal from the registration officer there is en appeal to the county court, and the county court really is the court to be compared in this respect with the revising barrister's court. Therefore the two matters are not in pari materia, and the matters which would suit in the case of a court would not suit the more informal arrangements under which the registration officer will work. I hope, therefore, the noble. Lord will see that his Amendment is both unsuitable and unnecessary.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I cannot quite agree with the noble Viscount. I do not know whether he has had experience in a revising barrister's court, but I have; and I know that when alterations have been made by the revising barrister he is compelled to read the thing out in open court. He goes down the column, and the agents are there, listening and comparing the registers. There are perhaps two or three "John Jones's" on the register, one of whom has to be struck out, and when the revising banister reads the list in open court the people concerned notice from his reading that he has struck out the wrong
1086
John Jones. They say at once that there is an error, and the barrister says "Yes, I see I have made a mistake," and the thing is put right at once. It will also lead to greater accuracy if there is a reading in court.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I call attention to this. When these names are struck out notice is sent. The noble Viscount will see, under Rule (23), that where the registration officer makes any corrections in the lists otherwise than in pursuance of a claim or objection, or for the purpose of correcting a clerical error, "he shall give notice to the person affected by the correction." Therefore it will be perfectly well known what is done.
LORD BURNHAM: May I point out that one of the great objects of the change in the system is to obtain simplicity and to prevent the constant litigation which now takes place. I hope there will not be the same number of appeals before the County Court that there have been before the revising barrister. It may well develop that there will be what practically amounts to a court of first instance held by the registration officer and that many disputes will be settled there which under the present system would undoubtedly be taken to the revising barrister. If that is so, I do attach importance to accuracy and form, even if these words do not fit in. We cannot draw an exact analogy between what will go on under this Act and the cumbrous and costly procedure which now exists.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The work done by the registration officer will be work of detail. There will be no occasion for the reading out of the lists as there was in the revising barristers' courts. The different cases will be taken and will be dealt with, and there will be no such lists as the noble Lord refers to to read out. The registration officer will deal with each case as it comes on. But at any rate these words are entirely unsuitable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved in Rule (30), after the word "court" where it first occurs, to add "and to the person or persons concerned." The noble Earl said: I think it is only fair when there is a case for appeal that the persons concerned should have the right of knowing what is going on. If is possible that the Amendment, if the noble Viscount accepts it, will require a

1087
little amendment; it ought to be "copy of such notice." The notice itself could not be sent to the person concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 31, after ("court") insert ("and to the person or persons concerned").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary. Under the rules of the County Courts, already existing, when an appeal is made notice is sent to all the parties concerned; and under Rule (27) any person desiring to appeal must send a notice in the prescribed form to the registration officer and to the opposite party. That seems to cover the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an addition at the end of the first paragraph to Rule (29). The noble Viscount said: If some words of this kind were not put in, it would not be certain for how long the particular document was to be published. The Amendment limits the time.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 11, at end insert ("any document required to be published shall be kept published for the prescribed time").—(Viscount Peel.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to substitute "list" for "Register" in Rule (32).
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 33, leave out ("register") and insert ("list").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept that.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an addition at the end of Rule (33). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the registration officer need not ask the questions personally.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 42, at end insert ("any notice requiring information under this rule may be sent by post").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of a new Rule (34). The noble Viscount said: These words were introduced in pursuance
1088
of a promise to Lord Ancaster to bring up some words in order that the clause about conscientious objectors should be effective. The noble Earl will see that a duty is now placed upon these authorities to provide this information so that it may be known who are disqualified as conscientious objectors and who are not.
Amendment moved—
To insert a new Rule:
"34. The Local Government Board shall collect from the Naval and Military and Air Force Authorities, the tribunals established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916, and other available sources such information, as it is reasonably practicable to obtain, with reference to persons disqualified on account of conscientious objection to military service from being registered and voting under this Act, and shall place any information so collected at the disposal of registration officers."—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of a new rule at the end of Rule (35). The noble Viscount said: This is a rule under which a certificate of birth may be obtained at a reduced rate.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 13, insert as a new rule:
"36. Where for the purpose of the provisions of this Act any person requires a certificate of birth, that person shall, on presenting a written requisition in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, and on payment of a fee of sixpence, be entitled to obtain a certified copy of any entry of the birth of that person in the birth register under the hand of the registrar or the superintendent registrar having the custody thereof, and forms of requisition for the purpose shall on application be supplied without charge by every registrar of births and deaths and by every superintendent registrar."—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of a new rule at the end of Rule (38). The noble Viscount said: This is a rule providing that certain days shall be dies non as to polling.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 27, at end insert as a new rule:
"39. In reckoning time for the purpose of these rules, Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and any day set apart as a public holiday, or day of public fast, or public thanks giving shall be excluded; and where anything is required by these rules to be done on any day falls to be done on any such day, that thing may be done on the next day not being one of any such days."—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an addition to Rule (39). The noble Viscount said: This is another of the Scottish Amendments to which I have alluded.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, after line 34 insert:
Rule 2 shall apply as if after the words "in separate divisions" there were inserted the words "or otherwise to distinguish."—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment standing in my name is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 8, and insert ("not apply").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is one of the Irish Amendments to which I have already referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 25, at end, insert ("in order to give full effect to the foregoing provision, the clerk of the crown and peace for a county borough shall, as respects any parliamentary borough for which he is registration officer, appoint the town clerk of the county borough to act as his deputy for the purposes of Rules 9 to 13 and for the purpose of publishing the lists and notices to be published under Rules 6 and 8 of this schedule if the town clerk so desires, and any town clerk so appointed shall, for the purposes aforesaid, have the like powers and duties and be subject to the like liabilities as if he were registration officer.
"Any question which may arise as to what duties are analogous duties within the meaning of the provision aforesaid shall be determined by the Local Government Board, whose determination shall be final.")—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 38, after ("him") insert ("on the requisition of the registration officer").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 46 line 39, leave out ("or persons in receipt of poor relief").—(Viscount Peel.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
After the Second Schedule:
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT had on the Paper a new Schedule (which filled 19 pages of print) to be inserted after the Second Schedule. The noble Viscount said: I move this without any attempt to go into a detailed explanation of this necessary Amendment, because it is consequential. I move it as a consequential Amendment on the decision of yesterday. It is obviously fair and necessary that the voters and the members of the House of Commons should know how they are to proceed in the future. My Amendment is on the Schedule of what was once the Municipal Voting Bill of Lord Courtney; and it is clear that, after the decision of yesterday, it must be inserted in the Bill now before the Committee.
Amendment moved.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is very unfortunate that the noble Viscount has deprived the House of the advantage of hearing his explanation of the draft rules; but may I ask him nor to insert them, for this reason. He says they are consequential on the Amendment previously carried; but he must remember that those are draft rules, and are not finally settled. They were put forward in the White Paper only as a foundation of the way in which the rules might be carried out. Therefore I hope he will not wish to insert them in the Bill, because they are not fully considered and finally decided upon. Of course, I submit that the Government is neutral on the question of proportional representation; and speaking for the Government I can only say that I hope he will not cumber the Bill by this prodigiously long Schedule, which is really only a draft.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It is not I who am encumbering the Bill but noble Lords who voted for the proposal after I pointed out that this was the necessary result of proportional representation. What I want to know is at what stage and where are the new Rules going to be inserted in the Bill, because they must be inserted if proportional representation is to stay there.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think it is necessary that these Rules, any more than any others, should be in this Bill. Clause 18, subsection (4), provides that "His Majesty may by Order in Council frame regulations prescribing the method of

1091
voting, and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the, principle of the transferable or of the alternative vote." That is in the Bill already, and on page 25 is the definition of what the expression "transferable vote" means. The whole thing is already provided for.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is in order and fitting that the noble Earl who is responsible for the proportional representation Amendment should provide the answer to this Amendment.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT.: As your Lordships obviously have not a quorum present, I shall not proceed to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at twenty minutes past nine.]
Third Schedule:
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, at the end of Rule (4), to insert certain regulations with regard to naval and military voters. The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I do desire, to press upon the Government. It is somewhat of the same character as that which was moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at an earlier period in the evening. It is directed to securing for every soldier and sailor and every man afloat the opportunity of recording his vote.
It seems to me that under the system which is provided in the Bill there is a danger of a certain number of soldiers and sailors and others who are risking their lives in the service of their country during a period of war losing their votes because they may not secure a proxy form. If the responsibility to secure each man a proxy form is placed upon the Naval and Military authorities two things will happen. Every man who is abroad in the service of his country will automatically receive a vote and the responsibility for his not doing so will rest on the Naval and Military authorities. It is inconceivable that those authorities would not know who were the men who were abroad and who were entitled to this proxy vote. The other authorities at home have not the same knowledge of the men who are serving abroad as is possessed by the War Office on the one hand and the Admiralty on the other This arrangement would not only secure for every man his vote but it would
1092
prevent any possibility of duplicate proxy forms being supplied to any individual.
I see no objection to this Amendment, while I think there is a great deal to be said for it. The only objection raised in another place when this Amendment was moved was that it would prevent the initiative being taken by the voter himself in applying for a proxy form. Well, I have provided for that by the last paragraph in the Amendment which stands upon the Paper. Therefore, so far as personal application is concerned either by a sailor or a soldier, the man is in no way prejudiced if the Government will accept the Amendment. There is also another argument. Having some knowledge of the Post Office work I am quite satisfied that if it is left to Party agents to try to secure proxy forms for those who are serving abroad there will be a large duplication of communications that are sent through the Post Office to those individuals who are serving abroad. In the interest of the Post Office I say that the general argument in favour of my proposition is that unless some such plan is adopted the Post Office wall be flooded with millions of forms from Party agents to soldiers, while endless trouble and needless expense will be caused to the candidate and also the Post Office. For these reasons I press upon the Government that they should accept this Amendment which provides machinery to secure for every one serving abroad and every one serving in this country the certainty that he will not be deprived of the vote and that no one will receive two proxy forms.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 7, at end insert ("in the case of an election occurring during the present war or within twelve months thereafter, the following regulations shall be observed with respect to naval and military voters:
"A naval or military voter who is serving or who is about to serve afloat or in an area in which the Order in Council referred to in section twenty, subsection (4) (a) of this Act, entitles him to vote by proxy, shall receive a proxy paper through the naval or military authorities. The proxy paper of a naval and military voter shall be signed by the applicant in the presence of, and the signature shall be witnessed by such officer as the Order in Council shall define, and shall then be forwarded by the voter to his proxy, who shall send it to the registration officer for the area in respect of which the voter is registered as an elector, and if the proxy paper appears to the registration officer to be in order he shall register and stamp it and return it to the proxy.
"Provided that nothing in this rule shall prevent the issue of a proxy paper to a sailor or soldier on his personal application by the registration officer for the area in which such sailor or soldier is registered.").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord who moves this Amendment has dealt with some arguments which he tells us have already been used against the proposition he brings forward. But I was going to oppose the Amendment on rather a different ground. One quite recognises that there is a very valuable suggestion in the scheme put forward as to the methods in which these proxy votes should be exercised. In fact, I think I may tell the noble Lord that this method of doing it approximates very closely to the method which has been already suggested for some draft rules which are to be issued. There is I think only one small difference, and that is that a post is saved, because the Amendment suggests that the document shall go, first of all, to the proxy and then be sent to the registration officer. The Amendment of the noble Lord, I believe, suggests that it should go direct to the registration officer and then be sent to the proxy which would mean the saving of a post. I quite recognise, of course, the skill with which the noble Lord has devised the scheme but I ask him not to press the Amendment on this ground. Experience will be very valuable in showing the best way of carrying it out and, I suggest, it would be a mistake to stereotype a particular method by making it statutory, and inserting it in the Bill. I hope he will be satisfied with this explanation and will therefore not wish to place it, exactly in this form in the Bill. Experience may show that other Amendments and changes may be valuable and necessary.
LORD GAINFORD: I am in a somewhat difficult position. In a full House I should be inclined to press the Amendment on somewhat the same grounds as the noble Marquess was inclined to press his Amendment. But I am very anxious that we should get on with the Bill, and, in the circumstances, I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved, in Rule (5) after the word "for" ["Parliamentary elector for"], the insertion of the words "or resides, or has a business address in." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Ancaster, who is momentarily absent, has asked me to take charge of this Amendment. It may very well be that a soldier or sailor whose proxy it is proposed to take may have no means of knowing who is really on the Register,
1094
and who is not. It may very well be that the Register has not come into force when he has to sign his proxy, and it is easy to suppose that an election may take place very soon after the Register comes into force. The soldier, therefore, cannot have any means of knowing whether the person he proposes to appoint as his proxy is, or is not, on the Register and able to vote for him. Many soldiers and sailors have few relatives, and they may not be living in the constituency. This Amendment will provide for the case where they may have a friend, who is employed at the same works and in the same constituency as the soldier was working, and he might happen to be on the Register for the constituency. I submit this is no more than what is equitable to give effect to these proxy conditions.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 10, after ("for") insert ("or resides or has a business address in.").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The object of the Amendment is obviously to extend the number and class of persons who may be appointed as proxies in a constituency. If the noble Lord will look at the Third Schedule he will see that the net is cast very wide, because it includes a wife, husband, a parent, a brother, or sister of the elector. They can become proxies; and if he has no relations of that kind, then he can appoint a person who is a Parliamentary elector in the constituency. I am going to ask the noble Earl not to try and extend that area wider than it is already, and partly for this reason. In another place a great deal of jealousy was shown to the proxy vote. It was felt that there were, and no doubt there are, objections to the proxy vote, and it would not therefore be wise to extend too widely the area of classes of persons who could act as proxies. I submit that very considerable latitude is already allowed to the naval and military voter, and in really every case he would be able to find some relative or friend who would act for him. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. I think I ought to add that, in the form in which it is drawn, it would apparently apply to all persons of any age—to an infant. The noble Lord will see that there is a limitation in the case of brothers and sisters—they must be of full age. As it is drawn, there is no limitation on the Amendment. A person who "resides" may obviously be

1095
somebody not of age. Apart from that detail, I hope that the House will think that the number of persons who can become proxies is widely distributed enough to give everybody an opportunity of employment then.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It remains a fact that a person is by no means more fitted to be a proxy by reason of the circumstance that he happens to be on the Register than is anybody else who is interested in the soldier giving his vote. But I cannot press the Amendment against the weighty objection which has been made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 49, line 16, at end insert ("in the same constituency")
Page 49, line 34, leave out ("made by regulations under this Act") and insert ("prescribed")
Page 49, lines 40 and 41, leave out ("to whom or on whose behalf a proxy paper for any constituency has been issued") and insert ("who is for the time being entitled to vote by proxy in a constituency").—(Viscount Peel.)
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 13, leave out ("corrupt practice other than personation") and insert ("illegal")
Page 50, line 15, leave out ("corrupt") and insert ("illegal")
Page 50, line 19, leave out ("six") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am ready to accept the Amendments. The penalty seems severe.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I am against excessive penalties, but the effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the penalties. There is, I think, some danger of improper voting under these proposals. It is a system which easily lends itself to improper practices, and those should be discouraged, certainly in the early days of exercising this new form of voting, by the fear of as heavy penalties as possible. Though as a general rule I am against heavy penalties, we may have a new system which lends itself undoubtedly to this possibility and I am not sure that we should be wise to reduce the penalties.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Probably the noble Viscount is not aware of the penalties.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Yes, I know what they are.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps other noble Lords are not aware that in the case of an illegal practice the penalties run to £100 and five years disqualification. There is no imprisonment.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: There will have to be in the words "an illegal."
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: That can be done at the Table.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 20, at end insert ("A person appointed and voting as a proxy for another elector shall not thereby be prejudiced or prevented from voting at the same election as a registered elector in his or her own right").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I submit in this that it is wholly unnecessary. There is no suggestion of a possible reason why a person who votes as a proxy for another should be prevented from voting for himself.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("by regulations made under this Act").—(Viscount Peel.)
Amendment moved—
Page 50, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("on or").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in Rule (14), to omit the word "election" where it secondly occurs, and to insert "poll."
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 34, leave out ("election") and insert ("poll").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: This Amendment, I suggest, does not improve the Bill. It gives a very insufficient time for cancellations which might be received on the eve of the poll, and no time, especially in a county, might be left to communicate either with the presiding officer at the polling station, or with the persons appointed as proxies.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble Lord has not recognised that the word

1097
"election" is used here in the technical sense, not as the day on which the polling takes place, and therefore I think the Amendment does improve the Bill.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I quite grasp that fact, but the substitution of "poll," instead of "election," is the very thing that does not allow sufficient time for the cancellation. If the word "election" remains there is sufficient time from the nomination for the cancellation, but if the word "poll" takes its place there is insufficient time to communicate with different officers.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Would it not be better to have the word which is clearly understood—"nomination."
LORD SOMERLEYTON: Certainly, I will move that Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out "poll" and insert "nomination."—(Lord Somerleyton.)
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of a new Rule.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 34, insert:—
15. In the application of this schedule to Scotland the expression "the registration officer of the constituency in which the elector is registered" means "the registration officer of the registration area in which the elector is registered."—(Viscount Peel.)
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved, after "expenses" ["other than personal expenses"] to insert "and the fee, if any, paid to the election agent." The noble Lord said: I understand that in the House of Commons two of the chief parties were in favour of this Amendment, and I have the best reasons for thinking they are still in favour of it—I mean Sir George Younger and Mr. Gulland. If the Election is to be cleanly contested, as we all desire, the election agents should, of course, receive; a fair fee. There is no maximum mentioned in my Amendment. If any be desired two of the chief parties would, I believe, readily
1098
agree to it. The elections in future times will cover twice as many electors, and the amount allowed for expenses is about half what it used to be, so that the amount of work thrown on the election agent is going to be paid at the rate of probably something like half or a quarter what it was before. If no sum be named for the election agent's fee the fact still remains that it would be published, and that fact would act as a deterrent on the candidate or the agent against the fee being exorbitant or too small either. Any fee so paid might be dealt with as the personal expenses of the candidates have been dealt with up to now and the amount included in the election expenses. I venture to think that as it stands at present the election agent will not be very well treated. I think we all desire to see elections conducted well, and thoroughly, and the man who acts as election agent should be adequately paid. I submit he should not have his fees cut down to an extent which will bring in a great number of people who are unsuitable.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 7, after ("expenses") insert ("and the fee, if any paid to the election agent").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I warmly support this Amendment. The election agent is a person who has been created by Statute. He has most responsible duties to perform, and the responsibility will be even greater with the large accession of new voters to our polls. A candidate may suffer very seriously if he is so unwise as to employ an inexperienced or careless agent. I am sure the election agent is a man whom we who have been in the House of Commons have learned to appreciate and value. I believe the present scale of expenses allowed will not permit of the agent being paid proper fees. I do not think there can be the slightest objection to the agent's fee being treated as outside the ordinary expenses of the contest but being returned, of course, at the amount paid, as the personal expenses of candidates are. I believe you would do a great injustice to a most deserving class if you do not allow future candidates and Members of Parliament to pay their agents properly. Under such a provision as this I am sure the agent will be grossly underpaid or that arrangements outside and the contrary to the law will be made by a number of people, which is an undesirable thing to encourage.
LORD BURNHAM: If I may make the inevitable reference to the Speaker's Conference, it was unanimously desired there to cut down expenses so far as possible. The first proposal was to take the County Council's scale, which is lower than that in the Bill. It was pointed out that this was inadequate, but at the same time it was an object entertained by all parties alike to make it approximate to the County Council scale as nearly as possible. On the other hand, I feel there is a great deal to be said for my noble friend's Amendment. The present practice; in regard to election agents is unsatisfactory in the highest degree. What happens to the common knowledge of all who have contested Parliamentary seats is this, that in order to bring expenses within the maximum allowed by law it is very common to put down a nominal sum, even if any is as a matter of fact paid, for the election agent, who is almost invariably the Party agent. The practice has been to make up in the intervening years to him that which he did not receive for the work he legitimately performed during the electoral contest. Anybody will feel that that constant evasion of the law is a deplorable and mischievous thing. The election agent honestly earns his stipend, and with the lower rate of expenditure allowed by the Bill I confess that there is very little chance of his getting it. Then this House is adopting the system of proportional representation and that means constituencies of a large size. The agent responsible for the conduct of that election must be a man of the highest knowledge from the expert point of view, and he will be saddled with very heavy responsibilities. It would be undesirable, I think, in those circumstances, that his position should not be recognised. Although I feel as much as anybody how important it is to cut down the expenditure by law so as not to cripple the candidate of scant means, I think on the whole it will be wiser to recognise it as proposed by my noble friend; because I think it is most important, if his Amendment be adopted, that a maximum should be fixed beyond which it is impossible to go. I do not think that to leave it an open charge could possibly be reconciled with the principle which guided the Conference in the first place, or the House of Commons in the second place, in drawing up the scale.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is advocated by three noble Lords who, in
1100
addition to their positions in this House, have had other Parliamentary experience. I do not think that I ever heard an Amendment advocated on the ground that the Chief Whips on both sides were in favour of it, although I know that my noble friend has a natural sympathy with persons who occupy that position.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Mr. Hayes Fisher was in favour of it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is even worse still. I must call the attention of noble Lords to the fact that one of the points on which the noble Lord has dwelt very strongly is that the expenses of elections were to be cut down, and a certain maximum sum was fixed for personal expenses, and then a maximum amount has been fixed per head of the electorate for general expenses. It was understood in the other House that the fee for the agent was to be found out of these sums.
As regards these two Whips who were quoted by my noble friend, I must say that practically the overwhelming opinion in the other place was against the suggestion made by the noble Lord. I admit that the question of proportional representation and large constituencies must obviously make some difference to the fee. But this is of general application, and would apply not only to the proportional representation constituencies but to the single-Member constituencies—the few which the noble Earl (Lord Selborne) was good enough to leave as a reminiscence of an earlier state of things. I suggest that this is pre-eminently a question for the other House to settle. The amount which candidates and Members should pay to the election agent is more a question for the House of Commons. Therefore, if they accept the Amendment on proportional representation in some form, is it not better to leave it to them to decide what the amount should be?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: They cannot do it.
LORD GAINFORD: Unless this House puts some Amendment in the Bill at this particular place, I suggest that it will not be open to the other House to insert Amendments here because of Amendments which have been moved in connection with proportional representation. I think it will be better for us, therefore, even if we are

1101
prepared to leave the decision to the other House, at any rate to insert here some words. My suggestion would be that after the words which the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has inserted we should limit the amount, as for instance in single-Member constituencies to not more than £100, and in proportional representation constituencies to not more than £150. Of course I am aware that in connection with this matter it might be a question of privilege, but it is quite possible to put a suggestion of that kind in practice, so that the other House may have an opportunity of raising the matter.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is no privilege in this. There is no charge.
LORD GAINFORD: I want to express my concurrence with Lord Burnham, who suggested that there should be some limit of expense. I know that certain Labour Members in another place said that no man was worth more than £100. I am sure that if elections are to be conducted properly, especially in large county constituencies, where the areas cover an enormous extent of territory, it is necessary to have a man of experience and weight, and physical endurance. Also, if he is to do his work properly, I do not think a maximum of £150 would be too high a figure to insert.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I only wish to say one word more, and that is that the chief Party representatives evidently were in favour of it when this matter was discussed in another place. I believe both supported it, and the proposal was upset by a maximum being introduced. With regard to a maximum, I personally am not in favour of putting it in at the present time, although I believe it would be acceptable to the representatives of the two chief Parties if it were put in. I trust this may be put in such a way that it will not cause us to divide upon it, but I believe it would be acceptable if the Amendment were accepted by the Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The Speaker's Conference very strongly recommended a reduction of expenses, and it seems to me rather unreasonable that we should force, upon candidates for the other House any increase of that; but I am convinced in my own mind—I have no right to be dogmatic on the point—that we having inserted proportional representation and
1102
therefore changed the relative operations of the Returning Officer and the amount of work to be performed, the House of Commons would be perfectly entitled as a consequential and resulting Amendment to change the incidence of expense and fees; and I must strongly submit to your Lordships that it is most desirable that we should not take the initiative, when the House of Commons itself is entitled, I am convinced, to do so. If we put in the maximum it must be carefully drafted You cannot extemporise a maximum, because I understood from an Amendment yesterday that some seats return one Member and some groups five or six or even more—Leeds was mentioned. Under those conditions the maximum must vary according to the number of electors, and I do not think we can extemporise a maximum at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I desire to make a comment upon one observation which fell from the noble Earl opposite. He seemed to think that because proportional representation had been introduced in a particular clause, it therefore would be competent for another place to make an Amendment in other clauses, under the guise or colour of their being consequential. I am afraid that is not the interpretation of the Rule as between the two Houses. I think it will be found that unless some verbal Amendment is made in the particular clause or part of the Bill it is not competent for the House of Commons to touch it at all, however morally consequential the proposed alteration might be. I am inclined to think it is necessary to make some kind of verbal alteration in the form of an Amendment to a particular clause or subclause before the House of Commons can touch it at all.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I merely wish to say I bow entirely to what the noble Marquess says about the practice of your Lordships' House. I made my remarks from eighteen or twenty years experience in the other House, which I am sure would have no scruples at all in putting in a consequential Amendment which the House of Lords had either preferred not to put in or had omitted to put in, in order to make a workable scheme.
LORD EMMOTT: My experience in regard to this matter is that it depends on how Mr. Speaker advises the other House. He is really the arbiter in these matters,

1103
and if I may venture to advise your Lordships if you want this point considered in the other House it would be far safer to put in an Amendment which would ensure its reconsideration. I cannot quite see how an Amendment could be proposed in another place applying to single-Member or two-Member constituencies, even if one could be put in as regards the larger constituencies. Certainly, from the point of view of safety, it would be much better to put in the Amendment, so that the matter could be considered.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I certainly have no desire whatever to minimise the services which are rendered by election agents, but surely nobody could be better qualified to judge of the value of those services than the other House, and to introduce the suggested Amendment, which includes a maximum of £100 or £150 for borough and county constituencies, is a very serious thing indeed. In the first place it is quite obvious that the maximum would become the minimum, it would become the fixed and standard fee. That is quite certain. A second thing is equally clear, that by the introduction of these figures you will, in the case of boroughs, increase the election expenses by something like 25 per cent., if not more. Well, my Lords, surely seeing that the whole thing affects the election of Members to another House it is a little unnecessary for us to suggest to them what the fees should be that they will have to pay to their election agents.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is, of course, very largely a matter which may be said to be consequential, and, therefore, since, I suppose, the Government is neutral—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is not consequential. It would have been brought forward whatever happened.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is quite obvious, I think, that the Amendment in its present form is consequential. I think noble Lords are, clear about it. Would it be better if the noble Lord brought up a carefully-drawn Amendment on the Report stage?
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I should prefer to move it as it is.
VISCOUNT PEEL: While the Government do not accept it, if it is pressed the Government would not offer opposition to
1104
it. I do not know whether it is wise to suggest to the Members in another place that one result of their accepting the noble Lord's Amendment is that they will have to pay more money.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg entirely to protest against that. The noble Lord's Amendment has nothing whatever to do with proportional representation. Proportional representation may affect the scale, but this would have been moved if my Motion had not been on the Paper at all.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I do not myself favour the putting in of any maximum by this House. I think that is properly left to the other House, but if the Amendment is accepted as it stands it will leave it open to the other House to put in any maximum which may be desired. I do not propose to move any maximum.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Before we go to a Division I should like to say that I cannot agree with the noble Earl who spoke a moment ago, because it is quite clear that the constitution of five-Member constituencies must enormously increase the fee paid to agents, and rightly do so. I am not at all sure it ought not to multiply the habitual and past fee by at least five.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say it did not affect it at all. I said my noble friend would have put the Amendment down if mine had not been on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 9, leave out ("county election") and insert ("election for a county constituent)").—(Viscount Peel.)
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 11, after ("borough") insert ("constituency").—(Viscount Peel.)
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move the adoption here of a new Schedule, with one alteration, and that is with regard to the form of voting paper and the starred note below, on page 40. That form comes out because of the previous decision of your Lordships on the application of the transferable vote

1105
to University constituencies. Your Lordships will see that the Schedule is extremely detailed, but not complicated, with reference to the nomination of returning officer, polls. &c., at Universities. It has been carefully considered by the authorities and is practically an agreed Schedule.
Amendment moved—
After the Fourth Schedule, insert as a new schedule:
FIFTH SCHEDULE.
PART I.—PROVISIONS AS TO UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS OTHER THAN SCOTTISH UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS.
Returning Officer.
1. The returning officer shall be—

(a) in the case of the Oxford, Cambridge, and London University constituencies respectively the Vice-Chancellor of the university;

(b) in the case of the Dublin University Constituency, the Provost of Trinity College; and

(c) in the case of the combined English university constituency, the Vice-Chancellor, Principal, or Corresponding Officer of the University of Birmingham;

and the writ for any election of a member or members for Parliament for a university constituency shall be directed to the returning officer of that constituency.
2. It shall be the duty of the returning officer to make all arrangements for the election, including arrangements for the nomination of candidates, and the poll and counting of votes, and to certify the result of the election in pursuance of the writ.
Nomination.
3. The nomination shall take place on such day and at such time and place as may be fixed by the returning officer, being not less than four days and not more than twelve days after the receipt of the writ, and the returning officer shall give public notice of the day, time, and place so fixed within two days after he receives the writ.
4. The candidate must be nominated in writing by two electors as proposer and seconder and by eight other electors as assenting to the nomination, and his nomination must be delivered to the returning officer by some elector.
5. If, at the expiration of the time fixed for nomination, no more candidates are nominated than there are vacancies to be filled up, the returning officer shall declare the candidates who stand nominated to be elected and certify the result of the election accordingly.
6. If, at the expiration of the time fixed for nomination more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled up, the returning officer shall arrange for a poll to be taken.
7. A candidate may be withdrawn in manner provided by regulations made under this Act, and if, owing to the withdrawal of a candidate after nomination, a poll becomes unnecessary, the returning officer shall countermand the poll and declare any candidate elected whose nomination remains standing.
8. If one of the candidates nominated dies after he has been nominated and before the commencement of the poll, the returning officer shall countermand the poll and other proceedings for the election and commence the same again as if the writ had been received by him on the day on which he is satisfied of the fact that the death took place.
No fresh nomination shall be required in the case of a candidate who stood nominated at the time the poll was countermanded.
Poll
9. The poll shall remain open for five days, and shall take place on such days as may be fixed by the returning officer commencing not more than twelve and not less than three clear days after the day of nomination.
10. The returning officer shall appoint such polling places as appear to him to allow reasonable facilities for voting, and may give special directions that certain electors shall be allotted to certain polling places.
11. An elector may vole at a poll by the delivery of a voting paper (signed by the voter at any time subsequent to the nomination) in the form appended to this part of this schedule, or in a form to the same effect and accompanied with a like declaration, or, if the returning officer gives special directions to that effect, in person, and may so vote at any polling place if he has not been allotted to any polling place, or, if he has been so allotted, at any polling place to which he has been so allotted.
The returning officer may, if he thinks fit, give a special direction that voting in person is to be allowed at the election, and, if a direction is so given, may, If he thinks it, limit the days of poll on which votes in person are to be received in pursuance of the direction.
12. A voting paper may be delivered at a polling place on behalf of the voter by an elector, or by being sent to the presiding officer at the polling place by post, and any voting paper received by a presiding officer at a polling place at which the elector may vote before the close of the poll shall be counted, unless rejected as invalid.
Voting papers may also be sent to the returning officer by post, and any voting papers so received by the returning officer shall be sent by him to the proper presiding officer.
13. The poll shall be open for such time between the hours of 8 a.m. in the morning and 8 p.m. in the evening, not being less than four hours, as the returning officer may direct, except that, if in pursuance of a direction of the returning officer votes in person are received, but are not received on all the days of the poll, six hours shall be substituted for four as respects the days on which votes are so received as the minimum time under this provision.
14. The returning officer shall give public notice of the days and hours of poll and of the polling places appointed, and of any special directions given by him as to the days or hours of poll, or the allotment of electors to certain polling places, or as to voting in person.
15. The returning officer shall appoint a presiding officer for every polling place at which he does not act as a presiding officer himself and the presiding officer shall have general control over the arrangements for voting at the polling place and shall record the votes of electors voting in person and receive voting papers.
16. Each candidate may appoint a person to be the candidate's representative at each polling

1107
place, and a candidate's representative may object to any voting paper received at the polling place or to the vote of any person claiming to vote in person at that place, and the presiding officer shall submit any such objection to the returning officer for decision.
17. The returning officer shall decide on the validity of any voting paper to which objection is taken, or on the right of any person to vote in person, if that right is questioned, and the decision of the returning officer, if the voting paper or the right to vote is allowed, shall be final, but, if the voting paper or the right to vote is disallowed, shall be subject to reversal on any proceeding questioning the election or return.
18. The register kept in pursuance of this Act shall be conclusive as to the right of any person to vote at the poll; but this provision shall not entitle any person to vote if that person is subject to any legal incapacity.
A person shall not be entitled to be placed on the register as a graduate until the university authorities are satisfied that the grant of the degree is complete.
Counting of Votes.
19. After the poll is closed all voting papers received at any polling place and a record of votes (if any) given by electors in person shall be placed in a proper receptacle and sealed up and delivered to the returning officer, and the returning officer shall, as soon as practicable after the receipt of the votes from all the polling places, count the votes and publish the result.
20. The voting papers counted, and the record of votes (if any) given by electors in person and any papers which have been rejected as invalid and a list of persons (if any) who have tendered their votes in person, but who have not been allowed to vote, shall be placed in separate packets, and shall be kept by the returning officer for a period of twelve months after the close of the poll.
21. The returning officer shall give notice to the candidates of the time and place for counting the votes, and shall permit any candidate and a representative authorised by the candidate for the purpose to be present at the count.
No person other than the returning officer, his assistants and clerks, and the candidates and representatives so authorised shall be entitled to be present at the count except with the sanction of the returning officer.
22. Where an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates on a final count and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the returning officer whether an elector or not may give a deciding vote, but the returning officer shall not be entitled to vote at the election in any other case.
Special Provisions for a Combined University Constituency.
23. In a combined university constituency the Vice-Chancellor, or the person performing the duties of a Vice-Chancellor, at each university forming the combination, shall, for the purpose of making arrangements for the poll and the holding of the poll, have at the university the powers and perform the duties of the returning officer (including the power and duty of deciding upon the validity of voting papers and the right of a person to vote).
24. Arrangements may be made for counting votes at an election for a combined university constituency at each of the universities forming
1108
the combination, if neither the transferable nor alternative vote is used at that election, and for a record of the votes counted at each university being sent to the returning officer for the combined constituency in order that he may ascertain and declare the result of the election.
General.
25. The returning officer shall appoint such deputies and clerks as he may think necessary for the proper holding of the election, and shall supply a form of voting paper to any elector applying for such a form, and shall supply forms of nomination papers.
The governing body of the University may designate an officer of the University to act temporarily as returning officer in the event of a vacancy in the office of returning officer or in the event of his incapacity to appoint a deputy.
26. Any expenses reasonably incurred by the returning officer in connection with the arrangements for a university election and the conduct thereof shall be repaid to the returning officer by the University.
In the case of a combined University constituency any such expenses incurred by the Vice-Chancellor or corresponding officer of each University shall be paid by the University whose Vice-Chancellor or officer has incurred the expenses, and any other such expenses shall be paid in equal shares by the Universities forming the combination.
In the case of a combined University constituency any candidate's deposit which is forfeited to the University shall be retained by, or paid to the University whose Vice-Chancellor or other officer is the returning officer of the combined constituency and applied by that University in the payment of the expenses which are under this provision to be paid in equal shares by the Universities forming the combination.
27. A voting paper shall be deemed to be a public document within the meaning of subsection (3) of section four of the Forgery Act, 1913, and section five of the Perjury Act, 1911, applies to any declaration or statement made in the voting paper.
28. A voting paper shall not be liable to stamp duty.
29. If any person, for the purpose of enabling an elector to vote at a university election, corruptly pays on his behalf any fees which the elector is required to pay in order to be registered or entitled to vote, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and that Act shall apply accordingly.
30. In reckoning time for the purpose of the provisions in this Schedule, Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and any day set apart as a public holiday or day of public fast or public thanksgiving shall be excluded; and where anything is required by these provisions to be done on any day falls to be done on any such day that thing may be done on the next day not being one of any such days.
31. If regulations are made under this Act as to the manner in which public notice is to be given under the provisions of this Schedule, public notice shall be given in manner directed under any such regulations for the time being in force, and if no such regulations are in force shall be given in such manner as the Returning Officer considers best fitted for giving notice to the persons concerned.
32. An election shall not be declared invalid by reason of non-compliance with these provisions if it appears to the tribunal cognisant of the case that the election was conducted in accordance with the principle of these provisions and that the non-compliance with these provisions did not affect the result of the election.
Form of Voting Paper.
I, A.B. (here give the elector's name in full, with his university degree and college, if any), give my vote as indicated below:—

* Candidates.

Order of Preference

A

B

C

D

I declare that I have signed no other voting paper and have not voted in person at this election for the university constituency of
† I also declare—

(In the case of a man) that I have not voted at this general election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification;

(In the case of a woman) that I have not voted at this general election for any other university constituency.

Signed A.B.

Address

The

day of

19.

I declare that this voting paper (the voting paper having been previously filled in), was signed in my presence by A.B., who is personally known to me, on the day of 19.,
Signed C.D.
Address
PART II.—PROVISIONS AS TO SCOTTISH UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS.
Returning Officer.
1. The returning officer for the combined Scottish University constituency shall be the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, to whom the writ for any election of a member or members of Parliament for that constituency shall be directed.
2. It shall be the duty of the returning officer to make all arrangements for the election, including
* This form will require modification where the transferable or alternative vote is not used at the ejection.
†This declaration is to be made only at a general election.
arrangements for the nomination of candidates, and (where a poll is necessary) for the poll and counting of votes, and to certify the result of the election in pursuance of the writ.
3. The returning officer shall give notice to the candidates of the days fixed for the poll and of the time and place for counting the votes, and any candidate and an agent appointed by any candidate for the purpose may be present at the poll and the count.
No person other than the returning officer, his assistants and clerks, and the candidates and their agents shall be entitled to be present at the count except with the sanction of the returning officer.
Nomination.
4. The nomination shall take place on such day and at such time and place as may be fixed by the returning officer, being not less than four days and not more than eight days after the receipt of the writ, and the returning officer shall give public notice of the day, time, and place so fixed within three days after he receives the writ.
5. The candidate must be nominated in writing by two electors as proposer and seconder and by eight other electors as assenting to the nomination, and his nomination must be delivered to the returning officer by some elector.
6. If, at the expiration of the time fixed for nomination, no more candidates are nominated than there are vacancies to be filled up, the returning officer shall declare the candidates who stand nominated to be elected and certify the result of the election accordingly.
7. If, at the expiration of the time fixed for nomination more candidates stand nominated than there are vacancies to be filled up, the returning officer shall arrange for a poll to be taken.
8. A candidate may be withdrawn in manner provided by regulations made under this Act, and if, owing to the withdrawal of a candidate after nomination, a poll becomes unnecessary, the returning officer shall countermand the poll and declare any candidate elected whose nomination remains standing.
9. If one of the candidates nominated dies after he had been nominated and before the commencement of the poll, the returning officer shall countermand the poll and other proceedings for the election and commence the same again as if the writ had been received by him on the day on which he is satisfied of the fact that the death took place.
No fresh nomination shall be required in the case of a candidate who stood nominated at the time the poll was countermanded.
Poll.
10. The poll shall remain open for not less than four days nor more than six days, and shall take place on such days as may be fixed by the returning officer, commencing not more than twenty and not less than twelve clear days after the day of nomination.
11. The poll at each University shall be open at such place and for such time each day between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., not being less than four hours, as the Vice-Chancellor of the University may direct.
12. The Vice-Chancellor of each University shall give public notice of the days and hours of poll and of the polling place appointed.
13. The Vice-Chancellor of each University shall at the University act as presiding officer and shall have general control over the arrangements

1111
for the conduct of the poll at such University.
14. No person other than the Vice-Chancellor, the registrar, their assistants and clerks, and the candidates and their agents shall be entitled to be present at the poll except with the sanction of the Vice-Chancellor.
15. The Vice-Chancellor of each University shall as regards the voting papers relating to such University decide on the validity of any voting paper to which objection is taken, or on the right of any person to vote, and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, if the voting paper or the right to vote is allowed, shall be final, but, if the voting paper or the right to vote is disallowed, shall be subject to reversal on any proceeding questioning the election or return.
16. The register kept in pursuance of this Act by the University Court shall be conclusive as to the right of any person to vote at the poll; but this provision shall not entitled any person to vote if that person is subject to any legal incapacity.
17. Votes shall be given by means of voting papers, and no elector shall be allowed to vote in person, or in any other way than is herein provided. Each voting paper shall be in the form (A) appended to this Schedule. Each voting paper shall have a number printed or written on the back thereof, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed or written on the face. Before a voting paper is issued to an elector as hereinafter provided, it shall be marked with an official mark, either stamped or perforated, and the number of such elector, as stated on the register shall be marked on the counterfoil, and a mark shall be placed in the register or any copy thereof used for the purposes of the election against the number of the elector to denote that a voting paper has been issued to him.
18. The registrar of each University, as soon as he conveniently can after the day of nomination, and not later than eight clear days thereafter, shall issue through the post a voting paper, in the form (A) appended to this schedule to each elector to his address as entered on the register who shall appear from said address to be resident within the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands; and such voting paper (the Christian name, surname, designation, and residence of the elector as appearing on the register having previously been filled in by the registrar, or some one having his authority), contained in an envelope marked on the outside as sent by the registrar of the University, shall be accompanied by a letter of intimation in the form (B) appended to this schedule, and by a stamped envelope addressed to the registrar, for the return of the said voting paper; and each elector, upon receipt of his voting paper, if he desires to vote in the election, shall record his vote thereon, and the place and date of signature, and affix his subscription thereto, in the presence of one witness, who shall personally know the elector, and who shall attest the fact of such voting paper having been signed by the elector in his presence at the place therein mentioned, by signing his name at the foot thereof, and adding his designation and place of residence in the form or to the effect set forth in form (A) appended to this schedule.
19. Thereafter the voting paper so signed and attested as aforesaid, shall, if the elector desires to vote in the election, be returned through the post to the registrar of the University by whom
1112
it was issued, so as to reach him not later than the time specified in the said letter of intimation for the return of the voting paper. Each voting paper, when received back by the registrar, shall be kept by him unopened in a fireproof safe, or other place of safety, until the poll begins.
20. If an elector, before or after he has received a voting paper, shall intimate or cause to be intimated in writing to the registrar that he is incapacitated from blindness or other physical cause to vote in the manner prescribed by this Act, it shall be lawful for the registrar, on getting back the voting paper from the elector, if such has been issued, to issue to the elector so incapacitated a voting paper in the form or to the effect set forth in form (C) appended to this schedule; and on said voting paper being received by the elector, it shall be competent for him to record his vote by the hand of a justice of the peace in the manner therein directed; and the said justice of peace shall certify and attest the fact of his having been requested and authorised by the elector to sign said voting paper for him, and of its having been so signed by him in the presence of the elector by signing an attestation in the form (C) aforesaid; and such voting paper, when received by the registrar, shall have the same effect and be similarly dealt with as a voting paper signed by an elector in the form (A) appended to this schedule.
21. An elector who has not received a voting paper sent by post as aforesaid to his address as appearing on the register, or who has before re-delivery thereof to the registrar, inadvertently spoilt his voting paper in such manner that it cannot be conveniently used as a voting paper, or who has lest his voting paper, may, on his transmitting to the registrar a declaration signed by himself before a justice of the peace setting forth the fact of the non-receipt, the inadvertent spoiling, or the loss of the voting paper, require the registrar to send him a new voting paper in place of the one not received, or spoilt, or lost; and in case the voting paper has been spoilt, the spoilt voting paper shall be returned to the registrar, and when received by him shall be immediately cancelled, and in every case where a new voting paper is issued a mark shall be placed opposite the number of the elector's name on the register, to denote that a new voting paper has been issued in place of the one not received, or spoilt, or lost.
22. An elector who does not appear from his address as entered on the register to be resident within the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands, may apply in writing to the registrar to send a voting paper to him to an address within the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands.
23. The registrar, upon receiving an application in terms of either of the two preceding provisions hereof at any time before the day on which the poll begins, shall forthwith transmit a new voting paper, or a voting paper, as the case may be, to the address as appearing on the register, or to the address within the United Kingdom or Channel Islands as the case may be: Provided that the registrar shall open all letters coming addressed to him from the Bead Letter Office after the date of his issuing the voting papers, in order to ascertain and make public the names and addresses of the electors whose voting papers have not reached them, which he shall do by exhibiting publicly at his office in the University as they reach him a list of the names and addresses of the electors whose letters have been

1113
returned to him from the Dead Letter Office, for the information of all concerned.
24. When the poll begins, the voting papers shall be opened and examined by the registrar in the presence of the Vice-Chancellor and any candidate or agent of a candidate who may attend, and the voting papers found to be marked with the official mark and the number on the back as appearing on the counterfoil, and otherwise regular, shall be put apart until the end of the poll. Any voting paper which has not the official mark and the number on the back as appearing on the counterfoil, or which is in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor otherwise invalid, shall not be counted as a vote in the election, but shall be sealed up in a paper apart, marked on the back thereof with the words "voting papers received but disallowed," and initialled by the Vice-Chancellor.
25. It shall be lawful for any candidate or the agent of any candidate who may be in attendance at the poll, to inspect any voting paper and to object to it on one or more of the following grounds:—

(1) That the elector named in the voting paper has already voted at that election:

(2) That the person giving a vote by the voting paper is not qualified to vote:

(3) That the voting paper is forged or falsified:

(4) That the voting paper is wanting in any of the essential conditions required by this Act:

Provided, that in case the objection offered to any voting paper shall be that it is forged or falsified, such voting paper shall not on that ground alone be disallowed by the Vice-Chancellor, but he shall write upon it, "objected to as forged," or, "objected to as falsified," together with the name of the person making such objection.
26. No voting paper shall be counted which does not reach the registrar before ten of the clock on the morning of the day on which the poll closes.
Counting of Votes.
27. After the poll is closed all voting papers received at any polling place shall be placed in a proper receptacle and sealed up and delivered to the returning officer, and the returning officer shall, as soon as practicable after the receipt of the votes from all the polling places, count the votes and publish the result.
28. Where an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates on a final count and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the returning office may give a deciding vote, but the returning officer shall not be entitled to vote at the election in any other case.
General.
29. Arrangements may be made for counting votes at an election for the combined university constituency at each of the universities forming the combination, if neither the transferable nor alternative vote is used at that election, and for a record of the votes counted at each University being sent to the returning officer for the combined constituency in order that he may ascertain and declare the result of the election.
30. The returning officer shall appoint such deputies and clerks as he may think necessary for the proper holding of the election, and shall supply forms of nomination papers.
31. All voting papers received and counted at an election, and the counterfoils thereof, as well as any voting papers disallowed for informality, or on any other ground, and the counterfoils thereof, shall be filed, and, along with any copy of the register used for the purposes of said election, shall be kept by the returning officer for a period of twelve months after the closing of the poll.
32. Any person falsely or fraudulently signing any voting paper in the name of any other person, either as a voter or as a witness, and every person signing, certifying attesting, or transmitting as genuine any false or falsified voting paper, knowing the same to be false or falsified, or with fraudulent intent altering, defacing, destroying, withholding, or obstructing any voting paper, shall be guilty of a crime and offence, and shall be punishable by line or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
33. No such voting paper as hereinbefore mentioned shall be liable to any stamp duty.
34. Any expenses reasonably incurred by the Vice-Chancellor of each University in connection with the arrangements for an election shall be repaid to him by that University: Provided that any expenses so incurred by the returning officer in connection with the nomination and the counting of votes shall be paid in equal shares by the four Universities forming the constituency.
35. If any person, for the purpose of enabling any other person to vote at a university election, corruptly pays on his behalf any fees which such other person, is required to pay in order to be registered or entitled to vote, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, and that Act shall apply accordingly.
36. In reckoning time for the purpose of the provisions in this Schedule, Sunday, Christmas Day, and any day set apart as a public holiday or public fast or public thanksgiving shall be excluded; and where anything required by these provisions to be done on any day falls to be done on any such day it may be done on the next day not being one of any such days.
37. If regulations are made under this Act as to the manner in which public notice is to be given under the provisions of this Schedule, public notice shall be given in manner directed under any such regulations for the time being in force, and if no such regulations are in force shall be given in such manner as the returning officer or the Vice-Chancellor, as the case may be, considers best fitted for giving notice to the persons concerned.
38. An election shall not be declared invalid by reason of non-compliance with these provisions if it appears to the tribunal having jurisdiction that the election was conducted in accordance with the principle of these provisions and that the non-compliance with these provisions did not affect the result of the election.
39. Where the Vice-Chancellor or registrar of any University is absent, or is incapacitated by illness for discharging any duty required of him by this Act, or if the office of Vice-Chancellor or of registrar shall be vacant, the duties by this Act imposed on the Vice-Chancellor or registrar respectively shall be discharged by a person appointed for that purpose by the University Court of such University; and such person shall in that respect, but in no other, act for the time as and be deemed to be Vice-Chancellor or registrar of such University.
FORM A.
UNIVERSITY OF (Name of University) VOTING PAPER.
No.(number of elector as on the register).
I, AB. (here give the elector's name in full and his designation), give my vote as indicated below:—

* Candidates.

Order of Preference

A

B

C

D

I declare that I have signed no other voting paper at this election for the combined university constituency of the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh.
† I also declare—

(In the case of a man) that I have not voted at this general election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification;

(In the case of a woman) that I have not voted at this general election for any other university constituency.

Signed A.B.

Address

The

day of

19.

I declare that this voting paper (the vote having been previously recorded thereon), was signed in my presence by A.B., who is personally known to me, on the day of 19.
Signed C.D.
Designation
Address
FORM B.
UNIVERSITY OF (Name of University).
REGISTRAR'S LETTER.
No. (number of elector as on the register).

Persons Nominated.

Proposed by

Seconded by

A

Name of Proposer

Name of Seconder

B

Do.

Do.

C

Do.

Do.

D

Do.

Do.

* This form will require modification where the transferable or alternative vote is not used at the election.
† This declaration is to be made only at a general election.
SIR,
I HAVE to intimate that the above-named persons have been nominated for the office of member of Parliament. Along with this letter you will receive a voting paper, and, should you desire to vote at this election, I have to request that you will record your vote thereon and the place and date of your signing, and having signed your name thereto in presence of one witness, who will also sign his name as directed, you will return the voting paper by post to me at the University of, so as to reach me on or before 10 a.m. of (insert the day on which the poll finally closes).
I am, &c.
(Signed) G. H., Registrar.
(Date.)
FORM C.
UNIVERSITY OF (Name of University) VOTING PAPER.
INCAPACITATED ELECTOR.
No. (number of elector as on register).
I A.B., (here give the elector's name in full and his designation), give my vote as indicated below, and I have requested and authorised C.D., a justice of peace, to make the entries in this voting paper on my behalf and on my instructions, and to subscribe this voting paper and declarations for me, as I am from (state the incapacity) unable to write:—

* Candidates.

Order of Preference

A

B

C

D

I declare that I have signed no other voting paper at this election for the combined university constituency of the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh.
† I also declare—

(In the case of a man) that I have not voted at this general election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification;

(In the case of a woman) that I have not voted at this general election for any other university constituency.

Signed A.B.

Address

The

day of

19.

* This form will require modification where the transferable or alternative vote is not used at the election.
† This declaration is to be made only at a general election.
I C.D., a justice of peace for, and residing at, hereby declare that A.B, before named, being personally known to me, did in my presence make the declaration(s) before mentioned, and did duly request and authorise me to make the entries in this voting paper on his behalf and on his instructions, and to subscribe this voting paper for him, which I did on day of 19, in the presence the said A.B.
(Signed) C.D., a justice of peace for, and residing at—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD GAINFORD: I have an Amendment, merely a verbal one, to this proposed new Schedule. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will accept it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is a subsequent Amendment with regard to a Welsh University, and perhaps the noble Lord would be inclined to postpone his until he sees the fate of that Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: It is merely a verbal Amendment, and in the circumstances perhaps it had better be postponed.
LORD EMMOTT LORD EMMOTT moved, in Rule 1 (c) of the proposed new Schedule, to leave out "University of Birmingham," and insert "such university being one of the universities combined for the purposes of a Parliamentary election, as may be from time to time appointed by the Board of Education for that purpose." The noble Lord said: In the absence of Lord Ashton and Viscount Bryce, I should like to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount. It is a little invidious to pick out one University, and the proposal in the Amendment is that, instead of the Vice-Chancellor or Principal or corresponding officer of the University of Birmingham being the returning officer for the combined Universities, that the nomination of the officer, who shall be returning officer, shall be left to the Board of Education.
Amendment moved to the proposed new Schedule—
To leave out ("the University of Birmingham") and to insert ("such university being one of the universities combined for the purposes of a parliamentary election, as may be from time to time appointed by the Board of Education for that purpose").—(Lord Emmott.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Birmingham was selected and inserted in the Bill because some place had to be selected as the most convenient for counting the votes. That is the reason why the name of Birmingham is inserted, but if the noble Lord is anxious that that name should not be inserted, and I understand there are certain reasons of precedence why that should be done, I am quite ready to make that alteration. I would make the suggestion to the noble Lord, it is merely in the drafting of his Amendment, that it should run "such University being one of the combined Universities as may from time to time be appointed by the Board of Education for the purpose." I should be glad if he would be willing to accept it in that form.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Certainly, if I may venture to say so, it is an improvement in that form, and my noble friend and myself are much obliged to the Government for the view they have taken of the matter. I may say that there is a certain amount of sentiment involved on the part of the other Universities, and this change will be welcomed by them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I may be allowed to express the same view, in concurrence with my noble friend. The University over which I have the honour of presiding has not made any representation in this sense, but I have no doubt that it will welcome what is being done.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I move to omit from my new Schedule the two lines preceded by an asterisk at the bottom of page 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, leave out "* This form will require modification where the transferable or alternative vote is not used at the election."—(Viscount Peel.)
New Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I ought to say that at this moment I would naturally be moving the substitution of other Schedules. It was only yesterday that we were able to have the advantage of the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman, and he has been most obliging, and has

1119
been working very hard all yesterday, and the Schedules will be quite ready, I think, by to-morrow morning, and perhaps even to-night. We propose to put them down in ample time for Report, and with ample notice, combined with instructions to the Boundary Commissioners for their review if the principle is accepted. I apologise to your Lordships for not having them ready at the present moment, but I think that you will see that in the circumstances it was really not possible to do that. They will be quite ready for Report.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If they are handed in to-morrow, of course we shall see them on Friday morning?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am not responsible for their circulation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I say, with reference to what the noble Earl has just said, that there is a series of Amendments here for altering the names of constituencies. I suppose that this Schedule may be entirely altered by the Proportional Representation Schedule, and I am in the hands of the House as to whether we should proceed with the Amendments now. I am, of course, referring only to the Amendments suggesting the change of names of constituencies, standing in the names of Lord Burnham, Viscount Chaplin, and others.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree that the noble Viscount's appeal is reasonable. It is most absurd, if the House is to accept my Schedule afterwards, to discuss the point now. If the House does not accept my Schedule on Report, of course the whole thing falls through, and noble Lords may then proceed with their Amendments.
LORD BURNHAM: I understand that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill thinks it more convenient not to discuss these points at this stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It does seem that it would be a waste of time to discuss them now if another Schedule is to be introduced afterwards. This does not apply to all the Amendments. There is, for instance, one in the name of Lord St. Davids.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: And of Viscount Halifax.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Shall we be in the same position later on?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I cannot tell.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If my Amendment is adopted, the noble Duke will I have the opportunity of raising the question if he wishes to do so; if it is not adopted, he will similarly have the same chance.
LORD BURNHAM: I am entirely in the hands of the House, and in these circumstances I will put down the Amendment to the Schedule on Report.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved, in paragraph (2), to omit "one" ["York, County borough of—one"] and insert "two." The noble Viscount said: The object of my Amendment is to retain the two members for York. This is a matter which is extremely felt in the North of England. The Bill deprives York of its two Members and retains the two Members for the City of London. I am quite unable to see the reasons which are adduced for the retention of the two Members for the City of London which do not apply mutatis mutandis with much greater effect to the City of York. I understand, if the test of population is to decide the matter, the number of those sleeping in the City of London is very little, if at all, in excess of the population of York. I have inquired why York, with its history, is to be treated in a different way from the City of London. I am told the reason is that the City of London occupies an entirely exceptional position among the London constituencies. I do not in the least quarrel with that argument; all that I maintain is that it applies with still greater effect mutatis mutandis to the City of York, for York occupies quite as exceptional a position among the cities of England as the City of London does among London constituencies.
Probably your Lordships will remember that the City of York was the capital of Great Britain during the Roman occupation. It was where the Emperor Constantine was proclaimed, whose conversion affected the whole history of the Roman Empire and the whole history of Christendom. It is intimately associated with the name of the Empress Helena, who is believed by Christendom to have found the

1121
true Cross. York was the capital of Great Britain sifter the Roman occupation. London can pretend to no such honour. It was designated by Gregory the Great as the seat of an Archbishopric. The Archbishop of York sits in your Lordships' House at the present day, and great and distinguished as are the Prelates who have illustrated the See of London, the See of London has got no Archbishopric. York claimed to have had a mayor before the City of London, and in connection with the City of London it was the only town in England which had a Lord Mayor. There was a Lord Mayor of London, there was a Lord Mayor of York, there was a Lord Provost of Edinburgh, there was a Lord Mayor of Dublin, but there were no other Lord Mayors at all, and York had been in possession of a Lord Mayor for 500 years before any other town in England could claim that distinction. It is mentioned in Domesday. It was incorporated by Henry I soon after the eleventh century. Before Sheriffs existed it had its own bailiffs. It is one of the very oldest towns that is a county in itself. It returned Burgesses to the first Parliament ever summoned in England, and I do beg your Lordships to bear this in mind. The names of its two Burgesses who were summoned 10 the great Parliament of Edward I in 1295 are extant, and the names of the Burgesses who have succeeded them from that time to this are still extant. I ask your Lordships, can you have the heart to destroy such a tradition as that? Let me just illustrate the position of York. The Members for York have the right of sitting next to the Members for the City of London on the Treasury Bench in another place. There is no city in England that can compare with the historical associations and traditions of York.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Winchester.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Winchester has never been the capital of the north of England as York has been. I do not in the least care for the noble Earl's interruption on that point. I think it is quite out of place. But I ask your Lordships for a moment to consider some of these historical associations of York. What other town has supplied a title to our Royal Family? There has been a House of Lancaster, but it is not Henry of Lancaster who gives his best historical title to our present Sovereign;
1122
it is Elizabeth of York, and His present Majesty is the fourth of our kings who has been Duke of York. I might mention the Minster of York, which is the glory of England and the pride of all Yorkshiremen. There are many other historical associations I could mention, but what I do want to impress upon your Lordships is this: that it is the greatest possible mistake, and I am sure you cannot wish to do anything of that sort, to undervalue the importance of historical associations. I venture to say they are much more important than mere material associations, and have a much greater influence upon the life of the country than that which comes to-day and goes to-morrow.
There are many other things I might say, but let me mention that York is at this moment the centre of the Northern Command. It is the centre of the whole of the North-eastern railway system of England, and all those who are going to Scotland and coming back on the Great Northern Railway travel through York Although I am not going to put what I am now going to say in rivalry with what I have already said, let me remind your Lordships that Dick Turpin and Black Bess went from London to York and did not go from York to London. I am the more bold to make this allusion because I possess an acknowledgement in Dick Turpin's own handwriting of the refuge he took in a barn in my own neighbourhood close to Doncaster. That is a fact I am not going to forget, but I do not wish to press a matter of that sort unduly. What I do say is, when you think of the unrivalled history of York it is the last thing you can do to deprive it of its two Members, which it has possessed ever since the days of Edward I.
There are only two other references I have to make, and the first is this. Despite the noble Earl, however great Winchester may be—and I do not dispute it; I think Winchester should not be deprived of its Member—and however great the City of Durham may be, I still say that York is pre-eminently before any other city in England; and it is impossible, with any show of reason, to adduce what may be done for York as a precedent for what may be done for any other town in the country.
My last point is this. This is a question outside of all political considerations, for I do not suppose that there is any city in

1123
England where representation has been more equally divided between Liberals and Unionists—or Tories, if you like so to call them. If your Lordships look at the figures of recent elections you will see that it has been five votes one way and ten votes another way; and as far as the one or the other Party is concerned there is nothing whatever to choose between the two. I earnestly ask your Lordships to support my Amendment. I appeal to the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill to have some regard for historic tradition, and not to deprive York of what it has had since the time of Edward I; and in view of its history which ought to appeal to all hearts.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 14, third column, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").—(Viscount Halifax.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I feel bound to rise to say a word in support of my noble friend, though not with the brilliant eloquence which he has displayed in describing the claims of York. I have family associations with it; one of my great grandfathers sat for the City of York; and I have spent many years living in its neighbourhood. But I am bound to say that I think that my noble friend is absolutely justified in describing the claim of York for retention of its Membership as quite different from that which any other city—except the City of London—can put forward. The claims of the City of London have been admitted by His Majesty's Government; but all that my noble friend has said about York is perfectly true. The other great historical cities and towns in England—for instance, the two great commercial cities of the Middle Ages, Bristol and Norwich (both great and important still)—cannot rival York. Neither can the great political cities. Winchester and Chester, or, indeed, Oxford. York does stand entirely by itself among the cities of England in historical interest. My noble friend has stated its unique position in having through hundreds of years given a title to the Royal House, the importance of which has transcended all others. There are fifty other reasons why York should be considered I am aware that it is not easy for His Majesty's Government to make further additions to the roll of Parliament, which the Leader of the House has already said has been made infinitely too large by
1124
the Government Bill—a view with which I have no doubt many of your Lordships will agree—but it was impossible for me not to join my noble friend in expressing the view that, if any change is made, the claim of York is entirely of a different character, just in the same way as the claim of the City of London is from that of other places, and that its parallel in that respect cannot be found in the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is clear that, whatever the number of its representatives in the other House may be, the City of York does not lack eloquent and forcible supporters in this House. In fact, so strong is the case, and so brilliant the historical researches of my noble friend into the ancient history of York, that one almost feels that it hardly requires anything like more representation in the House of Commons to carry on its historical greatness.
The speech of the noble Viscount seemed to proceed on the basis that York was to have no representation at all in the other House. That is not so. The proposals in the Schedule are that it shall have one Member instead of two. And may I point out to the noble Lord what an enormously enhanced and important position that one Member will have if he is still present and represents and bears upon his shoulders the tremendous weight and tradition of this place. I do not wish to enter into a comparison between York and London. I can only warn the noble Viscount that I am fairly well up in the historic and early traditions of the City of London, but I will not enter upon that much controverted subject tonight. I am afraid I have to deal with the Amendment less from the poetic and historic point of view than from the more prosaic point of view of figures. Not whether Constantine lived there or whether it existed before the Roman occupation, but what are the numbers in that City to-day. Now the number, unfortunately—I think the noble Viscount rather judiciously did not deal with the question—the number of persons in the City of York—because the decision of the Commissioners was that the area of the Parliamentary borough should be extended so as to be co-extensive with the county borough, so that the county borough was made as large as it could reasonably be—the estimate of its population for the year 1914 was 83,380.
In order, therefore, to justify us in giving York, on the basis of numbers, two Members, it ought to have a population of

1125
120,000. As the noble Viscount will see, it falls very far short of those numbers, and it you were to grant the desire of York or of its representatives in this matter you would be beset by numberless claims from other places which, although they have not got the great historical traditions of York, yet have very great industrial and social claims to-day, which they would press vigorously upon the attention of Parliament. I might mention such places as-Halifax with over 100,000 or Northampton with over 90,000, and so on. Therefore, because I have listened so sympathetically to the speech of the noble Viscount, I am sure he will realise with what pain I feel compelled, speaking on behalf of the Government, to say that it its not possible for me to accede to the desire that York should retain its two Members. Its representation should be based rather more on its population than upon the historic glories to which the noble Viscount so feelingly alluded.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Might I ask what are the numbers of the sleeping population of the City of London, because I understand it is the population sleeping in a constituency at night which determines its representation. Is it very much larger than that of York? That is the point. If number is to determine the question I want to know why, if the numbers are nearly equal, preference is given to London over York?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid the noble Viscount is trying to draw me into a comparison which I said I did not want to enter upon.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: It is not historical comparison I want to draw the noble Viscount into, but a comparison on the more prosaic matter of figures.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ABERCONWAY LORD ABERCONWAY moved to insert, in Part I of the Fifth Schedule, words providing for a new constituency composed of "Denbigh and Flint District of Boroughs." The noble Lord said: There is a strong feeling in Wales that at least one more Member ought to be given to the Principality in order to make the numbers constituting an electoral unit approximate to the numbers which are applicable under the Bill to England and Scotland. This
1126
Amendment has for its object the creation of a new group of boroughs, by retaining the old boroughs. The effect of it would be that the unit of population for a Welsh constituency would be increased to about 70,000. Even that would compare unfavourably with England and Scotland. The population per Member in England, which is at present 73,000, would be reduced by the redistribution scheme of the Bill to 71,000, and that of Scotland would be reduced from 68,000 to 66,000, while, as the Bill stands, in Wales it would be increased from 71,000 to 72,000.
The subject was discussed at some length in the other House, and three proposals were made which are substantially as follows. The first was the proposal that I move before your Lordships to-day. The second was to give a Member to Radnorshire, and the third was to give a separate Member to the Welsh University. It was felt that as Radnorshire is a small county that proposal could not be successfully pressed; and I am bound to say that of the three I should greatly prefer giving separate University representation to Wales. If I thought the Government were disposed to accept that Amendment, which will be proposed by Lord St. Davids, I should, of course, be glad to withdraw this proposal in favour of that one. In any case, if separate representation is not given to Welsh University, this Amendment of mine could be re-introduced on Report. The reasons are so strong for something to be done that I hope the Government, on consideration, will see their way to consent to what the Welsh people regard as only a simple act of justice. I do not, however, propose to press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 42, at end insert:

"Denbigh and Flint District of Boroughs.

Existing contributory boroughs of Denbigh, Holt, Ruthin, Wrexham, Caergwrle, Caerwys, Flint, Holywell, Mold, Overton, Rhuddlan, and St. Asaph.

One."

—(Lord Aberconway.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute "Dennistoun" for "Camlachie" as the name of one of the Glasgow constituencies in Part I. The noble Lord said: I do not think my Amendment will stand. It was really only a question of nomenclature. I was asked

1127
to put it down by the Glasgow Corporation. The Camlachie district is chiefly included under the Bill in the Shettleston Parliamentary area. The Dennistoun municipal ward is also in this district, and it would be much more acceptable to everybody, and more geographically correct, if the name of Dennistoun were substituted for Camlachie.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 46, fourth column, leave out ("Camlachie") and insert ("Dennistoun").—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I believe the general principle we have followed elsewhere with reference to this change of names has been that the Government has generally been unwilling to depart from the name as settled by the Boundary Commissioners, unless there was really some consensus of opinion from the districts themselves in favour of a change. I really can only ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to assure me that that is so. If he is able to give me that assurance, I would not oppose his suggestion, and it could take its chance in another place. If he cannot give me that assurance, then he cannot expect me to take up that favourable attitude.
LORD LAMINGTON: I move the Amendment at the instance of the Glasgow authorities, and I presume they have satisfied themselves.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I was under the impression that all these questions of nomenclature were to be passed over. One or two have been passed over and there are more to come. I should like to know the intention of the noble Viscount in regard to this point.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I made the suggestion, but at the same time I cannot refuse to answer the noble Lord.
LORD LAMINGTON: Under the Schedule the name is a misnomer and not geographically correct. Can I make a further inquiry at a later stage?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps the noble Lord will do that. To me, being a plain Saxon, Camlachie sounds far more Scottish than the other.
LORD LAMINGTON: Oh, Dennistoun is all right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIGBY LORD DIGBY moved, in Schedule (5), to leave out "Poole" and insert "Eastern." The noble Lord said: The Dorchester District Council are anxious that this alteration should be made, and passed, a resolution at their last meeting that the name of Eastern Dorset should be retained. The three other Divisions of the County have retained their names. Northern, Southern and Western. That of Eastern Dorset has been changed to Poole, and the Dorsetshire County Council object to the alteration and prefer that Eastern Dorset should be retained.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 30, fourth column, leave out ("Poole") and insert ("Eastern").—(Lord Digby.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The representations of the County Council would, of course, deserve every consideration. If the noble Lord, therefore, wishes to press it I should not offer any opposition, but it is subject to the same possibilities as the other constituencies.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But for the closing observation of the noble Viscount I should like to support my noble friend. I live for a certain part of the year in this constituency and am much interested in it. I should think that in everything, except the very important and indeed historical celebrity of Poole, Poole would dislike to be called Poole, while the rest of the Division would like to be called according to its own name of East Dorset. I agree, however, with the noble Viscount opposite that we are rather beating the air in discussing these names when on the Report stage the whole question is going to be raised on the new Schedule in the name of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I cannot help thinking that my noble friend Lord Digby would be well advised, with great respect to him, not to press the matter now. On Report I will support him.
LORD DIGBY: I am afraid that I shall not be here; if the noble Marquess will take it from me I shall be much obliged.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will take care of my noble friend's interests in

1129
the event of his not being able to be here upon Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I withdraw the Amendment in my name at this stage [page 130, line 37, fourth column, after "Llandaff" insert "and Barry"] on the understanding that it comes up later.
LORD ST. DAVIDS LORD ST. DAVIDS moved to insert in Part III Universities, "Description of University constituency," the words "University of Wales—one." The noble Lord said: I think that perhaps I shall be in order in moving along with this Amendment the Amendment two lines later which is consequential. I will be as brief as possible in putting forward what is really a substantial grievance. Wales has been very badly treated under this Bill, worse treated than any other part of the United Kingdom. I think that I will prove that to the House in a moment or two by the figures that I will give.
I want to make it clear, however, that I am not going to base my case upon the number of graduates of the Welsh University. Oxford, for instance, has about 15,000 or 16,000 graduates. The Welsh University with its three Colleges of Bangor, Cardiff, and Aberystwyth, has a very substantially smaller number of graduates than the number that would be half the number of Oxford, which has two Members. I do not base my case on that, although I think it very likely that I should base it upon it if I had at my command the number of the graduates of the two new Irish Universities that have been, by the result of the Speaker's arbitration, awarded seats only yesterday. I know nothing about those two Universities, one of which—no doubt it is my ignorance—I had not heard of previously. It is not necessary to base my case upon the number of graduates, because the Welsh University is a very young body and it naturally has not got anything like the list of graduates which the old University has with its men of eighty, seventy, and sixty. Most of the graduates of the Welsh University are naturally young men. But Wales is not only a separate nationality; it has an entirely different system of education. It has different education laws from any other part of the Kingdom, so that if there ever was a case for a separate Member for a University the case is stronger in Wale than it is anywhere else. I want to
1130
give you the grievance on population. After this Bill becomes law Scotland will have one Member for every 66,000 of the population, and, besides that, it will have three University Members. The population of Scotland is not double the population of Wales. It is not only over-represented as regards its population, but it is over-represented as regards its Universities. England under the Bill is to be given one Member for every 71,000 of population, and, in addition, is to have seven University Members. I need hardly speak about Ireland, because in Ireland the case is so monstrous that they had 103 Members the day before yesterday, which was something like thirty or forty more than they were entitled to, and they have, been given two more University Members, or four University Members altogether. On that basis I ought to be asking for two University Members for Wales, not for one. Apart from University Members Scotland has one Member for 66,000 population: England one for 71,000 population; and Wales one for 72,000 population. So that on our population basis we are actually far worse treated than any other part of the Kingdom, quite apart from not having a University Member at all given to us under the Bill.
The Boundary Commissioners have taken their figures as to population from the Local Government Returns from 1911 to 1914, which I believe were the last they had available. In those years the population of Scotland actually fell 13,000, and the population of Wales rose 102,000. And the population of Wales, with the development of industry, is rising with exceptional rapidity year by year, and, as far as I can judge, owing to the state of the industries, that rise is likely to go on to an accentuated degree. But quite apart from that, as we stand now we have a great grievance as regards population. Under this Bill we are given in Wales thirty-five Members. We are entitled on population to a fraction over thirty-six, and we are entitled to a University Member as well on the basis of population.
On the basis of population, look at this. The population of Wales in 1914 was 2,523,000. The population of the whole country was something under 42,000,000. Apart from the rise of population in Wales, which I am sure has been exceptional since that time, that would give you roughly one-sixteenth of the population

1131
of the country. One-sixteenth of the population of the country would give you the right to one University Member if there were sixteen for the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. There are fourteen. There are seven for England, three for Scotland, four for Ireland since yesterday; and Wales has not one at all. I think, as regards numbers, that is a great, grievance. If you give us to-night one additional Member for the University you are only giving us in effect what our population basis entitles us to, without any addition as of right for the University. We are entitled on a population basis and for the University too, to thirty-seven seats, and we have got only thirty-five. I am so modest in my humble request that I am only asking you to give us thirty-six.
Considering the hour, I do not wish to keep your Lordships unnecessarily detained. But I would just say this. I am doing this most certainly from no Party spirit. A friend of mine said to me tonight, "Surely you, who represent Liberals in Wales, ought not to be proposing a seat for a privileged class," because everybody knows that a University Member mainly represents the professional classes of the country, and on the whole the professional classes in Wales, just as they do in England and Scotland, belong to the Conservative Party. I have very little doubt that if you give us this seat to-night it will be in the main, perhaps always, a Conservative seat that you will be establishing. I am Chairman of the Central Liberal Association for all Wales, but I am quite certain that I represent the feeling of the people of Wales. I certainly represent the feeling of the Liberal Welsh Members in the House of Commons when I say that the Liberals in Wales undoubtedly would like this seat established, even though they know it will be a Conservative seat. Welsh people have a great love of education and a great love of culture, and we have a love of our country and we do want justice. I would press very strongly on your Lordships to-night, even at this late hour, that I have made out a perfectly clear case of grievance as regards numbers, and I press urgently on the Government that they should accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved.
Page 137, line 43, at end insert ("The University of Wales 1")
Page 137, line 45, leave out ("the University of Wales").—(Lord St. Davids.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord St. Davids. I do not wish to go over any of the ground he has traversed, but to mention two more points which perhaps would induce your Lordships to agree with the Amendment. Of course, as he has rightly said, the defence of University representation cannot be upon the number of graduates. It is given, I imagine, because it is thought desirable that those who pass through the highest education that can be tested by honours and degrees should be entitled to some representation on that account. If this is so, there is a difference between the different parts of the country, the nature of the students, and the kind of higher education which is given. I believe that this varies substantially in Wales from the forms and results of education in the newer Universities in England. I believe it is a fact that the majority of the students in Wales come from the working classes. In the newer English Universities I think it will be agreed that they come largely from the professional classes and from what is generally called the middle classes. So that in this respect you get a difference in the nature of those who become graduates. There is also this rather curious fact, that the faculty of the humanities—and I say this on the authority of the Vice-Chancellor of the University—is much more popular amongst the students in Wales than the faculty of science. Exactly the opposite holds good in the younger English Universities.
I advance these two points only to show that there is a distinct difference on educational grounds between those who go to the University colleges of Wales and those who go to the newer Universities in England. Even under the Bill as it stands the Welsh University will be grouped with several English Universities, which latter would naturally have the right of selecting a candidate; and it is extremely probable that the Welsh University would not get any real representation.
I was going to claim a very disinterested state of mind, but my noble friend Lord St. Davids has rather taken that position from me. I think I am right in saying that the students in Wales come much more from the working classes than they do in England; and so far as my knowledge of the colleges in Wales is concerned, I should be very much surprised indeed if their single

1133
representative belonged to the Party with which I have associated myself and to which I have had the honour to belong. My noble friend Lord Salisbury rather warned us last night that possibly the vote which I induced your Lordships to give then might be construed by some as favouring the political Party to which he belonged. However disinterested we may know ourselves to be, that may be levelled against us. But in this instance, at least, I do not think that this can be levelled against the view I am now taking.
LORD DYNEVOR: I heartily support this Amendment. On the basis of population, Wales is certainly entitled to at least one more Member; and I cannot think of a better way of giving her that extra Member than by giving her a representative for her own University. As has been pointed out by Lord Plymouth, under the Bill the Welsh University is united with several English Universities. I cannot believe for a moment that Wales will be able to send her own representative to Parliament as she will be out-voted. By the means now proposed Wales would have a Member who would be able to speak for the whole of the Welsh educational interests. I trust, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD PONTYPRIDD: I am not going to enlarge upon the case so excellently made by my noble friend Lord St. Davids. I will only say this, that there was very great disappointment in Wales when the Bill was in another place that it did not provide for a Member for the University. We are one of the four nationalities which make up the United Kingdom, and we have an education of our own, and I say it is necessary, in order that we should be properly represented, that we should be treated as are the other parts of the United Kingdom. Wales feels that she ought not to be treated as a poor nation, and there is no reason why she should be so treated. Welshmen have reason to be proud of the way in which their countrymen have acted in arms lately, and I as a Welshman am proud to know that my country has come out so strongly in these terrible times. This is the day of small nationalities. We are making great sacrifices for small nationalities. I ask your Lordships to think of another nationality nearer home.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The question before your Lordships is undoubtedly a difficult one. The difficulty is that one does not want to give special representation to a University which is undoubtedly small, but there are strong arguments on the other side, I admit. There is the argument of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that although the present number of the graduates is small, this is particularly to be attributed to the fact that it is a young University. I think all of us must give duo weight to that, because it makes a substantial difference, and in the course of years, even if the University of Wales does not increase the number of its undergraduates, the number of graduates will increase.
Then there is the very important consideration that the Welsh people are underrepresented as the Bill stands. I have not gone into the figures, but I take them with absolute confidence from noble Lords. Assuming that to be true, as I do, I think it is an inequality which we should make it our object to put right if we can. I do not suppose—in fact it is obvious that we cannot put it right by an alteration of the basis on which the Speaker's Conference has calculated the quota which goes to make a representative, but the Welsh people, by the mouth of Welsh Peer after Welsh Peer, come forward and say they will accept a University representative in full satisfaction of their claim. I think we must accept that as another fact.
I think these arguments are very strong. I do not think it is a satisfactory arrangement that the Welsh University should form part of a constituency with a number of English Universities. I do not put the claims of Welsh nationality quite as high as does the noble Lord, although I have a very very remote connection with the principality; but I do think that the national feeling in Wales is a thing highly to be respected and admired and encouraged and if it made the Welsh people more contented, that would be an additional advantage.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: Although not a Welshman, I have a certain connection with Wales, and in addition I represented for many years in the House of Commons a London constituency which had a large number of Welsh residents. Therefore, I wish strongly to support my noble friend.

1135
There is one point which has not been mentioned, and that is that it is very necessary that Wales should have special representation for her educational system. Her people have made great sacrifices in order to establish this new University, and they have a special system of intermediate education which provides stepping stones from the board school to the University. I would also urge upon your Lordships the fact that, taking England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales during the terrible struggle in which we are now engaged, Wales has the honour of having given, proportionately to her population, the largest number of men for the fighting line. Moreover, the civil population which remains behind consists in the main of miners and farmers. The miners have done much, not only for the Navy but for the merchant service, while the farmers are doing all that is possible to increase the food supply. Therefore, Wales has the double claim, that she has not only put the largest proportion of men into the righting line, but she has the largest number of her population at the present moment engaged, as it were, in feeding that fighting line. I think that is a strong point which should appeal to your Lordships, and I hope you will give full support to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The comprehensive and interesting speech of the noble Lord who introduced the subject rather held out as a bait to your Lordships, that a Conservative might be returned for the University. I think that proposition has had some doubt thrown upon it by subsequent speakers, I think your Lordships will agree that one has rarely heard during the course of these discussions so unanimous a request on any particular Amendment. Those who are not Welsh Peers have been parading (if I might use the expression) their Welsh connections. Therefore, possibly, I may be allowed to mention that my sympathy with Wales rests on the fact of having had a Welsh grandmother. The noble Lord rested his case very largely, I think, on the fact that in the redistribution of seats Wales had to some extent suffered, if we take the average numbers of people per seat for the Test of the country. No doubt that is so on the figures. If I may, I would deprecate rather too nice or to jealous a comparison being made of the exact representation which different parts of the country—
1136
Wales, Scotland, and England—have received, though, no doubt, it is an element which must be taken into account. I quite agree with what the noble Marquess said, that it is important, if possible, to give separate representation to the Welsh University, which differs in character from the English Universities; and there is the further fact which my noble friend Lord Dynevor spoke of, that probably if it was combined with the English Universities, there would not be much chance of the Welsh University getting representation in the House of Commons. Your Lordships will have noticed from the observations which fell from the Leader of the House that there is considerable objection to increasing the members in the House of Commons. I feel, speaking on behalf of the Government, that this is in some sense a unique position, so distinct and has been so very strongly pressed on the Government, with no dissentient voice, that the Government would be justified in the circumstances in accepting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit the words "The University of Edinburgh, the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, and the University of Aberdeen," and to insert "the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment merely alters the order of precedence.
Amendment moved—
Page 137, leave out lines 49 and 50 in first column, and insert ("The University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh").—(Viscount Peel.)
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule agreed to.
Seventh Schedule:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out Rule (5).—The noble Viscount said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 18, leave out paragraph 5.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With reference to the next Amendment (to leave out Rule 6), on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Selborne I am authorised to say that he would wish to postpone it until the Report stage. It should stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Burnham, and perhaps it will be put down in his name for Report.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved in Rule (7) after the word "eleven" to insert, "twelve," and to leave out "that section"—["shall be substituted in that section for Parliamentary purposes"] in order to insert "those sections." The noble Viscount said: These Amendments are both drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 139, line 39, after ("eleven") insert ("twelve")
Page 139, lines 42 and 43, leave out "(that section") and insert ("those sections").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from paragraph 9 all reference to the County Electors (Scotland) Act 1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 28), and to the County Voters Registration (Scotland) Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 83) as adapting the Bill to Scotland, The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment also.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, leave out lines 16 to 32 inclusive.—(Viscount Peel.).
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from paragraph 9 the reference to the Ballot Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 33) as adapting the Bill to Scotland. The noble Viscount said: This is consequential also.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, leave out lines 39 and 40.
Page 141, leave out lines 1 to 3 inclusive.—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in paragraph 9, to leave out "1917" in order to insert "1918." [Representation of the People Act, 1917]. The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 20, leave out ("1917") and insert ("1918");
Page 141, line 27, leave out ("1917") and insert ("1918").—(Viscount Peel.)
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule:
VISCOUNT PEEL said: This English Schedule entirely consists of Acts, portions of Acts, or clauses repealed. So far as I am dealing with my own Amendments, down to that in the name of Lord Lamington, might it be possible to move them all together?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are all formal, I believe?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
Amendments moved—
Page 142, line 36, at end insert:

"25 Geo. 3. c. 84.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1785

The whole Act so far as un-repealed.

"33 Geo. 3. c. 64.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1973

The whole Act."

Page 143, line 3, third column, leave out from ("sections") to ("and") in line 6, and insert ("sixty-six, seventy and seventy-six")
Page 143, lines 11 and 12, third column, leave out ("from 'Provided always' to the end of the section").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to insert the repeal of section 36 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832, so far as relates to town clerks or deputy town clerks being entitled to vote. The noble Lord said: I have been requested to have this inserted by the Corporation of Glasgow. By the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1832, town clerks were debarred from voting for Members of their burgh or from being agents to the candidate, or from being Member for their burgh. The reason for this was that they had a great deal to do with affairs connected with the elections of the burgh, and therefore they were debarred by the Act of 1832 from voting. As all the registration is now taken out of their hands, why should they not be put upon the same footing as any other citizen who has a right to vote? I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 14, third column, after ("five") insert ("section thirty-six, so far as relating to town clerks or deputy town clerks being entitled to vote").—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Will your Lordships allow me to consider this Amendment and bring it up again on Report? In the meantime the matter can be considered rather more than there has been time to consider it up to the present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments moved—
Page 143, lines 18 and 19, third column, leave out ("twelve and sixty") and insert ("and twelve")
Page 143, line 19, at end insert:

"5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 36.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1835

Section seven."

Page 143, line 20, third column, after ("sections") insert ("three")
Page 143, line 32, third column, at end insert ("the word 'overseer' in section ninety-seven,")
Page 143, line 41, third column, leave out from ("to") to ("section") in line 45, and insert ("nine and").
Page 144, third column, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert ("sections two, three, five, six, and seven")
Page 143, line 10, at end insert:

"16 & 17 Vict. c. 68.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1853.

In section one the words 'for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and' the words 'to the Vice-Chancellors of the said Universities and' and the words 'Vice-chancellors and'; sections four and five."

Page 143, leave out lines 14 and 15 in the third column.
Page 143, line 17, at end insert:

"24 & 25 Vict. c. 53.

The University Elections Act, 1861.

The whole Act so far as un-repealed."

Page 143, leave out lines 21 and 22, in third column, and insert ("the whole Act so far as un-repealed")
Page 143, line 32, third column, leave out ("thirty-four")
Page 143, line 33, leave out ("forty-one to forty-five")
Page 143, line 35, leave out from ("sixty-one") to end of line 40, and insert ("and Schedule H.); in section fifty-nine the words 'and in construing' to the end of the section")
Page 143, line 41, third column, leave out ("nine") and insert ("eight")
Page 143, line 44, in the third column, after ("twenty-six") insert ("thirty-seven to").
Page 145, line 7, third column, leave out from ("three") to end of line 9, and insert ("and twenty-one")
Page 145, line 9, at end insert:

"31 & 32 Vict. c. 65.

The Universities Elections Act, 1868.

The whole Act."

Page 145, line 21, third column, at beginning of line insert ("section five; section eight from 'all expenses' to 'by law payable'")
Page 145, line 25, third column, leave out ("employment") and insert ("is proved on such trial to have voted at such election")
Page 145, line 28, at end insert ("rules 3 and 58 in the First Schedule").
Page 146, lines 7 and 8, third column, leave out ("and eleven to") and insert ("eleven, thirteen, and")
Page 146, line 24, at end insert:

"44 & 45 Vict. c. 40.

The Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881.

The whole Act."

Page 146, lines 27 and 28, third column, leave out ("sections thirty-two and thirty-three") and insert ("(except as to the disqualification for the receipt of union or parochial relief or other alms); in subsection (2) of section eleven the words from 'or (b) being entitled' to 'to be made,' and the words 'In either of those cases;' section thirty-two; section thirty-three (except subsection (4))")
Page 146, line 31, third column, after ("forty-nine") insert ("in subsection (2) of section fifty-one the words 'or vote in more than one ward'; sections").
Page 147, lines 5 and 6, third column, leave out ("subsections (3) to (8)") and insert ("subjection (1) of section thirty-five, from 'and may charge' to the end of the subsection; subsection (3)")
Page 147, line 6, third column, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("section forty-seven")
Page 147, line 12, third column, after ("subsection") insert ("subsection (9) of section sixty-nine, paragraph (7) of Part I of the First Schedule")
Page 147, line 14, third column, leave out from ("schedule") to end of line 17
Page 147, line 33, third column, leave out ("thirteen").
Page 147, line 40, third column, leave out ("eight") and insert ("to")
Page 147, line 43, third column, leave out from ("eight") to beginning of line 47, and insert ("nine")
Page 147, line 47, at end insert ("and the Second Schedule")
Page 147, line 48, third column, leave out lines 48 to 51 (inclusive) and insert ("As respects England and Scotland the whole Act so far as unrepealed, and as respects Ireland, subsections (3) and (4) of section eight, sections ten to twelve, subsections (3), (4), and (5) of section thirteen, sections fourteen, fifteen, eighteen, and twenty, and in section twenty-six the words from 'with the following' to the end of the section")
Page 147, line 52, leave out ("unrepealed") and insert ("it relates to parliamentary electors")
Page 148, line 15, at end insert:

"50 & 51 Vict. c. 55.

The Sheriffs Act, 1887.

Subsection (2) of section eighteen, so far as respects sheriffs' courts required for the purpose of elections.'

Page 148, line 18, third column, at beginning insert ("Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section two from 'or is registered' to the end of the paragraph")
Page 148, lines 18, 19, and 20, third column, cave out ("from 'the places of' to the end of the paragraph")
Page 148, lines 21 and 22, third column, leave out ("from 'the places of' to the end of the subsection").
Page 149, line 32, at end insert:

"8 Edw. 7 c. 14.

The Polling Arrangements (Parliamentary Boroughs) Act, 1908.

The whole Act "

Page 149, line 37, third column, leave out ("section three") and insert ("the whole Act").—(Viscount Peel.)
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl opposite on what days the Government propose to take the Report stage of the Bill.?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suggest that it should be taken on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Oh, no!
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I be allowed to join in supporting the exclamation of my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, postponed for further consideration certain matters relating to Scotland, and my noble friend, Lord Beresford, postponed the whole question of the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill. We are told that by the end of the week we may be in possession of the new Schedule which is to be produced by those who favoured and succeeded in obtaining the introduction of proportional representation. It does seem to me a very short time indeed for consideration of these important points—and of a number of others which have, by common agreement, been allowed to stand over—if the Report stage is taken so early as Monday. It is clear that it is everybody's object to get the Bill through this House and back to the House of
1142
Commons as early as possible, and I should have thought that we might be able to do that by the end of next week. To do it sooner would surely hardly be possible, It the Report stage were taken on Wednesday next it would, I think, be possible to get rid of the Bill by the end of the week, and I do not see that your Lordships could hope to do it very such sooner by taking Report on Monday. I trust, therefore, that His Majesty's Government it will consider whether a postponement of two days might not meet the case.
Before I sit down I am anxious, as I shall not have another opportunity, to express my thanks and those of other noble Lords who sit on this bench to the noble Earl who has been in the Chair during this protracted and by no means always easy Committee stage. I have had the honour of sitting under many Chairmen of this House, since Lord Redesdale's time, and I am bound to say I have never seen a complicated Bill more capably conducted by a Chairman than this Bill has been by my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure we shall all agree with my noble friend who has just spoken in expressing our thanks to the Lord Chairman for his services. It has been an extremely difficult business, and I am very glad that it did not fall to me. I must impress on the Government the absolute necessity of giving us a little more time and not putting down the Report stage for Monday. The Bill will hardly be reprinted by then. Just think of the alterations that have taken place in this Bill. I should think there is no Bill in recent times which has undergone so much change, both verbally and substantially, as this Bill has done in the course of its passage through Committee. The changes are very large in bulk and very vital in character, and there are a great number of subjects which are held over till the next stage. The Government have been a little reluctant, I may remind them, to accept Amendments, even when they had no arguments to resist them, thus making it necessary to postpone them till the Report stage. That makes an additional difficulty. We have to reconsider these subjects in the light of information which the Government are being good enough to convey to us in the meantime. All these things combine, and I am afraid I must most respectfully impress upon them the importance of further time. This

1143
House is the revising Chamber. It is its business to send up the Bill at the end of its deliberations as perfect as it is possible for human nature to achieve, and we cannot do that unless we are able to see the Bill reprinted, unless we have time to consider all the subjects reserved for the Report stage, and unless we have time to frame Amendments which may be necessary still to put in, and, for those of us who are going to take part in the discussion, to see what Amendments are given notice of, and what we are going to discuss. I venture to think that, on reflection, my noble friend, the Lord Privy Seal, will take that view.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I desire to associate myself with what has fallen from Lord Crewe, and, if Lord Kintore will allow me, I should like to pay my tribute of admiration and respect for the patiencee, the urbanity, and the skill with which he has conducted the Committee stage. I would most willingly fall in with the suggestion that delay should be granted if I thought it was necessary or convenient to Parliament as a whole. I should like to represent to your Lordships my view as to the desirability of the Bill proceeding on Monday next. In the first place, the Bill, as reprinted, including Lord Selborne's Amendment, will be in the hands of your Lordships on Friday morning, so that the Bill will not be rushed in any very serious fashion, if one takes into account the fact that nothing of first-class importance is likely to be discussed during the Report stage. I take it there will be no discussion about the really controversial topics which have occupied us during the last fortnight. I take it there will be no discussion about proportional representation, or about the alternative vote, or about woman suffrage. These things are settled, and I do not think there is any disposition in any portion of your Lordships' House to reopen these cardinal topics on Report. Lord Crewe said there was an important question about Scotland, about which Lord Balfour of Burleigh has given notice.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: There certainly was a question, and I have no doubt that, as Lord Balfour introduced it, it was important; but I have not the least idea what it was.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I read it, but I did not understand it, either. But Lord Balfour understands it, the Scottish
1144
Peers understand it, and my noble friend Lord Peel understands it. So far as that is concerned I think we shall be able to proceed on Monday next. Then Lord Crewe mentioned Lord Beresford's Amendment, which was postponed to-day. We all understand that Amendment, and that could be discussed to-morrow if necessary. No delay is required for further consideration on that point. And then Lord Selborne's Schedule. That Schedule raises no question of principle. He has won his case on the point of principle, and his Schedule merely, I imagine, introduces a re-grouping of constituencies in order to fit them into the decision which your Lordships have taken. I do not think Lord Selborne—I speak subject to correction, of course—would claim that any broad principle is involved in that Amendment, important as it is. The real merits or demerits of that Amendment, I take it, will have to be decided, not in your Lordships' House or in the House of Commons, but at the local inquiries which will take place, I presume, in the constituencies concerned. I therefore submit that the questions which are coming up, and which Lord Peel is prepared to deal with on and from Monday next, will be questions of drafting and detail, and a certain number of other topics of interest to groups of your Lordships, but not of any great moment or consequence on grounds of principle.
Apart from that particular aspect of the question, may I further submit this to your Lordships. We have occupied a fair amount of time on the Bill already. We took the Second Reading before Christmas. We then had a very tolerable interval. We have had ten days in Committee; and, if I may say so with real deference and respect, our sittings have not been very long. I am certain they have averaged less than six hours per sitting, which, of course, is a very short sitting indeed. To-morrow we expect to get from the House of Commons a Bill of really vital importance relating to military service. I do not know whether your Lordships will be prepared to take it on Friday. I do not like to press your Lordships to sit on Friday, but if it is not taken on that day I presume it will have to go over to next week, which would be unfortunate in the interests of that particular object. I think we have reached a stage in the Session when we really ought to push forward with our business as much as we conveniently can.

1145
Really important and urgent questions relating to the finances of next session are almost upon us at this moment; and I confess that with this Bill and the Military Service Bill before us, and with other Bills not of first-rate importance but which will require your Lordships' consideration, such as the Insurance Bill and the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill, I sincerely hope that your Lordships, even if it should cause some personal inconvenience, will consent to resume the discussion of this Bill at the earliest possible moment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the noble Earl whether he is able to indicate when the Non-ferrous Metals Bill is likely to reach us? I understand that the Insurance Bill will be taken on the 29th of this month?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: We have the Non-ferrous Metals Bill now on your Lordships' Table. I will put it down for to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: We would rather have it postponed until next week.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As far as I am concerned, the Government may put down the Military Service Bill when they think right; I shall never be a party to checking any Bill which is necessary for the prosecution of the war. But as regards this other Bill, I must press upon the Government again that with a Bill which is printed only upon Friday it is impossible to get Amendments given notice of again on Monday. Most of your Lordships would never see the Amendments at all until the Monday.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Why not?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Because a great many noble Lords do not live in London. That is not a possible arrangement. I am not responsible, nor are your Lordships responsible, for the fact that the Government have produced their business so late in the session. I do not blame them. I certainly do not blame my noble friend who is leading the House at the moment. He has always treated us with the greatest possible courtesy and consideration. I doubt whether the House will consent to consider the Bill on Monday. I think that the Government ought to study the wishes and the convenience of the House in this matter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I will put down the Non-ferrous Metals Bill nominally for Monday, and, if necessary, the noble Marquess will tell us if he wishes it postponed. To-morrow your Lordships may be able to settle whether we shall have to meet on Friday. Personally I have no doubt that to many of your Lordships it is most inconvenient to sit on Friday. The learned Clerk at the Table reminds me that we shall not receive the Military Service Bill until to-morrow evening; therefore nominally it cannot be put down for an earlier day than Friday.
On the other point, I am extremely sorry to press your Lordships, but the reason why we are pressed is not the fault of your Lordships opposite; it is the fault of the Government for having had so many sittings which have been of two or three hours' duration only. That has been out of deference to the expressions of opinion which have reached us from various parts of the House. Consequently we have taken ten days over the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: Will it be possible for the Amendments to the Representation of the People Bill to be circulated on Friday?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, quite Possible.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE; It is not quite fair for the noble Earl to talk of our short sittings. We sat every day for seven days from half-past three until nearly eight o'clock—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I have taken out the figures.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: And when you meet at half past four and adjourn from eight until a quarter past nine, there is only an hour or an hour and a half's difference. The work for those who have attended has been very constant, and the concentrated attention which we have had to give has been rather a strain. My noble friend talks of his recollection of the House of Commons. The strain on the Government Bench is always the same, but in the House of Commons, one must remember, most of the members who are attending to the Committee stage do not stay in the House all the time. Therefore I think my noble friend rather underrated the amount of work which we have put into

1147
this Bill. I think he was driving a very hard bargain in asking us to resume the consideration on Monday. Cannot he rearrange the business and put down other Orders for Monday, so as to give us a longer interval for this Bill.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I should like the advice of the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe). I have stated my case and put forward arguments which of course have not been met—that all questions of principle have been discussed and will not be discussed again; that the Amendments will be circulated on Friday, and Lord Peel is quite prepared to proceed on Monday; and that certain matters on which specific points have been made are already ripe for discussion and do not require further adjournment. I also have strongly urged the general consideration of business, not only in respect of this Bill but in respect of proceedings in the House of Commons, which makes it most desirable that we should proceed with our business and get
1148
the Bill back to the House of Commons, where it will require long consideration, at the earliest possible moment. I will put the Report stage of the Bill down nominally for to-morrow, so that this conversation can be resumed after consideration.
The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 125.)

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next (The Lord Hylton). (No. 126.)

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Viscount Sandhurst). (No. 127.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock.