Sitting of 29 January 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Port Glasgow Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill, Read a second time, and committed.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a. Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FEDERATED MALAY STATES (WAR CONTRIBUTION).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 24th January, 1918, on the subject of the further Contributions of the Federated Malay States towards the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Margarine (Requisition) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed. [No. 181.]

2. Business of the House—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed. [No. 182.]

1406

3. Private Bills and Private Business—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

4. Public Bills—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

5. Public Petitions—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

6. Select Committees—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The man of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

7. Sittings of the House—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means].

8. Standing Committees—Return relative thereto [ordered 28th January; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

ORAL ANSWERSTO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSO - FRENCH - BRITISH - ITALIAN TREATY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is due to the obligations imposed by Article 15 of the Russo-French-British-Italian Treaty of 26th April, 19]5, that none of these Powers have sent a reasoned reply to the Pope's Peace Note?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): No, Sir.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Secret Treaty of 26th April, 1915, made by four Powers to secure Italian entry into the War, was intended to be kept secret from our Allies, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and Japan; if so, whether it has since been officially communicated to the United States or any other Allied State; if not, whether it will now be communicated to President Wilson and the other Allied Governments; (2) whether the secrecy enjoined on the signatory Powers by Article 16 of

    1407
    the quartipartite Treaty of London, dated 26th April, 1915, is to be understood as precluding the parties to it from disclosing the existence of the treaty, or from disclosing the objects and provisions of the treaty, or only from publishing the actual language and text of the treaty; (3) whether the quartipartite treaty made at London on 26th April, 1915, previous to Italy's entrance into the War, was, by Article 16, a secret treaty; whether he is aware that early in the War Italian statesmen made known and Italian and other Allied newspapers published the contents, but not the exact language, of this treaty, and that the Russian Government has published the full text of this treaty: whether the strict secrecy of this treaty was an essential part of its validity; and whether, now that one party to the treaty, namely Russia, has published its text, and the other countries, parties to it, have allowed full publicity to its engagements, he will either state that this treaty is no longer binding or will approach the other signatory Powers with a view to its being set aside?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think the House will see that it would not be right for me to answer questions about a treaty which is described in the question as secret.
    Mr. KING: Inasmuch as this has now been made public, at any rate semiofficially, if not officially, will some one on behalf of the Government on an early occasion take an opportunity of explaining the position?
    Mr. PONSONBY: Ought the House not to be informed at this stage of the War whether the Treaty of London is binding upon this country as regards Italy or not?
    Lord R. CECIL: Any treaty that we enter into, of course, is binding upon us.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Has the Government any intention of repudiating it?
    Lord R. CECIL: No; it is not the habit of the British Government to repudiate treaties.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the Noble Lord's reply due to the fact that in the past he has denied the existence of such treaties in this House?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think I have.
    Mr. KING: Is not the Noble Lord aware that this treaty is in direct conflict with
    1408
    the speech of the Prime Minister on the 5th of this month, and will some opportunity be taken to explain the divergence?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, I am not aware of that
    Mr. KING: Will the Noble Lord read the speech of the Prime Minister?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have read it.

    BRECKNOCKS TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Brecknocks Territorial Force volunteered for foreign service at the earliest possible moment, were promised service in France, dispatched to Aden, and were actually engaged with considerable loss before some battalions which will get the medal were in action, he will recommend that the 1914 medal be granted to this battalion?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The 1914 Star is a distinctive decoration which His Majesty the King has been pleased to grant to those who served in France or Belgium, under the command of Lord French, during the earlier phase of the War in 1914. It is in no sense a commemorative war medal to be awarded to all those who have been engaged in operations against the enemy in other theatres of war. These latter services will receive suitable recognition in due course.

    STONE QUARRIES (NORTH-EAST FRANCE).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in the stone quarries between Calais and Boulogne, and now worked by the Labour Corps, one of His Majesty's inspectors of quarries acts as clerk and a quarry official as stonebreaker, whilst the management include a dentist, a draper, and a commercial traveller; and whether, with a view to securing greater efficiency, he will have an inquiry made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The quarries in question are not worked by the Labour Corps, but by the Director of Roads,

    1409
    under the Director-General of Transportation, and the organisation is considered to be most efficient. My hon. Friend's information is not, I understand, accurate in all particulars, and if he will give me the details on which it is based, I will communicate further with him. The management of the quarries does not include a dentist, a draper, or a commercial traveller.
    Mr. DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the dissatisfaction with the output of the stone quarries between Calais and Boulogne, it is proposed to have an inquiry into the management and method of working?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My information does not agree with that of my hon. Friend. The output of these quarries is considered quite satisfactory, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL SERVICES.
    Major DAVID DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the organisations of the Royal Army Medical Services has now concluded its work; whether the Committee has included in its Report any recommendations for the more efficient conduct of Royal Army Medical Corps administration in this country as well as in France; and, if not, whether it is proposed to set up another Committee to inquire into the condition of affairs and the state of organisation of the Royal Army Medical Services in Great Britain?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to him yesterday on this subject. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.
    Major DAVIES: Is it not the fact that the Committee was appointed to deal with the whole subject of the reorganisation of the Royal Army Medical Corps in this country as well as in France?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No. My hon. and gallant friend will realise, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) to whom I gave the pledge will corroborate me, that it did not refer to that subject at all.

    UTILISATION OF COOKHOUSE PRODUCTS.
    Colonel BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the credit of initiating the system of conserving and utilising cookhouse products, now administered by a Department under the Quartermaster-General, was due to the officer then serving as an inspector of Quartermaster-General's services, and recently appointed surveyor of food consumption in public services; and, if so, whether any special recognition of these services is contemplated?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The credit of initiating the system of conserving and utilising cookhouse products was due to the Quartermaster-General's Department, War Office, and I am not aware that any individual inspector in any command has personally claimed the credit. The successful carrying out of this system is due to the hearty co-operation of General Officers Commanding and Officers Commanding units throughout the Kingdom. Very valuable assistance has been given by numerous inspectors of Quartermaster-General services in the various commands and their services have in several cases received recognition.

    NEW ARMY OFFICERS.

      HIGHER APPOINTMENTS.
      Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it has been any part of the policy of the Army Council to debar officers of the New Armies from the higher appointments in the Army; whether a number of such officers have been appointed brigadier-generals during the past eighteen months; and whether any change in policy is contemplated?
      General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any recent decision has been come to by the War Cabinet or the Army Council on the question of promotion to the higher rank irrespective of whether the officers concerned belong to the Old Army, the Territorial Force, or the New Armies; and, if so, what such decision is?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: It has never been the policy of the Army Council to debar officers of the New Armies from the higher appointments. On the contrary,

      1411
      all officers, whether Regular, Special Reserve, Territorial Force, or New Army, are on the same list for appointments, and are selected solely in accordance with merit. This has been the uniform policy of the Army Council.
      During the last eighteen months six officers of the New Army who have been commissioned since the outbreak of War have been appointed to command Infantry brigades, and one was appointed previously. The dates of the appointments of these seven officers is as follows:
      June, 1916;
      January, 1917 (two);
      April, 1917;
      November, 1917 (two);
      December, 1917;
      from which it will be seen that the ratio of such appointments is on an ascending scale, and, as New Army officers gain in experience, will no doubt continue. so.
      Colonel YATE: Have not a lot of lieutenants who have got their commissions since the outbreak of the War been appointed to command battalions? Can the hon. Gentleman say how many cases of that have occurred?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot. As the House knows well from its experience, a very large number indeed of New Army lieutenants are now commanding battalions.
      Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Do we understand that there is no change really in the policy of the Government in this matter?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Not so far as the Army Council is concerned.
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked whether a modification of the present Regulations will be considered in order that members of the Territorial Force before the War who are now officers, and also officers of the New Army, who desire, with the approval of their commanding officers, to join the Regular Army, can do so and retain their present rank?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Every case is considered on its merits, and officers are given rank in the Regular Army according to their qualifications and to their length of service as compared with that of the officers of the Regular unit to which they are transferred.
      Mr. WATT: Is it officers of the Regular Army who sit on that body and pass these men into the Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not quite sure, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will inquire.

      NATIONAL RESERVE (GRATUITY).
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private H. Deane, No. 20,042, late Ealing National Reserve and the 63rd Provisional Battalion, and Private H. N. M'Nevin, No. 76, late National Reserve, attached 1st Supernumerary Company, 8th Middlesex Regiment, have not received their National Reserve gratuity; why these gratuities have been withheld, in view of the fact that the battalion in which these men were serving was paraded on the 4th or 5th August, 1914, and asked to volunteer to sign an honourable obligation, and that the whole battalion did so; and, as the majority of the men received their gratuity, will he take steps to satisfy the claims of the above-mentioned men?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I will make inquiries, and I shall be very glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will assist me in obtaining the necessary information.

      CHARGE PAY (MEDICAL OFFICERS).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, while Article 361 of the Royal Pay Warrant. 1914, provides for the issue of charge pay to officers in charge of a general or other hospital, or of a division of a general hospital, the War Office letter 48/A.M.C./895 (A.M.D. 1) of 21st November, 1917, limits the issue of charge pay to the officers in charge of the surgical and medical divisions only of certain hospitals; whether he is aware that the medical officer in charge of the mental division of 1,000 beds in the Lord Derby War Hospital, Warrington, has been refused charge pay, although the medical officers in charge of the medical and surgical divisions in the same hospital of 462 and 1,538 beds, respectively, are recognised as eligible for charge pay if drawing full Army pay; and whether he will take immediate steps to amend the interpretation which the War Office appears to have placed on Article 361 of the Royal Pay Warrant, 1914, so as to permit of the issue of charge pay to the

      1413
      medical officer in charge of any division of a recognised general hospital possessing the requisite number of equipped beds?
      Mr. FORSTER: The letter in question merely explained the provisions of the Royal Warrant governing the issue of charge pay. The Warrant allows charge pay for the divisions of a general hospital, and these hospitals are invariably organised into two divisions—medical and surgical—the former including all cases that are not surgical in character, and it is not proposed in this case to alter the practice of the service. The mental cases in the Lord Derby War Hospital are treated in the mental section of the medical division.
      Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the mental divisions being comparatively few, could not the right hon. Gentleman get the War Office to adopt a broad view so that where a man is responsible for as many as a thousand men he should have charge pay when medical officers in charge of medical divisions at Parkhill are getting charge pay?
      Sir GARROD THOMAS: Is it not a fact that the medical officer in charge of the mental division at this hospital is not subordinate to any other officer in the institution, except, of course, the colonel in command; and is it not a fact that the mental division and the medical division are entirely different departments, housed in different blocks and officered by entirely different staffs; and is not the medical officer in charge of the mental department alone entirely responsible for the mental cases under his care?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of those questions.
      Mr. FORSTER: I have explained clearly the practice of the Service. It might happen in some cases that the officer in charge of the mental cases might be in charge of the medical division. In that case he would get charge pay.

      COLONEL MONTEAGLE-BROWNE.
      14. Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the fact that the charge of cribbing against Lieutenant - Colonel Monteagle - Browne eighteen years ago was denied, and that 'General Abadie, after seeing Lieutenant-Colonel Monteagle-Browne and hearing his explanation, said that he understood all
      1414
      about it and that nothing more would be heard of it, and that as to the charge of the dishonoured cheque twelve years ago that it was only not known to have been honoured in time to prevent all the trouble because a telegram was delayed, and that the colonel of the regiment stated that he considered Lieutenant-Colonel M. Browne had no dishonourable intentions, and that Lieutenant-Colonel M. Browne was about twenty-five months in the fighting line, besides six months on transport service in France, and that the War Office must have known who Lieutenant-Colonel MonteagleBrowne was, as he was gazetted on 30th September, 1914, as late Princess Victoria's Royal Irish Fusiliers, he can see his way either to have a full inquiry into this case or have this officer reinstated?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative.
      Major HUNT: In view of the fact that the action taken by the War Office in raking up against Colonel Monteagl-Browne his private character of years ago has completely broken down, that he is compelled by the Regulations to wear a gold stripe, and that his efficiency has been proved in actual war, are we to understand that the seven minutes' interview with his superior officer is to rub out altogether his previous years of good service?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would remind the House that I dealt with this matter in a speech recently, and I think hon. Members who heard that speech or who will read it will agree that I have not raked up anything in regard to Colonel Monteagle-Browne's private character. I dealt with him as an officer, and I have nothing to add to what I have said.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot my hon. Friend state whether it is the case that when he was gazetted at the beginning of the War reference was made in the "Gazette" to his previous service, and that the War Office must have been aware then as to his record?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The House will remember that at the beginning of the War the War Office had very great difficulty in procuring officers of experience; but I have stated before that if we had known that Lieutenant E. Monteagle-Browne who was gazetted to that particular regiment was the same as Lieutenant Edgar Brown he would not have been accepted.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Did not the "Gazette" refer to his previous service, so that they would know all about him?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: They did not know at the time. I have given a reasonable explanation, and I hope the House will accept it—that at the time the War Office was anxious to get Regular officers who had served before.
      Major HUNT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night
      Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, for its guidance, when the War Office is willing to give an inquiry into any such similar cases?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The War Office has consistently refused to give inquiries to any soldier who has any complaint whilst serving in France. The House will realise that these inquiries take men away from work which is of greater importance in the national interest.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LABOUR CORPS (PERMANENTLY UNFIT MEN).
      Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is now in a position to make a statement as to permanently unfit and permanent base men in France and over the age of fifty and of fifty-five?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Instructions have been issued that men of this class in the Labour Corps who are over the age of fifty-five should be sent home, if they desire to return, for transfer to the home establishment. Those who are over fifty will be sent home for transfer to the home establishment as reinforcements are sent over to replace them.
      Mr. WING: Is it on their own initiative or on the application of their own officers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I understand it, instructions have been issued to the various Commands in France to see that men who are over fifty-five shall be sent home at once. There is great difficulty, so far as the men who are between fifty and fifty-five are concerned. We can only replace these as we get men from home.

      EAST RIDING YEOMANRY (AGRICULTURAL WORKER).
      Mr. TURTONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware
      1416
      that John Ramsden, No. 50506, now a sergeant in the 1/1st East Riding Yeomanry, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, was, prior to August, 1914, assisting his father in the management of a farm of 440 acres in Yorkshire; that in October, 1914, he voluntarily joined the Yeomanry; that in September, 1917, his father died, leaving the management of the farm to him; that the North Riding Agricultural Committee have twice written, stating that it is in the interests of agriculture he should be released from military service; and that the committee sent a representative specially to London to urge the necessity of his being so released; and whether the War Office are now prepared to sanction his release, so that he may manage his farm in the interests of food production?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Ramsden was transferred to the Reserve on account of his father's death for a period of three months on compassionate grounds, and has since received a further period of one month. His case is now being considered by my hon. Friend the Minister of National Service, and orders have been issued by the War Office that he is not to be recalled from the Reserve pending a decision.

      CALLING-UP NOTICES (IRISHMEN).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware of the trouble given to Irishmen who were sent from Dublin to employment in Great Britain; if he is aware that calling-up notices have been served on Irishmen temporarily resident in Liverpool and Birkenhead; if he is aware that Irish workmen in Llanelly, South Wales, are also receiving annoyance from military authorities; if he will cause instructions to be issued to recruiting officers defining the position of Irishmen in Great Britain; and if he is aware that the trouble is caused by junior officers not understanding the Military Service Act?
      Mr. DUDLEY WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The Minister of National Service has no knowledge of the cases referred to in this question, but if the hon. Member will supply the Minister with particulars of the men in question inquiries will be made.

      ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
      Mr. BYRNEasked if any decision has been arrived at with reference to the wages and bonuses to be paid to Army Ordnance workers in Ireland?
      Mr. FORSTER: An increase of 5s. has been approved for the Army Ordnance Department workmen at Dublin, about whom I have recently been in communication with the hon. Member.

      RESERVE TRAINING BATTALIONS (BANDS).
      Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have yet come to a decision with regard to allowing Reserve training battalions to use their band instruments on the lines suggested to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on this subject, which is still being considered.
      Major NEWMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked this before Christmas?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am quite aware of that.

      ARMY DISTINCTIONS AND PROMOTIONS.
      General Sir I. PHILIPPSasked whether any recent decisions have been come to by the War Cabinet or Army Council on the question of the abolition of all distinctions between the old Army, the Territorial Force, and the New Armies as regards organisation of units and the placing of the officers of each regiment and corps on one list for promotion?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on the 18th instant to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. The question of placing officers of each regiment on the same list was considered by the Committee (over which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions presided), and was found to be impracticable. Promotion in the New Army battalions is more rapid than in Regular battalions, so that I am afraid New Army officers would not stand to gain by the adoption of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

      ARMY BOUNTY.
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financia Secretary to the War Office whether
      1418
      he is aware that Private R. Barrett, No. 36865, late of the Suffolk Regiment, was in Section A of the Army Reserve at the outbreak of war; that a few days before 4th August, 1914, he had signed an undertaking continuing to serve in Section D when his Section A service expired in December, 1914; that he was, therefore, at the outbreak of war actually serving in Section A; and that, in consequence of his having re-engaged prior to the War in Section D, he has been deprived of his bounty; and whether, in view of this man's three wounds and the excellence of his record in the Army, he will take steps to have his case regarded as a special one and the bounty issued to him?
      Mr. FORSTER: Inquiry is being made, and I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know the result.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of appeals by conscientious objectors under the Military Service Acts the Central Appeal Tribunal have granted unconditional exemption from military service?
      Mr. WARD: I have been asked to reply to this question. I understand that the Central Tribunal have not granted unconditional exemption to any man on the ground of conscientious objection.
      Mr. DAVIES: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the number of appeals in which total exemption was claimed?
      Mr. WARD: I am afraid that I cannot.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a letter concerning a conscientious objector named A. P. Catherall, setting out certain alleged facts and sent to the Bristol magistrates; whether he has inquired into these statements; and what course he proposes to take in the matter?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I have received the letter to which the hon. Member refers. As regards the circumstances in which this man was recalled from employment under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors to service in the Army, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn on 25th July last. Any

      1419
      question regarding his treatment after his recall to the Army should be addressed to the War Office.

      BILLETING RATE (INCREASE).
      Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what decision has been arrived at with reference to the 4d. a night billeting rate?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; it has been decided to raise the 4d. to 6d., so that in future the rates will be 6d. per night per man.

      CENSORSHIP (LETTERS).
      Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that letters from parents to children on strictly family matters, after having been opened by the Censor, have been returned to the sender with an intimation that they cannot be forwarded to their destination in consequence of the length of such communications; and, if it is necessary for this course to be adopted in the interest of the country, will he take steps to inform the public accordingly, in order that they may know that such Regulations are in force and thereby save in many cases great anxiety?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: A notice was issued to the Press on the 26th June, 1915, that letters which are of great length and barely legible are liable to be delayed and may in extreme cases be detained or returned to the sender. In order to reduce the burden of work which falls upon the postal censorship, it is necessary to enforce this warning, unless the contents of the letter are seen to involve matters of importance.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does that hold good in regard to inland letters that are censored?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I must have notice of that question. I was dealing with letters sent abroad.
      Mr. HOGGE: If they are not legible, why not pass them?
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Has the reply reference to letters sent from parents in England to their sons serving abroad?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No.
      Captain WRIGHT: Is there any definition of what is "great length"?
      Mr. MACPHERSON:I do not-remember exactly what the censorship Order was, but I will endeavour to get it for my hon. Friend.

      DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICE: (MINISTRY OF PENSIONS).
      Sir G. THOMASasked the Pensions Minister what are the duties and the conditions, including emoluments of the appointment, of the Director of Medical Services to the Ministry of Pensions; is it a whole-time appointment; and is it for any limited period?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The Director of Medical Services to the Ministry of Pensions is entrusted with the administrative control of the Chelsea Medical Board, of the Special Medical Boards in London and the provinces, and of the other medical services of the Ministry, and also acts as advisor in matters of treatment and in the establishment and supervision of institutions for this purpose. The appointment (which is for no specified period) is a whole-time one, carrying a non-pensionable salary of £1,200 a year, the amount to be subject to reconsideration after the War. In the case, however, of the present holder, Sir John Collie, the Treasury have, at my request, sanctioned the payment of a salary personal to himself of £1,500 a year.

      ARMY PENSIONS.
      Mr. WINGasked the Pensions Minister (1) if any arrangements are in hand for allowing all soldiers who are pensioners arising from previous wars from the period of the Indian Mutiny up to the present to be equally treated with the soldiers taking part in the present War; (2) if he is considering or has decided that pensions to widows with children are about to be increased so far as the children are concerned; if so, what are the amounts suggested to be paid, and when such payments are likely to be made?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the question put by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
      Mr. WING: There was no answer given yesterday to question 33 with reference to the widows with children.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I understood that the answer was given to both, but if the question be asked me now, all I can say is that I am not in a position to make any definite statement.
      Mr. HOGGE: When do you expect a decision from the Treasury?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That question had better be addressed to the Treasury.

    MUNITIONS.

      MOLASSES AND SPIRITS (IMPORTS).
      Major DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether any molasses or spirits are being imported for use in the manufacture of munitions; and whether the necessary spirits could be made by redistilling immature whisky already manufactured in this country?
      Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is also in the affirmative, but, after careful consideration of the question in all its bearings, it has been decided not to make spirit for munition purposes, for the present at any rate, by redistilling immature whisky.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it supposed that the sugar which is being destroyed for this purpose is easily spared or that we have a surplus?
      Sir W. EVANS: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the question, he will see that it refers to molasses.
      Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman state what are the quantities of spirits that are being imported into this country at the present time?
      Sir W. EVANS: I have not got the figures.
      Mr. MILLAR: Could the hon. Gentleman get the figures?
      Sir W. EVANS: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will consider the matter.

      DISCRARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
      Major DAVIESasked the Minister of Munitions whether a number of discharged soldiers have applied for work at His Majesty's explosives factory at Penrhyndendraeth; if so, whether their requests have been granted; whether women are being employed in this factory in preference to discharged and disabled men; and whether he will have an inquiry made into the circumstances of the whole matter?
      Sir W. EVANS: A number of discharged soldiers have applied for work at the factory mentioned. Wherever possible, they have been employed and a considerable number are now working. Women are not employed in preference to discharged and disabled men. I have made full inquiry into the whole position.

    SHIPPING LOSSES.

      OCEAN CONVOYS.
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if be can make any further statements as to the progress of the ocean convoy system; and, in particular, if he will state for the latest possible date the amount of tonnage which has been convoyed: and the proportion which has been lost?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The results of the ocean convoy system continue to Fe satisfactory. Taking all the homeward-bound ocean convoys since the inception of the system in the middle of last year, 14,180,041 gross registered tons of shipping, with a dead-weight capacity of 20,145,400, have been convoyed with a loss, expressed in gross tons, of 1.44 per cent., or expressed in dead-weight capacity of 1.57 per cent. These figures are down to 19th January, 1918, and include losses which have been occasioned by ships being sunk through the dispersal of convoys by bad weather.
      Mr. MILLAR: Do the figures relate to British ships only?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: They relate mainly to British ships, but include some French ships also.
      Mr. FIELD: Is the same system applicable to the cross-Channel shipping to and from Ireland?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The figures relate solely to the system of ocean convoy.
      Mr. FIELD: Why is not that ocean system applicable to Ireland?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That question had better be addressed to the Admiralty.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Can the hon. Gentleman state definitely whether he is including in the percentage of losses those vessels which had been convoyed but were sunk immediately after the convoy was dispersed, such as the "Appam" and many others?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The figures include the taking of the vessel or the failure to take it to port. They do not, of course, include losses in the subsequent movements of the vessels on the coast.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Was the "Appam" included in the percentage?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I must ask for notice of that question.
      Mr. H. SAMUEL: -Does the one ship appear several times in these figures if it has made several journeys, and are we to understand, therefore, that the percentage of losses is not a percentage of the ships?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is not a percentage of the ships as individual units, but of ships per voyage.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to infer from the reply that the safeguarding of our shipping is only a matter of sufficient convoys?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: That is very largely true.
      Mr. SAMUEL: Are we to take it that the figures lead us to the conclusion that of the number of ships convoyed the percentage mentioned, between 1 and 2, has been sunk?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes; but the same vessel may be included more than once if it again crosses the ocean and again comes back with another convoy.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the increased risk to a 12-knot ship when convoyed by 8-knot trawlers, as in a recent case of a valuable refrigerating ship which was lost; and whether he will sanction the release of at
      1424
      least 200 of the 8-knot trawlers and crews in order that they may assist the food supply of the country?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; but in the case quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend, the vessel referred to was unable to maintain a higher speed than 9 knots. In arranging escorts, consideration is given to the actual sea speed of a ship and not to the nominal speed.
      With regard to the second part of the question, the question of releasing the slower trawlers and drifters on Admiralty service is constantly before the Departments concerned, but in view of the constant and growing demand for these vessels, it is not possible to release any of them at present without detriment to the Naval Service.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the many complaints which are made by masters of speedy vessels at being convoyed by trawlers, and having to reduce their speed to about 6 or 7 knots to prevent them running away from them?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I have heard my hon. Friend make that statement in the House before certainly.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, not among officers of the Admiralty, but among practical men on this subject?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: We have had the advantage of the experiences and opinions of practical merchant seamen. But I will put my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal of to-day before the proper authority.

      STANDARD SHIPS (SS. "WAR THISTLE").
      Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the British steamer "War Thistle," of 5,166 tons gross register, is, or was, a standard ship; whether she has been sunk by the enemy; and, if so, on what date was she sunk and on what date was she reported as sunk?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The "War Thistle" is a standard ship. She was torpedoed on the 17th of January, but my hon. Friend will, I am sure, be glad to learn that she has reached port. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise. The number of standard ships sunk remains at one only.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether other ships bearing the name "war" have been sunk?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, but my hon. Friend should not conclude that vessels named in the "war" class are all standard ships. The two vessels which he has in mind were vessels built in the United States of America.

      AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH PURCHASES.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the number of British ships purchased by or on behalf of the Australian Commonwealth and their total gross register tonnage; the approximate date or dates on which these vessels were purchased; and how many cargoes of Australian wheat these vessels have brought from Australia to the United Kingdom from the time they were purchased up to the present date, giving the total weight of wheat brought to this country?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The number of vessels purchased in June, 1916, by the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia was fifteen of a total gross tonnage of 63,684 tons. No wheat has so far been brought by these vessels to this country from the time they were purchased; they have, however, carried nineteen cargoes of Australian wheat to France, in addition to a number of other important cargoes to various Allies and ports of the Empire.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is it a fact that the British Government gave permission to Mr. Hughes to purchase these ships and provided the money to pay for them in the belief that the ships were to bring home from Australia 14,000,000 quarters of wheat, for which we had paid a fixed rate, which are now lying rotting there?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Surely my hon. Friend will see that he is raising matters of great importance, as to which I should be glad if he would put down a further question.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that these ships were used by Mr. Hughes for trading expeditions to the East and not coming to European ports at all?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have already said that in reference to any further question on the subject I must ask bon. Members to give me notice.

      TONNAGE USE.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the telegram sent out from the Ministry of Shipping on or about 12th January and following days, stating that the shipping Controller wished to receive concrete suggestions for economising tonnage, was drafted and ordered to be dispatched by the Shipping Controller personally or by some member of his staff; whether the Shipping Controller is aware that most of the uneconomical and wasteful use of shipping originates in the various Departments of the Ministry of Shipping by reason of unintelligent selection, direction, and use of ships unsuitable for the employment allocated to them, by the withdrawal or attempted withdrawal of ships loaded or partly loaded in home and foreign ports on previous instructions given to owners to load them, resulting in delays, waste of time am money, by the use of three-decked ships of big measurement and small deadweight carrying capacity for the carriage of coal and ore and at times when vessels more suitable for these purposes are available, and by the refusal of his various directors and other members of his staff to accept the advice of steamship owners; and whether he will, as a first step towards the economical use of shipping, read the many letters in his possession from steamship owners giving concrete suggestions for economising tonnage?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The telegram to which the hon. Member refers was issued by the Shipping Controller. The selection of ships for particular purposes is a matter on which expert guidance is always obtained, but it is, of course, often inevitable owing to the sudden exigencies of war to make arrangements which would not be made in time of peace. The suggestion in the question that there is uneconomical use of tonnage owing to the refusal of members of the staff to accept the advice of shipowners, is entirely without foundation. The Ministry of Shipping has been fortunate in having at its disposal in the fullest measure the advice and co-operation of prominent shipowners both in and out of the Department. With regard to the last part of the question, no suggestion made to the Shipping Controller from any quarter, whether orally or by letter, has been neglected by him, and I venture to express the hope that the

      1427
      hon. Member will see his way to join with his brother shipowners in giving the Ministry his cordial co-operation.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that this question is without foundation is entirely incorrect, and that for one practical shipowner in the Ministry there are a score outside it?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Inside the Ministry we have the co-operation of some of the leading shipowners of the United Kingdom. With regard to shipowners outside, I am glad to say that, with perhaps one exception, there is no prominent shipowner who has not been good enough to come to us.
      Mr. FIELD: Is the one exception in this House?
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is it because other prominent shipowners outside have not courage to criticise the Ministry?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I can only say that they do come to us. We invite them to come to us. They sit at the conference table with us. They criticise what we are doing, and we always listen most respectfully to them.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to give instances?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not enter into a personal debate.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      PREMIER JUS.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the Shipping Controller is aware of the shortage of animal fats, oils, and margarine in the country; whether he can explain why premier jus, the best constituent in the making of margarine, is not on the priority list of articles for shipment from the Argentine; whether he is aware that 8,000 tons per month of premier jus could be shipped from the Argentine if permission were granted; whether the Argentine meat companies have for months past been pressing for permission to ship premier jus; whether he is aware of the accumulation of this commodity in the Argentine, and that the freezing companies' stores are blocked with it, interfering with the killing of animals and the
      1428
      shipment of chilled and frozen meat; whether he is aware that if he had granted permission for the shipment of premier jus in September last, when he was urged to do so, some 30,000 tons of this commodity would have been in this country or on its way here; whether he is. aware that one of the directors in his Ministry indicated in September last that hides for the War Office were of more importance, and suggested to the shippers of premier ins that every opportunity of shipment to other friendly countries rather than to the United Kingdom should be taken advantage of; whether it was only on the 17th of this month, after strong representations had been made, that permission was granted to ship 3,000 tons of premier jus and oleo oil; and if he can say whether this permission to ship 3,000 tons has been cancelled by his instructions of 23rd January cancelling 4,000 tons of priority cargo overdrawn for January?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: There is an accumulation of foodstuffs of various kinds in the Plate, and any additional space provided for premier jus would be at the expense of grain. In determining the priority allocation of the space available, the Ministry of Shipping is guided by the view of the Food Controller. It is true that in September last the facilities for shipment from the Plate were such that the clearance of meat by-products was comparatively easy, and shippers were advised accordingly. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would respectfully submit that it is not in the national interest to publish details of the shipment of valuable cargoes of foodstuffs to this country. I may add that I do not want to refuse information to the hon. Member, and I should be very glad to give it to him privately.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is important for the people of this country to know that food is on the way to England? Is the hon. Gentleman not Chairman of the Tonnage Priority Committee?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Certainly. I have the honour of holding that position. We do everything we can to give priority to food cargoes and will continue to do so.
      Major N EWMAN: What is premier jus?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is a very valuable material used in the manufacture of oleo-margarine. It is a by-product of the meat industry.
      Major NEWMAN: Have I got to eat it?
      Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: It is excellent material.

      SUGAR.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it has been proved by experiment that sugar beet can be cultivated in this country, and whether he can explain why the cultivation of sugar beet has been neglected during the War, in view of the shortage of sugar in this country and the waste of fruit caused by the shortage of sugar or sugar syrup obtainable from the sugar beet?
      Sir RICHARD WINFREY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. But it has not yet been proved that the cultivation and manufacture are commercial propositions. The limited resources of the country do not at present justify the Board, on the ground of the extra amount of food obtainable from the soil, in demanding the machinery and buildings required for a sugar factory. Farmers have been making every effort to maintain and increase their normal production of food. It would be difficult to induce them to embark upon the growth of a new crop requiring for its cultivation special knowledge, a large quantity of fertilisers, and a greater supply of labour and of skilled labour.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it does not require any extensive factories or machinery to extract the syrup from beet, and are there not plenty of German prisoners of war accustomed to beet-growing?
      Mr. FIELD: Is it the fact that the Government have not offered inducements to growers of beetroot in this country, and in Ireland as well?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The conclusion come to is that it is not a practical proposition in war-time.
      Mr. FIELD: What experience have they had enabling them to arrive at that conclusion?
      Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the decision with regard to the refusal of sugar supplies to fruit growers will be reconsidered, with a view to avoiding the waste of labour and transportation involved in a system of collection of fruit to centres and redistribution in the form
      1430
      of jam; whether he will see that the public are advised at an early date that such sugar as may be available will be distributed equitably between growers of fruit and manufacturers of jam; and whether he will consider, in order to avoid discrimination in favour of fruit growers, a system requiring the marketing and distributing all jam made above a certain fixed ration per member of the household?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): Whether it will be possible to make allotments of sugar for jam-making to those who grow their own fruit must depend on the stocks of sugar available at the time. Lord Rhondda yesterday,. in another place, stated his intention of doing everything in his power to encourage jam-making and to prevent any avoidable waste of fruit; he further expressed the hope that the supplies of sugar would enable reasonable allotments to be made to private growers. I may add that in settling arty scheme of distribution, the points raised by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.
      Mr. PETO: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether preference will be given to the wholesale manufacturers of jam in the distribution of any sugar that is available, or will it be equitably divided between small growers of fruit who desire to make jam in their own homes, and the manufacturers?
      Mr. CLYNES: The intention is to distribute sugar available only amongst those who grow their own fruit, and of course it will be equitably distributed.
      Mr. PETO: I want to know whether the distribution between the wholesale manufacturers of jam and the growers of fruit will be equitable, or whether the wholesale manufacturers of jam will have the first pull on any sugar available
      Mr. CLYNES: I would like notice of that question.
      Mr. PETO: As I have received no reply, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
      Mr. FIELD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether beetroot sugar is used in the manufacture of jam?
      Mr. CLYNES: I require notice of that question.

      FISHING FLEETS.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet will inquire into the present situation, where practically the whole of the North Sea fishing fleets are on charter to the Admiralty; whether they will make inquiry into the relative utility of using eight-knot trawlers for the purposes for which they are so well suited, of catching fish, and for the function of defending shipping, for which they are quite unsuited both by reason of their speed of eight knots and their gun armament of three- or six-pounder guns; and, in view of the urgency of the food situation, whether they will act in the matter at once?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of making the best use of trawlers both for convoy and other purposes is one which is receiving daily attention by the Admiralty.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the limit lines of fishing grounds on the coasts of Ireland, Scotland, the Orkneys and Shetlands deprives this country of quantities of fish, and by concentrating the fishing craft in known limits increasess their risk; and whether the Board are prepared to consider proposals for doing away with the limit lines except in the vicinity of any British barrier?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: The details of the system of control exercised by the Admiralty over fishing vessels cannot be given for obvious reasons, but the effect of this control has undoubtedly been to reduce the number of vessels lost by enemy action. The Admiralty are always willing to consider any proposals which will increase the amout of fish caught without subjecting the fishing vessels and fishermen to undue risk, but the proposed abolition of all limits is not practicable. If my hon. and gallant Friend would wish to discuss this matter further with our naval advisers, I shall be glad to make the necessary arrangements to enable him to do so.

      POTATOEE.
      Mr. WATTasked what is the reason that, in fixing the minimum prices for potatoes in 1918, the pm-ice for Scotland is in every instance fixed at 10s. per ton less than the price in England and Wales?
      Mr. C LYNES: As stated in the announcement of arrangements for the 1918 potato crop: "The differential treatment given to Scottish potatoes reflects the desire of the Food Controller to relieve transport difficulties by putting the highest premium on the potatoes grown nearest to the principal consuming areas. It also follows the ordinary custom of the trade and takes into account the fact that Scottish farmers obtain their seed cheaper and command a higher price for it than English farmers."
      Mr. WATT: Is this another instance of an Englishman bullying a downtrodden Scot?

    AIR SERVICES.

      MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARD.
      Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOODasked the Prime Minister if he will publish for the information of the House the Report of the Medical Advisory Board in reference to the medical service of the Air Force?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): As the arrangements for the medical care of the Air Force are still under consideration, it would be inadvisable to publish this Report.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether the Air Board have given very careful consideration to the Report of the Committee, with a view to establishing this service as soon as possible?
      Major BAIRD: It is receiving very careful consideration.

    TANK COLLECTIONS.

      VISITS TO PROVINCIAL CENTRES.
      Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been able to ascertain the amount at present held on deposit by the Irish banks; and if he has considered the possibility of attracting some of this money to the financing of the War by means of Premium Bonds or the visit of tanks to the chief towns of the country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, it is not proposed to issue Premium Bonds. The

      1433
      question of encouraging the War Savings movement in all parts of the United Kingdom is receiving constant attention.
      Major NEWMAN: May I ask for an answer to the first part of the question as to deposits in Irish banks?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that it has been overlooked. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down.
      Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the tanks will be allowed to proceed to the smaller provincial towns as they now are in the large centres?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: We are trying to extend them in every direction. My hon. Friend may be sure that so long as they produce such good results we shall use them.

      MISSION TO UNITED STATES.
      Mr. D. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House of the annual cost of Lord Northcliffe's mission to the United States of America both there and in this country, and of the total amount expended?
      Mr. SONAR LAW: The general expenses of the Mission in the United States of America for the initial three months to the beginning of September were about £11,000. It is not yet possible to form a reliable estimate of the future cost in the United States of America, but salaries and office accommodation are at the rate of £12,500 per annum. The expenditure in this country is estimated at £5,000 per annum.

      ARMY AND NAVY CANTEENS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the position of the confectionery trade in the country from the fact that the Army and Navy canteens are now drawing from 10 to 121 per cent. of the quarter supplies, a. compared with 1915, now given to the trade; and can he see his way to supply the Army and Navy demands without infringing the 25 per cent. allowed, in view of the ruin threatening many in the trade?
      Mr. CLYNES: The supplies of sugar, actual and prospective, do not permit of more than 25 per cent. of the amount of sugar so used in 1915. being now employed in sweet-making, and the demands of the Navy and. Army Canteen Board must be satisfied from the quantities of sweets that can be produced accordingly. Steps have been taken to ensure that the demands of the Board are not unreasonably large, and. that they are not enforced in such a way as to inflict upon the trade any greater hardships than the position of necessity entails.

      GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether contracts are now entered into by his Department on the principle of cost plus percentage; and, if so, will he say whether this method has. been successful as a money-saving device in spending the money of the people?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the recent Second Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which, in paragraph 47, deals with the question of Admiralty contracts, and, in Appendix I., describes the steps taken by the Admiralty and other Departments to limit the profits of employers, producers, and middlemen. I might also refer my hon. Friend to the evidence which I gave on 4th May, 1916, before the Public Accounts Committee on the Navy Appropriation Account, 1914–15. The competitive tender is recognised as the proper method of contractual arrangements; but there are certain classes of contract for which, particularly during the War, competitive tender is not a practical course.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether all shipbuilding contracts, or nearly all, are on this cost plus percentage basis?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: All repairs are under that system; with regard to new construction, I should say a very great deal. In order, however, to avoid the temptation to spin out expenditures in order to increase the over-all profit, we are now fixing establishment charges and profit in advance.

      "OFFICIAL REPORT" (REPRINTS OF SPEECHES).
      Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary to the Treasury under what conditions the notice to Members on the back of the OFFICIAL REPORT to the effect that Members may only obtain excerpts from their speeches provided the issue of the excerpts is not forbidden by the Director of the Official Press Bureau was authorised, and by whose authority and on what date; and whether this control of Members' speeches has been brought to the notice of the House of Commons and assented to?
      Sir GEORGE CAVE: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that these words were inserted in error, and have now been removed.

      PIECE WORKERS (BONUS).
      Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Labour if women are intended to be covered by the memorandum which has been issued providing for the increase of piece prices in the case of piece workers in order to meet the claim of such workpeople to receive the advance of 12½ per cent. given to time workers?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): Where women are employed on men's work, any alteration in the piece prices for men will apply to the women.

      MENTION IN DISPATCHES.
      Major KERR-SMILEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will sympathetically consider the granting to non-commissioned officers and men who have been mentioned in dispatches the right to wear a distinctive ribbon, also a star or other distinctive mark for each subsequent mention?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: After sympathetic consideration, it has been found that, the adoption of the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend would not be practicable.

      ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State
      1436
      for War whether he has any further news about the air raid, or any statement to I make?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the Press communique issued through the Press Bureau shortly before noon, which contains all the information at present available. The casualties will be published as soon as the returns are complete.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making a little more mention of our own gallant airmen, possibly of their names, who went up last night?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe the House will be interested to know that about seventy went up last night.
      Mr. LYNCH: How is it possible that after three and a half years of war such raids can be undertaken over London with impunity and that these Gothas can escape unscathed, and does it not indicate something absolutely rotten with the system?
      HON. MEMBERS: No. no!
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Gentle. man does not take into account the number of times they have been turned back.
      Mr. G. LAMBERT: How many enemy aeroplanes came over last night?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the proper estimate would be ten.
      Mr. T. DAVIES: May I ask if all ours returned safely?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes.
      Mr. LOUGH: Is it true that there were casualties, not caused by the explosion or bombs, but by crowding into shelters, and, if so, will anything be done to prevent a repetition of that?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: There were, I regret to say, some—very few.

      Land Valuation.
      Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for the year ended 31st March, 1916 (following in this respect their previous Annual Reports) showed in the table on page 57 that the aggregate total value of land in Great Britain included in provisional

      1437
      valuations made under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to 31st March, 1916, amounted to £5,267,784,055, and the aggregate total value of minerals included in these provisional valuations to that date was £8,264,223, and as the corresponding tables are omitted from the newly-issued Report of the Commissioners for the year ended 31st March, 1917, for the reasons there given, he will state the aggregate total value of land in Great Britain included in these valuations up to 31st March, 1917, and the aggregate total value of minerals included in these valuations up to this date?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The figure of the aggregate total value of land in Great Britain included in the provisional valuations up to 31st March, 1917, is not available. The increase over the total shown for the previous year would, however, cc insignificant. The aggregate total value of minerals included in provisional valuations to 31st March, 1917, is £9,372,711.
      Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the first figures have not yet been ascertained?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; that was my answer.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: In view of the fact that this is an incomplete valuation, the value being given at over £5,267,000, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still holds that there is no money to be got out of land taxation before having a match tax?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have stated the facts.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) "Bill be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

  REPORTS OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure be now considered."—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Select Committee on National Expenditure have requested me, on their behalf, to open this discussion, and knowing, as I do, that many Members of the House desire to take part in the Debate, I shall do so with due brevity. With respect to the general position of our national expenditure, it is necessary for me to say very little. The facts are familiar to the House; they have been summarised in the first paragraphs of the first Report of the Committee. It is not merely the heavy burden of present. taxation, onerous as that is and necessary as we all know it to be that it shall before long be further increased, but it is also the vast burden of national debt which we are rapidly accumulating which constitutes the most serious feature of our financial position. In this connection I would quote to the House a single figure for the purposes of illustration. The last great international struggle in which this country was engaged was of course the Napoleonic Wars, and it may be interesting for a moment to consider what was the financial result of that conflict, which lasted for a period of twenty-three years, from 1792 till the battle of Waterloo. At the end. of that period of intense national effort, when the whole energies of the nation were engaged for a period so prolonged, the financial outcome was that our National Debt was increased by a sum of £621,000,000. Now we add a sum greater than that to our National Debt every four months. Each year that this War continues we add more than three times as much to the National Debt as was added
  1446
  to it during the whole period of the Napoleonic Wars. In the presence of figures so vast as those it is, of course, but little that any Committee, considering the details of Departmental expenditure, can effect by way of economy. Large savings must depend upon policy, but still, although comparatively and in ratio the savings which we may propose may be small, in total, in amount of round figures of money they may be in sum very considerable. I think the Committee may claim without undue lack of modesty that in approaching the task confided to them by the House they have dealt with it with energy and with assiduity, and, of course, with an entire absence of anything in the nature of partisan spirit.
  The terms of our reference are so wide that we have found it necessary to deal with our work through a series of Subcommittees, most of them consisting of five members each. Six Sub-committees have been actively at work examining the expenditure of the several Departments of the State. One is investigating the form of the public accounts presented to Parliament, and the form of the Estimates, with a view to suggesting possible changes, and one is examining the question of the procedure of this House in matters of Finance, which also forms part of our reference. The Committee and its Sub-committees have held a total now of over 160 meetings. We have examined about 220 witnesses from the various Departments and others, and have examined masses, of course, of official papers. We have presented to the House two Reports which are in the hands of Members, and the materials are quickly accumulating for a third. Our inquiries are far from being completed, and, if the House approves generally of our work, we would recommend that the Committee be reappointed next Session to continue its investigations. The Government have been good enough to state, in answer to questions, the action which they have taken on specific recommendations in our Reports. Those recommendations are fifty-two in number, and I find, on analysing the replies given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that thirty-four of them hive been accepted by the Government and are now being acted upon; eleven are still under consideration; and from seven of the recommendations the Government dissent. But the effect of our proposals cannot, of course, be measured statistically, or the effect of our work.

  1447
  The value of the replies given by the Government depends entirely upon the spirit and the energy which are put by the Departments into the effective application of these recommendations. It is not enough to accept them in principle. It is essential that the recommendations shall be applied with energy and effect. The Committee continuing, as it expects to do, in being, will not lose sight of its recommendations, and will keep a careful watch upon the actions of the Departments with respect to each one of them. But, apart from the specific recommendations, and the course taken by the Government, we would suggest to the House that the mere fact that this Committee is in being with its Sub-committees, that it is engaged week by week in the Departments themselves, hearing witnesses, watching their proceedings, forming conclusions as to the efficiency of their administration—all that has a very salutary influence upon the day-by-day work of administration.
  "A chiefs amang ye takin' notes,
  And, faith, he'll prent it."
  I must apologise to my hon. Friend opposite for any deficiencies of accent, but the sentiment is one which has a valid application in this connection, and the existence of the note-takers and the prospect of printing has, I am sure, a considerable effect day by day on the course of administration.
  One of our principal recommendations is that the Government should furnish to this House fuller financial information with regard to the projected expenditure of the Departments. We recognise that in time of war it is impossible for the full Estimates, to which we are accustomed, to be presented with respect to all the Departments. The changes consequent upon the rapid alterations of warlike conditions make it essential that there should be a very considerable measure of elasticity in the powers of the Government in the expenditure of money; and, further, secrecy is of capital importance in many of these matters, and the presentation of precise Estimates would be fatal to secrecy. But there is a vast part of the field of expenditure to which neither of these considerations could be applied 'n any important degree, and with respect to that we nave suggested that there should be full financial information laid before Parliament at the beginning of the Session as in normal course. It is unsound in principle that the Executive of the day
  1448
  should have, except when the occasion imperatively requires, uncontrolled access to the public purse. The mere framing Estimates, the effort to keep within them, the knowledge that they will: be publicly discussed — all these things tend to economy within the Department itself. The Government, in response to our recommendations, and also to a similar recommendation made by the Committee on Public Accounts, have undertaken that in the coming Session they will present a fuller financial statement to Parliament in connection with the Vote of Credit, and, further, that they will put down Token Votes for all the new Departments, so that a Parliamentary opportunity may be given for a general review of their proceedings. But I am not quite clear why this fuller statement should not, at all events in many cases, take the form of Estimates of the normal kind. I think that that would be more convenient to the House, and unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has strong reason to urge why the ordinary course should not be adopted in these cases, I think the House would probably desire that the normal Estimates should be presented. For example, in the case of the Ministry of Pensions, which is one of the new Departments whose expenditure now rather exceeds the whole cost of the British Army before the War, I, for my part, cannot see any reason why a definite Estimate should not be presented before Parliament.
  Many of our recommendations refer necessarily to Treasury control. The Treasury during the War has been passing through deep waters. We live in an era of supermen, or alleged supermen. They have, no doubt, by their energy and capacity in many directions, achieved great things, and I think it is true to say that hustle and frugality are not good yoke-fellows. But, after all, the ablest administrators have always had a careful regard for considerations of finance, and have, indeed. realised that a close financial review of their proceedings is one of the very best means of ensuring efficiency in administration. I cannot conceal the fact that the Committee as a result of their prolonged and detailed investigation, have formed the conclusion that the act on of the Treasury during the War has been of a somewhat disappointing character. I think every member of the Committee feels that in many directions the Treasury

  1449
  might have displayed, and should have displayed, considerably more activity than has, in fact, been the case, and we have formed a kind of mental picture of the super-men actively engaged in pushing their administration in every direction, and the Treasury wringing its hands in the background at the colossal expenditure which is involved.
  The admittedly somewhat careless methods of finance of the Ministry of Munitions during the period of extreme stress in the earlier part of the War was not rectified by the Treasury in due time. There has been in that Department, and in some others, a certain laxity of control in fixing the terms of contracts. There has been in many cases an active competition between the various Departments of the State, both in obtaining supplies and in securing labour. It is notorious that the staffs of some of the new Departments have been swollen beyond all measure, and that their organisation has been far from satisfactory. Recently, in most of these respects, there has been very considerable improvement. In the War Office a very able administrator has been appointed, the present Surveyor-General of Supplies, and he has introduced a more businesslike spirit into many of the operations of that Department. A new Director of Contracts has been appointed at the Admiralty. At the Ministry of Munitions, however, the proposals of the Committee with respect to closer financial control and reorganisation, in some respects, of financial administration, are still met by the Government by the use of that consecrated phrase, "the recommendations are under consideration." With respect to contract prices and a more effective Treasury control of the principles on which they are based, the Government have now, on our recommendation, appointed a Committee, presided over by Lord Inchcape, to advise them—a small but very capable committee of business men. We all hope they will be able to effect some necessary reforms.
  Again, with respect to the staffs of the new Departments they are also following the recommendations of the Committee. A Committee has been appointed to go in detail into the organisation of these staffs with a view to effecting economies. That new Committee will consist of two of the ablest civil servants in the employ of the Crown and two outside business men; but I am
  1450
  somewhat surprised to note that, although those staffs consist largely, indeed mainly, of women, that no woman has been appointed to that Committee. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it might not be inadvisable to add to its membership, now consisting only of four persons, one capable woman accustomed to the organisation of large staffs. In respect to all those various committees it is, of course, necessary for us to watch in order to judge by results. The administrator—I speak from some experience—is always a little inclined to think that if you appoint a committee you solve a problem. The mere appointment of a committee is a matter of small moment in itself. The important thing is the report of the committee, and still more important—far more important—is the specific action taken upon such recommendations as that report may include.
  The Select Committee had not proceeded far with its inquiry when it found that it must necessarily enter into the complex and difficult problem of the rise in prices. We found that in a score of directions the increase in prices of commodities affected vitally our national expenditure. We found, on examining figures, that if there. is an all-round 10 per cent. increase in prices and in wages that the State would be involved in an increased expenditure of £130,000,000 a year; if the rise in prices goes on to 30 per cent. it would involve an expenditure of close on £400,000,000. We felt, therefore, we should not be fulfilling the terms of our reference if we did not consider the causes which were now operating to contribute to a continuance of the rise in prices. Our conclusions will be found set out in a number of paragraphs in our Second Report, in which the subject is examined with some thoroughness. One of the chief causes of a rise in price has been the inflation of credits, the financing of the War by various expedients other than taxation and the raising of loans drawn from the savings of the people. I do not propose, however, to-day to enter into the question of the methods of taxation, or into the subject which is summed up in the phrase "conscription of wealth." The Select Committee is very anxious that this Debate upon its Reports should turn mainly upon the subject of expenditure, and not upon the large question of taxation, though we fully realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he

  1451
  comes to speak later in the evening, may find himself obliged, in accordance with the announcement already made, to dwell to some extent upon this particular subject.
  We were inclined to come to the conclusion that the increase of paper money, which in the eyes of many persons is a main factor in the rise of prices, has, in fact, played a somewhat subordinate part. The problem is an exceedingly difficult one, and different views are held by various students of the subject. Most of us, however, were disposed to the conclusion, with some diffidence, that in the case of this country at the present time the printing of currency notes has not played, by any means, the leading part in the great rise in prices which has taken place. In Russia, for example, notes are printed in order to meet Government payments. If money is needed to pay troops, or to discharge the bills of contractors, the printing press is set to work, and the necessary number of millions of roubles having been provided in that way the paper is distributed to the creditors of the State. Nothing of the kind has happened in this country. Notes are never printed for the purpose of making Government payments. Notes are only printed for issue by the banks to meet the needs of their customers, and the banks have to pay for these notes in exchange by presenting valid securities, or in other ways. That being so, the currency note issue of this country stands on quite a different footing to that in which it stands in some other countries. It may, in any case, be interesting to the House, to compare for a moment what, in fact, has been the issue of paper during the War in the United Kingdom compared with the issue of paper in Germany. In the United Kingdom the note issue of all kinds had increased up to December last from £45,000,000 to £277,000,000, a large part of the latter figure being represented by the paper issued in exchange for gold withdrawn from circulation. The total increase of paper has been, therefore, £232,000,000. In the same time the paper currency of Germany, of all kinds, has been increased from £100,000,000. which it was just before the War, to £841,000,000 in December—a total increase of £740,000,000. In other words, their paper in circulation has been increased by more than £500,000,000 worth more than in this country, or about three times as much.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): Since December it has been increased by another £50,000,000.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that since December it has been increased by another £50,000,000. The Second Report of the Select Committee considers also the increase in the cost of living as an clement in the rise in prices, both as a consequence and as a cause of the rise in prices. It is a consequence because wage increases are demanded to meet the increased cost of living. It is a cause because wage increases themselves give rise to further expenditure, and to further rises in prices. We found, with sonic surprise, that the figures officially published, first by the Board of Trade and now by the Labour Department, of the percentage increases of the cost of living during the War rest upon no very sound basis.
  4.0 P.M.
  We found that the foundation on which they reposed had not been reconsidered in view of war circumstances, and that they really depend upon a number of budgets of the household expenditure of the working classes collected five years ago or more, and in no way modified by any consideration of changes of diet or consumption owing to war conditions. If such modifications were made, an incidental paragraph in the "Labour Gazette" tells us that it might be divided by two. How great the confusion is may be seen by the fact that Lord Rhondda, the Food Controller, a few weeks ago, stated that the cost of living had gone down in the previous six months by something like 10 per cent., while the "Labour Gazette," published by the Government, in a number issued a few days later, stated that in the same period the cost of food had gone up by 3 per cent. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask how this contradiction could be explained, and which was correct, and he frankly stated that it was a question which he was not in a position to answer, but the Government would appoint a Committee. That is in fact the wisest course that they can adopt, and it follows one of our recommendations, for the whole subject demands expert and detailed examination; that is now proceeding, and when it is completed the country will be able to judge whether or not the figures quoted, and which

  1453
  form the whole basis of the arguments when wage increases are under consideration, really correspond with the facts or not. The Report in this connection also dwells upon the importance of the limitation of profits in various directions, and in an appendix, covering many pages, we set out the action taken by various Departments to limit the profits of Government contractors. I wish that statement bad received more attention than has yet apparently been devoted to it by the public. We turn to the subject of wage advances, and to the inevitable effect of those competitive and cumulative advances in causing a fresh increase of prices. The facts of the ease have been well expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn who, writing in the "Labour Leader," used these words:
  "The consumer always pays. These increases of wages and prices work in a vicious circle. The workers get an advance of wages: the capitalists raise prices: the workers demand a further advance to meet the increased cost of living: Then the capitalists again advance prices: wages increases are again demanded, and so the process continues. To those. bodies of workmen who are able to secure wages advances to meet to some extent the increases in the cost of living, all this, perhaps, matters very little; but there is a very large proportion of the community to whom the increase of prices is a very serious matter indeed, because upon them falls the whole burden. for they are unable to compensate themselves by an increase of income."
  Those are very cogent words which, I think, deserve the attention of hon. Members, and still more of the parties outside who are interested in this matter. The fact is, as our Report states, the producers, week by week, are raising prices against themselves as consumers, and the longer this process continues the higher prices must necessarily rise. That is one element—I do not say it is the only element—in the rise of prices and in -causing the vast increase of national expenditure which is still proceeding.
  I turn for a few moments from these matters affecting expenditure in general to those recommendations of the Committee which relate to the War Office. as I have the honour to be Chairman of the Sub-committee which has been examining War Office expenditure. I need say little on this head because the War Office has accepted almost the whole of our recommendations. We lay the greatest emphasis as a means to economy in Army expenditure upon extending the use of comparative returns and cost accounts. All our other recommendations, perhaps, are unimportant compared with those. We regard them ac the chief means of securing economy. The observa-
  1454
  tions of the Sub-committee on that head are, of course, applicable to the work of many other Departments of the State. To get to know what the cost of each establishment really is, to be able to compare one with another in similar conditions, to know who is your good administrator and who is your wasteful administrator—all this is the first step towards bringing the bad administration up to the level of the good, and is the first essential step in sound business management. Therefore we have pressed upon the War Office the urgent necessity of applying the system of comparative returns, and we have urged also that the system of cost accounts should be applied to the various establishments of the Army.
  There are three of our recommendations that have not been acted upon to which I should like to draw attention. We suggested that there should be an inquiry by a general officer of high standing into the number of persons employed in military establishments at home. I do not now refer to the larger question of the strength of the forces which has been under consideration, but in France a most useful inquiry was carried out by General Lawson into the various Army establishments from the point of view of economy of man-power, and he was able to recommend a large number of detailed economies in regard to men, which also resulted in economy of money, in the various administrative establishments behind the lines. Similar inquiries were also instituted in Egypt, Salonika, and elsewhere, and the results have been exceedingly valuable. We recommended in our first Report that a similar investigation should be set on foot in this country by an officer perhaps of similar standing, and, although we referred to this matter again in our second Report, so far as we are aware this matter is still under consideration. We also suggested that there was some unnecessary duplication of staffs in this country, but this is a matter which does seem to have received the full attention of the Army Council.
  Thirdly, we discovered that there was in France and in this country an immense accumulation of many thousands of tons of empty shell cases and wooden boxes for holding shells, representing the value of an exceedingly large sum, running into millions, and we suggested that

  1455
  these ought to be used again as was intended, and that the Munitions Department and the War Office should not simply go on ordering fresh supplies without returning these to the manufacturers to be re-used, as can be done, and as they intended to do. The Government's reply says that these difficulties are now largely overcome, but we have reason to think that the accumulation is still very considerable. I think this is a matter which relates primarily to the Ministry of Munitions, but it is a matter which still requires the attention of both Departments.
  On examining into the number of military officers employed by the War Office we made a rather surprising discovery. With regard to the War Office Staff during the first two years of the War, when the Armies were undergoing very rapid expansion, the number of officers employed in the War Office increased from 218 to 544, an increase which we thought not by any means unreasonable in the circumstances; but when that expansion was nearly complete, and when the War Office had adapted itself to war conditions, in the following period of fourteen months from August, 1916, to October. 1917. the Military Stair of the War Office, which had previously been doubled. was during that later period multiplied again nearly threefold, and in that fourteen months it increased from 544 officers to 1,504. It is true there had been various directions in which the work had greatly increased. There had been an enormous increase in regard to the Air Service, but still the Sub-committee dealing with War Office expenditure did not feel fully convinced that all these officers were fully employed on necessary work. Here, again, following our recommendations, the War Office has appointed a small and authoritative Committee, which is now engaged in reviewing each of the directorates one by one with a view to effecting a reduction.
  I do not propose to say anything with respect to the recommendations of the Committee in regard to other Departments of the State, because I have no doubt that the chairmen of the Subcommittees dealing with those other matters will be able to take part in the Debate, and they will deal with those topics. But let me say this in conclusion. While in these various directions the Committee has been making proposals for
  1456
  economy, at the same time in other directions fresh increases of expenditure are continually proceeding, involving greater demands upon the taxpayers and greater additions to future debt. Since the Committee was appointed last August there have been twelve or thirteen specific increases of national expenditure sanctioned by the Government to which, I think, the attention of the House should be directed, because many of them involve very large sums. There was the subsidy given to reduce the price of bread, involving an annual expenditure. of £45,000,000, in order to enable the loaf to be sold for 9d. There was a subsidy subsequently given to growers of potatoes to fulfil the pledge given by the Government of a guaranteed price last year amounting to £5,000,000. Then there was a bonus given to bakers to encourage them to use potatoes in the baking of bread, and this amounted to £150,000. Increases in the pay of soldiers and sailors amount to £65,000,000, and in that connection I would point out that while it is often suggested that the private soldier serves his country for 1s. 6d. a day, as a matter of fact the cost of the private soldier to the State, including food, clothing, and such lodgings as he gets—if he gets any, in view of the hardships of the campaign—together with separation allowances for his family, but excluding pension rights, the average cost of the private soldier to the State is 40s. 6d. per week. When we see a battalion of men marching past, every ten of them represents a cost to the public purse of over £1,000 a year.
  Additional sums are being paid in increased pay to the officers of the Army and Navy, and this amounts to £7,350,000. Bonuses or wage advances to miners cost £20,000,000 a year; to munition workers, direct and also indirect—that is to say, to those who are employed by contractors and not paid directly by the State, but whose increased wages will ultimately appear as a charge upon the State as higher prices in contracts—these munition workers together, directly and indirectly, receive £40,000,000; railway workers receive a further £10,000,000; the Civil Service receives £3,000,000 in this way.; the Irish teachers £170,000 and the Irish police £100,000. Then there is an additional Grant to the National Insurance Fund of £400,000. The total of those twelve or thirteen in-

  1457
  creases, all granted since the Committee was appointed last autumn, is £196,170,000 a year, or close upon £200,000,000 a year. Some of us cannot help feeling, when we are engaged day by day in suggesting fresh economies in various directions, that we are merely baling out water with a sieve so long as in other directions such large increases are continually being granted. The Budget Estimate of our expenditure at the beginning of this financial year was that it would be £6,250,000 per day. It is now £7,500,000 per day, an increase of about 20 per cent., or equivalent to £500,000,000 a year. I know that further proposals are now before the Treasury suggesting further increases in different directions.
  It is right that this House should take its share of responsibility for these increases. The House of Commons strongly advocates both economy and expenditure, and in that perhaps it corresponds to the ordinary forces of human nature. We all of us, when we are ordering the things that we would like to have or presents for our friends, attach the utmost importance to the virtue of generosity, and regard anything in the nature of niggardliness as the meanest of vices. When we come to pay for the goods which we have ordered, we are then much impressed with the supreme importance of a wise economy and of the necessity of a frugal husbanding of our resources. So it is with this House. There is nobody so kind-hearted as the House of Commons in Committee of Supply. There is no assembly so close-fisted as the House of Commons in Committee of Ways and Means. I wish that the spirit of Ways and Means could to some extent permeate the Committee of Supply, and that the atmosphere which I have no doubt. will pervade this Debate to-day will also to some extent. prevail when fresh proposals for expenditure in various directions are pressed upon the Government. We must, however, also look for our defence in these matters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His is the unpleasant duty of combating proposals, continually made, frequently with much force, and with many arguments in their support, but which ought to be resisted in view of the present conditions of public finance. It is for him on proper occasion to dig his heels into the ground and not to allow himself to be dragged easily
  1458
  along by those who would add to the financial burdens of the State. He can do this only with effect if he has the active support of the Cabinet as a whole. This problem of national expenditure is not really a question of committees or of machinery. It is a question of men, and of the views taken by individual men on particular proposals as they come before them one by one. The main responsibility for the great burdens which are now being laid on our generation and the generations that will follow rests with the War Cabinet, and this House will not be effective in its efforts to promote economy unless it is able to impress upon them the supreme need of husbanding the pubic resources. For our part, in helping to secure that any action that the House may take shall be based upon careful and painstaking investigation and upon full and trustworthy information, the Select Committee on National Expenditure are proud to play the part entrusted to them by this House.
  Colonel GODFREY COLLINS: My right hon. Friend has covered several points in the Report presented by the Committee to this House. The movement in connection with national expenditure has fructified, and these Reports are now before the House, and, as he tells us, further Reports are in course of preparation. I desire to take this opportunity of thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having met us very fairly and very fully, especially on the recommendations regarding Treasury control. This Committee is the offspring or child of the House Commons. It is for the House of Commons either to attack the recommendations of this Committee, or, failing that, to support the Committee with their recommendations against the Government. As the House knows, the Committee have worked bard on this subject. Before asking the House to consider one or two questions in connection with the Report, may I remind them that the figures of our national expenditure and its inevitable debt are so large that it is difficult to form a true conception of the magnitude of the ultimate burden, and how it will affect the man of a moderate income. I am anxious to give -le House one figure on this point. If the War ends six months hence, then, allowing a moderate figure for the expenses of demobilisation, our present revenue, excluding the Excess

  1459
  Profits Tax, will only slightly exceed the interest on our debt at that time and the cost of pensions. In other words, nearly the whole of the present revenue of the State will be required to pay the interest on the debt at that time and the pensions. Further taxation will be required to pay for the needs of the State, and the needs of the State in pre-war times amounted to £173,000,000. In these days apparent prosperity is apt to mislead the country in contrast with real prosperity which is made out of private profits, private savings and private expenditure.
  As our Chairman has very rightly said, the recommendations of this Committee are two-fold. They are direct and indirect, and the House will agree with me that the power of this Committee will be greater in. its indirect influence if the recommendations of the Committee are not only accepted by the Government but also welcomed by the various Departments of the State to-day. The Report, speaking broadly, divides itself under two headings. It first of all refers to certain aspects of Government policy which create expenditure, and secondly it refers to certain principles of administration in Government Departments today. The right hon. Gentleman, in his closing words asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives the full support of the War Cabinet. The problems which the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires to face daily are threefold. The expenditure has never been so large as to-day, taxation has never been so oppressive as to-day, and borrowing has never been so difficult. We ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Does he receive the full support of the War Cabinet. in these three difficult subjects? Do Ministers daily show a true appreciation of the present financial and economic position in which we find ourselves? Our Report raises questions of first-class political importance. Let me enumerate one or two. It refers to the question of the policy of the Government in financing the War, either by the creation of credits, loans, or taxation; it also refers to the rates of profits and the rates of wages. These two subjects affect nearly every individual citizen in this country. To what extent is the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer overruled by the War Cabinet? Does political expediency guide their action, or is sound finance their only guide? The Report
  1460
  shows that the expansion of credits has raised prices, and raised the rate of cur national expenditure. The Government have increased the supply of money and the ability to buy, and at the same time there has been decreased production of food. The supply of money has increased; the supply of commodities has decreased. Therefore, the price of commodities has risen very greatly. Can the Government arrest this upward rise? If the ability of the public to purchase is lessened by increased taxation, the upward rise of prices will be checked. Two years have elapsed since new taxation was imposed by the Government of the day. Since then nearly £3,000,000,000 have been raised either by credits or by loans. During this period prices have risen to a dangerously high level. If economic principles are overruled for political or other considerations, they retaliate and they rebound with compound interest against those who violate them. My argument, briefly, is that a sound economic policy in the long run is advantageous to the working classes of this country, and I urge that in future the Government should finance the War more by taxation and less by loans.
  While referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, the Committee point out that the staff of the Treasury has not increased in numbers. We appreciate the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on our Treasury recommendation, has met us very fully and very frankly, but we are conscious that the staff at the Treasury at the present time cannot exercise the new duties which we press upon them, and we urge that the principle of dilution should be. applied to the Treasury. The staff of the Treasury should be increased by the assistance of men from outside sources, men with experience and ability of the matters which will come before them. The second general consideration outlined in these Reports refers to the rates of wages and the rates of profits. As the House knows, soon after War was declared competition broke down, and since then the State has rapidly become almost the universal buyer, either in a direct or indirect manner. In peace time competition keeps down prices. To-day the position is the reverse. There is little or no competition between individual firms for Government work, or between individual workers. We are rapidly finding ourselves in a

  1461
  semi-socialistic state. I know that the Government have taken definite steps to control prices in these matters, but so far as I can learn the State has no definite policy on either of these two points.
  Some months ago I threw out a suggestion in this House that the Government should attempt to solve by agreement the rate of wages with the trade unions in this country. At present attempts are made to settle those questions as and when they arise. The result is constant friction in all the industrial centres. Although it might not be Possible to reach agreement, I hope the Government will take steps to solve this difficult and delicate subject by agreement with the leading trade unions in the country. At present these two difficult subjects are settled by the numerous Controllers. Each of these Controllers is very much a law unto himself. To permit high profits on the one hand and large wages on the other is an easy task. The line of least resistance leads to high prices, and our gigantic national expenditure today. The Committee have not shirked either of these two questions. They have laid down, or, rather, suggested, a definite policy to the Government. When speaking on this point we seldom realise how far-reaching is the result of the rate of profit on Government contracts. The standard of living. is largely determined to-day, or has been influenced by, the rate of profit on Government contracts. In that connection I desire to quote the words of the Prime Minister, which seem to me very apropos of the situation. Speaking in this House in May, 1915, he said:
  The standard of living in this country for all classes will perforce be reduced in one way or another…. Had not we better face it at once?… You can do it in a great war, and I think this is the lime for us to do it… We hear of men making great fortunes in certain businesses dependent upon the fortunes of the War and instantly beginning to spread themselves out''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May. 1915, col. 1712. Vol. LXXI.]
  Those words were uttered in 1915. Has the Government adopted that wise doctrine in the expenditure of public money Undoubtedly many have suffered during this War, while, on the other hand, the Excess Profits Duty takes a share from those who have made increased profits. In view of the general line of my argument this afternoon, especially as we are living under a semi-socialistic regime, the ultimate responsibility for settling, first, the rate of profit on Government
  1462
  contracts and, secondly, the rate of wages of those employed rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I trust that we may later on in the Debate, hear the views of the Government on this point. As my right hon. Friend stated, we are anxious to bring before the House certain points in connection with the Reports dealing with the various Departments. If I am not wearying the House, I should like to refer to a Report which was published three months ago dealing with the Ministry of Munitions. It was a very short Report which my colleagues and I issued, but it dealt, however, with the main channels of expenditure. We pointed out that there existed then a serious lack of proper financial control. In the absence of closed Estimates, the House of Commons would agree that strict financial control is all the more necessary. and to appoint a finance branch of that Ministry and neither to give that, officer a proper position or adequate duties is apt to mislead the public, and also not to safeguard properly public money.
  The Ministry of Munitions is probably the largest spending Department in the world. It is governed by a Council, consisting of some thirteen members. On this Council there is only one member representative of finance. The Minister himself, we understand, is responsible for finance. We all readily admit that with his many duties, he is unable to undertake that task properly. We therefore recommended, and we put it in the forefront of our recommendations, so as to bring finance into its proper relationship to the other members of the Council, that there should be someone responsible to this House for the finance of that Ministry. That Report was issued three months ago, and, so far as we understand the matter is still under consideration. We there pointed out that the officer responsible for fixing contracts was not a member of that Council, and that he was simply a mere controller. The Ministry assured us that the Department responsible for economy in the Ministry was the contracts branch, yet we find that the contracts branch is only represented by a controller, and not by a member of the Council. Putting that point on one side, the question has recently been raised whether the. supply branch or the contracts branch should settle prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply on this point, told us that in settling

  1463
  prices under the general administration of the Ministry the duties connected with contracts are divided between the Departments of finance, supply and contracts. There appears to be some dual responsibility in this matter. As to whether it should rest with the contracts officer or the supply branch, this question, although it is a technical one, is a matter of great substance, and affects large sums of money. The supply officers in the Ministry to-day have little or no information as to the cost of supplies. We have found that the costing system which has accomplished great things for the public purse, is not in some cases welcomed by the supply officers, and that even if the supply officers knew the cost three years ago the radical changes in manufacture since then have been so great that the cost three years ago is no guide to-day. We urge, therefore, that the position of the contracts officer should be improved, and that it should be finally settled that the price for munitions of war should be settled and the sole responsibility should rest with the contracts officer.
  May I ask the House to consider another point in connection with the administration of that office? We stated that finance is in no way represented on the Committee which considers the programme of demands. The programme of demands practically means the yearly expenditure of the Committee. Since we made that statement. we have been advised that finance was going to be consulted at a later stage, but we are of opinion that if finance is to do its proper duty it must be consulted in the very earliest stages. What would he the duties of a financial officer? He would take steps to see that no more munitions of war were ordered than were demanded; he would take steps to see and to review the size of stocks of munitions of war in this country; and he would take steps to satisfy himself that the necessary capital expenditure and no more was authorised. -Under the present administration in the Ministry, the finance branch cannot properly perform any one of those duties. In view of our limited resources in raw materials and in men, over-supply to-day is a danger to the State. If one Department over-orders, another Department must go
  1464
  short, and to-day the criticism by a finance branch is of assistance to the State.
  My last instance refers to the national factories which have been erected since the War began. As the House knows, large sums of public money have been expended, and rightly so, in the erection of those factories. They have been equipped with the very latest machinery and they are staffed to-day by thousands of men and women. To-day those factories make the same munitions as private firms, generally at a lower price. The House of Commons will expect to find that the finance branch would be consulted in the allocation of orders between the national factories and private firms, and, in addition, have the power to satisfy themselves that these factories are wisely utilised. To-day in the management of these factories the finance branch is brushed aside. Three months ago we drew attention to these points. To-day we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt at the instigation of the Ministry of Munitions, that arrangements for improving the machinery of financial control and making contracts are under consideration. We have come in contact with the financial administration of that Ministry, bat we have found the position unsatisfactory. How far that position is unsatisfactory, say, in the production of aeroplanes, is another matter. The Ministry have violated in too many cases the sound canons of administration. Since its inception it has been a law to itself. It has been free from control, either by this House or by the Treasury. I agree that a large measure of freedom was necessary in the early days of that Ministry, but in view of our resources and the arguments I have advanced, surely the conditions which existed in the first twelve months, or twenty-four months, should not exist to-day. In that Ministry bureaucracy is in full swing. Whether the new type of bureaucracy is more dangerous than the old is open to consideration. This Report is the first outside Report dealing with the Ministry. Our object throughout has been to assist the Government and the Ministry in the execution of their work. Our task has been a thankless and an unpleasant one. Although perhaps we have tightened up certain details of administration, my colleagues and I are not satisfied that the Ministry has accepted our recommendations either in the spirit

  1465
  or in the letter, and I appeal to the House of Commons for their support in this matter.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: It is one of the misfortunes of the War that the country has become accustomed to think in financial matters in such enormous figures. We have become so accustomed to the expenditure of millions where we used to think in thousands, that we are now every day in danger of a proposal for what is now a comparatively small sum of expenditure being accepted on the ground that it is only a little. This ground has been fully and amply covered by my right hon. Friend, and therefore I propose to devote my remarks to that branch of the inquiry with which I have been more especially concerned—the Admiralty. It seems to me that the questions involved in this matter of economy arc far more questions of tendency than proposals for direct economy in definite cases. If we can discover certain tendencies towards extravagance and make suggestions which will reverse those tendencies and turn them in the direction of economy, we may effect a good deal. But so long as we only deal with definite proposals to economise on certain particular items we cannot expect to obtain very visible results, although we may sometimes obtain invisible results which are worth our while.
  The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel), in opening the Debate, made some mention of the question of more accurate Estimates as against Token Votes. The Sub-committee over which I had the honour to preside went into this question in the ease of the Admiralty with some care, and we came to the conclusion that, in that Department at any rate, the number of important Votes which obviously can only be taken in token form is so large that practically all the important Votes at the Admiralty come under that category, at any rate in times of war, and for obvious reasons, and we do not think any advantage would be gained by having more accurate Estimates in those cases. In a great number of Votes in that particular Department the Estimates have always been very approximate ones. I agree there are some minor cases in which one can expect a fair amount of accuracy, but in other cases the Estimates necessarily would be so rough and ready that they would amount to a Token Vote, and the only
  1466
  difference would be that instead of the shortage being made up from the Vote of Credit it woud involve continually coming to this House with Supplementary Estimates. In that direction, therefore, I do not feel we can usefully claim any very large abandonment of the present system. At the beginning of our investigations we were struck by the fact in comparing the number of men employed now with the number employed before the War that the amount spent on pay and victualling had increased out of all proportion to the increase in the number of men. I must say that the explanation given showed that these increases were all due to increases in pay sanctioned by Parliament, to separation allowances, and to the higher cost of living and clothing, so that really there is no ground of complaint on that score.
  The next point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee is paragraph 46 of the Second Report, which deals with the powers of the Controller of the Admiralty—powers differing very considerably from those given to similar officials in other Departments with regard to the appointment of higher-paid officials. In all Departments, I believe, with the exception of the Admiralty, appointments of higher officials; than those receiving £400 or £500 a year has to receive Treasury sanction, but in the case of the Admiralty a special exception has been made, and appointments to posts with salaries up to £1,000 a year, limited to a certain number, are in the hands of the Controller without reference to the Treasury. I do not suggest there is any danger which calls for interference on the part of the House, but I think it is to be regretted we should have given up the control we have over other Departments and should have set a precedent which is likely to extend considerably. Therefore I think the House should take into consideration whether it would not be desirable that the Treasury should have control over these appointments, at any rate during this period of inflation of expenditure. At the beginning of my remarks I mentioned that the question was one of tendency. We have found, so far as our investigations have gone, that the most important Votes which we had to deal with were those connected with contracts and shipbuilding. The great difference in the question of contracts and ship-

  1467
  building, as between our present position and that which existed before the War, is that the element of competition has disappeared, and so far from shipbuilders having to compete with one another, we, require them to produce to the utmost extent of their yards, and therefore no competition is possible in regard to building ships. That being so, a system has been adopted of taking the cost of the contract, plus the profit, and producing in that way without any specific contracts. At the beginning the profit was based on a percentage of the cost, an old system of contracting which we know is extremely likely to lead to extravagant management and expenditure of money on the contract, because it is to the interest of the contractor to spend as much as he can. In the case of these contracts a great improvement has been brought about and instead of having a percentage of profit based on the expenditure of the contract, an estimate is formed of what the contract will amount to and the contractor is given a fixed profit which does not increase even if the expenditure increases. That is very satisfactory so far as it goes. But I am very touch of the opinion that we might proceed a step further. The Committee thought that some inducement in the shape of a bonus might be given to contractors who were able to reduce the expenditure, as the effect of economy. We made such a recommendation, and I am sorry to say, so far as I gather from the replies given, that the Admiralty does not see its way to adopt this system of bonus for saving on contracts. I regret it, and I hope some means will be found of so arranging the profit of the contractor that he has a direct inducement to economise in regard to these contracts.
  The last subject with which I desire to allude, and which I consider to be by far the most important, is that raised by the Second Appendix of the Second Report of the Committee, which deals with the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on all questions where materials or labour have to be supplied. We have been impressed with this lack of foresight by seeing the effect which the action taken by one Department very often has upon another Department. It will be sufficient, I think, to quote one specific case, the rise in wages which was given by the Minister of Munitions to certain classes of workmen recently. I
  1468
  do not want to labour that point. I will only say I am sure that the effect of the action taken by the Minister of Munitions was not foreseen, and that he did not realise what the results would be on other Departments of state, and on other classes of labour right throughout the country. I think one direction in which we should proceed is the securing of an understanding between Departments on all questions connected with wages. That is one of the most important directions in which the Government might effect great saving to the State. I need hardly point out that all these advances, whether in prices of materials or cost of labour, one reacts on the other, and they are enormously increasing the burdens falling daily upon this country by reason of the War.
  Another point concerning the question of wages arises where one Government Department undertakes work in a particular district, which it is now doing on a large scale, and pays for labour, or, rather, says it does, at the district rates. It does nothing of the sort, and my objection is to its continuing to maintain that claim. What actually occurs is, that if it moves men from one place to another it pays them, not at the rate current in the district to which they are sent, but at the rate obtaining in the place from which they are sent. For instance, if a man is sent from London into the country he is paid the London rate, which, in many cases, is more than double the provincial rate. Perhaps a more serious difficulty occurs in the way in which overtime and Sunday work is paid for. We all know that they are paid for at higher rates than ordinary time, and there is no objection to that, providing that the man who gets the overtime works his ordinary time as well. But where men deliberately come to work late and then put in their full number of hours, charging for the latter portion at overtime rates, it is not fair that that overtime should be allowed. Yet that is the position which obtains in many places, and it is undeniable there are a great many cases where a man deliberately stays at home one weekday and then works all the other days of the week, including Sunday, thereby getting full pay for seven days, although he only works six. Again, there are cases in which large Government Departments sometimes compete for the same labour. This is probably due to lack of control.

  1469
  There are cases mentioned in the Report in which two Government Departments established new works in a particular district. There was great difficulty in securing unskilled labour, and they deliberately competed against each other by raising the rates they were offering.
  5.0 P.M.
  We have quoted several eases of that kind in which the Admiralty has carried on work in a particular district, and where another Government Department comes into that district, and, in order to get labour, offers a penny an hour more than the Admiralty is paying, with the result, of course, that the men leave the one Department and go to the other. That shows a want of agreement between the Departments, and a want of control over contractors to prevent them doing that sort of thing, and it is a matter which requires attention, and to put an end to which I am sure the Government will do all they can. It seems to me that the whole question of the employment of labour and the purchasing of material for all Government Departments concerned must be very much more closely co-ordinated than it is now. If the whole question of labour, and the fixing of prices of labour, could be concentrated in the hands of one Government Department. say, the Ministry of Labour, it seems to me a great deal more would be done towards proper, co-ordinated, and economical management than has been done at present. In the same way, although I do not suggest that the Admiralty should have its purchasing done for it by the Ministry of Munitions—I know that has been suggested by some people—because in many cases the articles which are purchased by the Admiralty must be left very much to the judgment of Admiralty men, I do say that the whole question of the purchase of materials must be as far as possible co-ordinated in some central hands so as to avoid anything in the shape of competition in material or wages between one Government Department. and another.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I wish to say that I cordially appreciate the very valuable work done by this Committee. The hon. Member for Greenock (Colonel Collins) rather put it forward that their labours had been a thankless task. Certainly, I, for one, desire to thank them, and I think it will be the general sense of the House that their work is a very valuable one, and one that will be appreciated the
  1470
  more because it is not a partisan work. It has examined our system of financial control in relation to an unprecedented war, and to a large extent it has shown that that system has broken down. Perhaps that is not surprising, because unprecedented circumstances sometimes. produce unprecedented results. It is true that in 1915 the Public Retrenchment Committee was set up, and it did something, I venture to believe, towards. calling a halt in the rather reckless expenditure that was then being authorised by this House. The good that it did was,. however, largely temporary. It persuaded public offices, for instance, to issue circulars to all concerned to be very careful as regards general waste, and these circulars had some little weight at the time they were issued; but very soon they were forgotten or overlooked. More pressing circumstances came forward, and the result of the Committee was, therefore, only ephemeral. There is a constant need of keeping all Government offices, in this matter of national expenditure and the saving of extravagance, thoroughly up to the mark in watching all expenditure that is incurred. One of the two points that conic out, perhaps, especially in the Report of these Committees is the essential need of greater and more effective Treasury control, and a breaking away from what I may call the bad habits into which the Treasury got, more particularly in the years 1908 and 1911, when they started on a career of being partially a spending Department. I think there was also another cause at work which brought about the disposition on the part of the Treasury not to watch over offices with sufficient care. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time was very much disposed to budget for a shore war. It was considered that if the War lasted so long as, say, March, 1917, it would be a long war, and that it would not be likely to exceed that limit. If Budgets were drawn upon that basis, no wonder that the general tendency of the office teas to budget in the same kind of way, and that the tendency of all Departments was equally to go in for every expenditure somewhat recklessly, because they did not think it would last beyond a certain limited time, rather than to have a careful eye to saving every penny that could be saved during the whole period of a long war. Though it may be assumed that after the object lessons that have been received that will not be the tendency

  1471
  of the Treasury in future, I do think there is a need to create an atmosphere, not only in the Treasury, but everywhere else in other Departments of expenditure, which will govern the situation more completely. We want an atmosphere of general disposition to watch all waste that is likely to occur, and that can be best created, in the first place, by the Treasury itself setting the example of doing so, and, in the second place, by the War Cabinet backing up the Treasury.
  I consider one of the most noticeable paragraphs in the Report is the one which suggests that not only ought the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to press and press again the absolute necessity for economy on every spending Department, but that he ought thoroughly and actively to be backed up by the War Cabinet in taking that course and introducing what I have called that atmosphere. There are several points which strike one in the Committee's Report, and which I should just like to notice. The one where they criticise the size of new staffs in the different offices is one of great importance. There is no doubt that there has been a good deal of over-staffing in these new Departments. It has also been suggested—perhaps I ought to say it has been repeatedly rumoured, though I know not with what truth—that many of the young women and others working there are disposed not to work over hard in order to get a little opportunity for overtime at the end. I do not know whether that is true or not. I can only say it has been repeatedly rumoured, and I should be very glad if this Committee or the Treasury could look into that and set the matter at rest once and for all. In the case of the overlapping of Departments, we know there has been considerable waste. That is a matter in which the Treasury, if it chooses, can grip the nettle firmly and prevent such extensive overlapping as occurred when the Ministry of Labour and the National Service Department were each vieing to do certain kinds of work. We want, also, more business men for supervising contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason) has mentioned that We want to avoid competition in buying between Government Departments—which surely is not very difficult to avoid if the proper machinery is instituted—and we want to save such large sums by this careful attention to details as comes out so noticeably
  1472
  in Appendix 2 of the Committee's Report. I was surprised to read that the price of certain gun ammunition in 1917 showed a reduction of £43,000,000 on that of the same quantity in 1916. It is scarcely credible that such waste could have occurred, or that it should have been necessary to make this criticism in order to prevent its occurring again.
  One of the remarks which will, I think, have struck the House as specially important was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), when he told us that the increase in national expenditure since the appointment of the Committee last August amounted to a total sum of £196,170,000 a year. It was an amount which is equivalent to the whole of the National Budget before the War for a year, and if these increases are made, despite the appointment of this Committee, without adequate care, and without being checked by the. Treasury, it seems to me that it will continue in spite of the useful labours on which the Committee is engaged. These increases have occurred largely from a cause which cannot be too often recollected. The increase of prices has brought an increase of wages, and both have caused a growth of expenditure at a time when economy is a national necessity. I welcome the announcement that we are to inquire exactly what is the increase in the cost of living. The increase in the cost of living is always one of the reasons given for an increase of wages, and until we have accurately, officially, and by careful in vestigation ascertained what the real increase in the cost of living is, we shall have sentimental increases of wages being granted without due regard to the effect in other quarters than those in which they are given. Another reason—that of profiteering—is always given for an increase of wages. I do think it ought to be pointed out more than it has been in the country that profiteering now is, comparatively, nothing like what it was a year or two ago. The Excess Profits Tax has dope away with a great part of it, the very high Income Tax does away with more, the Super-tax, in many cases, does away with more still. Really, profiteering is to he found in all classes. It is not, I am afraid. confined to one or another class, but still goes on in all sorts of places, sometimes quite unsuspectingly, and if only the Chancellor of the Exchequer can regulate

  1473
  this increase of prices and increase of wages fairly all round he will do away with a great deal of the agitation.
  One of the best ways in which that can he done is undoubtedly by greater coordination between the Government Departments for fixing the standard of wages. My hon. Friend (Mr. Mason) seemed to think it was scarcely necessary to refer to the well-known 12½ per cent. increase given by the Minister of Munitions, but i do not quite take that view. I think it was Talleyrand who once exclaimed, in rejoinder to someone who said, "It goes without saying," that "It goes even better by saying it," and in this matter it cannot be too often repeated that the Ministry of Munitions, and the Minister of Munitions in particular, made a grievous mistake in granting that increase of wages irresponsibly, off his own bat, without consulting his colleagues and without having regard to the very widespread results which it must necessarily have. The Committee makes some remarks in general about the financial control of the Ministry of Munitions, and about there being no Parliamentary Secretary there. and about the fact that the Minister holds himself responsible for all expenditure, whether it be extravagant or not, and all that appears at present as the result of the Government's dealing with it is that it is receiving their careful consideration. The House will be impatient to know before long what is the result of that consideration. It is important that it should know it, and that action should be taken before long. I dare say it may not be quite easy to decide the matter instantly, but after all they have the analogy of the War Office and the Admiralty, both of which have financial secretaries. The Committee therefore has done much valuable work.
  I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) said that it was not intended in this discussion to go beyond the question of national expenditure, that is to say it was not intended to discuss the question of taxation. The hon. and gallant Member for Greenock (Colonel Godfrey Collins) did discuss it slightly, and I am not quite sure what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do in that respect. It has been whispered that he means to say something about a levy on capital. I understand there. has been a good deal of unauthorised statement with regard to some observations he made to a private deputation which thought fit to
  1474
  publish his remarks, or what they believed were his remarks, without strict authorisation, and it may be that he will think it, necessary to say something. But on that matter I want to say for myself that making any temporising statement seems to me to be playing with fire. A levy on capital will create great want of confidence, and I believe it is impracticable if it is to be done fairly, and it is not economically sound. After all, every sixpence that is saved becomes capital. The Chancellor of the. Exchequer is asking the population to save on the one hand, and on the other talks of appropriating by levies on capital what has been saved, unless he has been misinterpreted. It certainly offers no inducement to save. The man who spends all his wages is not to be taxed. The man who saves them is. It will be certainly unjust in many ways. It will not affect such people as barristers or surgeons, or, let us say, music-hall stars, who are. making large temporary incomes but have very little capital, while it will affect others who are in a different position and perhaps cannot afford it nearly so well. I do not, want to go into the matter deeply, but I feel that it will compel taxpayers, if they are to be so treated, to sell securities, or furniture or houses, when there are all sellers and no buyers, and, therefore, prices will be lowered and great uneasiness will be aroused. What we want. to do is to increase values, to increase trade, to increase confidence, and not to depress by undue taxation either one or another. Confidence, after all, is a plant of slow growth. It is vital to national prosperity, and requires every encouragement. Do not, therefore, let us destroy it on ill-considered grounds.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in the discussion of the question of the conscription of capital, or words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may or may not have said at an interview of which there has never been any authorised report. I say that the more because—I think I may speak for all the members of our National Expenditure Committee — we are very anxious that the discussion to-day, so far as there is a discussion, should deal with matters which are raised in the Report, and the question of expenditure which the Committee was appointed to consider. It perhaps, unfortunate from the point of view of the Debate that there should be such general agreement in regard to the findings of the Committee. We are suffer-

  1475
  ing a little from the judgment pronounced, "woe unto you when all men speak well of you." Up till now hardly anyone has said anything aloud in detriment of us of our findings. I should feel somewhat happier really we had aroused eager controversy in some quarters. I am not sure that we have drawn blood sufficiently by our Report and certainly, from the point of view of the Debate to-day, things might have better perhaps more lively had they been more in controversy. Put I do not think it is necessary for me as a member of the Committee to traverse again the ground which was so well covered by our Chairman in his opening speech to-day. The appointment of the Committee was due mainly to the desire of the House of Commons and of the public, because it was certainly pressed on the House from outside, to know where the vast sums of money which are being raised were going, and I think we may claim for the Committee that: it has, in some degree at any rate, enlightened the House and the country as to how the money is being spent.
  It. seems to me that we may claim two results from our work. The House of Commons is better informed as to how the money is being spent and what we are getting for it There is growing up in the House a body of informed opinion as to the methods adopted by the Government Departments in spending the very large sums entrusted to them. That is pure advantage to the House of Commons. Under our old system of Estimates, the great tendency was that the clays of Debate in Supply would he spent, not in discussing the Estimates. but in discussing some grievance in connection with the Department. Our Committees do really mittee supplies a gap in our Parliaments; and therefore I think this Committee supplies a gap in our Parliamentary machinery which the House of Commons will not hereafter willingly let go. It is perfectly true that we were appointed as a kind of war emergency, but it is equally true that something of the kind is required in our normal machinery for dealing with the expenditure of the Departments. The Committee has the other result, that the Departments have to reckon with the House. of Commons through the Committee. Under the old system, during the War, the Departments had nothing to fear from the House of Commons. They had
  1476
  no scrutiny of their expenditure—there could be none under our procedure—and the spending was out of the Vote of Credit with no Estimate before the House. There was, therefore, no examination at all by the House of Commons of the expenditure. I think the mere appointment of the Committee caused a tightening right through the Departments, and it has comes to my own notice. as chairman of one of the sub-committees, that there have been actual results before ever the Committee has made any investigation at all. It has the indirect effect of letting the Departments know that there is a body about to ask questions of the Department, and that expenditure can no longer go on. without the spenders having to give an account of themselves.
  There was certain misgiving in sonic quarters that the mere raising of the question of cost might interfere with the necessities of the War. I do not think anyone would allege against our Committee that we have in any way hampered the operations of the War. Certainly the officials have had to do a certain amount of work. They have to give evidence before us, and have had to prepare certain returns, but I believe all our Committees have been. actuated! by the desire not to put work upon overworked Departments. and we have not had any complaints, as far as I know, of any unreasonable demand which may have been made. But in asking for economy I do not feel, and I do not think our Committee feels, that we are undermining efficiency. I am more and more convinced as I have sat upon this Committee that lavish spending is the sure mark of inefficiency. If a man cannot account for his spending, you may depend upon it his work is not being very well done. It would be a very happy thing for the world if we could by extravagance, by inefficiency, by a lavish spending, get confidence. But it is not so. The very reverse is the truth, and our of the first marks of inefficiency is the spending of more money than is necessary in order to get your work done. Cost in war. or at any other time, is not, of course, the dominant consideration. You must have the materials, you must have the men, and you must have the services. Cost is not the dominant consideration. but. it should' always be a consideration, and unless it is a consideration your organisation will go wrong.
  If cost is a consideration, those in high, authority should make it known through-

  1477
  out the Services and throughout the Departments that it is a consideration; and I am not satisfied that sufficient reward is given to the men in the Services who attempt to be economical in their administration. I am not sure that men get promoted, as they should, because they have done their work economically. I am rather afraid that important administrative posts have been given to men not because they were good administrators, but because they have failed in some other Department—men who have not been altogether a success, shall we say. abroad, and have been brought home and put into important military posts. It is a vital defect in your administration if you console men who have failed in some operation by rewarding them with important administrative posts. That is a matter against which the Government ought. to stand on their guard. If economy is really to be held in high estimation by the Departments, you must give in your hierarchy an important position always to the financial officers and the financial committees in the Departments. There, I think, lies a real safeguard for wise economy. It is most important throughout your public services that the finance committees or the finance man in a Department shall have a position of real authority and shall be consulted in all the matters of finance that are inside the Department. The Sub-committee over which I have the honour to preside differs from that of the hon. Member for Windsor with respect to the large number of comparatively small new Departments which have grown up during the War to deal with particular matters—Departments which have grown up out of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture to deal with such. things as wheat, sugar, tea, timber, and the different articles that have to be controlled and managed by the Government in order to ensure a supply. Our Committee have been very much struck by the haphazard way in which these new Departments have conic into existence. It was perhaps inevitable, seeing that they have grown up out of the stress of war. In many cases not. long notice was given that a new Department was required. In some cases, I think, the Departments have been set up when there was no need to have new Departments. The Board of Trade or the Board of Agriculture could have exercised direct control without setting up the semi-independent bodies which have been set up in these cases. What. has happened has been very
  1478
  general. A scarcity has arisen, or the danger of a scarcity, in sonic article, such as petrol, timber, or sugar. Sugar was one of the earliest articles affected. The Department has riot known how to deal with it; it has had no machinery for dealing with it Under these circumstances it has usually secured sonic particular individual or possibly has appointed some small committee. and has said to that committee, "A danger has arisen. There is going to be a shortage of petrol, or of timber. Get to work and see what you can do to prevent that shortage." These individuals or committees have had very little guidance. very little advice, and very little knowledge or past. experience to go upon. They have had to get their staffs as they went along and the whole thing has been uncontrolled, or unadvised by anyone outside themselves. Great responsibilities have been thrown upon individuals or small committees. On the whole, I may say, from my experience, these individuals have done their very best in the very difficult circumstances they have had to handle, but they have had too little guidance, too little help from outside, and I think the House and the country may justly complain of the. Treasury. To judge from some of their witnesses, the Treasury are under the impression that this House is asking too much when it appeals to the Treasury to keep the Departments and the officials of the Departments in order. It is urged that there is danger that if you relieve the Department of responsibility and if the Treasury take over the detailed control of what is going on inside the Departments, the result would be unsatisfactory. I think that is true. I think there is great possibility that you might duplicate your machinery if you asked the Treasury to scrutinise all the transactions of each Department and not to throw fully upon the Department responsibility for its own expenditure. That is true, but at the same time, when you are setting up large numbers of new committees, the circumstances are different. I do riot think I can describe the situation better than in the words of the Report:
  "The War has brought into being a number of new Departments without administrative traditions or experience, not limited in their expenditure by the restriction of Parliamentary Estimates, without the safeguard, for the most part, of competitive tenders, and working under conditions of great stress"
  In circumstances like those it seems to me that fresh responsibility rests upon an old established Department like the Treasury to give constant guidance, counsel and control to the new Depart-

  1479
  merits that have been set up to do certain emergency work. Take the question of the Estimates of these new Departments. I found in cross-examining the witnesses that these new Departments were perfectly ready to prepare for Parliament Estimates in the usual way. They were Sub-departments in some cases of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture and in some cases independent Departments. They were one arid all prepared to present Estimates to the House of Commons, if required to do so. They were discouraged from doing so by the Treasury, on the ground, as far as I understood it, that the House or the Treasury had decided long ago that the expenditure out of Votes of Credit was not to be made the subject of Parliamentary Estimates presented in the usual way, that the War was regarded as an abnormal thing, that Estimates were prepared as far as possible in the normal way, and everything outside that normal way was to be dealt with without a formal Estimate. I cannot see that we should regard the War in that way at the end of three years. We have to adapt our system of life to war conditions. and we have to adapt our expenditure in the House of Commons to war conditions, and I press very strongly, from my experience on this Sub-committee, that we should have, in ordinary form, Estimates from these new Departments in every case where they can be put before the House without revealing vital information to the enemy. The only excuse for not presenting to the House Estimates which a Department is ready to provide is that it may be injurious to us from the fact that we are at war. Apart from that I do not think the House ought to accept any excuse of a general kind for not presenting full and detailed Estimates to the House. It seems to me very extraordinary that it should have been left to our Committee to urge this course upon the Government. I do think that we have reason to complain that the Treasury have riot made this demand for Estimates from these Departments and that it should have been left to a Committee to make that demand. I am glad to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to give to the House as full information as is practicable on this point, and I hope it may not be necessary to urge it again.
  Many of these new Departments are trading Departments and are trading on a very large scale in wheat, sugar,
  1480
  timber, and so on. They are buying on a very large scale and in some cases selling on a large scale, and I think the House ought to be in possession of the results of their operations. Where they are trading Departments their accounts should be presented to the House in some form, or if it is not desired to present them to the House they should be presented to our Expenditure Committee. It is exceedingly desirable that the House should be informed of the results of trading operations where they are carried on by these new Departments. If that is clone, if we have the results of their trading and if the Treasury will continue—and I am glad to think that they are doing it more now—to put those intelligent questions which any owner would put to his agent who was carrying out important operations for him, then, I think, we shall get the control that is possible during the War. Here I want to say, on behalf of the Treasury, which is coming in for criticism and attack, that no amount of Treasury criticism is Commons to take the place of House of Commons criticism. It is not enough for this House to appoint a committee. It is absolutely necessary that the House should keep up a sustained interest in these financial matters. The discussion to-day is a proof that the House wishes to support the Committee which it appointed. I hope all hon. Members will read the Report of the Committee. I have sat on toe Public Accounts Committee for about twelve years. We have had an occasional Debate on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. Those Debates have not been very frequent, but when they have taken place no one ha; taken part in the Debates except the members of the Public Accounts Committee and the Ministers concerned in the criticisms. It is exceedingly difficult to get the House to take the trouble to keep direct control over financial matters. The only way to keep control in this House over financial matters is to hold on and to keep that control in your own hands and not be content to put it into the hands of a committee, because committees get slack if no notice is taken of their work. W e are fresh, excited, and interested in our work now, but if you reappoint the National Expenditure Committee, and if we go on year after year, and if when the novelty has worn off the newspapers take no further interest in that Committee and the House ceases to take an active interest in that work, we shall become a mere routine department,

  1481
  there will be no one to ask the questions which are necessary, and without that continued watchfulness no system that can be devised will be really effective in promoting public economy.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON:I wish to join in offering the warmest congratulations and thanks to the members of the Select Committee on National Expenditure for their most exhaustive and valuable Report. Certainly there was need for the appointment of such a committee when we know that even since the introduction of the last Budget the expenditure on the War has risen from £6,250,000 to £7,500,000 daily. The practical question before us in this Debate, in view of the most valuable recommendations and suggestions made by the Committee, is how far, in a genuine, thorough sense. the Government and all the spending Departments of the State are going to give effect to those recommendations. We have had two lengthy replies from the Government in answer to questions put by the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. H. Samuel) who presided over the Select Committee, giving us certain assurances of changes that have been made or are intended to be made in the expenditure of public money. But the Committee suggests that there has been no such effort to secure economy, that the Imperial General Staff do not consider the money cost of any policy, that there is an absolute disregard of restriction in regard to doing anything on the ground of cost. No one would restrict cost so as to make our Army less well equipped and less efficient in the field in the prosecution of the War, but when we come to the expenditure with which we are faced to-day, and when we consider the Report which has been issued, it is perfectly clear that there is a huge waste of public money still going on. We have been told by the Government since this Committee reported that they are sending out to all the commands abroad and at home letters emphasising the necessity for further economies. We are also told that every soldier is to have repeated to him what was sent out in 1915, and apparently not repeated since, of the need of safeguarding his arms, munitions, and equipment. We are told, in reference to the stores and equipment, that the present inspection is entirely inadequate. We should like to know from the Government what changes they are making in that respect.
  1482
  The cost of maintaining the troops at home in this country raises a most important question. It also embraces subsidiary bodies of men who are not physically fit for active service. For instance, of one body, the Royal Defence Corps, we are told by the Committee that to maintain one sentry, a single post, by that corps costs no less than £850 a year. I believe that there are about 40,000 of these. men, and I am told that, if properly re-organised, one-half the number of men could quite well do the work, and we could effect a saving on that one item alone of £60,000 a week, or £3,000,000 a year. We believe that a much larger number of troops is retained in these Islands than is necessary on any military ground, in view of the fact that we have tens of thousands of trained soldiers with their arms and equipment constantly on leave in this country, that we have a large number of Colonial and other troops training here, and have a Volunteer Corps which might be utilised for national defence to a much greater degree than has been the case; and when we take all these forces into consideration there does seem to be need for a review of the whole of these questions, of the cost and number of men retained and maintained in this country, and as to what curtailment in numbers and reduction in expense are possible.
  Turning to the Admiralty, we have a Navy Controller appointed. There are allocated to him duties beyond all human possibility of being attended to efficiently by one man. This one man is to be responsible for inspection, repair, and maintenance of the material for the Fleet, including ships, and machinery, armour, guns, gun mountings, torpedoes, mines, etc., for all contracts relating to material, for the administration of dockyards and other Admiralty manufacturing establishments, and for the provision and repair of vessels for all other Government requirements, including the Ministry of Shipping and the War Office. Is it humanly possible for the greatest super-man that the world ever knew efficiently to manage, control, and direct all these multifarious and gigantic operations? Some vital change is needed if we are to have these Departments worked efficiently and with due economy. This Naval Controller is left by the Treasury free to appoint any number of officials with salaries not exceeding £1,000 a year, and an enormous number has been appointed. Then as to Admiralty contracts, they tell us that they

  1483
  cannot have competitive contracts, and we accept the statement. But is there any reason on earth why the principle of paying a contractor a percentage of the amount of money spent should be continued? Surely a bonus might be given to a contractor for the saving of money, and the reduction of expenditure on a particular contract, while you might deduct so much in case the expenditure exceeds the amount of the estimate. We should do everything to encourage the production of what we need at the lowest possible cost consistent with efficiency. There is no doubt whatever that the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, and the War Office ought to have insisted on having cost of production furnished on all occasions where possible, in order to guide them to what would he fair prices to pay in connection with such contracts. Then, again, we are told that the Admiralty are setting up four great national shipyards, and that the scheme was embarked upon without having first had any estimate whatever of the cost. That is a very serious charge, and when we remember that the existing shipyard and the machinery connected therewith have been very inadequately employed—I have it, on the best authority that the existing shipyard and the workshops in connection therewith work on an average very little over eight hours a clay, and if that were doubled it would be a great deal better to have that concentration and a great saving in the expenditure that will be incurred in connection with his national shipyard.
  With regard to the Ministry of Munitions, could anyone ever conceive it possible that a great Government Department wealth be allowed to expend £1,000,000,000 without any Treasury control? It is incredible. It is perfectly true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in war time, with this huge expenditure of £2,800,000 a year, cannot possibly exercise power over the spending departments as in normal times. But apparently because full control cannot he exercised the idea of exercising as much control as is possible in the circumstances has been given up, and apparently the Ministry of Munitions has simply been left to spend money as it chooses. Now I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at last stipulated that the Ministry of Munitions shall not advance more than £50,000 for the putting up of an additional shell or other
  1484
  factory, or give a further grant of more than £10,000 for any of these controlled or national factories, without having the approval of the Treasury. That is a step in the right direction. But if there is one Department in which there is urgent need of Treasury control and supervision it certainly is the Ministry of Munitions, and why we cannot have the recommendation that a Parliamentary Secretary charged with the finances of the Ministry, as in the case of the Financial Secretaries to the Admiralty and the War Office, accepted at once, I cannot imagine. All we are told is that it is being considered. The reply of the Government in regard to the absence of proper financial control, even in time Ministry of Munitions itself, is most lame, halting, and unsatisfactory.
  Of course the cessation of the system of competition in tendering for supplies renders Treasury control more urgently necessary than ever in the history of the country before, and the Committee tells us that in every Department it falls far short of the needs of the case and we are drifting into a higher and higher expenditure. I do want to have an assurance from the Government that they will take up the question of affecting drastic economies in every spending Department of the State. The Committee in the last Report state that the recommendations made in October do not appear to have been considered or dealt with. There is no doubt that in the staffs of the various new Government offices all over the country and in these temporary buildings erected in every square in London, in all human probability one-half, or at least one-third, of the employés in those Departments could quite well do the work, if properly organised, directed and controlled. Will anyone tell me that it was necessary in the Army Pay Department to increase the number of employés from 600 to 26,000? It is an absolute scandal. If you have an Army of 5,000,000 men now, as against 250,000 at the beginning of the War—that is an increase of twenty times the number—that would only mean 12,000 employés, as against 26,000. What I urge is that competent business men should be got to visit every one of these newly established Government Departments and to investigate what is the position in regard to the staffs and how far they should be diminished, and how far better organisation and control of these staffs would give much more satisfactory results. We are told, in regard to

  1485
  the huge number of employés in the new Government offices all over London, that the Government have appointed a Committee. Yet another Committee It is always a Committee, and unfortunately too often we hear nothing as to what the result has been.
  6.0 P.M.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend opposite that he and those who worked with hint inform the House of Commons as to the results of their investigations. This is encouraging. and I hope that it will give encouragement to the House to take the control of finances once more back into its own hands, and insist, in the interests of the country, on greater economy. If we have these. cycles of rise in value, a rise in prices, and then a rise in wages, those who get the rise in wages are no better off, because they have to pay further increase in prices for what they have to buy. There is no doubt whatever that the financial position, if this country goes on as it has, will will be of such a serious character that twelve months hence we shall realise, even if we do not realise now, the importance of doing all in our power to effect economies, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really as keen an economist as I am myself, and I think he must be indeed a superman to manage the duties of controlling the finances of the country, to be in the War Cabinet and to be the Leader of this House at the same time. I must say that we are enormously indebted to my right hon. Friend for his magnificent services during the War and for the depth and judgment he has so often displayed, but I do beg of hint to go a little further in trying to prevent the waste of Public money in every Department of the State. I raised the question in this House of the way in which the price of timber had been inflated by the neglect of the Government in regard to home-grown timber from the beginning of the War. At last action has been taken for the limitation of prices of different classes of wood. It was taken on the 4th December—only last month—but still the scale of prices, I do not hesitate to say, is two or three times as high as it would have been if the scale had been brought into effect in December, 1914, as it ought to have been. I apologise for detaining the House so long, but the question of economy and national expenditure is one in which I take the keenest interest.
  Mr. WILSON-FOX: I propose to offer a few remarks to the House upon this extremely important subject, and, I think, as an ordinary member of the Select Committee upon National. Expenditure, it may be of more interest to the House to state my general impressions upon the subject of our inquiry than to attempt to follow the exhaustive review of details which the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to. I have had, perhaps, special opportunities of forming a general impression, because I have had the privilege of serving under our most capable Chairman upon the Sub-committee which has been dealing with Departments which together have the greatest amount of work—the War Office and also the Pensions Department. A large number of witnesses were examined, and a great many special inquiries were undertaken. I would like to say at the outset, in reference to the enormous number of people who come under our review, as being entrusted with the expenditure of public money, that on the whole the impression I formed, and I think many of my colleagues also, has not been at all unfavourable, particularly in connection with the Army. I should like to say that I was surprised, both in this country and in France, to find among commanding officers the existence of an evident desire to exercise economy. Indeed, I was very much impressed by the keen desire exhibited by the majority, by far the greater majority, of those in command to effect economies where they could; but, while I say that, I must also say that the impression I formed was that the tender plant of economy had not received from above the encouragement which it requires if it is to grow well and strongly. At the same time, however, I think we must always remember that the future historian will say that the creation of the British Army as it exists to-day is the greatest work of improvisation ever seen, and the most successful improvisation. You must bear in mind the conditions under which it was carried out. I have not the slightest doubt that the great United States of America will exhibit a magnificent improvisation in their turn, but their improvisation will not be carried out under the extremely difficult conditions which attended the improvisation of the British Army, and the extension of the Navy and the establishment of its subsidiary Services. Therefore, no one can criticise at adversely or harshly the fact that in the opening stages of the War it was necessary

  1487
  not to count the cost, but to get things done, and they were done. We must remember that.
  Then I think there was some force in the remark of my right hon. Friend, who said that no one expected the War to last so long. That may be true, but, although it may be an excuse, it does not justify the failure to take measures to enforce necessary economies so soon as that was practicable. The War has now lasted four years, and the great improvisation was more or less brought to a conclusion, perhaps, after the first eighteen months. A long time, at any rate, has elapsed now for settling down, and I submit that much more might have been done than was done in the direction of economy. During that time, a number of zealous individuals were bringing forward ideas with a view to effecting greater efficiency and economy, and such suggestions as the Committee have been able to make have, as a rule, been the result. not of our own originality but of the ideas which were suggested to us, which we saw were good ideas that we would be able to support. That being so, and those ideas being in existence at the time that this Committee was appointed, one is. of course. tempted to the conclusion that had someone in authority, before our appointment, been as zealous as We tried to be, in securing support for those ideas, a great deal more might have been done, and done earlier, than was possible under the conditions which existed. I am afraid that the blame, if blame there he, and there must be blame, rests considerably with the top. I do not feel that it lies with the Departmental Treasury, and I am afraid those responsible were the Cabinet. I do riot know how it is organised; I do not know the relations of the War Cabinet and the various Departments of the State presided over by our Ministers.
  I view as a moving picture one zealous Department after another, each trying to do its best, and each competing for what it wanted and devil take the hindmost, but I cannot blame the Departments entirely. and so far front saying, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said, that it is impossible for one super-man to take over such numerous functions, I would observe that one man, or one group of men, must perform the
  1488
  super-function which is necessary to run the British Empire. Someone has got to perform the duty; if nobody does, then the result will be competition between the Departments, which must often result in failure, and always results in extravagance. Even at this period of the War, I hope that the Government will take into their very serious consideration whether enough has been done, not by the appointment of Committees, but by giving authority to one individual, or to a group of individuals, to carry out what has now become a very hackneyed expression, namely, the co-ordination of all the Departments entrusted with the spending of money, for, until that is done, there will continue to be waste. That is, I think, the chief lesson which is shown by the Report of our Committee. We have pointed out a number of small leaks through which money has been poured, But the great point is to have the whole situation thoroughly explored and thoroughly kept in hand by one, or, at most, two controlling minds. It is not for me to suggest the machinery. It may or may not be possible that such work could be combined with membership of the War Cabinet. Whether that is so or not, it is important for the Government themselves that there should be someone entrusted to perform these duties. I consider it an absolutely essential condition of further economy, that such an individual or group of individuals, should be secured. If the present atmosphere, which has been pointed out by many Members. is to be maintained and perpetuated, some step of that nature, I think, is necessary.
  There is one further observation I wish to make in regard to that subject. In all the functions entrusted to the Departmental Treasury, everyone who has come across the. work of that Department. must admit that everything it has taken in hand has been extremely well clone and most conscientiously and carefully done. The fault which we find with their work is, not that they have done badly what they have done, but that they have left so much undone. They showed no power, so far as I can see, of adapting themselves to new conditions. They should have asked themselves whether they could not go. outside the ordinary practice of the Department into new grooves and devise new systems for the Departments. I feel that trained minds, minds of that

  1489
  calibre, might have been applied to solving not old, but new conditions, and that in that way much more might have been done to promote economy. Whether they were encouraged or not to do it, I do not know. Looking at the record of the Departmental Treasury, which has scarcely increased its staff during the whole War, we find that it did not make that effort, and therefore work which would have been extraordinarily valuable and which certainly would have saved hundreds of millions, was left undone. I would like to make one or two remarks with reference to what fell from the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Walton). He singled out for blame the Army Pay Department. That is a matter to which the Committee gave a great. deal of attention. It is perfectly true that the staff of that Department, which was originally very small, did swell to a very large one, but the, impression left on my mind, and the minds of my colleagues, was that the way in which the Army Pay Department had been improvised was a marvellous piece of organisation. It may have been extravagantly done, though I am not sure it was, in the conditions. I know that the Department. has been attacked for various reasons, but, on the whole, considering the different interests with which it had to cope, certainly the work which it has done is one of which we ought to be proud. My saying that necessitates mention of its extremely able military chief, General Carter, and I should like to point also to the fact that it is presided over by that great public servant, Sir Charles Harris, who has probably done more than almost any other member of the Civil Service to maintain economical administration in the Departments in which the greatest expenditure has been going on, and to say that he deserves this recognition both by members of the Committee and Members of this House.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise only to draw attention to a single point in the Report of the Committee which has not, I think, had the attention it deserves, though my hon. Friend who spoke last referred to it Before I turn to that may I say, as one who has had some opportunities of judging, having served in the Treasury and in other positions both in and out of the Government which have brought me into connection with Sir Charles Harris and his work. how glad I as to hear the tribute which my hon. Friend has just paid to him with the
  1490
  general assent of the House May I also say that I think the House as a whole has reason to be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) and his colleagues for the inquiry they have conducted and the reports which they have presented. I promised that I would deal only with one point. and I propose to do so as briefly as I can. My hon. Friend, in the concluding portion of hi; speech, said that he thought that the Treasury had done every work well which it had attempted, but that it had not done as much as it ought to have clone. I am convinced, afer twenty-five years experience, of this House, and in Office, sometimes in the Treasury and sometimes in the spending Department, that it is upon the Departments in the first instance and upon the Treasury in the second instance that we must rely to prevent waste and to secure economy. My hon. Friend below me (Sir J. Walton), as an illustration of the fact. that hope springs eternal in the human breast, invites the House of Commons to resume its old control of finance. He thinks that that will promote economy. There is no more wasteful body than the House of Commons and there is no Minister or ex-Minister who will not confirm what I say that for one economy, good, bad or indifferent, which this House have helped him to make, they have forced upon him or tried to force upon him a hundred unnecessary extravagances. It is quite idle for us to pretend that the House of Commons favours economy. We do not. We hate imposing taxes, but we love spending money and very often we spend the money first and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer has afterwards to find it It is therefore on the Treasury, on the individual Departments, and on the central institution of the Treasury, that we must rely for economy and the prevention of waste.
  There is a paragraph in the Second Report of the Committee on page 3, under "Treasury Control," in which they draw attention to the fact of the smallness of the Treasury staff in peace time, and to the fact that it has hardly been expanded during the War. It is to draw attention to that point and to its moral that I rose. I am convinced that the Treasury is under-staffed. My hon. Friend says that they might have though out fresh ways of controlling money. There is no man in the Treasury who hat; any time to think about anything

  1491
  but his daily round and common task, yet at any time there were large problems looming in the future before the Treasury, and that Department, if any Department, wanted a thinking branch which would look ahead at those problems, which would collect information, which sooner or later the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government would require, and which would have made it their business to maintain a comparative study of the financial systems of different countries, and to see how our methods compared with other people's methods, and what the study of our Dominion methods might suggest to ourselves. There was no Department for that purpose in peace, and there is no Department for it now. If the problems were largo in pre-war times, they are larger now. I do urge on my right hon. Friend, and I hope he will not think it an unfriendly action of mine, that he should take to heart this paragraph of the Committee and see, even in the stress of these times, if he cannot strengthen the Treasury both for the purpose of economy control and, above all, for the thinking out of the great problems which are going to confront him and us within a short time. The Treasury has at all times a very small staff. You need picked men, you need men with a wide outlook, and it is of great importance that the Treasury should always he able to lend a man for the secretaryship of a Commission or a Committee. In that way he gets experience, widens his outlook, and becomes more a man of the world and less a man of routine. It is desirable that the Treasury should have such a staff that at any time it can lend, as it is sometimes asked to lend, financial advisers to a Dominion or Colonial Government. I assure the House that the Treasury is so narrowed in its staff that if you want to take a man from it now to do important national work which is not Treasury business, you cannot do it because they have not got a man to spare.
  When I was Chancellor of the Exchequer I was told that the Treasury could not afford to lend a man to one of our Colonies which had asked for a financial expert to look into their treasury system. I said that I would not allow such an answer to be returned by the Treasury to a Colonial demand as long as I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it was our business to be able
  1492
  to respond to the invitation, and that we must do it I tried then, and my tenure of office was very brief, to persuade the chief heads of the office, at an unusual meeting for the purpose, that it was necessary to expand the Treasury to the point of creating a new division, but I could not convince them in the short time that I was there, and, new as I was to the post, I did not like to override them. I think it is a great misfortune that I did not have the courage of my convictions and do it then. The opportunity arises to do something of the same kind now. The need is urgent, and beg of my right hon. Friend to fortify himself in the conclusion of the Committee that the limiting of the staff of the Treasury is not economy, and to expand it till it is equal to the great duties which it has to discharge.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly cannot regard what has been said by my right hon. Friend as in any way an unfriendly action. I entirely agree with every word of it, and I will only do my best to respond to the appeal he has made. It is perfectly true that there never was a greater need not only for men to do routine work at the Treasury, but for the men of the, calibre of mind and width of outlook which fits him to take a wide survey of the problems which are in front of us. I am glad to say this, and I say it quite freely, and I think I am unprejudiced, that from the point of view of ability, there is no Department in the world that has a more able set of men than the men who serve in the Treasury. There is also at present an arrangement which one would say was absolutely impossible in any well-conducted business. We have three heads at the Treasury as the result of war conditions, and the result of that is on the whole that, in spite of the pressure of work, there is more time for the heads to give advice to me than the House of Commons would consider likely or consider possible under ordinary conditions. Nobody knows better than my right hon. Friend how difficult it is to make additions to the Treasury. It is not only additional men that are wanted, but it is the getting of men of an exceptional type both in ability and experience. I need not say to my right hon. Friend, who has been helping the. Government so much that he knows as much about the Treasury as I do, that we have

  1493
  made efforts in that direction. We have had more outside help than perhaps the House of Commons knows. For instance, my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer set up a Committee of well-known business men in the City to deal with exchange problems. At this moment we have one very well-known business man—I am riot going to give the name or the details—in one neutral country, two in another, and two in a third, all giving gratuitous services to the State in trying to help us to deal with the exchange on the spot. Compared with other Departments, the help from outside experts in the Treasury is small. We have three well-known and very capable business men who are giving their whole time in helping us in work at the Treasury itself, and I may add that each one of them came without having any special or important work given to him, but they expressed readiness to do clerical work or anything else until they found work where their experience would be of the greatest use. They are doing us great service, and I sincerely hope we shall be able to get inure of that kind of assistance and do a great deal more to strengthen the staff of the Treasury.
  As regards this general Debate, the House of Commons will remember the conditions under which the Committee was formed. A Motion was put down which the Government could not accept in the form in which it appeared. We arranged a Debate then, and I think I convinced the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were not hostile to any effort intended to improve control of expenditure in this country. No one could be Chancellor of the Exchequer for a minute without knowing that improvement was possible and very desirable. We came to terms with regard to that Committee. What was almost a Parliamentary bargain was made, that the Government would allow the fullest form of reference on condition that the Committee entered upon its duties not with any idea of criticising, but in order to help in the problems brought before us. I have the greatest pleasure in saying that not only in the speeches which we have heard this afternoon, but throughout, they have Acted in that spirit and they have rendered non only to the country, but to the Government, great service by the recommendations which they have made.
  I should like to say a word or two, if I may, as to the point of
  1494
  view from which, since I have been in the Treasury, I have regarded this question of the control of expenditure. I was convinced, and I am convinced now, that when you have these immense Departments you must never leave out of sight the problem of material, and when you are dealing with Departments of that kind, spending such immense sums of money, it is quite impossible with any expansion of the Treasury staff that they could effectually control the way in which that business is done. I am sure of that. The most we can hope to do, and it is on that basis that the Committee have acted, is to try to get a good system of expenditure in those Departments and, if possible, to get good omen at the head to carry out those systems. My examination of their methods convinced me that things were perhaps not half so bad as was the general view outside, and I may, perhaps, add that my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Wilson-Fox) has said that that was the view impressed upon him by his examination as a member of the Committee. Going over the Departments one by one, I found in regard to the War Office that they admitted that at the beginning there had been great looseness which was inevitable, but that the system, partly due, I think, to a distinguished Civil servant who has already been referred to, had been immensely improved. I felt with regard to that- Department that what I would like to see would be one man responsible for the supply branch of the work who was capable of dealing with it and who had authority to do it Mr. Andrew Weir was put in that position, and I am glad to say I have had time to see in detail a great deal of what he has done, and I am not exaggerating in the least—and I am sure my hon. Friend will share my view; lie was on the War Office Committee—that what is being done there is saving the country immense sums now, and will save scores of millions before the War is over. At the Admiralty I found there was not quite the difference between war-time and peace-time that there was at the War Office, because, much as the Navy has expanded, it has not expanded in anything like the same proportion, and we were able to retain something of the old Treasury methods in dealing with the Admiralty. it has not been carried to quite the same extent. It has not been put in one hand to the same extent, but Sir H. Livesay is doing some-

  1495
  thing of the same kind, and, so far as I can gather, he is doing it with great advantage to the national purse.
  I come to the Ministry of Munitions. That was a new establishment, and a new system, and the House must not forget that when it was set up the one thing we wanted was to get the material at almost any cost. You must riot forget that, and, indeed, the Committee has recognised that, but what they have called attention to is that afterwards, when things got easier, more efforts were riot made to bring it under more complete control. I got from that Department a very elaborate account. of their system. I can assure my right hon. Friend that, on paper at least, it was pretty good. I found, for instance, that their method in dealing with contracts was to have a Costing Committee, which went into the cost of production, and placed the contracts on that basis. I thought that at a time like this, when we want the full product of any factory, when it is impossible to have competitive trading, you could not get a better system than that. It has been said that the Ministry of Munitions are slow to adopt the recommendations of the Committee. I do riot think that is so. I think they are trying to adopt them in the spirit as well as in the letter. I have had many conversations with my rigid lion. Friend the Minister of Munitions, and he authorised me more than a week ago, when the last conversation took place, to say that he has already appointed my hon. Friend beside me, one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, as Financial Secretary to act in the same way as the Financial Secretary to the other Departments. The expenditure in the Ministry of Munitions is I do not know how many times larger than the whole national expenditure before the War. I suppose it is more than three times. I should like to see, if it were feasible, a Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Department with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's authority to deal with everything within that Department.
  That is all I am going to say about. these Departments so far, but this Committee made two recommendations which thought were of the greatest value. They were in regard to two Committees. One was a Committee to look into this general question of expenditure—the methods adopted in the Department. the contracts, and everything connected with purchase in the Department. I appointed a Com-
  1496
  mittee. I took a great deal of trouble to get the men whom I thought were best for the purpose, and I am glad to say to the House, as an illustration of the public spirit you find everywhere, that the three men I asked are the only three men I asked—the men I thought were best for the purpose. and who at once accepted. One is Lord Inchcape, the chairman, the second is Lord Colwyn, better known as Sir Frederick Smith. and the third, Sir Peter McLelland, who has tendered very great service on the Advisory Board of the War Office. What they are going to do is to examine the very questions we are discussing—the means of getting the best system in the Department—and I hope that they will render invaluable service in that way. The other Committee is the one dealing with the staffs of the Departments. I think it is partly because of training, and partly because of temperament, I suppose, but what interests me is not so much principle as saving money, and, after all, expensive as these staffs may be, the amount of money involved is very small compared with that occasioned by a bad system of production and making contracts. But there is something more in it even than the question of money. One of the essential virtues of our Civil Service has been uniformity and control right through, and that is one of the directions in which the Treasury has always exercised, as my right hon. Friend knows, complete control. I am sure I am only expressing his sentiments as well as mine when I say that of the ordinary routine work of the Treasury the things that come inevitably to the Chancellor of the Exchequer are the things which are by no means the most important. For instance, somebody in a Department thinks that a particular employer deserves a higher rate of remuneration than is usual for the scale of work. He conies to the Treasury, who are unable to meet his wishes. But no colleague will be satisfied unless he has tried to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with his point of view, and that is the kind of thing with which one's time is constantly taken up, and which involves very little money.
  But I do realise the importance of dealing with this question. The Committee recommends that it should be a Treasury Committee. We want, if possible, not only to give recommendations, but to see them carried out, and in dealing with this question I thought that the men

  1497
  best likely to get at the root of it were men accustomed to Government Departments. The result of that is that I appointed Sir John Bradbury as chairman; Mr. Warren Fisher, one of the well-known public servants in Somerset House; and, in addition, Mr. J. Rostern, goods mangaer of the Great Central Railway, who was selected because of his great experience; and Mr. C. H. Wood, a City man, who is giving his full time to the question. My right hon. Friend suggested we should have a woman on the Committee. It has already been considered, and we have been looking out for one. I am sure he will agree with me that we arc not going to put a fifth member on the Committee because she is a woman, but we will put a woman on if she is fit for the work and will help us in it I am certainly making no reflection at a time like this, with the woman's franchise before us, on the capacity of women, but what I mean is you want here people of special experience in this kind of work, and if we can get a woman with that special experience then we shall add her to the Committee. I hope this Committee will be useful, and I may say this: if it is not, it is a very great waste of two very able public servants, who would not have been put on if the Government had not meant it to be a real committee, and hoped that something would result.
  I shall deal as briefly as I can with a number of points raised in the Debate. My right hon. Friend opposite raised a question of having ordinary estimates in many of the Departments. He said that the only objection he could see was if the information given was information that would be of use to the enemy. There are many more practical objections than that. I have already said in answer to the question asked by my right lion. Friend that, in presenting this information, we shall give all the details we can, so that the House may see how it stands. I believe that is as much as we ought to do and I hope the House will be satisfied. Let me point out what the difficulties are. If you are going to take any Department, such, for instance, as the Board of Trade, and if you are going to frame estimates m any of these Departments, you cannot foresee in advance with any accuracy what the War expenditure even in those civil Departments will be, and the result would be that we should have constantly supplementary estimates, apart from other disadvantages, without
  1498
  any useful purpose. That is my view, but I have already said we shall give all the information we can in that, statement.
  A great deal was said about inflation. The heads of the Treasury have great theoretical knowledge as well as practical experience. They are always afraid of inflation, and we have certainly done our best prevent it. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend, the inflation of the note issue is small in this country compared with what it has been, for instance, in Germany, and of course no one can doubt that inflation of currency does tend to higher prices. The House will have to remember that these notes are not created in order to pay for debts; they are only created as the demand is there for the currency. The banks get them in the same way as in ordinary time they get gold currency. I do not think we have to go very far to see the real explanation before our eyes of this inflation of prices. After the War broke out the supply of commodities was diminished. If there had been a falling off in spending power—a great reduction of wages—that supply would have been counteracted, but, of course, that could not happen. Wages were again raised to meet the increased prices. Then prices rose once more, and wages were again raised to meet the increased cost. The wheel goes round indefinitely, with this result in the main, that the working men who arc getting higher wages, in so far as those higher wages only represent the increased cost of living, are no better off, but those who have not been able to increase their income are ever so much worse off, and every pound that the Government borrows is made almost two pounds because of this inflation of prices.
  This brings me to another point, which was dwelt upon as most important by my right hon. Friend opposite. That is the relation between the Cabinet and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to what extent he controls the expenditure, and to what extent he is overruled by other Departments. I ask the House to look at that matter, as I do, quite impartially. My right hon. Friend gave five or six instances of increased expenditure. I listened to them very carefully. Let me mention some. Some were unimportant in amount comparatively, though we would not have thought them so four or five years ago. These include advances to teachers, increased pay to soldiers, etc. One of them was very controversial—that was the

  1499
  subsidy on the loaf. We discussed this before in the House at the time it was agreed to. I said then that it was a question in which there was room for great difference of opinion. Of course, the House knows quite well—and I venture to say this, whatever else may be in doubt—that if all the circumstances had been presented to the House of Commons as they were to us, whether it were wise or unwise, the majority in this House of Commons would have voted in favour of that recommendation. hook at other items of expenditure: additional advances to our soldiers and advances to our officers. At a. time like this members of the Cabinet and Chancellors of the Exchequer have to look at what these men are doing in comparison to others who are staying at home. When we think of the higher wages those at home are getting it really made it more and more impossible not to deal more generously with those who are running the terrible risks of war. I know my right hon. Friend opposite does not question that at all; I am only giving it as an illustration of the difficulty of stopping this increased expenditure. All I can say is this: it is clearly the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at every item of expenditure, and see whether or not he can use his influence to stop it. I hope I am doing that. But I will say this: that if any item of expenditure is put forward which, either on such grounds as I have mentioned just now or on the ground of enabling us to put ourselves in a position to make more progress with the War, I would not take a different view as Chancellor of the Exchequer to that which I would take as a member of the War Cabinet. It is the necessity of the case that should be considered. I do not think it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to oppose every expenditure because it is expenditure, but only when he is satisfied that it is not needed from the point of view of being helpful or necessary to the carrying on of the War.
  The only other general point made is as regards the proportion of expenditure which is raised by taxation and by borrowing. I do not think anybody on principle would differ from this, that we ought. to raise now every penny that we can safely do by taxation. The difference of opinion comes in as to what is a fair proportion. And there I differ, so far, from many of my hon. Friends in this
  1500
  House. There must be differences of opinion. My own view is that, in view of all the circumstances, the proportion raised by taxation is a pretty heavy one, and not far from being as much as can be safely raised without interfering with our means of raising money to carry on the War. That is my view. All I will add with regard to that is to say that the expenditure—the figures I gave in answer to a question the other clay show it—has not been increasing lately, but is rather less, and I have every reason to hope that the total expenditure out of the Vote of Credit at the end of the financial year will not be so large as at one time, quite recently, we had reason to expect. That is all I am going to say on that subject. I would like, if I may, to take the opportunity of thanking every Member of the House who has spoken for the complete absence of anything like a desire to annoy -the Government, or its representatives, and for the friendly way in which the whole thing has been discussed.
  As I promised, before I sit down, I am going to say a few words, and as few as possible, about the reference made by me to a deputation on the subject of the possibility of a tax upon capital. When I said I would speak on the subject in the House of Commons I thought it better to do it here, as Leader of the House, than to make any statement in the Press. I intended to deal with it to the extent that my examination of the subject would enable me to do, by looking into the whole question. I am not going to do that I have decided not to do that—for this reason: I could not, I am afraid, argue it without giving the impression that I was in my own mind committed to it I certainly was not. The House knows—at least I fancy those interested in it do—how this subject has arisen. I looked upon it, and I look upon it now, as for the present an academic question. A deputation representing two Labour groups came to see me in private. They talked about a grant many things—amongst others. the conscription of wealth. When one has to deal with a subject. of that kind. I only know of two methods of dealing with it The one is to say what you think; the other is to say nothing In this case I really thought. that I was perfectly free, seeing that the deputation was private, to say what I thought about the matter, and the words I used showed I was not expressing any considered opinion. I myself think it is a pity that what was said at that private

  1501
  deputation should have been made public. I regret it, not for the personal inconvenience—for at a time like this a little inconvenience, more or less, does not matter—but it is a pity that Ministers should not be free to talk with greater frankness and less responsibility on occasions like this without the risk of publicity. As a matter of fact, the statement given in the Press was, so far as I know, an accurate report of what I said. I judge from some comments in the Press that I have gone over to the doctrines of the Bolshevists. If so, it is an unconscious conversion. I was, indeed, reminded of an incident that occurred at the time of the French Revolution. Marat was then recommending as a method of securing his ideal State the cutting off of the heads of a large number of people—I think it was 30,000 aristocrats. That was considered rather strong even for the Revolutionary assembly. The people began speaking about the matter and wanted an explanation. Marat got up and made a very simple speech. He said, "Well, that is my opinion." I do not think my lapse from virtue is quite so bad, but I must give the same answer, and that is that I expressed my own views.
  7.0 P. M.
  What are they? They simply are, that the question of whether or not, as a means of diminishing the war debt, a capital levy is possible, is a question in regard to which I have a perfectly open mind. That is my view. I want the House also to understand what was not involved in my view. There has been a good deal of talk about the contrast between the conscription of wealth and the conscription of life. I wish it were possible that there should not be this contrast. If it were possible to save life by conscripting wealth I do not think there is one man in this House who would hesitate; but, as it is not possible, the comparison is absurd. We are proud of the way in which all classes of the community, before conscription, went to serve their country. file wealthy classes have certainly paid their full toll in that respect. There is another thing. This idea of a capital tax is put forward as a motive of socialising the whole of our industrial life. I think, however, a fiscal scheme, whether it is good or bad, is not to be judged by the motives of those who think it would suit their purpose. Indeed, as a matter of fact, if ever a Government were established in this country which desired to take that course I do not think it would be influenced by precedent. I
  1502
  think, on the contrary, it would very likely consider the fact that it had been done before would be a reason for not doing it again. Further than that I said—if I remember rightly—that the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn showed us before the War that if that sort of thing were to be done, and the Government were supported in doing it, it could be done in effect quite as easily and almost as effectively by using the Income Tax and Super-tax as a means of confiscation. Indeed, as a matter of fact, it would be more easy, because the taxation of capital, being a new ilea, would very likely raise more opposition. I do not think that I need say much more about it. I do not in the least wish to have a subject like this treated as if it were a practical question now. All that I do claim is—and this is essential—for, of course, if it means confiscation, then I have no right to my view—all I think is that there is nothing of confiscation if such a thing were done. The War Debt which we are now incurring is like a mortgage on the country. It has behind it the security, not only of the revenue, but of all the assets of this country. Therefore, if the thing in itself were, which remains to be seen, wise, there is no confiscation about it any more than the present system of taxation. Of course, there is confiscation in one sense when taxation is partial; and in one sense this is partial because it deals only with wealth, but I am sure the House will agree that also is true of the Income Tax which so large a proportion of the population do not pay. In its essentials there is nothing confiscatory in this proposal. I need not point out the objections to a tax on capital, for they are obvious. For example, when I first thought of it at all I had in mind it commutation of Income. Tax, but it would be said when you have taken that tax what guarantee have you that they will not spend that money, not pay off the debt, and not reduce Income. Tax. I do ask the House of Commons to consider the other side—to consider what will be the effect of an Income Tax for one or two generations on the present scale. You may look upon that as a possible expedient, and it is not the only expedient I have considered. When I was at the Colonial Office I was struck by the evidence of immense natural resources in many of our Colonies. I thought it was possible that the time might come when

  1503
  we could pay off part of our National Debt by rapidly developing through the State these resources. I find that a Committee was formed with that idea, and it is represented in this House by my hon. Friend behind me. I need not point out to the House how many objections would be raised to that kind of proposal if one were seriously to put it forward. I can imagine people saying that what I suggested was Socialism. In the same way you would find people saying that to try to develop the resources of our Colonies for the benefit of this country in that way would be exploiting them. All I claim is that we are going to be faced with a new situation when the War is over, and that we have to look at every suggestion on its merits.
  It may quite well be, as I have seen suggested, that I have only had this lapse from virtue because I have not had that deep grasp of economic principles possessed by my friends. That is quite possible. I do not object to it, and I never had any ambition to be thought wiser than I am. As a matter of prophecy I believe that that problem and many others of the same kind must be dealt with when we are facing the problems of re-construction at the end of the War. I know that in other belligerent countries the subject is being much more discussed than here. I read an articl in two enemy papers last week, one strongly condemning it and the other recommending it, each of them written by a German banker, so that it is evident that it is not regarded by them eaher as a class or a political issue. All I say about it is this: I do claim the right to look at any problem of that kind with a perfectly open mind, and if it ever does become a. practical question, and I am still in political life, I will oppose or support it simply from the point of view of whether I believe it is or is not in the national interest.
  Mr. ASQUITH: My right hon. Friend has justly said that this is a non-controversial Debate, but it has presented a number of interesting features, and perhaps none more interesting than the disclosure of the psychological movements of the mind of a Chancellor of the Ex-chequer under the stress and pressure of war problems. My purpose in intervening is rather to deal with the general question that has been raised in all the speeches of the relations which exist, or ought to
  1504
  exist, in the conditions in which we find ourselves in regard to national expenditure between the Departments, the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House of Commons. I belonged, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who addressed us a few moments ago, to what is now an obsolete species, namely, the class of Chancellors of tile Exchequer who had to deal with the finance of what has now become the "Stone Age." In those primitive days our business was comparatively a simple one. We had three functions and three only to which to devote our attention and time—the repayment of debt, the remission of taxation, and the reduction of expenditure. A Chancellor of the Exchequer situated like my right hon. Friend is to-day cannot, unfortunately, busy himself with any of these problems. What he has to do is not to pay off, but to accumulate. debt, not to remit, but to impose taxation, not to reduce, but to increase expenditure. I say he has to do so. But when I say that, I mean that he is an unwilling or a reluctant spectator, but a necessary participator as a member of the Government, in all these processes, which are essential for the due prosecution of the War and the attainment of the ends which as a nation we have in view.
  When the War broke out, that new condition of things of necessity arose, and much of our old machinery, departmental and supervisory, became inadequate and ill-adapted to the new problems which were involved. Even in the old days before the War, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has quite properly pointed out, one of the great difficulties a Chancellor of the Exchequer had to encounter was not the zeal of the House of Commons for economy, but the pressure of the House of Commons—an always increasing pressure—for new forms and heads of expenditure. I will not go into particular cases on the present occasion, but anybody who studies the Parliamentary history of Old Age Pensions and National Insurance will see that there is abundant illustration there of the truth of my right hon. Friend's proposition. I do not say the House of Commons was wrong; I am not saying that for a moment. The House of Commons presumably was then, as now, the authentic exponent of the will of the majority of the people, but to represent the House of Commons as though at any

  1505
  time or at any stage of its existence within living memory it was an efficient and a vigilant instrument of public economy is a travesty of the facts. One of the reasons for which we all welcome the appointment of this Committee—to whose admirable work, if I may do so, I would add my tribute, as have done all preceding speakers, not members of the Committee, who have taken part in the Debate—was that by such machinery as that the House of Commons could really and effectively satisfy itself, and through itself the country, that this large and lavish expenditure in which we are involved was being wisely administered, and that the stewardship the nation has entrusted to public Departments was being faithfully discharged.
  On the whole I am bound to say, after studying the Reports of the Committee, that its verdict is not an unsatisfactory one. Previous speakers have pointed out that the machinery which has served us well enough in time of peace has had thrown upon it a multiplicity of new duties and cares involving an enormous extension of its personnel, and an equally incalculable enlargement of its area, and so must of necessity have taken time to adapt itself to these unforseen and unforseeable conditions. In the old days—and my object in calling attention to it is to see how far the principles that governed us in the past are applicable now—the real safeguard for economic expenditure, apart from the House of Commons, was twofold.
  In the first place, the existence in the spending Departments themselves of a financial branch whose duty it was to see that the money asked for was required and was duly expended. We had in the War Office a very distinguished Civil servant who controlled the finances of the War Office for many years. I have been Secretary of State for War myself, and I know how admirably he has discharged this most difficult and delicate function. We have similar officers in the Admiralty, and those w ere our two great spending Departments. Their work was very efficiently done; but while we had this domestic tribunal in the Department itself no new expenditure of any importance could be incurred without obtaining the sanction of the Treasury. The Treasury used to be compared in those days to the ancient mythological figure of Cerberus; arid it is interesting to know that, even in time of war, it has a superficial resemblance to that famous
  1506
  figure, because I understand it has now acquired three heads. But, seriously, it is a matter which everyone who has been at the Exchequer must realise. It was a daily and an hourly occurrence that no spending Department would ever incur any new and large item of expenditure—not even to pay an increased salary for exceptional reasons to a clerk—without it going to the Treasury, and, very often, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was a very good system, and on the whole it worked very well, but I agree that it was inapplicable to the time of war.
  I understand the objects of this Committer, so ably presided over by my right hon. Friend—whose recommendations are being attended to, I am glad to see, by the right hon. Gentleman—are, first, to strengthen what I call the domestic tribunal in the Department, particularly in such a new Department as that which deals with Munitions, and, next, if you cannot restore Treasury control in all its old fullness, at least, wherever any substantial increase, either in kind or in quantity of expenditure is required, that Treasury sanction should be obtained. I understand my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, to have carried into effect—he has described some of the means by which he has done so—both those recommendations. I am not quite sure, particularly after listening to the speech made earlier in the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Colonel Collins) that in the Munitions Department that process has been carried at present to the extent which the necessities of the case demand. The expenditure of that Department, as my right hon. Friend has said, exceeds by a very great deal the total annual expenditure of the country before the War. Although it is quite true that in its early days, when the provision of munitions was the supreme necessity of the country, much of necessity was allowed to go through without minute financial supervision, yet in the conditions in which we now live—we are no longer, happily, in the same state of necessity in that matter—I trust that the steps recommended by the Committee, and outlined in mote detail by my hon. Friend, will be taken effectively and without delay.
  There is one other topic on which, perhaps, I may say one word. I am invited to do so by the concluding observations of my right hon. Friend. The annual expenditure of the country has reached a point not

  1507
  only unparalleled, but undreamt of by anyone before the War. Even the Budget estimate of our daily expenditure presented less than a year ago has been exceeded by, I suppose, something very nearly approaching £1,300,000 a day. [An HON. MEMBER: £1,250,000.] I suppose that would be the average.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: A little over £1,000,000.
  Mr. ASQUITH: A little over £1,000,000, which means between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 in the course of the year. The House will be glad to hear that increase, at any rate for the time, has been arrested, but as it stands it is a most formidable sum. I am far from dogmatising as to the precise line of demarcation, if that were possible, which ought to be drawn, in view of such exigencies, between the provision to be made by taxation and to be made by borrowing. All I would venture to say upon that is that, in cases of real doubt, the decision ought to be on the side of additional taxation than of additional borrowing. It is safer in the long run, although not easier. As to the form that additional taxation should take, of course the judgment must rest in the first instance with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He appears to have discussed in a private interview with a deputation, the question of a possible resort to a tax upon capital. He has told the House to-day that that was a purely academic discussion. He did not commit himself in any way to such a proposition. He merely threw it out as one of a number of possible suggestions that might be considered for the purpose of meeting an unprecedented emergency.
  I do not desire in the least to rule out as a possible form of taxation, in some contingencies, a tax upon capital. I see many difficulties in the way—enormous practical difficulties, quite apart from what I may call the ethics or merits of the case—practical difficulties. which, as far as my experience of finance goes, arc to my mind for the moment unsurmountable. But I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend never meant to give any different impression. In some quarters a construction has been put upon what he is reported to have said which, I am quite sure, he never intended. I am speaking, I need not say, not in the interests of one class of the community any more than of another—certainly not more in the interests of Capital
  1508
  than of Labour. Nothing is further from my thoughts or inclinations. But I am perfectly certain, when you approach even a discussion of these matters, that you should leave no doubt in the public mind—the mind of this country, or of people abroad, whether they be enemies, friends, or neutrals—that whatever form of taxation you may embark upon, anything in the nature of repudiation of our national obligations, direct or indirect, is a thing which this country will never contemplate, and can never pursue. And when I say repudiation, I use the term in its largest and wisest sense, fur von may have what is in effect repudiation under veils and disguises which conceal, perhaps, from the superficial observer its real character, but which none the less strikes at the root of that confidence in the security of the man who has lent his money to the State under a sense of patriotic duty, for the purpose of meeting a great national necessity, that sense of confidence which it is as important to preserve and which is as much one of our great assets in war as is the courage and endurance of the nation at large. I say that in unequivocal language, not because I have the faintest doubt or suspicion that contrary views are entertained, or will be entertained, in any responsible quarter in this House, but because I think it is of the highest importance not only that our own people, but that the world at large, should know that the credit of this country is as unimpeachable and as secure in its foundations as it ever was at any time in our history.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: The subject that has just been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of his speech and by the late Prime Minister is one of such vital moment to the country—it affects the rate at which we can borrow and it is affecting the whole future finance of this country and its reputation—that I claim, as a very humble business man,. who, however, has made some special study of this subject, just to say a word or two about it. I am in favour of the conscription of wealth, but not the taxation of capital. There is a wide difference between the two things. Conscription of wealth may be expedient, just as I believe it is inevitable. In some forms, however, and I maintain most strongly in the form of a levy on capital—it does not make any difference to me whoever favours it; I am here to tell what I believe to be the truth—or of taxation of capital, it is

  1509
  unjust, inexpedient, and will not work out to the interests of the poorest classes of the country any inure than of the wealthiest. The cry for the conscription of wealth is very specious and may he very misleading. In so far as it implies, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already told us, that the well-to-do classes of the community have not given their toll of life and limb to the service of the country, it is a misleading and unfair cry. Rich, poor, and middle-classes have all suffered of their best. Nor is it true that there has been up to now no conscription of wealth. The trading classes in particular, and especially young traders who began business immediately before the War, have been very heavily and in some cases very unfairly hit by that tax, a very good tax in itself, the Excess Profits Duty, and I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the time comes, to endeavour still further to improve the tax so that beginners in business may not be mulcted, as so many of them have been, of almost 85 per cent. of their income.
  I know of cases in my own Constituency of men who began business just before the War and who have not actually the money with which to pay the Excess Profits Duty, their money being locked up in their business. Even those supposed monsters of iniquity, the payers before the War and since the War of Super-tax, are having a part of their wealth very properly conscribed. I quite agree with the Super-tax, and I should be prepared to raise it still higher. But while heavily taxing them, do not let us be so hypocritical as to deny that we are already conscribing wealth. If ever there was conscription of wealth, the Super-tax upon rich men is conscription of wealth. Even the Income Tax itself is a form of conscription of wealth, because it is graduated from the lowest to the highest and makes the man with a certain income pay much more simply because he is rich. "Ah, but," say the advocates of taxation of capital, "you are only speaking of income; what we want is to deprive men of their capital !" It is as well that issue should be openly put in the house of Commons. There is a desire on the part of some, I believe honestly, to deprive men of their wealth, because they think it is in the national interest to do so. For twenty-three years past the capital of dead men has been conscribed by the Chancellor of
  1510
  the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, long before 1594, Legacy Duties and Probate Duties were to a certain extent a taxation a capital. In the year 1894, under Sir William Harcourt, the principle of taking a share of a deceased's estate was established and has been practised by every Chancellor of the Exchequer in the country since. We, therefore, have tile principle of the conscription of dead men's capital already established. What I understand to be now proposed is that slices of capital should be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer every year, perhaps oftener, from the estates of living men. That is the new principle it it is sought to engraft upon our system of national finance. It is being advocated on two grounds, and by two different sets of people. I should be doing no ·wrong to the real authors of the proposal if I were to say that they hold Communistic principles and that in the public interest they think that the means of production of the country would be greater if those means were owned entirely by the community. I give them credit for sincerity, but I deny the fairness of an attempt to introduce Socialism under the cover of taxation. As for those who call for what is termed sometimes "conscription of wealth," and at other times more definitely "taxation of capital," and who have not definitely Socialism in view, but who think by this means to stave it off, they say, "What a large debt we shall have after the War; how burdensome it will be; how inconvenient ! There are many rich people in the country whose capital, if you took a large slice of it, would help you to pay off the National Debt and save the burden for years to come. Let us take their capital, such of it as seems fair, and pay off a large part of the National Debt with it. Why should we be burdened for generations with all the interest and the principal of a large National Debt, when we might get rid of a part, if not all of it, so easily?"
  That kind of talk reminds one of what the Kings of England did hundreds of years ago, when they took hold of rich Jews and threatened to pull out their teeth if they did not give their wealth to the service of the King. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reminded us, it is a little bit akin to the programme of the Russian Bolsheviks at the present time, who have just declared that in the interests of the country they repudiate the National Debt, incurred, let me remind

  1511
  the House, in some part to the taxpayers of this country, owing to the loans made to them by our own Government. I shall be very glad to hear what the taxpayers of this country say as to the repudiation of their debt by the Russian Bolsheviks. Among the rules of government which the present rulers of Russia have to learn, not the least important is that it does not pay a Government in the long run to be dishonest and to repudiate its debts. The easy way is generally the wrong way. If any British Government ever were to repudiate either directly or indirectly its National Debt it would deal a mortal blow at what is our greatest national asset—I mean our world-wide reputation for honesty and fair dealing. After all. one does find in travelling the world over that the word of an Englishman does carry weight. What would it be worth if the British Government were to repudiate, either wholly or partially, its financial obligations? It may be asked: "Who talks of repudiation?" It may be claimed that no one does, and that what is proposed is only a reasonable way of raising the necessary revenue.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) is not here tonight, because he moved the resolution at the meeting of the Labour party last Friday, which was passed, nemine contradicente, not only demanding the taxation of or a levy upon capital, but that after the War the Chancellor of the Exchequer should "consolidate the Debt at a lower rate of interest." We are entitled to know what that means. Does it mean that if, after the War, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can induce those who have lent their money to the Government, by some fair means or some open arrangement, say, for a longer term of years or for some other consideration to take a lower rate of interest, that he should do so? There would be no need to pass any resolution to urge any British Chancellor of the Exchequer to lower the rate of interest- on the National Debt by any honest and fair means. He would only be too glad to do so. I am most reluctant to believe that the Labour party's resolution means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the War is over is to break his bargain and rob the creditors of the Govenment of part of the interest due to them. We are entitled to be told what that resolution means. For my own part, I do not believe that
  1512
  a body of representative British working men would ever pass such a resolution, realising such a meaning. I cannot believe for a moment that such a sinister interpretation of it is the correct one, for the simple reason that I believe in the honesty of the great mass of my countrymen of all classes.
  On the larger question of what is called "a tax upon capital," I am sure there is room for much misunderstanding. If I may venture to say a word of comment upon the Chancellor's attitude, I think his honesty was greater than his prudence when he said what he did on a certain notable occasion in October or November. I have no right, perhaps, as a private Member, to express any opinion as to what a great man like a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to do, but it is a very dangerous thing, even for a private Member, to express half-formed opinions.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Honesty!
  Mr. TAYLOR: Honesty I admire, but it is better to form a final opinion before allowing it to go out to the world. The greater the man the greater the responsibility and the greater danger which a half-formed opinion produces. On the larger question of a tax upon capital, there is room for much misunderstanding. Undoubtedly many people favour it on very superficial grounds, without thoroughly studying it, who, if they did understand it, would oppose and not support it A favourite argument in support of the taxation of capital runs something like this: "A levy upon capital is only like Income Tax in another form or another form of the Death Duties. It is just as if, instead of waiting till a man dies you reckon that he dies once a year, or once in two years, and you say you will take 10 per cent. now and pretend. that he is dead. It does not make any difference to us as a nation. We have to pay the money at some time, and the sooner the better. When we call upon a man to pay £1,000 into the National Exchequer, what does it matter to him whether we call it Income Tax or Capital Tax? He has to find the money just the same." My argument on that is that if there is no difference in the name, why call it a Capital Tax? If a rose would smell as sweet by any other name, why call it a Capital Tax? Why not call it Income Tax? There is a very obvious reason for that. A man would never be called upon by the Government to pay

  1513
  more than his whole income in a year in the form of Income Tax. I believe that we can arrange to finance the War without an Income Tax of more than 10s. or 12s. 6d. in the £. Even if the War goes on for another year, I am sanguine enough to believe that an increased Income Tax and raised Death Duties would enable us to discharge our liabilities.
  Let me put the case to hon. Members. Let us say it was proposed to levy a tax upon capital. We are given two alternatives for doing it In one case a tax say of 10 per cent. is to be levied at once on your capital, be it large or small. No guarantee is given; indeed, no guarantee can be given that that, levy of 10 per cent, would not be repeated after a short interval. Thus, if a 10 per cent. levy on capital does well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year, probably next year he or another Chancellor of the Exchequer might make it 20 per cent., and the year after 30 per cent. The more admirable the idea the greater the probability that those who admire that kind of thing would repeat the dose. It may be said by the advocates of that tax, "We do not mean to repeat it just yet awhile, at all events." What would their promise be worth? Just nothing! Nobody in the world knows the utter valuelessness of binding any future statesmen or Parliament by any enactment passed by the present Parliament than do Members of this House. Let us now take the other alternative. No British Government has ever yet made a levy upon the capital of a living man. Let us suppose that the Government says, "We do not mean to do so, and, as a proof of that, even under the pressure of the present circumstances, we will not levy a capital tax, but in earnest of the fact that we are going to pay our way, we will increase the Death Duties to a substantial amount." Does anyone mean to tell me that he himself would have as great an objection to higher Death Duties on his own estate as he would have to an immediate levy on his capital in his lifetime? After all, Death Duties, except by way of provision of life insurance, are not paid in a man's lifetime. He does not see his savings taken away from him before his very eyes. Up to the present the man who saves and lends to the Government has not been deprived of his capital. If he has saved much and has a larger income in con-
  1514
  sequence of his savings, then he has to pay a heavy Income Tax and he has to pay a larger share of his income, but his capital is safe as long as he lives, and most men live as long as they can.
  One vital difference between Death Duties and what I may term life capital Duties in their effect upon the people who pay them is that in the one case they actually stimulate saving and economy, while in the other case they actually stimulate expenditure and extravagance. A man will—men do—save to provide against Death Duties. If you take away part of a living man's capital and thereby threaten to take from him the remainder of his capital, you kill in him the motive for self-denial and make him say to himself, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." What is the urgent need in our national finance at the moment? Is it not that individually we should spend less, so that the Government may have the necessary money to spend on, as far as possible, winning the War? How is the threat of a levy on capital going to help the Government in selling War Bonds? I am assured by some of our greatest banking authorities to-day that the fear of this is doing a good deal to prevent the sale of our War Bonds. I will not weary the House by dwelling upon the impracticability, nay the impossibility of actually carrying out the programme of taxing capital. Take the case of a tradesman. One ease is quite enough, say, a tradesman in a country town.. a draper or a grocer in a large way of business, worth £2,000, who has borrowed as much as he can of his bankers, say £1,000. The Government go to him and say, "We are going to tax you 10 per cent. of your capital; we want £200 from you." Where is he to borrow the money? Only from the bank. The bank will say, "No, we have lent you as much as we can. You are worth £2,000 now, you are going to be worth £200 less, and we shall lend you less, not more." Remember that at the same time the bankers would be pulled at by their clients all over the country to lend them more money. The great mistake made by the men who are in favour of this taxation of capital is in imagining that traders all over the country have large balances at their bank which they can pay out. The very contrary is the case in regard to the great bulk of the traders of this country. To the poor people, the struggling people, it would mean ruin to them to take a substantial share of their capital.

  1515
  Of course there is the alternative put forward by those who propose the taxation of capital who say, "Let the Government take over, instead of 10 per cent, in money, one-tenth share in the businesses of the country and perhaps the following year a one-fifth share of the businesses." That again would apply to a large proportion, indeed the larger proportion of the businesses in this country. We should have to put in a Government receiver in every business that could not pay in cash its quota of the tax of one-tenth or one-twentieth as the case might be. We should have established all over the country in every town a new institution, more officials, more interference and not, I maintain, a greater national income, as I have no doubt Socialists honestly believe would be the case, but I am certain there would be a much less total national income than we have to-day. Does any sane man believe that more profits and a greater national income would accrue from the perpetual interference of the Government with private businesses? No, there is a better way. The proper function of Parliament and of the Government is to prevent abuse and to regulate things for the benefit of the great bulk of the people. A better way to make money is to allow a man to manage his own business. Tax his income, but leave him free to make that income. After all, what the Government want is not an addition to capital, hut an addition to income. I cannot insist upon that too strongly. What the Government needs to-day is a larger command over the income of all kinds of people. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to study this question. He told us with most engaging frankness—and I admire, and have done for a long time, his frankness with the House; I admire his truthfulness, if I may respectfully say so—but I do beg him to put an end, as far as he is concerned, to all the doubts and suspicions which are at present hampering the issue of our national loan. I am aware that increased Death Duties can only raise part and perhaps only a small part of the money we need, I am afraid the bulk of the new income must come from a higher Income Tax, and from special taxation on luxurious expenditure. I know that it is odious for any Government to set up sumptuary laws, but it may be, before the War is over, the Government will be compelled
  1516
  to have recourse to this sort of taxation. Let us by all means look to Income Tax as the main source of our revenue. I was talking to one of the wealthiest Members of this House the week before last. He is a large Income and Super-tax payer and he said he would rattier pay an Income Tax of 12s. 6d. in the £ than have his capital taxed, and he believed that such a thing as a tax on capital would be a disastrous thing for the whole country. Without imposing an Income Tax of 12s. 6d. I think we can carry on our finances:
  I am not opposed to conscription of wealth, on the contrary, I am in favour of it in a wise and just form, in a form which will produce, but not destroy, income. I warn the advocates of a levy on capital that their policy, instead of increasing the national income would both lower the national credit and reduce the national income. The policy of a levy on capital is a policy of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is the policy of the Sultan of Turkey, who cuts down olive trees instead of taking a toll on the olives. It is the barbarous policy of Oriental despots rather than the policy of our enlightened Western democracy. I believe in the honesty of the people. I desire that this subject should be openly, frankly and freely discussed. The more it is discussed, the more I am sure it will be seen that it is not practicable or expedient, but would tend to lower our national credit. It would not help us in our present difficulty, it would only raise greater difficulties later on. I hope, therefore. whatever our views may be as to collective ownership, we shall come to one conclusion, and that is that the practical way of raising income nationally is to take the income of its citizens, and not to interfere with the means of production or to destroy confidence by confiscating capital.
  Mr. D. MASON: The hon. Member has depicted in rather lurid terms what might happen in this country as a result of a levy on capital, and while I agree with much that he said, I think that even out of his own mouth he condemned himself. He told us that he was in fact favourable to the conscription of wealth, which he also added already existed in the matter of Death Duties, Income Tax, and Super-tax. If he has no objection to that form of conscription, why, I ask him, should there not be a life duty? It

  1517
  is not going beyond the ingenuity of some financiers surely to draw up some scheme of life duties which would not be open to the objections which he has put forward. I agree that it is a matter which would require to be very carefully thought out. If I may, I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his very frank and honest statement and on his open mind—that is to say, fie, told us that if anyone could offer a reasonable argument in favour of this method of financing our war debt which is not likely to be detrimental to our credit and which at the same time is feasible, he is willing to consider such a proposal. I should like, if I may, to offer one or two observations in reply to the objections which the hon. Member has just put forward. Is it not possible, for example, for some Chancellor of the Exchequer, or for some financier, to draw up a scheme of life duties which would not press unduly on people in receipt of incomes barely sufficient for their sustenance? It does not necessarily follow that because you have a levy on capital it is going to apply to all equally. Surely it could be adjusted to fall on those best able to bear it, and it should be quite possible to draw up a scheme which would not penalise the professional man in receipt of a fixed income and only just able to make both ends meet. It might be possible to draw up some system of life duties which would get at capital—at large accumulations of either personalty or securities, and other forms of wealth.
  There is just now a great expansion of revenue amongst certain people in this country who previous to the War had not been in a position of great wealth, and if you have a levy now, or very soon, you would secure from those persons a very considerable accretion which could be used for the reduction of the National Debt. That is a sane proposal in this sense, that it could be done without detriment or injustice, and it might actually be regarded to be in the interest of certain classes in this country. I have discussed this with people in the City. I quite agree there are some who have been rather frightened at the prospect of life duties, but there are others who believe that you might possibly, even in the interest of cumulative wealth, bring forward such a proposal, at a time when there is this vast liquid capital, and thus secure that which after the War, when there comes a, period. of contraction and
  1518
  depression, it will not be so easy to obtain. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well consider that possibility either in his coming Budget or in some future Budget. It is well worth considering, and it would not really decrease the productive power of this country, while it would secure a very considerable sum; it would lighten the charges on the country and enable us all the sooner to reduce taxation; it would help to get rid of the National Debt, and it would reduce the burdens on industry. Therefore I think it would be a very wise measure. I should like to offer one or two observations on this Report. Like other speakers, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman, and the other members of the Committee on many of the points raised in this Report, particularly with regard to greater Treasury control. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), in the very brief speech he made, got at the heart Of the matter when he said that the Treasury was under-manned, and that there ought to be an increase in the number of officials in that particular Department. We know that the War has resulted in an enormous expansion of financial responsibility. The questions of currency, of management of debt, and indeed the full Department of finance has swollen enormously, and it would be well worth the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the suggestion of the right bon. Gentleman the 'Member for West !Birmingham to increase the manning of the Treasury could not be given effect to.
  8.0 P.M.
  There was some remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) with reference to the effect of paper money on the rise in prices. I join with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the view that unquestionably this form of inflation has affected prices. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat very lightly indeed that aspect of the matter, but the Report itself specifically says that the question of the large increase in the currency and the effect it has had on prices demands attention. The hon. Member for Greenock (Colonel Collins) referred to this and spoke of the effect, which the increase in the supply of money had had upon prices, because the goods supplied for the money had been very much decreased. That seems to be rather a contradiction in terms, but it was an attack on the particular expan-

  1519
  sion and inflation brought about by this issue of Treasury notes. It has increased the supply of money, but, at the same time, the effect has been to raise prices, and for him to say, as he did, that this had undoubtedly brought about this increase of price, is again to go against his own Report, which says that the increase in currency notes has played a very subordinate part. We must have it one way or the other. Either the hon. Member for Greenock must say that he disagrees with this Report and with its chairman, the right hon. Member for Cleveland, or else he must support the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that it has played a very subordinate part. It is very discouraging, in view of the fact that most great authorities, either living or dead, have repeatedly pointed out that this enormous inflation has unquestionably had an effect upon prices, and one regrets that this Report has not enlarged upon that effect, because if we had had the Report cautioning, or perhaps recommending, the Treasury that some action should be taken to reduce this vicious influence, there might have been some hope that the Treasury would have considered it. The Report itself complains of the expansion of credits during the War as one of the causes bringing about the rise in the cost of living. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Cleveland is not here, because I should like to ask him if an addition of £210,000,000 of paper money to your currency is not an expansion of credit, the very thing of which he complains? He apparently does not understand how this continuous issue of Treasury notes is, of course, itself an expansion of credit. He ignores it. The Report says:
  "Your Committee have consequently found themselves obliged to extend their inquiry into the causes of the increase in prices and the possible checks that may be applied."
  And then it goes on to state the chief causes, the expansion of credits during the War, and so on, utterly ignoring this very considerable expansion of credit which it is not necessary to have a knowledge of finance to know must occur if you have an issue of £210,000,000 of Treasury notes. That is itself an expansion of credit. Then the Report goes on to say, in paragraph 20:
  "In the expansion of credit, the issue of paper currency, as hitherto practised in this country during the War, plays a very subordinate part. If in any
  1520
  degree contractors accounts had been met, or if the soldiers and sailors had been paid, simply by using the printing press and issuing fresh supplies of currency for such purposes, the effect would, of course, have been serious. But this has not been done, and is not in contemplation. Notes are not issued in order to make Government payments. They are issued to meet requests from toe banks for the currency needed by their customers; their quantity is regulated by those requests, and neither exceeds nor tails short of them; they have to be paid for by the banks by transfer of securities or in other ways. The amount of currency has largely increased."
  Really, one is amazed to read such a statement as that. It is really nonsense, because I would ask this House whether there is any difference between the Government increasing the credits from the bank and using their printing press. This Report refers to the banks, and protests against the large amount of money being raised for the War by loans, and with that I am in entire agreement. The banks create the credit. The Government issues large orders for various munitions and other necessaries which it requires for the carrying on of the War, and for this credit which is created the Government give Treasury Bills and other pieces of paper to these banks. Those proceeds being used for expansion of industry, as they are bound to do when fresh credit is created, that money flows into the banks and swells their deposits. 'The banks have the right under the Treasury Currency Bill to get Treasury notes from the Treasury up to 20 per cent. of their current deposit liabilities, and, as the deposits are swelled by this creation of credit, they are qualified to get the Treasury notes from the Treasury, and so this inflation is created and stimulated. There is, therefore, very little difference in a sense between the Government using their printing press and by inflation of credit increasing the rights of the banks to draw out the notes and thereby increase circulation. The result is shown by the adverse exchanges, the stimulation of our imports, all of which I have foretold would take place. We see that the figures recently published by the Board of Trade are again confirmed this year when we find our imports amount to £1,000,000,000 and our exports to £550,000,000.
  The right hon. Member for Cleveland said that we were not on a par with Russia. I hope not, and no one ever suggested that we were on a par with Russia. I have the figures here showing how the Russian circulation has gone up. The paper money in Russia has gone up from £163,000,000 to £1,540,000,000, until the peasants in Russia refused to take any more paper, and you have to-day to pay £12 for a pair of boots

  1521
  in Petrograd. No one suggests that we are on a par with Russia, or that the credit of the British Government is the same as that of the Russian Government. Surely there is such a thing as degree, and when the right hon. Gentleman said that the paper money of this country had increased from £45,000,000 to £277,000,000 most people will agree that that is a very large increase, and all we who are interested in this matter suggest is an amount of caution. We suggest that this method of financing the War is a bad method, only to be used because of the emergency. Former Chancellors of the Exchequer have said—the present Prime Minister when the Bill was introduced in answer to a query of my own in this House said—that he believed these notes would be retired after the occasion had passed, and that he expected the issue would be between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000. Now we have £210,000,000 of these notes outstanding, and it is ludicrous and depressing in a degree to find a Committee composed of sonic of the ablest men in the House subscribing to such a paragraph as this. I hope, therefore, that some means will be used by this Committee, or by Members of this House, to caution the Government that this policy is a dangerous policy, not to be indulged in to any extent. I am no captious critic. I recognise the difficulties of the Government and the difficulties of the Treasury. I recognise particularly the difficulties they have at the present time in financing the War, but it is because I hope I am as great a lover of my country and because I am sincere that I am anxious in the interests of my country that sound methods of finance should prevail, and that I offer these observations.
  I have laboured this argument on previous occasions and given chapter and verse in proof of it, and I see nothing in any sense of the word to lead me to believe that the statements I made several years ago are not true and have not been borne out by the facts of the case. Every day there is accumulated evidence of it and all authorities will vouch for and confirm what I say. There is an accumulation of articles and books issued pointing out how inflation is the order of the day. I think I have said enough on that point., and I would just like, in confirmation of my remarks regarding deposits, to draw the attention of the representative of the Treasury to an extraordinary publication recently made of this enormous growth in the
  1522
  deposits of our banks, again upon which, of course, this system of inflation is based, because when the deposits are increased that gives a right to the banks to get these Treasury notes and still further to increase the inflation. I referred to a striking table in the "Economist," showing that the deposits of the banks at 31st December, 1917, compared with those of 1916, had increased by some £272,000,000, and, again, the deposits in 1917, as compared with 1913—before the War—had increased to no less a sum than £671,000,000. That might appear to be an indication of great wealth, and I just wish to call attention to it because I believe it is not an indication by any means of great wealth. We know we have recalled great many of our credits abroad by selling foreign securities, and by loans continuously being issued which go to swell the deposits of the banks you create this enormous inflation.
  I mention those figures so that we should not be led away with the idea that such an enormous accretion in the nominal deposits of the banks should be considered as an accretion of wealth. The Committee has not drawn any attention to gist feature, and, in fact, has rather supported the principle of still further proceeding with these methods of inflation, while complaining of the increase of bank,expansion. I regret that they have not seen their way to caution the Treasury on the lines on which I have spoken, but I hope, nevertheless, they may still do so, and may take other evidence. They have taken the evidence of authorities in the City, who are interested in this method of finance and are most unlikely to condemn themselves. I hope they may keep an open mind with regard to that, and perhaps in some future Report we may see some caution. of the kind.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third. time To-morrow.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly it Seventeen minutes. after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  RATIONING SCHEME.
  RATIONING SCHEME.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL.
  MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM PROSECUTION (MR. WALLHEAD).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM PROSECUTION (MR. WALLHEAD).
  PAPER RESTRICTION (ADVERTISING).
  PAPER RESTRICTION (ADVERTISING).
  MOTOR CARS AND TAXI-CABS.
  MOTOR CARS AND TAXI-CABS.

LORD TERRINGTON.
Sir James Thomas Woodhouse, having been created Baron Terrington, of Huddersfield, in the County of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl of Strafford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SECRET SITTINGS.
Message from the Commons, that they have considered the Lords' Message of November 22 last relative to Secret Sittings of the House, and do concur in the First Resolution thereof.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Bill further considered on Report.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I desire to make the Motion which stands first on the Paper in my name, asking your Lordships to agree to the suspension for this afternoon of Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX. I make this Motion to meet the convenience of your Lordships' House, and in accordance with what I believe to be the general desire. I assume that your Lordships are anxious to proceed without any further delay with the final stages of the Representation
2
of the People Bill in order to enable your proposals with regard to that measure to go with as little delay as may be before another place. The suspension of Standing Order No. XXI, is required to enable this Bill to take priority of the other Bills that stand before it on the Order Paper—in order, in fact, to enable you to resume without a break the discussion on which you were engaged when you adjourned yesterday evening; and the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX is required in order to enable you, after you have completed the Report stage, to take the Third Reading of the Bill this afternoon. I hope there will be no objection to either of these suggestions, which, as I repeat, are designed to meet the convenience of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting with reference to the Representation of the People Bill, and that the Order for the receiving of the Report of Amendments to that Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As no other of your Lordships has risen to address the House, I would crave your Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words with reference to the Motion made by the Leader of the House. May I say at once that so far as Standing Order XXI is concerned—that is, the Standing

3
Order by the suspension of which we are enabled to take the Representation of the People Bill first—I have no criticism to make. But when we come to Standing Order XXXIX, which deals with the Third Reading, I should like with the indulgence of the House to say one or two words. The noble Earl moved the suspension of this Standing Order — which practically abolishes the Third Reading stage, which is perfectly useless if the Standing Order is suspended—as a sort of matter of course, as if no one could doubt that it was a right thing for your Lordships, upon the most important Bill which has reached us perhaps for many years, to suspend the Standing Order under which the Third Reading stage is taken on a separate day. That may be the wish of your Lordships, but I am quite certain it ought not to be moved as a matter of course. It is a very strong step to take, and a step which ought to be taken with very great reluctance.
The Third Reading stage in your Lordships' House is quite a different thing from the Third Reading in the House of Commons. The Third Reading in the House of Commons is merely a last opportunity which that House possesses of stating its opinion as to the general principle of the Bill—as to whether it ought to go through at all. But, in your Lordships' House, the Third Reading is an opportunity for the further amendment of the Bill. It is a very important moment, because many things are done in a complicated Bill in the course of the Committee stage and the Report stage which have to be carefully considered in the last stage of the Bill. That is all the more necessary when the Report stage on the Bill has been rather hurried, which has been the case in the Report stage of the present Bill.
There is really no hurry at all. I heard my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he put down the Report stage, state to your Lordships that there was some urgent necessity for our getting through this Bill very quickly because of the financial business of the year, and he alleged that the new session of Parliament could not begin later than February 5 without seriously interfering with the financial business of the year.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON indicated dissent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is what I understood my noble friend to say.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: February 12.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Was that so?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON nodded assent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, there is a good deal of time if the new session is not going to begin before February 12. In my experience Parliament has very often met later than February 12, and there is nothing special in the circumstances of this year. The rules which govern financial business in the House of Commons are the same every year, and there is no special difficulty as far as that is concerned. I suspect that my noble friend has got all this at second-hand from the Whips' Room in the House of Commons, and I have learnt by many years of experience to distrust all information on business which comes from that quarter. The Whips of the House of Commons will almost sell their immortal souls in order to save twenty-four hours of the time of the House of Commons, and I have known very serious public loss result from that feeling on the part of the Whips of the other House. I recommend my noble friend not to take his information from that quarter. Therefore, there really is no very great hurry.
We have approached this subject upon its merits. Now what are the merits? My noble friend the Leader of the House has not been able to attend to the Report stage of the Bill, as some of us have. He is quite right; he is far better employed; he has to look after far more important business than the Report stage of this Bill. But there have been a considerable number of points which have been raised in the course of the debate which may require to be reconsidered. I do not say they are important, but all sorts of little matters were raised. For example, the noble and learned Lord sitting near me (Lord Buckmaster) did not much like the drafting of an Amendment for which I was responsible which had the word "cognate" in it. He commented on that very severely. There was an Amendment which was suggested by my noble friend Lord Burnham. He suggested that there ought to be some provision made in the case

5
of joint occupiers where the number of joint occupiers is larger than the multiple of ten, which alone gives the franchise, and it was pointed out, and practically admitted by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, that an injustice is done. The noble Viscount admitted it quite freely. Well, I do not think it would be difficult to find a method of meeting this, but that ought to be considered on the Third Reading. I am not at all sure that the Rules clause, which I was instrumental in asking your Lordships to pass last night, is quite perfect in its drafting. There is a possibility that a question may arise on that.
Then there is the case of Orkney and Shetland. The history of the Orkney and Shetland clause is extremely instructive. My noble friend the Leader of the House insisted, against our respectful protest, upon putting down the Report stage on Monday, because, he said, there would be ample time for us to prepare our Amendments and to give notice of them. What was our amazement in the small hours of this morning when we heard the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill (Lord Peel) move an Amendment in manuscript, a Government Amendment—a new clause, of which no notice whatever has been given. So that after insisting that we should be prepared, the Government themselves were not prepared with all their Amendments. I do not know exactly what the Orkney and Shetland Amendment enacted. I was much too sleepy last night to gather what it was; and (I say it very respectfully) I think most of your Lordships were in the same condition. The only person who was thoroughly awake was the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. In fact, that has been the case all through our proceedings.
The case of Orkney and Shetland is a very interesting one, because the Government had evidently forgotten those islands. They had made provision for England and for Scotland in the Bill; they have failed to make provision for Ireland; but Orkney and Shetland had been forgotten altogether; and now at the last moment Orkney and Shetland have been, discovered, and an Amendment to deal with them has been introduced. But the Government ought to have gone further; and that is the difficulty. That is the relevancy of my present observations with regard to the Third Reading stage.
What about the vote of the soldiers and sailors in Orkney and Shetland? I wonder
6
whether the Government have thought of this matter. I moved an Amendment to lengthen the time for which the polls should be open in order to give an opportunity for the votes of the soldiers and sailors to be counted. I pointed out that the time was very short; that there was, in fact, only just time, if everything worked right in the present time schedule, for the ballot papers to be sent to the furthest part of the line in France and to be received back in time for them to be counted within the limit allowed. What is to happen to the poor unfortunate soldiers and sailors who come from Orkney and Shetland? I do not think that I shall be exaggerating if I say that, in the present condition of things, a return post from Shetland, at any rate, to London, would be a matter of from four to six days. If you add four to six days to the schedule of time which the Government have proposed, it is clear that the soldiers and sailors coming from Shetland may be done out of their votes. The Government have not thought of that. As I say, they had forgotten Orkney and Shetland. I do not blame them for forgetting things. I wonder how they remember all the things they do think of, considering the enormous pressure on them. But that is why, in a Bill of great importance, you must not suppress the Third Reading stage, which is for making good those holes which the other stages of the Bill do not cover.
I could multiply this a great deal if I had time. There is the clause about Ireland which we are going to discuss directly. I have hopes that your Lordships will agree to strike Ireland out of the Bill. But supposing you do not; then we shall want to consider the situation which will arise through not striking Ireland out of the Bill. That can be done only on the Third Reading. The same applies to my noble friend Lord Selborne's Schedule. I have every hope that this Schedule will pass as it stands, but it may not. It will then be necessary to re-consider that on the Third Reading. So that there appears to be abundant reason why on a Bill of this first-class importance we should not deprive the House of Lords, and Parliament, of the opportunity of a last revision of its work which the Third Reading, under the rules of the House of Lords, provides. I trust that my noble friend will reflect upon these considerations, and not ask us to do without our Third Reading stage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, in ordinary circumstances I should feel a great deal of sympathy with the proposition which has been made by my noble friend behind me—namely, that it is not reasonable to expect your Lordships to deal quite so rapidly with this Bill, and, in particular, to take to-day the Third Reading stage, which is often extremely valuable for polishing up a Bill into its final form by Amendments which may not have occurred to members of the House during the progress of the Bill. But the reason why I am not able to support the noble Marquess on this occasion is this. The Bill has been practically turned inside out by the action of your Lordships' House, and the whole position regarding it remains in suspense. It remains in suspense until we know what the action of the other House will be towards a Bill which will go down to them in an entirely new figure. Until we know what attitude the House of Commons will take about the renewed, or rejuvenated Bill (or however it may be regarded), I do not think that much further discussion here is of great value.
The time when, I think, we may ask noble Lords opposite to give us full opportunity for discussion is when the House of Commons return the Bill to us with their Amendments—whatever form they may take. I should greatly resent then any marked curtailing of our opportunities of discussion. But at this moment we are, as it seems to me, living in so misty an atmosphere regarding the Bill that I cannot feel that, at this stage, any great length and elaboration of discussion is of much permanent value. Therefore at the present moment I am disposed to support His Majesty's Government in getting the Bill down to the other House as soon as possible, however much I may find myself on some future occasion differing from them if they take as rigid a view about our opportunities of discussion as they are taking at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the argument to which we have just listened seems to me more ingenious than convincing. The noble Earl who leads the House told us that he made this Motion from a desire to meet the convenience of your Lordships. Could any arrangement be less convenient to this House than that which is proposed by His Majesty's Government, who are, in effect, suggesting that we should dispense with one stage in the consideration of this Bill?
8
I will not dwell upon the importance of the Bill itself. It is, by universal admission, one of the most momentous Bills which has ever come before the Parliament of this country. It was under alteration at a late hour last night; it is going to be under alteration again this evening; and, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury has pointed out, some of the questions with which we have still to deal are questions certainly of considerable importance. Surely what is necessary is that we should send this Bill down to the House of Commons in a form which will show that it has received proper consideration at our hands. That seems to me more important than the course suggested by the noble Earl who leads the House, who thinks that all that matters is to get the Bill to the House of Commons, and that we should reserve what we have to say for the moment when the Bill comes back to us again.
I have heard nothing in this conversation to show me that the urgency is so great as some people would have us believe. Can it really be suggested that the interposition of another day can make any great difference? Is not what is really important that we should do our work properly, and if the noble Earl who leads the House merely wishes to study the convenience of the House and show it the respect which I know he will never fail to show it, surely the proper course is not to run the Report and Third Reading together in one evening, but to give us an interval of time and to take the Third Reading as a separate stage of the Bill. I do not know whether, after the appeal made to him, my noble friend Lord Salisbury will press his objection, but I feel bound to say that it seems to me to he an entirely reasonable one.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I ought, perhaps, to say a word or two in reply to the observations made by noble Lords. I am placed in a somewhat difficult position. When I spoke of the convenience of your Lordships I was using that language with the utmost sincerity, and was alluding not merely to the proceedings of this evening but of the next week or ten days. I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury did not quite correctly interpret what I said upon the previous occasion. What I said then, so far as I recollect—and Hansard will show whether my recollection is correct—is that the Government had hoped to be able to adjourn Parliament on February 5—no, rather that they had hoped to commence the new session on that

9
date. I said that that hope had had to be abandoned in consequence of the time spent, and properly spent, on the concluding stages of this measure in this House; that they night be driven to commence the new session on February 12; and that they would, if compelled to do that, be confronted with great difficulties, mainly arising out of the financial position. That information was given to me, it is true, by the Whips, but I do not therefore assume that it was necessarily tainted, as the noble Marquess's experience in bygone days, when he was often in the Whips' room, seems to have led him to think.
The question of time in the House of Commons is rather an important one, for this reason. If you pass the Bill through its remaining stages to-day, the Bill, with the Amendments, will then have to be reprinted. I assume that it would be in the possession of the House of Commons tomorrow evening or on Thursday. I assume again that they would proceed at once with the discussion of the Bill as altered. That discussion cannot be a hurried one. It must take one or two days. I do not know whether the House of Commons would be willing to sit on Friday as well as Thursday to consider your Lordships' Amendments. In any case the Bill could not leave the House of Commons and come back to your Lordships' House until the early part of next week. You would then have to consider the reasons which the House of Commons had stated for disagreeing with your Amendments, if they did so, and then would ensue another discussion in this House, followed by proceedings which it is not necessary for me to anticipate now, but which may take a certain amount of time. I must honestly confess that I thought that those who take such a keen interest in this Bill, and who have been so busy in remodellin it, would have been the first, in their own interests, to wish to see it leave this House as soon as possible and get down to another place. Therefore I am inclined, on the grounds which I previously stated, to persist in my Motion.
But there then conies this point. I do not argue that the Third Reading in this House is the same thing as the Third Reading in the House of Commons. It is not. If it were I might have pointed out that the Third Reading in another place only occupied about twenty minutes, and that that time was consumed for the most part in compliments to those who were responsible for the measure. The Third Reading
10
in this House is a different thing. But am I to believe that between the Report stage and the Third Reading, if it be taken to day or to-morrow, your Lordships really desire another interval in order to consider what further Amendments or changes you may wish to put in on the Third Reading? Surely not. I listened to the illustrations given by the noble Marquess, and he played with the case of Orkney and Shetland. I do not suppose that those two remote portions of the British Islands have over before played so large a part in the discussion of procedure in this House. But does any one propose to move Amendments about Orkney and Shetland after the Report stage? No. The two days allowed to those parts of the United Kingdom have been allowed ever since the Act of 1872.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was no soldiers' and sailors' vote in those days.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Does the noble Marquess mean to tell us that on that or any other point the House of Lords wants a further interval? I did not gather from his speech that that was the case. Therefore on this occasion I must say that I think, in the interests of the Bill, and still more of the changes which your Lordships have introduced into it and of the reception which you desire that they shall meet with in another place, you will be well advised if you consent to take the Third Reading as well as the Report stage to-night.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to continue the discussion, but I want to answer one question. The position in winch I am placed is this. After the late discussion on Thursday last an Amendment which I had moved was rejected, and suggestions were made for another Amendment. I communicated at once with Scotland by Friday's post and got the answer only yesterday. It was not in time to give notice of an Amendment for the Report stage, and I had to give it in for the Third Reading. I do not say that the matter is of first-class importance, but if the Third Reading is taken to-night it will not be possible to insert that Amendment, because under the Standing Order you cannot put in an Amendment on the Third Reading without having given notice.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend who leads the House made it quite

11
plain that he only wants to do the reasonable thing, and he asked us to be reasonable. I am sure he will believe me when I say that it is our wish to be reasonable. He has also taken in his survey, not the immediate question of the moment, that the Third Reading shall be taken, but the subsequent proceedings which may take place on this Bill between the two Houses. I think it makes it much easier to discuss this thing in a reasonable way that we should have that within our consideration. He asks us to take the Third Reading to-night, and he admits that that does mean cutting out that stage of the Bill. He has given us his reasons for what he asks—namely, that the Bill may go to the House of Commons and come back to us in plenty of time for the further proceedings which may take place. Let us consider whether we cannot really meet his view by asking him to adopt our suggestion. Supposing he is content with the Report stage tonight, and takes the Third Reading tomorrow; that just gives us time to look through the Bill again and bring forward any Amendments there may be. I agree that they are not likely to be of first-rate importance, but there may be several of minor importance. Assume for the moment that the Bill is read a third time to-morrow, and goes to the House of Commons tomorrow. The Bill will have been reprinted in the meantime, and therefore will be quite ready for the House of Commons. It is only necessary to put on a different cover and it is ready for the House of Commons, and they can take it on Thursday.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Not if you amend it on the Third Reading.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In no case that I can imagine would an Amendment be a large one. I should have thought that such Amendments as there were could have been inserted on Thursday night. I
should not have imagined that any Amendment likely to be moved on Third Reading would interpose the technical difficulty of reprinting the Bill on Wednesday night. But assuming that that is so, the Commons could take the Bill on Thursday. Whether they would take one day or two days over it I do not know. At the latest they would have disposed of it by Friday, and there would be the whole of next week for any subsequent proceedings between the two Houses. If we take the Report to-day and the Third Reading tomorrow, and the House of Commons take the Bill on Thursday and Friday, it can come back to us again for Monday. Surely such an arrangement as that would afford ample time for the consideration which my noble friend is quite right in saying is required.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My noble friend desires to take the opinion of your Lordships on this question. I do not propose to say anything in support, though I feel very strongly indeed. If a proposal of this kind had to be made it was really necessary to give notice of it beforehand. I could take up further time by instancing a case which is coming on. In regard to that, the Government may find it impossible to give a pledge, but if they cannot give a pledge it may be necessary to move something on Third Reading. I desire to give your Lordships an opportunity to decide the question, and therefore I move to leave out from the Motion the words "and XXXIX." The effect of carrying that would be that the Third Reading could not be taken to-night.
Amendment moved—
To leave out "and XXXIX."—(Viscouni Midleton.)
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Chilston, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

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

Devonport, V.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Harcourt, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

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

Peel, V.

Newton, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Crewe, M.

Blyth, L.

Queenborough, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Buckmaster, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Carnock, L.

Revelstoke, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Southwark, L.

Clarendon, E.

Elphinstone, L.

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

Eldon, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Howe, E

Harris, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Hattherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hothfield, L.

Suffield, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Treowen, L.

Kenyon, L

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lansdowne, M.

Russell, E.

Burnham, L.

Salisbury M.

Selborne, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Verulam, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Abingdon, E.

Kenny, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Beauchamp, E.

Allendale, V.

Camperdown, E.

Chaplin, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Denbigh, E.

Falkland, V.

Lambourne, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury)

Falmouth, V.

Oran more and Browne, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Ave bury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Balfour, L.

Saltersford, L. (E Courtown.)

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Barrymore, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Jersey, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Loreburn, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) [Teller.]

Sydenham, L.

Minto, E.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Morton, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Original Motion agreed to.
Clause 43:
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD moved to amend Clause 43 so that it would read "This Act shall not apply to Ireland." The noble and gallant Lord said: My Lords, in any remarks I make in moving this Amendment to leave Ireland out of the Bill, I shall endeavour to be very careful to say nothing that would add to the difficulties of my country at the present moment. But I want to argue this logically and to point out that what we have suffered in Ireland, and what von have suffered in England for many years—difficulties in regard to legislation and questions of defence, which have not been for the good of the country—have been mainly due to the over representation of Ireland.
I must be a little retrospective in order to prove my point. The Union was carried into effect in January, 1801, when the population of Ireland was 5,299,000, and the population of England, Scotland, and Wales 10,500,000. The population of England, Scotland, and Wales is now 40,834,000, and of Ireland 4,381,957; according to the census of 1911. In the agreement or contract which was called the Union in 1801, Ireland was to have 100 Members, and the contract was worded "and for ever after to be united in one Kingdom." The argument may be used against me as to our breaking the contract now, but I want to point out that it has been broken several times—in 1832, when Ireland was given five extra Members; in 1867 when Ireland had 103 representatives instead of 105; in 1884 the same; and that number remained the same until to-day, when it was proposed to add two more
14
representatives by the recent Speaker's Conference. The contract was broken again by the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869. It may be said that the numbers are very few, but the principle remains that the contract was broken, whether the number of Members affected was few or not.
Now we are going to give, it is suggested, two more Members to Ireland, which will make the number 105 again, and to give these Members to a country which will return, as we have seen by facts recently, Members who will support an Irish Republic; Members who hate England as has been proved by the rebellion. And this in spite of the fact that Ireland has been reduced in population from 1801 by 1,000,000, and England, Scotland, and Wales increased by more than 30,000,000 since that date. I want to know why this was done? I want to know the object of it. What is the reason this Bill was introduced with Ireland included?
Ireland has been treated entirely different from England all through this war. There is no Military Service Act there. I do not challenge the Government's position as to not having conscription in Ireland, but if the Government did not apply conscription to Ireland owing to the state of the country, it strengthens my argument against the over representation in the House of Commons, which would be increased by this Bill. There is very little of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland, and no food restrictions, while several Bills have been passed in which the words were inserted "this Bill does not apply to Ireland." I ask again, why should this Bill be applied to Ireland? We are told it is expedient we should apply conscription to Ireland. Under the present circumstances that perhaps is true, but my own

15
idea is that if, after the rebellion, conscription had been passed, you would have found very little difficulty, and you would have got a large number of the finest fighting race in the world to join the Army. Perhaps under present circumstances it may be impossible, or may be attended with very great difficulties. We must also remember that Ireland is in receipt of large sums from England, and pays nothing towards the upkeep of the Forces at the present time. As far as the men who have gone into the war are concerned, England has subscribed 80 per cent., Scotland 5 per cent., Wales 4 per cent., and Ireland a little over 2 per cent. The rest of the percentage is made up by the Dominions and India. We are told by the Prime Minister that it is treason to the State, to the country, to democracy, and to freedom, if we do not get more men to carry on the war. I do not know why we do not put conscription in force in Ireland now, although I acknowledge that it would be very difficult.
I have no objection to an increase of the franchise. If you increase the franchise in this country, naturally you must increase it in Ireland. What I object to is adding two more Members to the representation of Ireland, which has been over represented for some considerable time by, I think it is, forty Members. We know perfectly well that Ireland has governed this country for thirty years in the House of Commons. There are two facts I want to bring before your Lordships' House. Why is this Bill being brought forward? You have already Home Rule on the Statute Book, and you have the Convention sitting. The Convention, I suppose, will settle something; we all hope so. But if it does not, you have still Home Rule on the Statute Book. Then why has this Bill been applied to Ireland? I cannot conceive any reason for it, and I want some logical reply to my question. As you have left Ireland out of everything else which has had to do with the war, you should have left her out of this Bill, and therefore she should have, as far as Members are concerned, the same proportion that is given to England, Scotland, and to Wales. The Bill will give one representative for every 41,000 voters in Ireland, and one representative for every 71,000 in England, Scotland, and Wales. You are going back to the old difficulty of over representation, and I cannot conceive why this Bill has been
16
brought forward with Ireland in it. This question of over representation has several times jeopardized the Empire, and the people of Great Britain apparently wish, if they support this Bill, to continue to jeopardise the Empire.
The position of Ireland is very different at this moment from what it was a few years ago. You must remember that the English people—I am sorry to say it—are getting very irritated with my countrymen. They know that numbers of them have not helped this country in any way but have helped the enemy, and that they have rebelled and murdered a large number of our soldiers. But the position does not stop there. The Dominions that are always sympathetic to Home Rule have discovered that when Home Rule is put forward in Ireland by two-thirds of the population it is not what the Dominions mean—Home Rule within the Empire—but Home Rule without the Empire. Again, the great American nation have always been very sympathetic to Home Rule, something on the lines of their own Home Rule with regard to their States; but they have discovered that Ireland as a whole is more in sympathy with our enemies the Germans than they are with the great American Republic who are now our Allies. Therefore the position with regard to Ireland is very different from what it was, so far as sympathy goes between the English, the Dominions, and the people of the United States.
The Sinn Feiners, we know, want separation and independence, and they are keeping up a violent agitation to get an Irish Republic. There is an Irish Member in the House of Commons who said only the other day that the vast bulk of the Irish people are pro-German. We know that the majority of them refuse to take part in the war. We know that there has been a very large sum of German money spent in Ireland, and we know they have intrigued with our enemies. One of the reasons why the English public are getting irritated with Ireland, which they have not been before for over 100 years, is that Irishmen are coming over here and taking the places of those who are fighting for us at the Front. We know, too, that men cannot go about in uniform in Ireland when on leave, and only lately a man was murdered because he would not give up the rifle of his son who was on leave.
My Lords, I hope I shall get a logical reply from the Government. Why have they put Ireland into the Bill when they have got Home Rule on the Statute Book and are waiting for the Report of the Convention? When they know that Ireland has been over-represented for many years they are going to add two to the number of Irish Members, and I maintain are going to put our Empire in considerable danger. Noble Lords know very well that, when this war is over, on the Imperial Parliament that is returned the destinies of our race depend one way or the other; and if we are going to have this over-representation of Ireland, more particularly with the condition which Ireland is in now, with two-thirds of it opposed to and wishing to defeat England in this war, I say that Ireland with this over-representation will be in a position to control the destinies of our nation, and that is bound to end in disaster.
The Irish question will remain whether we have Home Rule or not. We are bound to protect our harbours on the West Coast of Ireland. We never can have Home Rule which means separation. All of us hope, particularly those of us of the Protestant faith, that some sort of arrangement will be made between our faith and the Catholic faith, because do not disguise the question about Ireland. The main question about Ireland is the religious question, and if you had a war in Ireland, if a rebellion had broken out in Ulster before the war, it would have resolved itself into a religious question. The most powerful latent fact in this country is Protestantism. If that is aroused, as it would have been by such a war, it would not have been a civil war but a war of fanaticism and religion, and thousands of Protestants would have gone over to Ireland on the Orange side. I am glad that has not happened, and I hope sincerely that something will occur to bring those two nations, for they really are two nations, together. But you are not going to bring them together if you are going to put a premium on disaffection by improving and strengthening the over-representation of Ireland as you have done in this Bill.
I do not think the English understand my country. I am certain they do not. They do not understand how to rule it, and never have understood how to rule it. They hate made it a Party programme, and have promised this and that on both
18
sides; and, to put it in schoolboy language, they have sold the Irish again and again. They do not understand that the Irish want fair play and a strong Government and good management. In November, 1914, I went to the War Office and said, "If you will allow me to go to Ireland and let me recruit in my own way, I will get you 100,000 Irishmen." They said, "What do you mean by your way?" I said, "You must give me representatives of the Irish regiments, the best you can. You must give me a band, and you must let them use their colours. The Orange can have the Orange flag, and the Green can have the Green flag. I will call them regimental colours, and I am certain I shall get you the men." "Oh," they said, "we cannot have that at all. There is only the Union Jack." I said, "It is playing to the sentiment of the race, but I am certain I could manage them. They know me and I know them." The War Office said, "No, we cannot allow that at all." Besides which, I was told, "We do not like these English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Regiments. We like the British Army and the Union Jack." I said, "If you take it that way I cannot do you any good." Three times I went and tried to carry out my plan, and I was refused. The only mistake I made, perhaps, was that I ought to have gone to the Cabinet instead of to the War Office. I could have got the men then, I am certain. I could not get them now.
I might tell you another way of managing Irishmen. I commanded a great fleet I gave the men all the leave I could, but when they were with the fleet I worked my men's souls out at drill. The Englishmen and the Southern people could always get away about three or four days a month; that is, from Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, and Portland. When I got to Ireland I had a lot of Irishmen in the fleet, and I said, "I must give these lads four days' leave." So I gave the signal, "I am going to give you four days' leave, but unfortunately for you and me the leave will be up on St. Patrick's Day." I said, "I am an Irishman myself, and I know the difficulties of St. Patrick's Day, but I rely on your sense of honour to come back." I sent 766 men away on the Friday, and four days afterwards, at eight o'clock in the evening, 766 men came back. I do not say they were all sober, but they all came back. That was trusting their honour; appealing to them.
I say Englishmen never will understand Irishmen. They never have, and certainly will not while they give them overrepresentation, while they are afraid of applying conscription, and afraid of them as they have shown themselves all through this war. That is not the way to treat an Irishman. He laughs at you. Any Irishman will tell you, "Englishmen give us conscription! I tell you they dare not do it." That is what they have told me. I said, "If only I had it to do, you would soon see whether I would do it or not." I hope I shall get some logical answer from the Government to the remarks I have made. Why have they put Ireland into this Bill when they have Home Rule on the Statute Book and the Conference is sitting, which we all hope will report something to bring the different classes sects, and sentiments together in my country?
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 31, after ("shall") insert ("not") and leave out from ("Ireland") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Beresford.)
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I find it very difficult to deny the logic of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Beresford. Nobody who has watched the representation of Ireland for the last thirty or forty years can fail to recognise the great anomaly which exists in the retention of the number of Members fixed at the Union. I think, however, that my noble friend has rather answered his own speech. While at one moment he points to this anomaly and asks why steps have not been taken to amend it in the Bill, at another he admits that an extension of the franchise in Ireland must take place after an extension of the franchise has taken place in this country. The latter is the only operation which is found in the present Bill. He went on to say that, as there was a Home Rule Act on the Statute Book, and as there was also a great hope, as he expressed it, that if the Convention now sitting came to any agreement some form of settlement would take place, under neither of those contingencies, as he pointed out, would the inclusion of 103 Irish Members in the House of Commons be necessary.
What I understand to be the position in the Bill is this. No additional Members are given to Ireland. The two additional Members will be included in the measure now before another place dealing with
20
redistribution, and are not included in the Bill which your Lordships are now discussing Therefore there is no question of an addition of Members. The only question that we have to decide is whether we should take the opportunity of this extension of the franchise and redistribution of British seats to redress at the same time this great anomaly of the excessive number of Irish Members. Look at it from the point of view which my noble friend puts, that this anomaly must be redressed if the Home Rule Act is put into operation or if any Convention agreement should take place. The question is so serious that I think I should be justified in breaking the self-denying ordinance to which members of the Convention have all been parties and say that whatever contingency should result—if the Convention should come to an agreement or scheme—there has been no question raised in any quarter in the last six months but that there would be a large decrease of Members representing Ireland in the Imperial Parliament.
I think, therefore, that my noble friend need be under no apprehension that there would be any attempt on the part of Ireland, in establishing a new Constitution, to ask for the same representation as they have at present. The question comes down to this. Is this a desirable and opportune, if it is a necessary, moment to reduce this representation? I understand that in another place a good deal of delicacy and difficulty was felt in, as it were, dragging this question forward, especially under the circumstances that some of the most prominent members of the Nationalist Party and of the Ulster Unionists were at that moment engaged in the Convention. Although I was unable to be present last week owing to the business proceeding in Dublin, I am aware that a noble Lord raised the same question here concerning the absence of those who were engaged in the Convention. I thought, therefore, that perhaps I ought to rise as soon as my noble friend had spoken to say how very great was the difficulty those of us who are engaged in the Convention would be in in giving a vote on this subject at the present moment.
I think that every one who has served on that Convention has come to one conclusion. A closer link has been established between different classes—I was almost going to say all sections—of Irishmen who have been engaged there than has ever

21
existed before in the memory of man, and such conditions are, of course, the ones Which are most favourable to a settlement. It is nut for me here to trouble your Lordships with any prophecies as to what may be the result of the very critical negotiations which are at present under discussion, but I think that I must say that I should view with great regret anything which was likely to disturb the harmony of those proceedings at the present moment. I am not, of course, saying that that need be binding on other Members of your Lordships' House, but I have conferred with my colleagues—my noble friend Lord Dunraven and may noble friend Lord Oranmore and others, who either are present or would have been present if they could have been—and they are unanimously of opinion that it would not be becoming of them, and would be undesirable, if they were to take any part in this Division, if Division there be.
I would also appeal to my noble friend to consider whether, if he brings this question to an issue at all, it would not be well to defer it at all events till the Redistribution Bill, in which the question of increasing the number of Irish representatives will be raised, comes before your Lordships. I would put it to him whether at this moment it would not be perhaps better to allow the question to slumber, haying in view the further opportunity which will shortly be presented of dealing with it. I do so fully recognise the force of some of the considerations which my noble friend Lord Beresford has brought forward that I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he could not give the House this assurance—that if, contrary to the hopes of many of us, no fresh arrangement of the Irish Constitution is made, and if it should be found in a few months' time that this Franchise. Bill is coming into operation and that a General Election may be expected, the Government will see that, if there is to be no question of Home Rule, there will also be no question of the return of so largely excessive a number of Irish representatives to the next Imperial Parliament. I only put that because I do not think that it would be right, because many-of us in the existing circumstances deprecate the raising of this very difficult question at the present moment, that there should therefore exist for another generation a disproportion of representation which might be, as my noble friend has said, a
22
great danger to British policy. His Majesty's Government in view of the very considerate attitude which those who are opposed to them on this matter in Parliament have adopted, should give a pledge that at all events this over representation shall not for all time be perpetuated, if this opportunity of reducing it is not taken by my noble friend.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: I should like to say one word in support of the view put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. I think there is no one who has listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Beresford who cannot feel the weight of the arguments which he adduced in favour of his Amendment. He told us, what we all knew, that Ireland has been over-represented in the past. He also pointed out that the Treaty of Union has been treated as a "scrap of paper"; but, besides that, he recalled to the recollection of your Lordships that the proportions of the population of Ireland and of this country, when the scheme as to the number of Members which Ireland was to have was adopted, was a very different ratio from what it bears at the present day.
I imagine that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will shortly advise your Lordships to reject this Amendment, should it be pressed to a Division, on the ground of expediency—a ground which has actuated not only this Government but preceding Governments with reference to Ireland since the beginning of the war. I do not appeal to you on the grounds of expediency, but I appeal on another ground, one which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beresford—on the ground of sentiment. I know that sentiment is a very weak point to urge against facts, but it is one which plays a great part in Ireland—a part which is hardly realised by the more prosaic people of this country. For over six months a Convention has been sitting in Dublin, a Convention which was formed with the object, as stated by the Prime Minister, of enabling Irishmen of all parties to hammer out for themselves a Constitution for Ireland within the Empire. I know that the work we have had to do has been work of great interest; it has been a time of great stress and of great responsibilities. Mighty issues we have had to decide. We have had to consider the future of Ireland, the interests of this country, the interests of the Empire, yes, even the future issues of the war. We have had moments of depression; we have

23
had times of elation. At present the whole question stands in suspense, in view of the negotiations which are to take place.
I venture to ask your Lordships if this is a moment to render the issue more difficult by taking the strong measure of excluding Ireland from the benefits of the extended franchise which are granted under the present Bill. In the past, the Nationalists have often said that there were two great enemies of Ireland—the Irish landlords and your Lordships' House. The Irish landlords are well represented in the Irish Convention, and of those landlords no fewer than eight are members of this House. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that I do not think we are among the least popular members of the assembly. A spirit has been engendered in the Convention, which we have done our best to foster, which has put us on terms of friendship with our fellow-countrymen that have never existed in the past. I should like to feel that the good feeling which exists so strongly there found an echo in your Lordships' House.
At the present juncture I am perfectly certain that the knowledge that the House of Lords, in spite of the very strong reasons which they had to refuse the extension of the franchise to Ireland at the present time, took into consideration this fact, would be of the greatest possible assistance, not only to us personally who are serving on ttc Convention, but to every member of the nation in their endeavour to settle this question. If the Convention results in a settlement, the difficulty will not arise. If it fails, I agree with my noble friend Lord Midleton that the question must come up once snore for revision. I earnestly hope that the Convention will succeed, and it will be pleasant, in that case, if this proposal is not pressed to a Division at the present time, to think that your Lordships refrained from doing so in the hope that you might do your share to help in the settlement of this most important matter to the nation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I dare say my noble friend opposite who introduced this Amendment will forgive me if I do not travel quite so widely as he did in some of the observations which he addressed to your Lordships, and if I confine myself rather more closely to the nature of the Amendment which he moved. On that point my noble friend Lord Midleton has really given a sufficient
24
answer. Because what is the effect of the Amendment? It is that as regards registration and questions of franchise, Ireland should be omitted altogether from this Bill. What would he the effect of that? You would have one franchise in this country and another franchise in Ireland. Is that really a possible proposition? After all, under almost any circumstances that you can think of you would want presumably to have the same franchise. I do not know what might happen as a result of the Convention, but it is perfectly clear, say under the Home Rule Act, now lying on the Statute Book, that if this Act were put into force, it would be impossible to have two franchises, one for this country—
LORD BERESFORD: I never said so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I know the noble Lord did not, but I am pointing out the effect of his Amendment, and if this Amendment were carried that would be the effect. I am quite aware that the noble Lord skilfully did not dwell upon that rather unfortunate result of his Amendment, but I am bound to do so. Therefore I cannot conceive that in any circumstances your Lordships would support the Amendment which would have this effect on the franchise in this country and in Ireland.
The major part of my noble friend's speech was really addressed to a different point, and that was the question of the numbers of the representatives of Ireland. That point, as the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, has already pointed out, is really hardly relevant to this particular Amendment, because there is nothing in this Bill which has to do with the question of redistribution in Ireland. That matter is relegated to a totally different Bill, which Bill, under the arrangement arrived at in another place, is to become law at the same time as this measure. It has not yet come before your Lordship's House, and when it does come, then I submit would be the time for your Lordships to raise this question of the number of representatives from Ireland.
The noble Lord also raised the question as to why this matter has been dealt with at all. I think he knows perfectly well that it is very difficult, in fact almost impossible, to introduce great changes in the franchise without also furring seine redistribution of

25
seats. The force of that was felt in another place, and the Bill which is going to be brought in—I apologise for dealing with it on another Bill, but I am rather forced to do so by the course of the debate—that Bill does recognise the particular position, and therefore there is to be redistribution of seats in Ireland as the result of this franchise Bill. What I understand my noble friend wants to do is entirely to alter the Bill when it comes here, and largely to reduce the representation of Ireland. I think my noble friend knows perfectly well that there were obvious practical objections to that course. First of all, this redistribution on the basis of the existing numbers—or a possible very small increase—was agreed between both sections of opinion in Ireland. I asked the noble Lord what would happen to a measure which proposed at this stage largely to reduce the representation in Ireland when (as the noble Viscount said) some of the most prominent members of the Irish Party were not present in Parliament but were over at the Convention.
Moreover, I do not like to consider at all the alternative of any failure of the Convention; but if no changes were to result from the Convention there is the Home Rule Act already on the Statute Book, which, as the noble Viscount knows, has been suspended only from six months to six months since the beginning of the war. What an absurd position it would be, therefore, if you were trying to legislate permanently for a number of seats in Ireland while at the same time you have on the Statute Book a provision saying what, in certain events, would be the number for the representation in Ireland. It is obvious that this Bill (and, I suppose, the Bill which is shortly coming up to your Lordships' House) must be temporary measures. Does the noble Lord want to put into the melting pot, as it were, the whole of these difficult and controversial questions about Ireland for the sake of measures which must be purely temporary? I hardly think that your Lordships will give time for a matter to be discussed which must have a very limited application only.
The noble Viscount addressed a question to me, and he stated that he, and those who acted with him, did not propose, if this Amendment were pressed to a Division, to take any part in that Division. I think the noble Viscount's question was, Would the Government give a pledge that, if the Convention fails and a General Election
26
were likely to take place, they would reduce the representation of Ireland? I find some difficulty in understanding exactly what that pledge would mean; because, as I have said before, supposing (and I do not like to make the supposition) nothing were to result from the Convention at present sitting, you have the Home Rule Act already on the Statute Book, suspended only from six months to six months; and under that Act the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament is reduced to the number of forty-two. Therefore, to some extent, that question may be said to be answered. I do not know what other proposition the noble Viscount was contemplating when he made that statement.
Moreover, is it wise to ask the Government; at this stage, when the Convention is sitting, what they are going to do if the Convention fails? We have heard a great deal, if I may say so, about "atmosphere" in Ireland. Surely it would not contribute to a satisfactory "atmosphere," either in this country or in Ireland, that the Government should begin to speculate publicly what they are going to do if the Convention is not successful? Besides, "successful" is a somewhat vague term. I suppose there may be some results of the Convention which some noble Lords would consider successful, but which others would consider unsuccessful. I am put, therefore, so far as that is concerned, in the greatest difficulty to know precisely what the noble Viscount means. Anything that comes from the noble Viscount about Ireland is, of course, spoken with great weight and experience and knowledge, and I should take note of it and give it the best consideration possible.
But I will ask the House really to follow the advice which the noble Viscount himself has given to your Lordships—namely, that, if your Lordships wish to discuss this question, you should discuss it when the discussion can be more vital; that is to say, when the Bill which deals with redistribution in Ireland comes up to this House, and not discuss it upon this present Bill which deals only with franchise and registration as applied to Ireland. I trust, therefore, that in these circumstances my noble and gallant friend will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is clear that, with all the courtesy which the

27
noble Viscount, as usual, put into his speech, he is not going to give my noble friend Lord Midleton any pledge. He cannot do so; and I did not imagine for a moment that he could. I hope that your Lordships will realise how greatly those of us who are interested in this question have been anxious to consider the very delicate and difficult situation which prevails in Ireland at this moment. Nobody could have listened to my noble friend Lord Midleton, or to my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Oranmore and Browne), without feeling great sympathy with them in the plea which they put forward. We understand how nobly and patriotically they, and others, have been working in Ireland during the last few months. Whatever view any individual amongst us has as to what he hopes may result from the Convention, at any rate we bear witness to their patriotic endeavours to find a solution.
My noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford, acting in that spirit, has put off this discussion until the very last moment. The natural time to have raised it would have been on the Committee stage; but it was represented to my noble and gallant friend, and to others, that it would be a great mistake, if it could possibly be avoided, to raise the question while the Convention was sitting. But this is the last moment. No other moment is open to us. We have done the best we can; and we must, now that we are driven to the last moment, consider this question not merely as an Irish question. It is not an Irish question only, it is an Imperial question. It is not a question as to the susceptibilities of Ireland—which we are very ready to study. There are the susceptibilities of Scotland and of England to be considered as well. The question is, What is to be the position of the Parliament which governs the Empire? And upon that point, when we come to the last moment, we have to take our stand.
My noble friend Lord Midleton indicated that perhaps the better way of dealing with this question would be to wait for the Irish Redistribution Bill which will reach us in a few days from the other House. I think that my noble friend has not thoroughly thought out in what a hopeless position we shall be placed if we leave the reduction of the franchise in Ireland, enacted in this Bill, until we come to deal with the Redistribution Bill. We
28
know what that Redistribution Bill is going to be. It is not supposed to be regular to refer to a Bill which is not before the House; but the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) very truly said that it was a very difficult thing to avoid. It is, of course; because Ireland has been treated in a totally different way in this Bill from England and Scotland. England and Scotland have been treated in a reasonable, logical, rational manner—namely, that there can be no franchise without redistribution; and the two subjects are in the same Bill. We are dealing with the whole subject together. Your Lordships can go through, and are going through the Bill, and amending it as you please, it being open to you to accept or reject it as a whole.
But the case of Ireland is different. If we allow the franchise to be lowered in Ireland, and then part with this Bill, what position shall we be in when we come to deal with redistribution? We can accept the Redistribution Bill, no doubt, but supposing we amend the Redistribution Bill. Supposing we say that instead of having two extra Members, which is what is going to be proposed in the Irish Redistribution Bill, there are to be thirty less, which I believe will be fair. [A Noble Lord: Forty.] I believe I have understated it, and it should be forty less. If the House of Commons did not agree to that, the Redistribution Bill would drop. The franchise would still be lowered, so that Parliament would be left in this absurd position, that the franchise in Ireland would be lowered and there would be no Redistribution Bill at all. That is an impossible position. It does not leave you in the position of being free agents in the matter. Once you part with the franchise you are not really free agents to deal with redistribution. If a moment is to be taken at all, now is the only moment in which you can deal with this subject.
The noble Viscount opposite said that, after all, this was a very temporary matter; that either you are going to have Home Rule according to the Convention or Home Rule according to the Home Rule Act on the Statute Book. I do not wish to misrepresent him, and I am sure he will admit that that was the effect of his argument—namely, that those were the only alternatives, and that under both these different forms of Home Rule there is to be a large reduction of Irish representation

29
in the Imperial Parliament, and therefore the whole question was merely an academic one. Does my noble friend really believe that that is the alternative? Does he not know quite well that if the Convention is going to fail—and I am not saying that for a moment—by everybody's consent the existing Act of Home Rule is an impossibility. There is not a Nationalist in Ireland who does not admit that the Home Rule Act, for which your Lordships suffered so much in past days at the hands of the Liberal Party, is a dead letter and not worth the paper on which it is printed. Therefore the alternative is not between Home Rule as the Convention may produce it and the Home Rule Act as upon the Statute Book, but it is, of course, the old dilemma of Home Rule or the Union.
Let us take the alternative. Supposing it is Home Rule? Supposing the patriotic endeavours of Lord Midleton and Lord Oranmore and others are successful, and that they produce an agreement which is acceptable in Ireland? Why then should we bother to pass an Irish Franchise Act and Redistribution Act? It would be perfectly useless under Home Rule. It would be a futility. But supposing it is the other alternative, and that we are to go on under the Union? Then what we are asked to resolve is that—I was going to say "for ever," but that in Parliament is an absurd phrase—for at least a generation we are to continue the over-representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament. What justification have we for doing that? Why should we go on with the overrepresentation of Ireland? What argument is there in its favour?
I had expected that our old friend the Act of Union would be trotted out, and go round the course, but I noticed that my noble friend (Viscount Peel) had nothing to say of the Act of Union in respect of this question. If he had addressed an argument to your Lordships I think I should have convinced him and the House in a moment that there is no obligation upon this country in consequence of the Act of Union. The Act of Union has been broken again and again since it was passed, but the most notable occasion on which the spirit of the Act of Union was broken, and the whole argument which can be deduced from it was destroyed, was in the year 1893, because the argument, as your Lordships know, from the Act of Union, was this—
30
that it was a treaty which cannot be varied except by the consent of both parties, namely, Great Britain and Ireland. What happened in 1893? But for your Lordships' House the Home Rule Act of that year would have been carried in the teeth of a majority of English and Scottish opinion. It was carried by the Irish vote, and by the Irish vote alone, in the House of Commons. Therefore, but for your Lordships' House the Act of Union would have been not only amended but destroyed by the act alone of one Party to the treaty—namely, by the Irish Members alone. The whole argument from that moment disappeared. I could say more upon that head, but I will not trouble your Lordships, because the argument has not really been advanced.
What reason, apart from the Act of Union, is there why we should allow Ireland forty too many representatives? I want to address myself to this topic with moderation, but is there anything in the conduct of Ireland in the last few years which would convince any man that she was specially entitled to over-representation in the Imperial Parliament? Is it credible that in the present condition of things in Ireland we should tie round the neck of this country, for a generation, the overrepresentation of Ireland by 40 per cent.? I do not want to speak too strongly, but a very large part of the Irish people are not friends of this country and are not the friend of the Empire. It is notorious. Why should we always pretend in this country? Why cannot we ever speak out and speak the truth? We know it is so. Why should these gentlemen who sympathise with the Germans rather than with Englishmen be given 40 per cent. more representation than they are entitled to in the Imperial Parliament, which is responsible for the government of this Empire? Of course, if it were merely a temporary matter, and a matter for a year or two, perhaps it would not be worth argument. As I have shown, unless we have Home Rule we must continue the settlement which is now come to for at least a generation. In those circumstances I ask why should the Irish representation be 40 per cent. more than she is entitled to?
The action of your Lordships, if my noble friend induces you to throw this out, will be not to do any injustice to Ireland

31
but to sustain the principal question. I quite agree with my noble friend opposite that we cannot have as a permanency an arrangement under which the franchise in Ireland should be higher than in this country. If the franchise is lower, the Redistribution Bill must follow and it means a settlement for a whole generation. If, on the other hand, Ireland is cut out of the Bill and the question disappears for the moment, it will only be a postponement and I hope a short postponement. In all these circumstances I cannot doubt that your Lordships would be well advised to follow the suggestion of my noble friend, and if he goes to a Division he will receive my humble support in the Lobby.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, as an Irishman and as one who is not connected with the Convention, I do not feel that I am necessarily bound by what the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, said to your Lordships. Have the Nationalists expressed any wish that Ireland should be included in this Bill? Have the Unionists expressed any wish that Ireland should be included? Have the Sinn Feiners shown any desire that it should be so? You know, my Lords, none of them have said so as a body. Who has said it? I am not aware that any one has said it. Are we quite certain, even supposing the Convention does come to an agreement, that Ireland will endorse that agreement? I am not at all sure of it. I hope the Convention may come to an agreement and that Ireland may endorse it, but I think there is absolute ignorance at this moment in regard to what the masses of Irish people really do desire. What harm should we do by leaving Ireland out from this Bill? It does not mean in the smallest degree that we wish to limit the number of its representatives. It does not mean that we desire either to increase or to diminish its representation. It does not mean that we want to do this or that in regard to the distribution of seats. It only means, so far as I understand it, that we believe that at this juncture it is far better to leave Ireland alone and having nothing whatever to say about it in this particular Bill. If the Home Rule Act comes into force, the representation of Ireland, as has already been stated would be reduced to forty-two. Therefore it cannot be said, if this House leaves Ireland out of the Bill, that it means that the representation of Ireland is going
32
to be diminished by it. Forty-two is the number which has been settled by Parliament when the Home Rule Act comes into operation. The noble and gallant Lord who has moved this Amendment is a typical Irishman, if he will allow me to say so, and I believe he would never for one moment have suggested any Amendment which he thought was not for the good of his country and of his country-people, and for one, hope that he will press this Amendment. I hope that will be done in the most friendly spirit to all parties in Ireland, in order that there shall not be any friction whatever, and that we shall not find ourselves later on in those great difficulties which have already been pointed out most forcibly to the house by Lord Salisbury and others.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, my noble and gallant friend behind me moved his Amendment in a speech of great moderation, indicating all through, as the noble Earl who has just sat down said, his affection for the country of which he is one of the ornaments. I am not quite so sure that all the speeches that have been made have indicated the same devotion to Ireland and the cause and interests of Ireland as that which fell from my noble friend. There is no doubt—I think it cannot be disputed—that originally, as has been stated by the noble Earl, there was considerable colour for the suggestion not to include Ireland in this Bill. It would have been quite possible to carry the measure through Parliament with no mention of Ireland in it, on the ground that the Irish question, as we all know, is under consideration elsewhere by a body for the success of whose deliberations we all most cordially hope. That course, however, was not taken, and there is no object now in discussing why it was not taken. But, since it was not taken, it is one thing not to have included Ireland in the Bill, and quite another for your Lordships to strike Ireland out of. the Bill. I cannot help feeling somewhat surprised that the two appeals which have been addressed to the House by the noble Viscount on this Bench and by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches have not received at any rate some response from those who came to the House desiring to support the Amendment of my noble and gallant friend.

33
What I think we really have to consider is, what would be the effect on public opinion in Ireland of the acceptance by your Lordships' House of my noble and gallant friend's Amendment? In my judgment it can only be thoroughly bad in the reception which it would gain from people of all parties. It would, I think, be wholly misunderstood. Your Lordships' House, rightly or wrongly, is supposed not to be over-friendly to the cause of the majority in Ireland. As we all know, the various Land Bills and the various Government Bills have all been warmly opposed with complete conviction by this House. The consequence is that your. Lordships' House has the name among the majority of Irishmen of being thoroughly hostile to Irish Nationalism in all its forms, whether moderate or extreme, and not too friendly to Ireland generally. I am certain that any such action on the part of your Lordships' House would he thoroughly misunderstood and might be even calamitous. I sincerely trust, therefore, whatever logic may point to or whatever your Lordships may consider would be the most reasonable course, that your Lordships Will refrain in this case from taking the action which my noble and gallant friend desires that you should take.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 16, after ("division") insert ("appointment").—(Viscount Peel.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, at end insert as a separate subsection:
"(14) The following proviso shall be substituted for the proviso at the end of subsection (2) of section eight: 'Nothing in this provision shall prevent a person voting at an election to fill a casual vacancy in a borough council in any ward for which he is registered.'"—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sure I shall not be wrong if I say that the Amendment which I am about to
34
move after Clause 14 is one of really far-reaching importance. It is intended to help in a matter which was raised in Committee, and on a point which was made by the noble Earl who leads the House, that the action then taken by the House would lead to great difficulty and delay. That is the real point and object of this Amendment. In passing I may say that the difficulty in which this House is placed cannot, I think, be fairly laid to the charge of those who are in favour of the principle of proportional representation. We did our best to prepare for, and our very best to avoid, the difficulty in which this House, and perhaps Parliament as a whole, finds itself to-day. So long ago as June 19 last year the noble Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, asked whether the House might not be-allowed to consider the Instructions which were issued on the authority of the Government to the Boundary Commissioners. On July 4 a Motion was made to that effect, and on July 17, to which date it was adjourned, an important discussion took place. On that occasion we were assured, on the authority of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, that his refusal to agree to the Motion then made was not intended to mean for a moment that your Lordships' House would not have a perfectly free hand to introduce proportional representation into the Bill in whatever form you pleased, either in its complete shape or in an abreviated form.
As usual, this House is found faced with the difficulty attending the question of time. The fact of the matter is we are never allowed to have a Bill of any real importance in time to do very much with it. When we want to make Amendments the answer which is given to us is that there is no time. I agree that if the Amendment we introduced the other day in Committee did bring with it a real risk and danger of delay it would be a very powerful argument against it. But that is not the case, and the truth of it is easily illustrated by what happened last week. The noble Earl who leads the House summed up the arguments for and against proportional representation in a speech of great ability. But look at the case which he made out for his own action. He said himself, quite frankly, that he would like to see the experiment tried; that he had great sympathy with many of the arguments used on its behalf, and he added that it would admit to tile House of

35
Commons desirable Members. No doubt he stated the arguments against the Amendment at the same time, but he added this pregnant sentence, that if the proposal then before the House had been confined to the limits of that of the Speaker's Conference he would have voted for it. There is therefore no question of principle dividing his opinions and ours on this matter. It is the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Milner, voted for the proposal then before the House; and I understand that Mr. Arthur Balfour—no mean authority—voted in favour of it when the question was before the other House of Parliament. We have not to meet, on this occasion, any question of merits. There only remains the argument of delay, and I submit that this Amendment which I am moving now affords an efficient answer to that contention.
Part of the difficulty in which we find ourselves—I do not want, to attribute any fault to the Government in regard to it—arises from the fact that on this matter the Government, as a Government, though wholly responsible for the Bill, have not got actually a mind of their own. They found the Bill on the Report of the Speaker's Conference; yet they do not carry out the Report of the Speaker's Conference in all its essential details. I am not arguing upon the merits of proportional representation. I regard that as settled for this House by the decision in Committee. But I do say this, that the arguments which were brought forward on its behalf, and which have convinced prominent Peers like those I have mentioned, are in themselves forcible and earnest, and they proceed from strong conviction on the part of those who have used them. I venture to say, under these circumstances, that the opponents of this principle and this system must produce something better against it than the argument of delay.
But I agree that the chief question for us to-night is how we can minimise, to the best of our ability, the disadvantages of the position in which we find ourselves placed by the facts and circumstances of which I have given a brief narrative. I contend that the scheme put before the House in this Amendment will avoid delay. In the first place, if it is adopted, and if the registration authorities will get to work just as if the Bill had remained as it was when it came from the other House, there would be no difference in the right of any individual
36
to vote, no difference between men or women, between age or qualification, or anything of that sort. They will all have the franchise just as if the Amendment had not been passed. As to the Schedules that we propose in order to give effect to the principle of proportional representation, I may say, in advance, that we are not obstinate in adherence to the particular scheme outlined, and the Amendment provides ample machinery for the modification of the Schedules in any way that may be found most convenient to local interests, or, I will go so far as to say, to the opinions of the other House of Parliament. The Instructions which we propose to insert to the Boundary Commissioners will have the authority of Parliament when they are passed. If Parliament approves of the Instructions which I suggest in this Amendment, the Boundary Commission will act on them and then Parliament will finally have to review.
Very briefly, let me go through those Instructions. The first refers to the question of areas and groupings. The second refers to the population for each additional Member, and to that a proviso is attached that where it is desirable to form single-Member constituencies, such a constituency may have a population of 50,000. The third of the Instructions refers to the boundaries, laying down the principle, with which I think everybody will agree, that so far as possible the Parliamentary and administrative areas should coincide. The fourth is purely machinery, and I think will have general approval; and the same may be said of the fifth and sixth Instructions.
I think it right to call the attention of the House to the fact that since the notice was first given, two important alterations have been made. One of these is attached to Instruction 8, and that, I think, will have general approval. The words in the proviso are that the Commissioners may depart from the strict application of these Instructions in any case where it would result in the formation of constituencies inconvenient in size or character, or when the narrowness or margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these Instructions seem to them to justify such a departure. Now, my Lords, in addition to that subsection (4)—not Instruction (4), but subsection (4)—of the Clause has been

37
considerably modified. In its original form it gave either House of Parliament power to present an Address adverse to the report of the Boundary Commission. It will be seen in this form that it is limited to the House of Commons, and I think, having regard to all the circumstances in which we are placed, this will probably be regarded as an advantage awl it help.
But I call the attention of the House to this, that the essential point is that registration can and will proceed just as if this change in the Bill had not been made. No man or woman will be denied the vote. The only question will be in what company and in what area they shall exercise that vote. I hold strongly the disadvantage and injustice of single-Member constituencies as we know them, with all the Party organisation brought to a high pitch of perfection, during the last thirty or forty years. Lord Curzon the other day said the arrangement of 1885 had generally justified itself. I altogether deny that that is so. I am not going at length over old arguments and old figures, but I want your Lordships who are not as familiar with Scotland as I am to see from these figures which I will give you whether those of us who belong to the Unionist Party in Scotland have had anything like justice for the last thirty years. There were two Elections in 1910. In the first of them there were 659,000 votes polled, of which 394,000 belonged to the Liberal Party and 265,000 to the Unionist Party. In other words, there were only 129,000 more Liberal votes than Unionist votes, but the Liberals got sixty-one Members against eleven Unionist Members. One-fifth of 659,000 is 131,000 votes, and as the Liberals polled three-fifths and the Unionists two-fifths, the division of Members ought to have been forty-four and twenty-eight instead of sixty-one and eleven. In the second of those Elections in 1910 the Unionist Party improved its position so far as the number of votes is concerned and there was a less gross number between the two Parties, but the representation was not changed. I say that this is a conspicuous instance of the injustice and unfairness and impropriety of single-Member constituencies.
My Lords, in my humble judgment the one-Member constituency system and the Party organisation have done, are doing much, and will do more if they are continued, to ruin the really representative character of the House of Commons. I
38
say that, as they have acted in the past, they give a most unfair result, and they unduly and improperly increase the power of the accidental majority for the time. In my humble opinion, proportional representation is the main hope for the due influence of minorities in the future, and, if I may venture to say so, I think the mistake that some of the opponents of some of these Amendments make is to draw their arguments too much from the past. We are adding to the electorate some millions of men and 6,000,00 of women. Many think that a new era is opening and that we shall not return to the two-Party system. I think very probably we shall not; but in any case, whether we do so or not, this system of giving what is really one value to one vote guarantees the representation of all important sections of the community, whether they be a majority or a minority. Given this system if properly applied, every one can give an effective vote. In other words, as I have said a moment ago, it really carries with it "out vote one value."
It array be said that the scheme which will be moved by another noble Lord in one of the Schedules is too wide an application of the principle, but I know well that if it had been put in a more modified form there would have been arguments against others that were left out and it would have been said to be unfair. My Lords, our proposal is, as you have accepted the principle, remit to skilled people how best to apply it, and then let the House of Commons finally decide the result. I believe if you do this you will get a better result than you could get in any other way. I agree that no elected chamber can be always wholly and absolutely representative upon every point, but I am certain of this, that in this way you will get a better result because it will enable the exact value of each vote to be recorded.
As I said a moment ago, there are those who think we are on the verge of great changes and that when the war is over its effects will not pass; away. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed or read the most eloquent speech made by General Hunter-Weston, fresh from the trenches, in the other House. One passage in that speech struck me and made a great impression upon my mind. General Hunter-Weston said—
"The great majority out there have given up all voluntarily at the call of duty and have been fighting with thy greatest devotion, gallantry and

39
self-sacrifice. It is those qualities, that self-sacrifice, devotion and resolution which, applied hereafter, will have the effect, as I believe, in making these Islands better and brighter places than ever they have been before."
We all echo that hope. I am one of those who hope, and may even say I believe, that the troubles and trials and sacrifices which we have passed through during these last few years will teach us all to look on the things of others much more than we have done in the past on the things of our own. I believe and hope that we are leading up to a position of matters when classes will understand each other better, when there will be less chance of difficulty and disagreement between employer and workman, between one class and another. But if you are going to attain that object each class must feel that they have justice.
Even if it is common ground that there may be difficult and troublous questions for us to settle—questions that will require careful treatment and sympathetic handling—then I say let us take care that every class and every shade of opinion may be made to feel that it is duly and fairly represented. Parliament is often described as the Great Council of the Nation. Let us, therefore, have the advantage of all the intellect and all the thought that we can get from every different interest. If we do not get that then we have no right to call our Parliament truly representative, and the more people feel that they are not having due representation and having their opinions put forward by those whom they can trust the more friction and difficulty will be produced. Let us have every class, every interest, every opinion represented in its due strength, and not magnified one at the expense of the other.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 44, insert as a new clause:
"Temporary provision as to revision of constituencies and registration.
"(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 the following instructions:

"1. The areas already delimited by the boundary commissioners shall be grouped so as to form constituencies in accordance with these instructions.

40

"2. A member shall be given for a population of 70,000 and an additional member for any remainder which is not less than 50,000. Provided that where it is considered desirable to form single member constituencies in accordance with instruction number 8, such a constituency may be formed in an area with a population of 50,000.

"3. The boundaries of parliamentary constituencies shall, as far as is practicable, coincide with the boundaries of administrative areas.

"4. Cities and towns or counties which would be entitled on a basis of population to return three or inure members shall be single constituencies: Provided that a constituency entitled to return inure than five members shall be divided into two or more constituencies each returning not less than three or more than five members.

"5. Where there are contiguous towns or counties which, if formed into a single constituency, would be entitled to return not less than three nor more than five members, such towns or counties may be united into a single constituency.

"6. In exceptional circumstances, if there is an expression of local feeling to that effect or if, in the opinion of the boundary commissioners, it is considered desirable, towns or counties returning six members may remain undivided.

"7. Towns returning less than three members may be grouped with the adjoining county divisions.

"8. The instructions should be interpreted in the sense that proportional representation should apply to as large an area as possible, provided that the Commissioners may depart from the strict application of these instructions in any case where it would result in the formation of constituencies inconvenient in size or character, or when the narrowness or margin between the figure representing the estimated population of any area and the figure required for any of the purposes of these instructions seem to them to justify such a departure.

"Provided also that it be an instruction to the boundary commissioners to have regard to electorate rather than population where it appears that the proportion of electorate to population is abnormal.
"(3) The Commissioners 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.
"(4) The report of the Commissioners so presented to Parliament shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
"Provided that if within the next twenty-one clays on which the Commons House of Parliament has sat after the report is so presented that House presents an address to His Majesty praying that any modifications should be made in the report, the report shall have effect as if enacted in this Act with those modifications.
"(5) The registration of electors under this Act shall be proceeded with on the passing thereof as if the constituencies were those contained in the

41
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 Act as to registration to the rearrangement of constituencies effected under this section, and to make any registration work done before the re-arrangement takes effect available under any new conditions resulting from the re-arrangement."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, may I say just one word upon this? As your Lordships are quite well aware, the Government on this question of proportional representation have taken a neutral attitude, or, as the noble Lord has expressed it, "they have no mind on the subject." Therefore, with reward to the Amendment which my noble friend has introduced to your Lordships with so much force, I have to say that it will not lie opposed by the Government. But I must state quite clearly and definitely that they can take no responsibility for it whatever. The noble Lord has stated the effect of his Amendment and it is this. This Bill is to become law this Session, but the question of the determination of the constituencies is left over to a subsequent session. Your Lordships will have to consider whether the House of Commons, which after all is a human institution, will be very prone to pass these immense changes that are made in the Act, and yet refrain front satisfying themselves before that happens as to what are the particular constituencies and what is the system under which they will represent their constituencies in a subsequent session. The Government does nor oppose the Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether this would be a convenient opportunity for me to express a hope that a small Amendment may be made in this Amendment. I see in paragraph 6 of the instructions (in that part of the Amendment which proposes the instructions to Boundary Commissioners) that a limit is placed upon their discretion by saying that they cannot apply a certain process to any constituency which returns more than six Members. Perhaps your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am concerned about the status of the great constituency which introduced me to public life, and which, under the scheme of the Redistribution Commissioners, would return seven Members to Parliament. I make no secret of the fact that that great constituency, so far as I can make out, has
42
up to the present time received with a good I deal of disfavour the proposals for establishing proportional representation. The scheme as originally introduced into the House of Commons would have divided the constituency into two blocks, one returning four Members and the other returning three Members. I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships that if anything would reconcile that community to what it conceives to be the disadvantages of proportional representation it would be to enable it to be polled as a constituency returning seven Members as a whole. I may be allowed to remind your Lordships that I am, perhaps, the only man alive in either House of Parliament who has sat for an undivided borough, and afterwards for a part of the same constituency, under the Act of 1885. Therefore it is part of my actual political recollection to recall the effect produced upon local sentiment, local politics and otherwise, by the introduction of the single-Member system. I can say without hesitation that I do not think that it was a change for the better. I refer to a desire, possibly, to return to what I may call the great days, when political arguments were addressed to the population of a city as a whole, and, when meetings were on a great scale, and, I am bound to say arguments were conceived upon a more spacious groundwork, and the appeal was made in a larger way. I suppose that it is impossible to say that there should be no limit to numbers in this paragraph, and, if it is open to me, I should like to move at this stage an Amendment to the Amendment which should have the effect of saying at all events in place of six that there should be seven Members.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what fell from the noble Lord behind me, for more reasons than one, but I confess that I should be grateful if one of those who are specially responsible for the introduction of the system of proportional representation into this House would enlighten us upon a point in reference to which I made some observations at an earlier stage. It was to this effect. I had always understood that the great merit of the system of proportional representation—that is to say, of returning certain persons who, though eminent, did not possess the particular qualities which fitted them to light single-Member seats in constituencies returning two or three Members—was that such men

43
would, under the system, obtain a chance of such support in a large constituency as would cause them to be returned, and I had always understood that constituencies of from five to seven Members, or even more, formed the ideal which those who favoured proportional representation had in their minds.
In the present proposal there is a very singular departure from what I had always supposed to be the principle. I received this morning a letter from the most veteran of all opponents of proportional representation, Lord Eversley, who has been active, as your Lordships know, in writing to the Press, and I venture to quote a few words from his letter which have a bearing on the question raised by my noble friend. Lord Eversley says—
"The scheme is an extremely bad one even from the point of view of those favourable to the principle, for it must be admitted that the system can only be applied with advantage to five-Member constituencies. Of these there will be only twenty-five in England, while there will be forty-two four-Member districts and fifty three-Member districts. I cannot but think that some discussion should take place in the House of Lords to-morrow specially on the subject of four-Member constituencies. It is inconceivable to me that Parliament could adopt such constituencies with the single transferable vote if it had time to consider the details of the scheme. In such constituencies the result of a contest between two main Parties must, save in the rarest- cases, be an equality of representation and the constituencies would give no verdict. The minority would be elevated to a position of equality with the majority."
I suppose with the accompanying effect of leaving the choice of the Member, and placing the disposition of the votes, very largely, and even to a greater extent than at present, in the hands of the Party agent. Those are the arguments which, as your Lordships know, have been used against the application of proportional representation to small constituencies. I confess that I should be very grateful if one of the noble Lords who has been specially responsible for the introduction of the system of proportional representation would give us some explanation as to why the system of larger constituencies has been abandoned altogether, and why five is to be the upper limit.
LORD PARMOOR: Perhaps I might say one or two words in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess. The House has already adopted the principle in the frame-
44
work of the Bill itself that the constituencies should be not less than three and not more than five Members. I do not propose to re-open that discussion. It is a very old discussion, and Lord Eversley has expressed his opposition to the scheme of proportional representation throughout. But that matter has been discussed and is in the Bill at the present time. So far as concerns the Amendment proposed by Lord Stuart of Wortley I think that "seven" might well be introduced in place of "six" in order to meet the matter to which he has referred, namely, the case of Sheffield, because the provision in the Instruction is not that there should be any departure from the general principle of constituencies with not less than three nor more than five Members, but in any exceptional circumstances—and I believe that Sheffield and Leeds are the only two cases which come within these exceptional circumstances—there should be liberty allowed to the Redistribution Commissioners in considering how the principle can be best applied.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to supplement that in answer to the noble Marquess, because I think that although the question cannot be re-opened it is a perfectly fair question, which requires a fair answer. In the first place, the numbers three to five were recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and all of us have in some degree or another adopted the Report of that Conference as a guide to our actions, whether in connection with proportional representation or some other principle embodied in, or which might be embodied in, this Bill. Therefore, I think there is good reason for taking the numbers three to five. Now, I quite admit that on ideal principles it would be much better to have the larger constituencies, but if you were to lay down a hard and fast rule that there was to be no constituency under five, we will say none of four or three, the result would be that you would cut out of independent Parliamentary existence any number of time-honoured counties and boroughs, which otherwise would have their continuous and independent existence. I think that is quite a good enough reason. Nobody denies that proportional representation does work and produce its effect in three-Member constituencies. All that is said, and said truly, is that the principle has fuller and more perfect play in a five-Member or seven-Member constituency.

45
Now I turn to Lord Everley's criticism of the four-Member constituency, and Lord Harcourt made the same criticism. That would have been a rather hard criticism to meet at any other parliamentary moment than the present. But there is not the slightest difficulty in that criticism now. As between two Parties there is not the opportunity for the play of the proportional principle in a four-Member constituency, but we have definitely passed the era of two Parties. We know on authority that the Labour Party are going to put forward candidates in from 300 to 500 seats. Therefore over the whole area of the United Kingdom you may say it is not a contest between two Parties in the future but between three Parties. Therefore the four-Member constituency works just as well as the three-Member constituency and I would say to my noble friend behind me that I am not going to oppose his Amendment.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I now move, in the last line of paragraph 6, to substitute for the word "six" the word "seven."
Amendment moved to the proposed new clause—
Subsection (2), paragraph (6), leave out ("six") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The line of least resistance I suppose is to accept the Amendment, and by that means to give the Boundary Commissioners in the future a still wider discretion than they have now. I am quite prepared to agree to the substitution of the word "seven" for "six."
First Schedule:
LORD BURNHAM: I have on the Paper an Amendment which is, I understand, a necessary Amendment on practical grounds, and I think the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill does not object.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 33, leave out from ("for") to ("area" ) in line 35, and insert ("each polling district in the registration ").—(Lord Burnham.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think I gave my assent to my noble friend. In fact I
46
was going to put before him this consideration, that, as he knows, there is an Absent Voters' List for each constituency, and I understand that his difficulty is that it may not necessarily follow that the presiding officer in each polling place has the list of absent voters applied to that polling station. (LORD BURNHAM: Yes.] His suggestion is that that should be laid down in the Bill. The difficulty is t hat these absent voters are upon the ordinary Register, and, supposing that they come back they might come to the polling district and claim to vote. How then is the presiding officer to know that they are absent voters and entitled as such to vote? There are two ways of doing this, and possibly more, and I was going to suggest to my noble friend to leave the alternatives to the wisdom and decision of the returning officer. He can either, as 111V noble friend suggests, have a separate list of absent voters for each polling district, or he could simply have a special mark on the lists for the polling district. I am inclined to think that that possibly might be an easier way of doing it. Of course, it is quite possible that when the list of absent voters for the constituency is drawn up there might be a list showing each separate polling district, and I suppose that, what my noble friend wishes would probably be met. But I would suggest to him that he should leave the decision in this case to the convenience of the returning officer, and not insist upon putting in one method of doing it.
LORD BURNHAM: By the permission of the House I would say that those who have technical experience think that the returning officers would prefer to have a uniform Rule—this is in no sense a Party matter—rather than that matters should be left to their discretion. Otherwise there will be no great confusion in regard to the list of absent voters to which my noble friend has alluded. I hope, therefore, that he will tot object to putting this in. It is not a matter upon which anybody would stand out if further objections
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have stated to my are raised.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have stated to my noble friend my only objection—namely, that it might be better to leave it open.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord desire to move?
LORD BURNHAM: Yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The two Amendments standing in my name are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 1, leave out ("parliamentary" and insert ("municipal")
Page 43, lines and 6 and 7, leave out ("situated in a parliamentary county") and insert ("not situated in a municipal borough").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD BURNHAM: The next Amendment standing in my name is one of machinery also, and it is inserted in the interests of easy registration. The notice of objection will come, of course, under subsection (13). It has been pointed out to me—and I think it will be obvious to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill—that it is very desirable that those persons whose names appear on the list, and to whom objection is taken, should have ample notice so far as it can be done without interfering with the making up of the Register. I am informed that this subsection, as I move it, does not give more than adequate notice. The whole object of the Bill is to enable those who are entitled to the vote to come on the Register with as little delay, and as easily, as possible. The converse is also true, that they should not be objected to or struck out without just cause. If they must have notice, I think it would be very much better that they should have it in this form. I therefore beg to move the new Rule as it stands on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 11, at end insert as new rule:
"(14.)—It shall be the duty of the registration officer to publish a list of the names of persons to whose registration notice of objection has been given not later than the twenty-first day of February in the ease of the spring register and not later than the twenty-first day of August in the case of the autumn register."—(Lord Burnham.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend seems to think that I have an enthusiasm for Amendments which he puts down on the Paper; but I think he will agree that this is not one of very supreme importance. I understand that the Amendment does this. The notices of objections to persons on the lists must be published by a certain date—before February 15; and the notice of objections to claimants must be given before a later date—March 7. The officer
48
has to publish these on one list afterwards; but I think my noble friend wants two lists. He desires that as soon as one list is complete it should be published, and then the second list should be published subsequently I suppose I am not far wrong in saying that this is moved in the interests of election agents.
LORD BURNHAM: To facilitate the work of registration by them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a very small matter indeed, and it is really one for the House to decide.
LORD BURNHAM: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Line 13, after ("persons") insert ("included in the list of claimants").—(Lord Burnham.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with another speech on my Amendment. It is not in exactly the same form as it appeared in Committee, but I intend to move it in the same form as in Committee, because, on reconsideration, I do not think that it would he easy to work with the Board of Trade inserted. I shall therefore ask leave to leave out the words "and the Board of Trade" in the two places where those words occur. The Amendment will then be in exactly the same form as when your Lordships considered the Bill in Committee.
I would briefly remind the House that upon the previous occasion I had the great honour of receiving support front many different quarters of the House. My noble friend Lord Lansdowne supported me, as did also the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. I hope the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) will forgive me for saying that he gave no answer in reply, although he was very courteous, on the merits of the question. But he did what was extremely kind of him; he asked me to call at the Local Government Board to have an interview with the representative of that Department. I believe the noble Viscount thought that I should be entirely satisfied by that interview. I am willing to admit that the vigour which the Local Government

49
Board is showing is a very salutary vigour; but the Local Government Board is not the only Department of the Government. I will not say that this particular Amendment was not pointed at the Local Government Board, because that is rather an invidious way of putting it; but it contemplated throwing an obligation on the Admiralty, the Army Council, the Air Force, and the Local Government Board, although the Local Government Board is properly included in the Amendment.
I do not feel, I am afraid, any real confidence that these Departments are certain carry out the intention of Parliament, unless an obligation is laid upon them. This Amendment lays an obligation upon them. As I said in Committee, it is not an attempt to make a complete Rule. That would not be possible in the circumstances. It does, however, clear away a large number of the ambiguities in the Government's proposal, and there is no ambiguity left as between one military authority and another. The obligation is thrown upon the supreme authority, and so there can be no mistake, and the proper lines are indicated by which these great military authorities should be brought into touch with the registration officers.
The proper lines are also indicated by which the electors are to be identified, so that the Local Government Board may know to whom to refer when communicating kith the registration officers. Without repeating what I said on the previous occasion, I will only say this, that I am not convinced by the noble Viscount, because he did not advance any argument at all, and so I could not be convinced. All he said was that he did not wish to accept the Amendment. Therefore I venture to urge upon him that it does not conflict with the policy of the Government, and I think it will make quite clear to the authorities that Parliament does not intend to be trifled with in providing soldiers' votes.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 36, at end insert as a new rule:
"17. The Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council, either directly or through officers a appointed by them, shall in the prescribed manner furnish to the registration officers in the several constituencies such information as to the names and addresses of Naval and Military voters and such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of their registration and of their voting as such, and it shall be the duty of the Local Government Board to render any assistance that may be required by the Admiralty, the
50
Army Council, and the Air Council in conveying such information to the registration officers.
"Provided that the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall not be required to supply any particulars which in their declared opinion would interfere with the proper conduct of the war."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I thought I had on a previous occasion advanced some reasons against the acceptance of the Amendment, but it appears that I was so unsuccessful that the noble Marquess regarded my observations rather as an expression of courtesy than as an argument. I will, therefore, try just to say one word upon this point which may, I will not say have the effect, but may have more appearance to the mind of the noble Marquess, of being an argument. First of al], I think he has had an opportunity of satisfying himself how much has been done already by the Local Government Board to make these arrangements, and I hope he will be satisfied with his investigations. The noble Marquess wishes to put this duty definitely upon the Local Government Board of rendering any assistance that may be required.
First of all, on that point, I would say that it is really wholly unnecessary to put any such specific duty in respect of this Bill upon the Local Government Board, because the Local Government Board are doing it already, and doing it really as part of their regular and ordinary duty. Why, then, are you going to assert in this particular Amendment that it must do what it is already doing? Surely it is superfluous. The second objection is of rather a different kind. The noble Marquess in his Amendment suggests that the Army Council, the Admiralty, and the Air Council shall furnish "such other particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of registration." In the first place, who is to judge of what may be necessary? There is nobody here to judge as to what particulars are to be necessary, and apparently the only way of testing that is to go to a Court of Law. Is it really suggested that in an administrative matter of this kind you are going to bring in the Courts of Law?
Moreover, the words are "as may be necessary," and that is a very limited form of words, and I want to draw attention to the rules the Government have drafted. I submit to your Lordships that the effect of the Amendment of the noble Marquess

51
is to limit rather than to enlarge the amount of information that may be given. Under Rule 18 it says that—
"The naval, military and air force authorities and the Board of Trade shall furnish to the registration officer … such information as may be prescribed after consultation with the Admiralty, Army Council, Air Council and Board of Trade respectively."
Now, that will he prescribed by Order in Council, and therefore we are not limiting the information to what is absolutely necessary—that narrow word necessary—but any information that may be considered useful or valuable may be prescribed by Order in Council. Therefore I appeal to my noble friend opposite, and to the noble Marquess who supported him on the last occasion, whether it would not be better to leave the more elastic words which are now in the Bill and not impose a limited duty while the Local Government Board has already a general duty in virtue of its general functions.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that my noble friend, Lord Peel, is either rather unfortunate in his endeavours to bring conviction to us, or we are more unfortunate still in being unable to receive that conviction which we ought to assimilate; but his arguments certainly did not carry conviction to my mind. In the first place, he laid great stress upon the extreme superfluity of putting upon the Local Government Board a duty which they are already performing. I have in my mind clause after clause of Bill after Bill which this Government has placed before us and which we have passed in the past year, instituting new offices, and in all those Bills are clauses that the President of the Local Government Board shall give all the assistance in his power to the Home Secretary, that the Home Secretary shall never fail to give advice to the Secretary for War, and that the Admiralty shall consult the Minister for Labour. I am not saying that that is an exact reproduction of exact clauses of exact Bills, but we have over and over again had instructions in Bills that one officer shall assist another. Such clauses used not to be inserted in the old form of drafting, and therefore there is superabundant precedent in the legislation of the Government, of which my noble friend is an ornament, for putting this duty upon the Local Government Board. Then his second argument was "Surely you are not going to appeal to the Courts
52
of Law for an interpretaton of these words 'as may be necessary'" and he said "you cannot interpret them except in a Court of Law." How does he interpret his own rule?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment says such particulars as may be necessary," not "such as may be prescribed."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, but the words of the Government's proposal are" Shall furnish … such information as may be prescribed." Prescribed by whom?
VISCOUNT PEEL: By Order in Council.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Why not by Order in Council in this case?
VISCOUNT PEEL: You do not say it in the Amendment?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Nor do you either in your Rule.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If you turn to the definition clause you will see that it is so.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The Rule does not say that the matter shall be prescribed by Order in Council, nor does my noble friend say so in his Amendment, but by the interpretation under the Act these things will all be done by Order in Council, just as much under the Amendment as under the provisions of the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. I want to draw his attention to the fact that he has not really touched the main argument of my noble friend which moves us and has moved us in this matter all through. We do not trust the Army Council or the Admiralty without a specific declaration from Parliament. From beginning to end of this question the Army Council and the Admiralty have taken what seemed to us an untenable position about sailors and soldiers voting. They have said repeatedly that the thing is not possible. Well, they have been overruled, and we have seen Dominion soldiers and sailors voting again and again. Knowing what the temperament of the War Office and the Admiralty is on this subject we think there should be a quite specific direction in the Act of Parliament placing the duty upon these Departments to supply the necessary information to the Local Government Board.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As the noble Viscount opposite mentioned my name, I desire to say—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was referring to Lord Lansdowne.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg pardon. My noble friend behind alluded to me, however, and therefore I ought to say that I am not convinced by the argument of the noble Viscount opposite that his form of words ought to be preferred. I do not say that the difference between the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 3, leave out Rule 18.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: The Amendment I have to move deals with the consideration of objections before the registration officer, and I trust that the noble Viscount, who is conducting the Bill so ably, will see his way to accept it. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the objection shall be considered in a public Court, conveniently situated, and not in what may be called a modern "star chamber" which, may possibly be the
54
two things is gigantic; but, for the reasons which have been mentioned by the noble Earl who has just sat down, it appears to me to be useful to put a closer form of instruction into the Bill in the terms which the noble Marquess suggests. Therefore I desire to support it.
On Question, whether the proposed new Rule shall be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 23.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Chaplin, V.

Dinevor, L.

Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

Chilston, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Falkland, V.

Faringdon, L.

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

Harcourt, V.

Harris, L.

Hatherton, L.

Balfour, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Minto, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Lamington, L.

Morton, E.

Burnham, L.

Parmoor, L.

Sandwich, E.

Charnwood, L.

Sandys, L.

Selborne, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Verulam, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lucan, E.

Kenyon, L.

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

Lytton, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Newton, L.

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

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Ranksborough, L.

Peel, V.

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

Albemarle, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Suffield, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Treowen, L.

Eldon, E.

Joicey, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

registration officer's own office, miles away from the residence of the person who is objected to. In the other House of Parliament I believe it was moved that in urban districts evening sittings should be held, but that I am not proposing to move now. I trust that these words will meet with the approval of the noble Viscount, and that he will be able to accept them. It is very important that the place where objections are to be considered shall be convenient and easily accessible to the persons concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 14, at end insert ("and such place shall be convenient and accessible to the persons concerned").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I quite understand the benevolent intention of the noble Lord in bringing forward this Amendment, but I submit that really it is not necessary, because what he wishes to put specifically

55
into the Bill is really a part of the duties of the registration officer. Therefore it would be a great pity to give specific directions on one class of his duties. I may point out that under Section 13, subsection (1), the registration officer has to comply with any general or special directions which may be given by the Local Government Board, and if there is any complaint that he does not suit the convenience of the public he is given a special order to do so. I do not think, therefore, that these words are necessary because the words in the Bill are much wider.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: The Amendment, which I beg to move, aims at the same object as an Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Gainford in Committee on the Bill, though it is in different words. The Amendment was dropped by Lord Gainford only because there was no quorum present in the House, and, if he had divided on it, it would have suspended the discussion on the Bill for that evening. That is the only reason why he did not divide, and he has asked me to put it in better words in order to meet some objection which was taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, and to move it again. Those who are acquainted with registration know the great importance of the reading by the revising barrister of the corrections he makes. It is quite possible, where there are two John Jones, one of whom is dead and ought to be struck out, for the revising barrister to strike out the wrong one. When he reads the list over and the agents are there, the matter is put right immediately. On the last occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Peel said that this could always be met by the notice of elimination, which would be sent to the person struck out, but that is not the case with dead men. If you strike out, as dead, a living man, the living man would not get a notification from the revising barrister, now the registration officer, that he had been struck out. I hope the noble Viscount will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 30, at end, insert:
"26. The registration officer when revising the lists, and after deciding upon the validity of any claim or objection, or after making any alteration in the lists, shall read out audibly, in the presence of all interested parties then present, the names
56
expunged and inserted by him, and all corrections and alterations made by him and shall at the same time, write his initials against the said names, or the said corrections or alterations, and shall sign his name to every page of the several lists so revised."—(Viscount Harcourt.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I want to point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, that the word "and" in line 4 of his Amendment should be "or". The name cannot be expunged and inserted.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: It is quite correct. You have to read out the expunged names and also the inserted names.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Viscount is moving the same Amendment that was moved by Lord Gainford in Committee.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I have altered the wording.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, perhaps slightly, and I will point out what it is. The noble Viscount said that Lord Gainford did not wish to divide the House because there was not a sufficient number of your Lordships present. Again I was under a misconception. I thought that I had convinced him it was unnecessary, and that he withdrew it on that ground. The noble Viscount has made only one main change in his Amendment, and that is, he has left out the words "open court." In substance, therefore, the Amendment is the same. As I pointed out on the Committee stage, this Amendment, almost verbatim, is drawn from a provision applying to the revising barrister's courts and, therefore, it appeared to me that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, was under a misconception—possibly also the noble Viscount—that you can compare a registration officer, when he is carrying, out his administrative duties, with a revising barrister. The two things are totally different, and it would be a great pity to carry an Amendment which would tend to confuse them. The registrar will be sitting and dealing with the different cases coming before him. He will decide whether the man is to be on the Register or not. It is not a revising barrister's court; he does not read the list, because there is no list. The noble Viscount cited the case of a dead man being expunged. They are only struck out after notice has

57
been sent by the registrar of births, deaths, and marriages.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My instance was that of a clerical error—a living man having the pen put through his name, when it ought to have been the next man on the list—two men of the same name.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Clerical errors, of course, can be rectified when the list is published. What I want to point out is that there is no list which can be read in open court. There is no open court, and no list and, if the Amendment was put in, it would be absolutely inoperative.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 36, at end insert ("by who in inspection thereof shall be given under the same conditions that govern the register").—(Lord Somerleyton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I readily accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 34, after ("any") insert ("bank holiday or").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a Scottish drafting Amendment,
Amendment moved—
Page 51, after line 4, insert as a new paragraph:
"For the reference to section twenty-four of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, there shall be substituted a reference to section twenty-nine of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The following Amendment is merely drafting; it is an Irish Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 44, leave out ("13") and insert ("14"),—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 16, after the second ("the") insert ("registration").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should like to move these two new subsections together—they are merely drafting—but omitting in (8), in the third line, from "and" to the end. These words are rendered unnecessary by other Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 34, at end insert as new subsections:
"(8) Rule 2 of this schedule shall be construed as if the words "or otherwise to distinguish," were inserted after the words "in separate divisions".
For the direction to the registration officer in Rule 22 of this schedule to secure that no person is registered as a local government elector in respect of more than one qualification in the areas and for the purposes therein specified, there shall be substituted a direction to secure that no person is registered as a local government elector in respect of more than one qualification in the same district, electoral division, or ward."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The two Amendments On the Second Schedule are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 39, leave out ("14 and 61") and insert ("and 14")
Page 53, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 11 inclusive.—(Viscount Peel.)]
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third. Schedule:
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I do not know whether I shall be more fortunate in conjuring acceptance of this Amendment out of the noble Viscount. It seems to me important that we should know how the proxy papers are to be issued to the voters who are entitled to them. The method proposed by the Amendment is only for the present war and twelve months afterwards. I and some of my friends feel it would be much better that the proxies should be issued by the naval and military authorities, and not leave the voter to the activities of

59
the Party agents, to be snowed under, possibly, by the receipt of proxy papers.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 23, at end insert:
"5. 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-two, 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."—(Viscount Harcourt.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I am right in saving that this Amendment has already been moved in Committee. I think it was moved by Lord Gainford, for whom the noble Viscount is again taking up the cudgels. I am afraid I must give him something of the same answer, and that is to urge him not to insist on putting in one particular way of having this proxy system carried out when experience may show better ways. For instance, under his scheme it states that the Paper should be forwarded by the voter to his proxy and then it should go from the proxy to the registration officer and back from the registration officer to the proxy. Under the arrangements now being made I understand the system will be that the proxy paper should go straight to the registration officer, be stamped by him, and then go straight back to the proxy, thus saying one post. I only give this as an illustration of the little changes that may be made, changes that could not be carried out if the rather rigid form of the noble Viscount's Amendment were adhered to. I therefore will ask him in the interest of flexibility not to press this Amendment upon the House.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fourth Schedule:
LORD PARMOOR: I think the series of three Amendments in my name to the Fourth Schedule may be regarded really as consequential Amendments on the adoption of the principle of proportional representation. The object of them is this. In the single-Member constituency, if it is a county, 7d. for each elector is the amount to be expended, and 5d. in the case of boroughs. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave those two figures as they are now, as regards single-Member constituencies and two-Member constituencies. As regards constituencies which will be grouped for the purposes of proportional representation, in the case of a county or a division of a county 7d. is reduced to 4d., and in the case of a borough or a group of boroughs so created from 5d. to 3d. One of the objections raised to proportional representation has been the expense, and I am sure the reduction proposed here would leave ample to conduct the elections.
Amendments moved—
Page 56, line 16, after ("constituency") insert ("or a division of a county returning one member")
Page 56, line 18, after ("constituency") insert ("returning one or two members, or a division of a borough returning one member")
Page 56, line 19, at end insert ("In the case of an election for a county, or a division of a county, returning three or more members, to fourpence for each elector on the register.
"In the case of an election for a borough, or a group of boroughs, or a division of a borough, returning three or more members, to threepence for each elector on the register").—(Lord Parmoor)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
VISCOUNT PEEL: MY two Amendments to the Fifth Schedule are merely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 61, line 12, after ("a") insert ("bank or")
Page 67, line 41, after ("a") insert ("bank or").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule:
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is merely a Scottish drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 18, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("sixty-eight").—(Viscount Peel.)]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL GREY: My Amendment to the Sixth Schedule is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 21, leave out paragraph 5.—(Earl Grey.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was going to say a word, but I do not wish to contest it if it is considered a drafting Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I want to say a word about this, because I understand that the effect of the striking out of this paragraph 5 would be to leave the local government constituencies as they are at present. That is to say, that the number of members would be what it is now with no reference to the increased number given to London by the Bill. Naturally it would not be agreeable to the London County Council that the principle which has held good since its creators that of there being two County Council members for each Parliamentary Member—should be abandaned. That is to say, the Bill as it now stands, giving three more Parliamentary Members to London, would have given six additional members to the London County Council. This, however, is in one sense a minor matter.
What is important, and appears to be a more serious departure from the law as it stands, is that for the first time the principle of the identity of areas for the Parliamentary and municipal representtion may, and in some cases will, be altered, with the possible result that it may be necessary to have an altogether separate Register for the municipal elections in London. That is a serious matter both from the point of view of convenience and the point of view of expense. It is, of course, true that if proportional representation is finally adopted for Parliamentary purposes the London County Council is placed in the position of having to choose between two things. Either it has to adopt a similar system itself, or it has to agree to take up a different plan for the Parliamentary representation and the municipal. I do not know that it would regard with great enthusiasm being driven to either of these alternatives, though it cannot, of course, be supposed that a great
62
political change like this can be held up because it is inconvenient even to the largest municipal body in England. It must, however, be clearly understood that it must be considered open to Parliament, after consulting the London County Council, to see whether in future some entirely different method of representation may not have to be adopted.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is very suitable that the noble Marquess, as the present Chairman of the London County Council, should have made these observations rather than myself. I only wish to say that I entirely endorse them, and I would point out that, as a result of this Amendment, the County Council, at any rate at present, will have to go on with the same number of members, and with being elected for the old Parliamentary constituencies. I certainly think that if this Bill becomes an Act in this form something will have to be done in order to put that matter right.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word on this matter. I think that when the Bill was in the House of Commons the President of the Local Government Board suggested, as one solution of this difficulty, that the matter might be left to the County Council itself, having regard to the magnitude and importance of such an area as that of the London County Council. In my view that would be a solution which would meet all difficulties.
LORD BURNHAM: I think that these dangers and difficulties are to some extent conjured up, because the Amendment adopted by your Lordships' House does not in any case interfere with the integrity of London boroughs, which remain integral wholes for purposes of registration and election, though in certain eases they have been united for proportional representation. I do not believe that under these circumstances the dangers will arise, though I look forward to a time when, for purposes of local government in these great areas, and most of all in the administrative county of London, the same system will be adopted as has already been adopted in this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is a Scottish drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 35, leave out ("twelve and thirteen") and insert ("and thirteen and (so far as necessary) section twelve").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 72, after line 22 insert:
"The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 and 47 Vict. c. 51):
"In section sixty-eight in the definition of 'revising barrister,' for the word sheriff' shall be substituted the words' registration officer.'
after line 36 insert:
"The Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vict. c.55):—
"In section twenty-nine the words 'registration officer' shall be substituted for 'revising authority,' and at the end of subsection (1) of the said section the following words shall be added, 'and shall make out a list (which may be referred to as the corrupt and illegal practices list) containing the name and description of every person whose name has been so omitted, and shall state in that list the offence of which each such person has been convicted or found guilty.'"—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, before going to page 73, may I call the attention of the noble Viscount to paragraph 7 at the bottom of page 72 and ask him whether these Orders that are made by the Local Government Board come within any of the provisions for control of Orders which have the effect of Acts of Parliament. He will see that this paragraph says: "The Local Government Board may by Order make such further adaptations in the provisions of any Act," and "any Order so made shall operate as if enacted in this Act." I do not know whether it comes within the provisions that have been debated already in this House or whether by any possibility it has been overlooked.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the answer is that it does not come within any provisions already debated.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, leave out lines 18 to 22.—(Earl Grey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, leave out the Seventh Schedule.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 15, third column, after ("thirty-five") insert ("section thirty-six, so far as relating to town clerks or deputy town clerks being entitled to vote").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 78, line 10, leave out "D."
Page 78, line 31, third column, at end insert ("and (except as respects Scotland and Ireland) from 'Where the sheriff' to the end of the section").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendments are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 79, line 18, third column, after ("eleven") insert ("twelve").
Page 80, lines 3 to 5, third column, leave out ("except as to the disqualification for the receipt of union or parochial relief or other alms").
Lines 10 and 11, third column, leave out ("(except subsection (4))").
Line 31, third column, leave out from ("burgesses") to ("and") in line 33.
Page 81, lines 33 and 34, third column, leave out ("relates to parliamentary electors") and insert ("unrepealed").
Page 82, after line 29, insert:

"53 & 54 Vict. c. 55.

The Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890.

In section one the definition of "revising authority"; subsection (3) of section seventeen and subsections (7) and (8) of section twenty nine."

—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Ninth Schedule:
LORD BURNHAM: I am in some difficulty as to the next Amendment because, of course, it is in the Ninth Schedule which deals with the redistribution of seats, and to a certain extent it is a vanishing quantity, but, at the same time, I hardly like to leave what appears to be rather an aimless re-shuffling of the areas.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I interrupt the noble Lord. There are certain amendments as to altering existing constituencies

65
and their names, which are on the Paper in the names of various noble Lords. As I understand that Lord Parmoor is going to move a totally new Schedule, it really does not seem necessary to go through the discussion of these names now.
THE MARQUESS of CREWE: But this is not a question of names; it is a question of boundaries.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a question of boundaries, I agree, but it is a question of the particular borough council and the division of certain constituencies, and that would all be swept away by the Schedule of the noble Lord.
LORD BURNHAM: I understand that. But suppose that this original Schedule is re-inserted. I only want to guard myself against that eventuality.
Leave out the Ninth Schedule and insert as a new Schedule:—

"NINTH SCHEDULE.

"REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.

"1. The names, contents, and boundaries of each constituency shall be as specified in this schedule.

"2. The areas mentioned in the second and last columns of this schedule shall be taken to be those areas as constituted on the first day of October 1917. Provided that any misnomer or inaccurate description of any of those areas in these columns shall not in any way prevent or abridge the operation of this Act with respect to the subject of the description if it is so designated as to be commonly understood.

"3. The wards mentioned in this schedule are, in relation to any municipal borough, wards of the municipal borough, and, in relation to any urban district, wards of the urban district.

"4. The expression "burgh." when used in this schedule, means a burgh as bounded for police purposes on the first day of October nineteen hundred and seventeen.

"5. If any doubt arises as to the constituency in which any parish, townland, ward, or other place, whether larger or smaller than a parish, townland, or ward, is intended by this schedule to be included, that doubt shall be determined by the Local Government Board, or in Scotland, by the Secretary for Scotland.

PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES.

(1) LONDON.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency.

Total Number of Members for Constituency.

Battersea

Metropolitan borough of Battersea

Two

Bermondsey and Southwark

Metropolitan boroughs of Bermondsey and Southwark

Five

Bethnal Green and Shoreditch

Metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green and Shoreditch

Three

Camberwell

Metropolitan borough of Camberwell

Four

Chelsea and Kensington

Metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea and Kensington

Three

City of London

City of London

Two

Deptford and Lewisham

Metropolitan boroughs of Deptford and Lewisham

Three

Finsbury and Holborn

Metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury and Holborn

Two

Fulham and Hammersmith

Metropolitan boroughs of Fulham and Hammiersmith

Four

Greenwich and Woolwich

Metropolitan boroughs of Greenwich and Woolwich

Three

Hackney and Stoke Newington

Metropolitan boroughs of Hackney and Stoke Newington

four

Hampstead andSt. Pancras

Metropolitan boroughs of Hampstead and St. Pancras.

Four

Islington

Metropolitan borough of Islington

Four

Lambeth

Metropolitan borough of Lambeth

Four

Paddington and St. Marylebone.

MetropolitanboroughsofPaddingtonandSt. Marylebone.

Three

Tower Hamlets

Metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Stepney

Five

Wandsworth

Metropolitan borough of Wamlsworth

Five

Westminster

Metropolitan borough of Westminster

Two

THE MARQUESS OE CREWE: If my noble friend is going to move this, he should do it after the adjournment, because there is something to be said about it.
THE EARL OE SELBORNE: Surely my noble friend, Lord Peel, is in error. Assuming that for a moment Lord Parmoor accepts this, no Amendment to the Schedule previously struck out would be effective. And if another place puts the Schedule back, it would not be affected.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But it would be open to the noble Lord to move.
Amendment not moved.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had on the Paper the following Amendment—

(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

City and Town Constituencies.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency.

Total Number of Members for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Divisions.

Birkenhead and Wallasey

The county boroughs of Birkenhead and Wallasey

Three

—

—

—

Birmingham

The county borough of Birmingham

Twelve

North Birmingham. (Hands-worth, Erdington, Aston, Duddeston)

Four

The Handsworth, Sandwell, Soho, Erdington North, Erdington South, Washwood Heath, Aston, St. Mary, Duddleston, Nechells Wards and Lozells Ward (except those parts which lie between the southern and south-eastern boundaries thereof and the line next hereinafter described), and the parts of the All Saints Ward which lies to the north of the said line.

The line above referred to commences at the south-west corner of Lozella Ward in the middle of Hunter Road, continues south along the middle of that road, the middle of Farm Street, Burbury Street, Gordon Street, Berners Street, Clifford Street, Guildford Street, Paddington Street, Porchester Street, Summer Lane, Asylum Road, High Street, Phillips Street, Aston Road North, White-house Street, Chester Street and Avenue Road to the middle of the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, thence in a north-easterly direction along the middle of the Canal to the point where the middle of the Canal intersects the boundary of Aston Ward.

West Birmingham. (Lady-wood, Edgbaston, King's Norton, West Birmingham)

Four

Ladywood, Rotton Park, Edgbas-ton, Harborne, Market Hall, North -field, Selly Oak, St Pauls, the part of King's Norton Ward which is not included in the Division of East Birmingham and the parts of the All Saints Ward and of Lozell's Ward, which are not included in the Division of North Birmingham.

East Birmingham. (Deritend, Moseley, Spark-brook. Yardley)

Four

St. Bartholomews, St. Martins, Deritend, Acock's Green, Sparkhill, Balsall Heath, Sparkbrook, Moseley, King's Heath, Saltley, Smallheath, Yardley, and the part of King's Norton Ward which lies to the north of Bell's Lane and to the east and southeast of the middle of Monyhull Hall Road and Brandwood Road.

Bradford

The county borough of Bradford

Four

—

—

—

Bristol

The county borough of Bristol

Five

—

—

—

(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

City and Town Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency.

Total Number of Members for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Divisions.

Dewsbury, Batley and Wakefield

County boroughs of Dewsbury and Wakefield and the municipal boroughs of Batley, Morley and Ossett

Three

—

—

—

Kingston-upon-Hull

The county borough of Kingston-upon-Hall

Four

—

—

—

Leeds

The county borough of Leeds

Six

North (Central, North, North East)

Three

Central, Mill Hill, South, West, Brunswick, Headingley, North West, North, Roundhay, Seacroft, Shadwell and Crossgates Wards, and the part of North East Ward which its not included in the South Division.

South (South East and West)

Three

Holbeck, West Hunslet, East, Hunslet, East Armley, Wortley, New Wortley, Bramley and the part of North East Ward which lies to the west of Accommodation Road from the ward boundary in Burmantofts Street to the ward boundary in York Road.

Leicester

The county borough of Leicester

Three

—

—

—

Liverpool

The county borough of Liverpool

Eleven

North East (Walton, West Derby, Fairfield)

Three

Fazakerley, Walton, Warbreck, Anfield, Breckfield, West, Derby, Fairfield and Old Swan Wards, and the part of Kensington Ward which is not included in the West Division.

South (Wavertree, West Toxteth, East Toxteth)

Three

Allerton Childwall and Little Woolton, Garston, Much Woolton, Wavertree, Wavertree West, Brunswick", Dingle, Prince's Park, Aigburgh, Granby, Sefton Park East and Sefton Park West Ward.

West (Scotland, Kirk-dale, Exchange, Edge Hill, Everton)

Five

North Scotland, Sandhills, South Scotland, Kirkdale, St. Domingo, Abercromby, Castle Street, Exchange, Great George, St. Anne's, St. Peter's, Vauxhall, Edge Hill, Low Hill, Everton and Netherfield Wards, and the part of the Kensington Ward which lies to the south and west of a line drawn from the western boundary of the ward along the middle of the road called Kensington to its junction with Holt Road, thence in a southerly direction along the middle of Holt Road to its junction with Edge Lane, and thence in an easterly direction along the middle of Edge Lane to the eastern boundary of the ward.

(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—Continued.

City and Town Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Manchester

County borough of Manchester

Ten

North-East (Blackley, Platting, Clayton, Ardwick, Gorton)

Five

Blackley Crumpsall. Moston, Collyhurst. Harpurhey and Miles Platting Wards, and the part of the St. Michael's Ward which is not included in the South-West Division. Beswick, Bradford, Newton Heath. Ardwick, New Cross, St. Mark's. Gorton North, Gorton South and Openshaw Wards.

South-West (Exchange, Hulme, Moss Side, Rusholme, Withington

Five

Cheetham, Collegiate Church, Exchange, Oxford, St. Ann's, St. Clement's and St. John's Wards, and the part of St. Michael's Ward which lies to the north-west of a line drawn along the middle of Rochdale Road. Medlock Street, Moss Side West and St. George's Wards. All Saints, Moss Side East and St. Luke's Wards. Levenshulme, Longsight and Rusholme Wards. Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Didsbury and Withington Wards.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

County borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Four

—

—

—

Nottingham

County borough of Nottingham

Four

—

—

—

Plymouth

County borough of Plymouth

Three

—

—

—

Portsmouth

County borough of Portsmouth

Three

—

—

—

The Potteries

County borough of Stoke-on-Trent, municipal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme and urban districts of Audley and Wolstanton United

Four

—

—

—

Salford

County borough of Salford

Three

—

—

—

Sheffield

County borough of Sheffield

Seven

East (Attercliffe, Brightside Park)

Three

Attercliffe, Darnall, Brightside. Burngreave, Heeley and Park Wards.

West (Central, Ecclesall, Hallam, Hills-borough)

Four

St. Peter's, St. Phillip's. Bromhall, Ecclesall, Sharrow, Crokesmoor, Hallam, Hillsborough, Neepsend and Walkley Wards

(2) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

City and Town Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Southampton

County borough of Southampton

Two

—

—

—

South Stafford boroughs

County borough of Dudley and the civil parish of Dudley Castle Hill, county borough of Smetliwick, county borouch of Walsall, municipal borough of Wednesbury, and urban districts of Darlaston and Tipton, county borough of West Bromwich

Five

—

—

—

West Ham

The county borough of West Ham

Four

—

—

—

Wolverhampton

The county borough of Wolverhampton, and urban districts of Bilston, Coseley, Heath Town or Wednesfield Heath, Sedgley, Short Heath, Wednesfield and Willen-hall

Three

—

—

—

York

The county borough of York (with York Castle)

One

—

—

—

(3) WALES INCLUDING MONMOUTHSHIRE

City and Town Constituencies

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Cardiff

County borough of Cardiff and urban district of Penarth

Three

—

—

—

The Merthyr boroughs

County borough of Merthyr Tydfil and urban districts of Aberdare and Mountain Ash and the urban district of Rhondda.

Four

—

—

—

Newport

County borough of Newport

One

—

—

—

(4) SCOTLAND.

City and Town Constituencies.

Dumbarton Burghs

Burghs of Dumbarton and Clyde-bank

One

—

—

—

Edinburgh

County of the City of Edinburgh and burgh of Mussel-burgh

Five

—

—

—

Glasgow

County of the City of Glasgow

Fifteen

East (Central, Spring-burn, Camlachie, Bridgeton, Shettleston.

Five

That portion of the city which lies to the north of the centre line of the River Clyde and to the east of a line commencing at a point on the municipal boundary at the centre line of the North British Railway (Edinburgh and Glasgow line), about 327 yards north of the centre of Hawthorn Street, where the said North British Railway Intersects that street, thence south-eastward and southward along the centre of the said North British Railway to the centre line of Fountainwell Road, thence south-eastward along the centre line of Fountainwell Road to the centre line of Springburn Road, and thence southward along the centre line of Springburn Road to a point at the intersection of Spring-burn Road and Parliamentary Road, thence south-westward along the centre line of Parliamentary Road to the centre line of Buchanan Street, thence northward along the centre line of Buchanan Street to the centre line of Coweaddens, thence north.

(4) SCOTLAND—continued.

City and Town Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Glasgow

East—could.

westward along the centre line of Coweaddens and New City Road to the centre line of Scott Street, and thence southward along the centre line of Scott Street, Pitt Street and McAlpine Street to the centre line of the River Clyde.

West, (Partick, Hill-head, Maryhill, St. Rollox, Kelvin-grove)

Five

That portion of the city which is not contained within the East and South Divisions.

South, (Govan, Tradeston, Gorbals, Pollock, Cathcart)

Five

That portion of the city which lies to the south of the centre line of the River Clyde.

Leith

The Burgh of Leith

One

—

—

—

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDINO LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Country Constituencies.

Bedford

The administrative county of Bedford

Three

—

—

—

Berks

The administrative county of Berks and the county borough of Reading

Four

—

—

—

Bucks

The administrative county of Bucks

Three

—

—

—

Cambridge and Huntingdon

The administrative counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, and the Isle of Ely

Four

—

—

—

Chester

The administrative county of Chester and the county boroughs of Chester and Stockport

Kleven

East Macclesfield, Stalybridge, Stockport, and Hyde).

Four

The rural district of Disley, the part of the rural district of Congleton which consists of the civil parishes of Hulme Walfield and Newbold Astbury, the part of the rural district of Macclesfield which is not included in the Knutsford Division, the municipal, boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield, and the urban districts of Bredbury and Romiley, Buglawton, Compstall, Marple, and Yeardsleycum-Whaley

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

County Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Chester—contd.

East—contd.

The rural district of Tintwistle, the municipal boroughs of Dukinfiekl, Hyde, and Stalybridge, and the urban districts of Hollingworth and Mottram in Longdendale, and the county borough of Stockport.

Mid (Altrincham, Crewe, Knutsford, Northwich)

Four

The part of the rural district of Bucklow which is not included in the Knutsford Division, and the urban districts of Altrincham, Ashton-upon-Mersey, Bowdon, Cheadle and Gatley, Hale, Haudforth, Lymm, and Sale.

The part of the rural district of Congleton which consists of the civil parishes of Arclid, Betchton, Church Lawton, Hassall. Moreton-cum-Alcumlow, Odd Rode, Smallwood, and Wheelock, the part of the rural district of Nantwich which consists of the civil parishes of Barthomley, Basford, Church Coppenhall, Chorlton, Crewe, Haslington, Hough, Rope, Shavington - cum - Gresty, Stapeley, Weston, Willaston, Wistaston, and Wybunbury, the municipal borough of Crewe, and the urban districts of Alsager and Nantwich.

The part of the rural district of Bucklow which consists of the civil parishes of Aston-by-Budworth, Bexton, Marthall - cum - Warford, Mere, Mobberley, Ollerton, Peover Inferior, Peover Superior, Pickmere, Plumley, Styal, Tabley Inferior, Tabley Superior, Tatton, and Toft; the part of the rural district of Congleton which is not included in the Crewe, Macclesfield, and Northwich Divisions ; the part of the rural district of Macclesfield which consists of the civil parishes of Adlington, Butley, Capesthorne, Chelford, Chorley, Fallibroome, Great Warford, Lower Withington, Marton, Mottram St. Andrew, Nether Alderley, Newton, Old Withington, Over Alderley, Poynton-with-Worth, Prestbury, Siddington, Snelson, Tytherington, Upton, and Woodford ; the part of the rural district of North-wich which consists of the civil parishes of Allostock, Byley, Lach Dennis, Lostock Gralam, Nether Peover, Rudheath, Sproston, and Whatcroft, the part of the rural district of Runcorn which consists of the civil parishes of Acton Grange, Antrobus, Appleton, Crowley, Daresbury Grappenhall, Hatton, Higher Whitley Keckwick, Latchford Without, Lower Whitley, Moore, Newton by Daresbury, Preston on the Hill, Seven Oaks Stockton Heath, Stretton, Thelwall, Walton Inferior, and Walton Superior

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

County Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Chester—contd.

Mid.—contd.

and the urban districts of Alderley Edge, Bollington, Hazel Grove and Bramhall, Knutsford, and Wilmslow.

The part of the rural district of Congleton which consists of the civil parishes of Bradwall, Elton, Moston, and Tetton, the part of the rural district of Northwich which is not included in the Eddisbury and Knutsford Divisions, the part of the rural district of Runcorn which is not included in the Eddisbury and Knutsford Divisions, and the urban districts of Middlewich, Northwich, Runcorn, Sandbach, and Winsford.

West (Chester, Eddisbury, Wirral)

Three

The rural district of Chester, the county borough of Chester, and the urban district of Hoole.

The rural districts of Malpas and Tarvin, the part of the rural district of Nantwich which is not included in the Crewe Division, the part of the rural district of Northwich which consists of the civil parishes of Crowton, Cuddington, Darnhall, Delamere, Eddisbury, Little Budworth, Marlon, Oakmere, and Wimbolsley, the art of the rural district of Runcorn which consists of the civil parishes of Alvanley. Frodsham, Frodsham Lordship, Helsby, Kingsley, Kings-wood, Manley, Newton-by-Frodsham, and Norley, and the urban district of Tarporley.

The rural district of Wirral, and the urban districts of Bromborough, Ellesmere Port and Whitby, Higher Bebington, Hoylake and West Kirby, Lower Bebington, and Neston and Parkgate.

Cornwall

The administrative county of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

Five

—

—

—

Cumberland

The administrative county of Cumberland and the county borough of Carlisle

Five

—

—

—

Derby

The administrative county of Derby and the county borough of Derby

Ten

North (Chesterfield, Clay Cross, High Peak, North-Eastern, Western)

Five

The part of the rural district of Chesterfield which consists of the civil parishes of Barlow, Brimington, Calow, Hasland, Sutton-cum-Duckmanton, Tapton, Temple Normanton; and Wingerworth, the municipal borough of Chesterfield, and the urban districts of Brampton and

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Derby—contd.

North—contd.

Walton and Whitlington and New-bold.

The rural district of Blackwell, the part of the rural district of Chesterfield which is not included in the North Eastern and Chesterfield Divisions, and the urban district of Clay Cross.

The rural district of Chapel-en-le-Frith (except the two detached parts of the civil parish of Derwent which are bounded on the west by the civil parish of Hathersage), the rural districts of Glossop Dale and Hayfield, the portion of the rural district of Bakewell which consists of the two detached parts of the civil parish of Outseats which are bounded on three sides by the civil parish of Derwent the municipal boroughs of Buxton and Glossop, and the urban district of New Mills.

The rural districts of Clown and Norton, the part of the rural district of Chesterfield which consists of the civil parishes of Brighton, Coal Aston, Dronfield Woodhouse, Eckington, Holmesfield, Killamarsh, Staveley, and Unstone, and the urban districts of Bolsover and Dronfield.

The rural districts of Ashbourne and Sudbury, the rural district of Bakewell (except the two detached parts of the civil parish of Outseats which are bounded on three sides by the civil parish of Derwent), the part of the rural district of Repton which consists of the civil parishes of Barton Blount, Church Broughton, Foston and Scropton, Hatton, Hilton, Hoon, Marston-on-Dove, Osleston and Thurvaston, and Sutton-on-the-Hill, the part of the rural district of Chapel en-le-Frith which consists of the two detached parts of the civil parish of Derwent bounded on the west by the civil parish of Hathersage, and the urban districts of Ashbourne, Bake-well, Baslow and Bubnell, Bonsall, Matlock, Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick, North Darley, South Darley, and Wirksworth.

South (Belper, Derby City, Ilkeston, Southern).

Five

The rural district of Belper, the part of the rural district of Repton which is not included in the Southern and Western Divisions, and the urban districts of Alfreton, Belper, and Heage, and the county borough of Derby.

The rural district which consists of the civil parishes of Codnor Park and Shipley, the municipal borough of Ilkeston, and the urban districts of Heanor and Ripley.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Derby—contd.

South—contd.

The rural districts of Hartshorn and Seals and Shardlow, the part of the rural district of Repton which consists of the civil parishes of Caldwell, Castle Gresley, Catton, Cotton in the Elms, Drakelow, Linton, Lullington, Rosliston, and Walton-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Alvaston and Boulton, Long Eaton, and Swadlincote District.

Devon

The administrative county of Devon and the county borough of Exeter, and including Exeter Castle Yard and Devon County Prison and Constabulary Barracks.

Eight

North (Barnstaple Exeter, Honiton, South Molton, Tiverton).

Five

The rural districts of Barnstaple and Bideford (including Lundy Island), the municipal boroughs of Barnstaple and Bideford, and the urban districts of Ilfracombe, Lynton, and Northam, and the county borough of Exeter, including Exeter Castle Yard, and Devon County Prison and Constabulary Barracks and the rural districts of Axminster and Honiton, the part of the rural district of St. Thomas which consists of the civil parishes of Aylesbeare, Bicton, Clyst Honiton, Clyst St. George, Clyst St. Mary, Colaton Raleigh, East Budleigh, Farringdon, Lympstone, Newton Poppleford, Otterton, Rockbeare, Sowton, and Woodbury, the municipal borough of Honiton, and the urban districts of Axminster, Budleigh Salterton, Ex-mouth, Ottery St. Mary, Seaton, and Sidmouth.

The rural districts of Crediton, Okehampton, South Molton, and Torrington, the municipal boroughs of Great Torrington, Okehampton and South Molton, and the urban district of Crediton.

The rural districts of Culmstock and Tiverton, the park of the rural district of Newton Abbot which consists of the civil parish of West Dawlish, the part of the rural district of St. Thomas which is not included in the Honiton Division, the municipal borough of Tiverton, and the urban districts of Bampton and Dawlish.

South (Tavistock, Torquay, Totnes).

Three

The rural districts of Broadwood-widger, Plympton St. Mary, and Tavistock, the part of the rural district of Holsworthy which is within the administrative county of Devon, and the urban districts of Holsworthy, Ivybridge, and Tavistock.

The part of the rural district of Newton Abbot which consists of the civil parishes of Cockington and Stokeinteignhead, the part of the rural district, of Totnes which consists of the civil parishes of Churston Ferrers, Kingswear, Marldon, and Stoke Gabriel, the municipal boroughs

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Devon—could.

South—contd.

of Dartmouth and Torquay, and the urban districts of Brixham and Paignton.

The rural district of Kingsbridge, the part of the rural district of Newton Abbot which is not included in the Tiverton and Torquay Divisions, the part of the rural district of Totnes which is not included in the Torquay Division, the municipal borough of Totnes, and the urban districts of Ashburton, Buckfast-leigh, Kingsbridge, Newton Abbot, Salcombe, and Teignmouth.

Dorset

The administrative county of Dorset.

Four

—

—

—

Durham

The administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs of Darlington, Gateshead, South Shields, Smulerland, and West Hartlepool.

Eighteen

Mid. (Barnard Castle, Bishop Auckland, Durham, Seaham, and Spennymoor.)

Five

The rural districts of Barnard Castle and Weardale, the part of the rural district of Auckland which consists of the civil parishes of Hamsterley and South Bedburn, the part of the rural district of Lanchester which is not included in the Consett and Spennymoor Divisions and the urban districts of Barnard Castle and Stanhope.

The part of the rural district of Auckland which is not included in the Barnard Castle and Spennymoor Divisions, and the urban districts of Bishop Auckland and Shildon.

The rural district of Durham (except the civil parish of Brancepeth), the part of the rural district of Houghton-le-Spring which consists of the civil parishes of East Rainton, Great Eppleton, Little Eppleton, Moor House, Moorsley, and West Rainton, the municipal borough of Durham, and the urban district of Hetton.

The rural district of Easington, and the urban district of Seaham Harbour.

The part of the rural district of Auckland which consists of the civil parishes of Helmington Row, Hunwick and Helmington, and North Bedburn, the part of the rural district of Durham which consists of the civil parish of Brancepeth, the part of the rural district of Lanchester which consists of the civil parish of Hedleyhope, and the urban districts of Brandon and Byshottles, Crook, Spennymoor, Tow Law, and Willington.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Durham—contd.

North-East (Houghton-le-Spring, Jarrow, South Shields, and Sunder land).

Five

The rural districts of South Shields and Sunderland, the part of the rural district of Houghton-le-Spring which is not included in the Durham Division, and the urban district of Houghton-le-Spring.

The Municipal borough of Jarrow, and the urban districts of Felling and Hebburn, and the county borough of South Shields, and the county borough of Sunderland, and the urban district of Southwick on Wear.

North-West (Blaydon, Chester-le-Street, Consett, and Gates-head).

Four

The urban districts of Blaydon, Ryton, Tanfield, and Whickham.

The rural district of Chester-le-Street, and the urban district of Chester-le-Street.

The part of the rural district of Lanchester which consists of the civil parishes of Craghead, Ebchester, Healeyfield, Knitsley, and Medomsley, and the urban districts of Annfield Plain, Benfieldside, Consett, Leadgate, and Stanley, and the county borough of Gateshead.

South-East (Darlington, Hartle-pool, Sedgefield, and Stock-ton-on-Tees).

Four

The county boroughs of Darlington and West Hartlepool and the municipal borough of Hartlepool.

The rural districts of Darlington, Hartlepool, Sedgefield and Stockton, and the municipal boroughs of Stockton-on-Tees and Thornaby-on-Tees.

Essex

The administrative county of Essex and the county boroughs of East Hamand South-end-on-Sea.

Sixteen

North (Colchester, Harwich, Maldon, Saffron Walden).

Four

The rural district of Lexden and Winstree (except the detached part of the civil parish of Inworth which is wholly surrounded by the civil parishes of Great Braxted and Kelvedon), and the municipal borough of Colchester.

The rural district of Tendring, the municipal borough of Harwich, and the urban districts of Brightlingsea, Clacton. Frinton-on-Sea, Walton-on-the-Naze, and Wivenhoe.

The rural district of Braintree (with the detached part of the civil parish of Inworth which is wholly surrounded by the civil parishes of Great Braxted and Kelvedon), the rural district of Maldon, the municipal borough of Maldon, and the urban districts, of Braintree, Burnham-on-Crouch, and Witham.

The rural districts of Belchamp, Bumpstead, Dunmow, Halstead, Saffron Walden, and Stansted, the municipal borough of Saffron Walden, and the urban district of Halstead.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Essex—contd.

South (East Ham, Ilford, Romford).

Four

The county borough of East Ham, the urban district of Ilford, the rural district of Romford, and the urban districts of Barking Town and Romford.

South-East (Chelmsford, South-Eastern, Southend-on-Sca).

Three

The rural districts of Chelmsford and Ongar, the part of the rural district of Billericay which consists of the civil parishes of Hutton, In-grave, Mountnessing, Shenfield, and South Weald, the muncipal borough of Chelmsford, and the urban district of Brentwood.

The rural districts of Orsett and Rochford, the part of the rural district of Billericay which is not in cluded in the Chelmsford Division, and the urban districts of Grays Thurrock, Shoeburyness, and Tilbury, and the county borough of Southend-on-Sea.

West (Epping, Leyton, Walthamstow).

Five

The rural district of Epping, and the urban districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Epping, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford, and the urban districts of Leyton and Walthamstow.

Gloucester

The administrative county of Gloucester and the county borough of Gloucester.

Six

East (Cirencester and Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Stroud).

Three

The rural districts of Campden, Cirencester, Marston Sicca, North-leach, and Pebworth, the part of each of the rural districts of Faringdon, Stow-on-the-Wold, Tetbury, Tewkesbury, and Winchcomb which is within the administrative county of Gloucester, the part of the rural district of Cheltenham which consists of the civil parishes of Prestbury, Swindon, and Uckington, the municipal borough of Tewkesbury, and the urban districts of Cirencester, Stow-on-the-Wold, and Tetbury.

The municipal borough of Cheltenham and urban district of Charlton Kings.

The rural districts of Dursley Stroud, and Wheatenhurst, the part of the rural district of Cheltenham which is not included in the Cirencester and Tewkesbury Division, the part of the rural district of Gloucester which is not included in the Forest of Dean Division, and the urban districts of Nailsworth and Stroud.

West (Forest of Dean, Gloucester Thornbury).

Three

The rural districts of East Dean and united parishes, Lydney, Newent, and West Dean, the part of the rural district of Gloucester which consists of the civil parishes of Ashleworth, Highnam Over and Linton, Lassington, and Maisemore, and the urban

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Gloucester—contd.

West—contd.

districts of Awre, Coleford, Newnham, and Westbury-on-Severn.

The county borough of Gloucester.

The rural districts of Chipping Sodbury, Thornbury, and Warmley, and the urban district of Kingswood.

Hants

The administrative county of Southampton (exclusive of the parts thereof comprised in the parliamentary borough of Southampton) and the county borough of Bournemouth.

Seven

East (Aldershot Fareham, Petersfield)

Three

The rural district of Hartley Wintney, and the urban districts of Alder-shot, Farnborough, and Fleet.

The rural districts of Fareham and Havant, and the urban districts of Fareham, Cosport and Alverstoke, Havant, and Warblington.

The rural districts of Alresford, Alton, Catherington, Droxford, and Petersfield, and the urban districts of Alton and Petersfield.

West (Basing-stoke, Bournemouth, New Forest. Winchester)

Four

The rural districts of Andover, Basingstoke, Kingsclere, Stockbridge, and Whitchurch, and the municipal borough of Andover and Basing-stoke.

The county borough of Bourne mouth.

The rural districts of Christchurch, Fordingbridge, Lymington, New Forest, Ringwood, and Romsey, and the municipal boroughs of Christ-church, Lymington, and Romsey.

The rural districts of Hursley and Winchester, the rural district of South Stoncham (except the civil parish of Bitterne), the municipal borough of Winchester, and the urban district of Kastleigh and Bishopstoke.

Hereford

The administrative county of Hereford.

Two

Hereford

One

The rural districts of Dore, Ross, and Whitchurch, the part of each of the rural districts of Hereford and Ledbury which is not included in the Leominster Division, the municipal borough of Hereford, and the urban districts of Ledbury and Ross.

Leominster

One

The rural districts of Bredwardine, Bromyard, Kington, Leominster, Weobley, and Wigmore, the part of the rural district of Hereford which consists of the civil parishes of Bartestree, Breinton, Burghill, Credenhill, Dinmore, Holmer, Kenchester, Lugwardine, Marden, Moreton-on-Lugg, Pipe and Lyde, Preston Wynne, Stretton, Sugwas, Sutton, Wellington, Westhide, Weston Beggard, and Withington, the part of the rural district of Ledbury which consists of the civil parishes of Ashperton, Bosbury, Canon Frome, Castle Frome, Coddington, Colwall, Egleton, Mathon Rural, Munsley, Pixley, Stretton, Grandison, Tarrington, and Yarkhill, the municipal borough of Leominster, and the urban districts of Bromyard and Kington.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Hertford

The administrative county of Hertford.

Five

—

—

—

Isle of Wight

The administrative county of the Isle of Wight.

One

—

—

—

Kent

The administrative county of Kent and the county borough of Canterbury.

Fifteen

East (Canterbury, Dover, Hythe, Isle of Thanet)

Four

The rural districts of Bridge and Elham, the rural district of Blean (with the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hernehill, which are wholly surrounded by that rural district), the county borough of Canterbury, and the urban districts of Home Bay and Whitstable.

The rural districts of Dover and Eastry, the municipal boroughs of Deal and Dover, and the urban district of Walmer.

The municipal boroughs of Hythe and Folkestone, the urban district of Cheriton, and so much of the urban district of Sandgate as is not comprised in the municipal borough of Folkestone.

The rural district of the Isle of Thanet, the municipal boroughs of Margate, Ramsgate, and Sandwich, and the urban district of Broadstairs and St. Peters.

North (Faversham Gravesend Rochester)

Four

The rural districts of Milton and Sheppey, the rural district of Faversham (except the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hernehill which are wholly surrounded by the rural district of Blean), the municipal boroughs of Faversham and Queenborough, and the urban districts of Milton Regis, Sheerness, and Sittingbourne.

The rural districts of Hoo and Strood, the municipal borough of Gravesend, and the urban district of Northfleet.

The municipal boroughs of Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester.

North-West (Bromley, Chislehurst, Dartford, and Seven-oaks)

Four

The municipal borough of Bromley and urban districts of Beekenham and Penge.

The rural district of Bromley, the part of the rural district of Dartford which is not included in the Dartford Division, and the urban districts of Chislehurst and Foots Cray.

The part of the rural district of Dartford which consists of the civil parishes of Crayford, Stone, and

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Kent—contd.

North West—cont.

Swanscombe, and the urban districts of Bexley, Dartford, and Erith.

The rural districts of Malling and Sevenoaks, and the urban districts of Sevenoaks and Wrotham.

South. (Ashford, Maidstone, Tunbridge)

Three

The rural districts of Cranbrook, East Ashford, Romney Marsh, Tenterden, and West Ashford, the municipal boroughs of Lydd, New Romney, and Tenterden, and the urban district of Ashford.

The rural districts of Holling-bourne and Maidstone, and the municipal borough of Maidstone.

The rural district of Tonbridge, the municipal borough of Tunbridge Wells, and the urban districts of Southborough and Tonbridge.

Lancaster

The administrative county of Lancaster, the county boroughs of Barrow-in-Furness, Blackburn, Blackpool, Bolton, Bootle, Burnley, Bury, Oldham, Preston, Rochdale, St. Helen's Southport, Warrington and Wigan.

Forty-two.

East, (Bury, Heywood and Radcliffe, Middleton and Prestwich, Rochdale, Royton.)

Five

The county borough of Bury and the urban district of Tottington; and

The part of the rural district of Bury which is not included in the Farnworth Division, the municipal borough of Heywood, and the urban districts of Radcliffe, Ramsbottom, and Whitefield.

The municipal borough of Middleton, and the urban districts of Chadderton and Prestwich.

The county borough of Rochdale; and

The urban districts of Crompton, Littleborough, Milnrow, Norden, Royton, Wardle, and Whitworth.

North, (Barrow, Lancaster, Lonsdale.)

Three

The county borough of Barrow-in-Furness.

The rural district of Garstang, the part of the rural district of Lancaster which is not included in the Lonsdale Division, the municipal boroughs of Lancaster and Morecambe, and the urban districts of Heysham and Preesall.

The rural districts of Lunesdale and Ulverston, the detached part of the rural district of Lancaster which is situated north of the municipal boroughs of Lancaster and Morecambe, and the urban districts of Carnforth, Dalton-in-Furness, Grange, and Ulverston.

Blackburn or North Central. (Accrington, Blackburn, Darwen, Rossendale).

Five

The municipal borough of Accrington, and the urban districts of Church, Clayton-le-moors, Oswaldtwistle and Rishton; and

The county borough of Blackburn; and

The rural district of Blackburn, the municipal borough of Darwen, and the urban district of Turton.

The municipal boroughs of Bacup, Haslingden and Rawtenstall.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Lancaster—contd.

North-East. (Burnley, Clithcroe, Nelson and Colne.)

Three

The county borough of Burnley; and

The rural district of Burnley (except the detached part of the civil parish of Foulridge which is included in the parliamentary borough of Nelson and Colne), the rural district of Clitheroe, the municipal borough of Clitheroe, and the urban districts of Great Harwood and Padiham.

The municipal boroughs of Colne and Nelson, the urban districts of Barrowford, Brierfield and Trawden, and the detached part of the civil parish of Foulridge which is bounded on the north, west, and south by the municipal borough of Colne.

North West. (Blackpool, Chorley, Fylde, Preston.)

Five

The county borough of Blackpool, the urban districts of Bispham with Norbreck, Lytham and St. Anne's-on-the-Sea, and the part of the civil parish of Carleton which in pursuance of the Blackpool Improvement Act, 1917, becomes part of the county borough of Blackpool on 1st April, 1918.

The rural district of Chorley, the part of the rural district of Wigan which consists of the civil parishes of Haigh, Parbold. Worthington, and Wrightington, the municipal borough of Chorley, and the urban districts of Adlington, Croston, Leyland, and Withnell.

The rural district of Fylde (except the part of the civil parish of Carle(on which is included in the parliamentary borough of Blackpool), the rural district of Preston, and the urban districts of Fleetwood, Kirkham, Longridge, Poulton-le-Fylde, Thornton, and Walton-le-Dale.

The county borough of Preston and the urban district of Fulwood.

South. (Eccles, Farn-worth, Stretford.)

Three

The municipal borough of Eccles and the urban district of Swinton and Pendlebury.

The part of the rural district of Barton-upon-Irwell which consists of the civil parish of Clifton, the part of the rural district of Bury which consists of the civil parishes of Ainsworth and Outwood, and the urban districts of Farnworth, Kearsley, Little Hulton, Little Lever, and Worsley.

The rural district of Barton-upon-Irwell (except the civil parish of Clifton), the part of the rural distrit of Leigh which consists of the civil parish of Astley, and this urban districts of Irlam, Stretford, and Urmston.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Lancaster—contd.

Bolton, South Central, (Bolton, Leigh, Westhoughton, Wigan.)

Five

The county borough of Bolton; and the municipal borough of Leigh, and the urban districts of Atherton and Tyldesley-with-Shakerley.

The urban districts of Aspull, Blackrod, Hindley, Horwich, and Westhoughton; and

The county borough of Wigan.

South East, (Ashton-under-Lyme, Mossley, Oldham.)

Four

The municipal borough of Ashton-under-Lyme and urban district of Hurst.

The rural district of Limehurst, the municipal borough of Mossley, and the urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden, Failsworth, and Lees; and

The county borough of Oldham.

South West, (Ince, Newton, St. Helens.)

Five

The part of the rural district of Wigan which consists of the civil parish of Shevington, and the urban districts of Abram, Ashton-in-Maker-field, Billinge, Ince-in-Makerfield, Orrell, and Standish-with-Langtree.

(Warrington Widnes.)

The rural district of Warrington, the rural district of Leigh (except the civil parish of Astley), and the urban districts of Golborne, Haydock, and Newton-in-Makerfield.

The county borough of St. Helens; and

The county borough of Warrington; and

The rural district of Winston, the municipal borough of Widnes, and the urban districts of Hayton-with-Roby and Prescot.

West, Bootle, (Ormskirk, Southport, Waterloo.)

Four

The county borough of Bootle; and

The rural districts of Sefton and West Lancashire, the part of the rural district of Wigan which consists of the civil parish of Dalton, and the urban districts of Formby, Lathom-with-Burscough, Ormskirk, Rainford, Skelmersdale, and Upholand; and

The county; borough of South-port.

The urban districts of Great Crosby, Litherland, Little Crosby, and Water-loo-with-Seaford.

Leicester

The administrative county of Leicester.

Four

—

—

—

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Lincoln and Rutland.

The administrative county of the Parts of Lindsey and the county boroughs of Grims by and Lincoln. The administrative county of the Parts of Holland. The administrative county of the Parts of Kesteven, and the administrative county of Rutland.

Nine

North-East. (Grimsby, Horncastle, (Louth)

Three

The county borough of Grimsby and the urban district of Cleethorpes; and

The rural districts of Horncastle, Sibsey, and Spilsby, and the urban districts of Alford, Horncastle, Skegness, and Woodhall Spa.

The rural districts of Caistor, Grimsby, and Louth, the municipal borough of Louth, and the urban districts of Mablethorpe and Market Basen.

North-West. (Brigg, Gainsboroug Lincoln)

Three

The rural district of Glanford Brigg, and the urban districts of Barton-upon-Humber, Brigg, Broughton, Brumby and Frodingham, Roxby cum-Risby, Scunthorpe, and Winterton.

The rural districts of Gainsborough, Isle of Axholme, and Welton, and the urban districts of Crowle and Gainsborough; and

The county borough of Lincoln and the urban district of Bracebridge.

South. (Grantham, Holland with Boston, Rutland, and Stamford)

Three

The rural districts of Branston, Claypole, and Sleaford, the part of the rural district of Grantham which consists of the civil parishes of Ancaster, Barrowby, Belton, Carlton Scroop, Great Gonerby, Harrowby Without, Heydour, Honington, Hough - on - the - Hill, Londonthorpe, Manthorpe, Normanton. Welby, and the detached part of the civil parish of Spittlegate Without which is wholly surrounded by the municipal borough of Grantham, the municipal borough of Grantham, and the urban districts of Ruskinston and Sleaford.

The administrative county of the Parts of Holand.

The whole, of the administrative county of Rutland, the rural districts of Bourne and Uffington, the part of the rural district of Grantham which is not included in the Grantham Division, the municipal borough of Stamford, and the urban district of Bourne.

Middlesex

The administrative county of Middlesex.

Seventeen

East, Edmonton, Enfield, Tottenham.

Four

The urban districts of Tottenham, Edmonton, and Enfield, and the rural district of South Mimms.

North, Finchley, Hornsey, Wood Green.

Three

The urban districts of Finchley, Friern Barnet, Southgate, and Wood Green, and the municipal borough of Hornsey.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Middlesex—contd.

North-West. Harrow, Hendon, Willesden.

Four

The urban districts of Willesden Greenford, Hanwell, Harrow-on-the-Bill, Wealdstone, Wembley, Hendon, and Kingsbury, and the rural district of Hendon.

South-West. Acton, Brentford, Ealing.

Three

The urban districts of Acton, Brentford and Chiswick, and the municipal borough of Ealing.

West. Spelthorne, Twickenham, Ux-bridge.

Three

The rural district of Staines; and the urban district of Feltham, Hampton, Hampton Wick, Staines, Sunbury-on-Thames, and Teddington.

The urban districts of Heston and Isleworth and Twickenham.

The rural district of Uxbridge, and the urban districts of Hayes, Ruislip-Northwood, Southhall, Norwood, Uxbridge, and Yiewsley.

Norfolk

The administrative county of Norfolk and the county boroughs of Great Yarmouth and Norwich.

Eight

East. Eastern, Great Yarmouth Norwich, Southern.

Five

The rural districts of East and West Flegg, Loddon and Clavering, St. Faith's. Smallburgh, and Blofield (including the area, wholly surrounded by the county borough of Norwich, in which stand the shire hall, county police station and other county buildings), and the urban district of North Walsham.

The county borough of Great Yarmouth, and the county borough of Norwich, and the rural districts of Depwade Forehoe, Henstead, and Wayland, the part of the rural district of Thetford which is not included in the South-Western Division, and the urban district of Diss.

West (King's Lynn Northern, Southwestern).

Three

The rural districts of Docking, Free-bridge Lynn, King's Lynn, and Marsh-land (except the civil parishes of Outwell and Upwell), the part of the rural district of Downham which consists of the civil parishes of Wiggenhall St. Germans, Wiggenhall St. Mary the Virgin, Wiggenhall St. Mary Magdalen, and Wiggenhall St. Peter, the municipal borough of King's Lynn, and the urban districts of New Hunstanton and Walsoken.

The rural districts of Aylsham, Erpingham and Walsingham, and the urban districts of Cromer, Sheringham, and Wells.

The rural districts of Mitford and Launditch and Swaffham, the part of the rural district of Downham which is not included in the King's Lynn Division, the part of the rural district of Marshland which consists of the civil parishes of Outwell and Upwell.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Norfolk—contd.

West—contd.

the part of the rural district of Thetford which consists of the civil parishes of Cranwich, Feltwell, Feltwell Anchor, Hockwold-cum-Wilton, Lynford, Methwold, Mundford, North-wold, Santon, Weeting with Bromhill, and West Tofts, the municipal borough of Thetford, and the urban districts of Downham Market, East Dereham, and Swaffham.

Northampton with the Soke of Peterborough.

The administrative counties of Northampton and the Soke of Peterborough and the county borough of Northampton.

Five

—

—

—

Northumberland.

The administrative county of Northumberland and the county borough of Tynemouth.

Six

Berwick-upon-Tweed

One

The rural districts of Alnwick Belford, Glendale, Norham and Island-shires, and Rothbury, with the Farne Islands, the municipal borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the urban districts of Alnwick, Amble, and Rothbury.

South East (Morpeth, Tynemouth, Wallsend, Wansbeck).

Four

The municipal borough of Morpeth, the urban districts of Ashington, Bedlingtonshire and Blyth, and the civil parishes of Hepscott, Morpeth, Castle, Newminster and Tranwell, the county borough of Tynemouth, the municipal borough of Wallsend, and the urban districts of Gosforth, Longbenton and Weetslades, the part of tile rural district of Castle Ward which is not included in the Hexham Division, the rural district of Morpeth (except the civil parishes of Hepscott, Morpeth Castle, Newminster, and Tranwell), the urban districts of Cramlington, Earsdon, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, New-burn, Seaton Delaval, Seghill, and Whitley and Monkseaton, and the part of the administrative county of Northumberland, consisting of the Moot Hall and precincts which is wholly surrounded by the county borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Hexham

One

The rural districts of Bellingham, Haltwhistle, and Hexham, the part of the rural district of Castle Ward which consists of the civil parishes of Bitchfield, Black Heddon, Capheaton, Cheeseburn Grange, East Matfen, Fenwick, Harlow Hill, Hawkwell, Heugh, Ingoe, Kearsley, Kirkheaton, Nesbitt, Ouston, Ryal, Wallridge, and West Matfen, and the urban districts of Hexham and Prudhoe.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Nottingham

The administrative county of Nottingtam.

Five

—

—

—

Oxford

The administrative county of Oxford and the county borough of Oxford.

Three

—

—

—

Salop

The administrative county of Salop.

Four

—

—

—

Somerset

The administrative county of Somerses and the county borough of Bath.

Seven

Bath or North East (Bath, Frame, Wells, Weston-super-Mare).

Four

The county borough of Bath.

The rural districts of Bath, Clutton, and Keynsham, the part of the rural district of Frome which is not included in the Wells Division, and the urban districts of Frome, Midsomer Norton, and Radstock.

The rural districts of Shepton Mallet, Wells, and Wincanton, the part of the rural district of Frome which consists of the civil parishes of Cloford, Marston Bigot, Nunney, Wanstrow, Whatley, and Witham Friary, the municipal boroughs of Glaston bury and Wells, and the urban districts of Shepton Mallet and Street.

The rural dist riots of Axbridge (with Steep Holme Island) and Long Ashton and the urban districts of Clevedon, Fortishead, and Weston-super-Mare.

South West (Bridgwater, Taunton, Yeovil).

Three

The rural districts of Bridgwater and Williton, the municipal borough of Bridgwater, and the urban districts of Burnham-on-Sea, Highbridge, Minehead, and Watchet.

The rural districts of Dulverton, Taunton, and Wellington, the municipal borough of Taunton, and the urban districts of Wellington and Wiveliscombe.

The rural districts of Chard, Langport, and Yeovil, the municipal boroughs of Chard and Yeovil, and the urban districts of Crewkerne and Ilminster.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Stafford

The administrative county of Stafford (exclusive of the parts thereof comprised in parliamentary boroughs) and the county borough of Burton-on-Trent.

Seven

North (Burton,) Leek, Stafford, Stone).

Four

The rural districts of Tutbury and Uttoxeter, the part of the rural district of Stafford which consists of the detached part of the civil parish of Colwich which is surrounded by the civil parishes of Blithfield and Colton, the county borough of Burton-upon-Trent, and the urban district of Uttoxeter.

The rural districts of Leek and Stoke-upon-Trent, and the urban districts of Biddulph, Kidsgrove, Leek, and Smallthorne.

The rural district of Gnosall, the rural district consisting of the oivi1 parishes of Blymhill and Weston-under-Lizard, the part of the rural district of Cannock which is not included in the Cannock Division, the rural district of Stafford (except the aforesaid detached part of the civil parish of Colwich), and the municipal borough of Stafford.

The rural districts of Blore Heath, Cheadle, Mayfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Stone, and the urban district of Stone.

South (Cannock, Kingswinford, Lich-field).

Three

The rural district of Seisdon, the part of the rural district of Cannock which consists of the civil parishes of Bushbury, Cheslyn Hay, Essington, Great Wyrley, and Hilton, the part of the rural district of Walsall which consists of the civil parish of Bentley, and the urban district of Brownhills, Cannock and Tettenhall.

The rural district of Kingswinford, and the urban districts of Amblecote, Brierley Hill, Quarry Bank, and Rowley Regis.

The rural district of Lichfield, the part of the rural district of Tamworth which is within the administrative county of Stafford, the part of the rural district of Walsall which is not included in the Cannock Division, the municipal boroughs of Lichfield and Tamworth, and the urban districts of Perry Bar and Rugeley.

East Suffolk

The administrative county of East Suffolk and the county borough of Ipswich.

Four

—

—

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

West Suffolk

The administrative county of West Suffolk.

Two

Bury St. Edmunds.

One

The rural districts of Brandon, Mildenhall, and Thedwastre, the parts of the rural districts of Moulton and Thingoe which are not included in the Sudbury Division, the municipal borough of Bury St. Edmunds, and the urban district of Newmarket.

Sudbury

One

The rural district of Glare, Cosford, and Melford, the part of the rural district of Moulton which consists of the civil parishes of Lidgate and Ousden, the part of the rural district of Thingoe which consists of the civil parishes of Bradfield Combust, Bradfield St. George, Brockley, Chedburgh, Chevington, Depden, Great Welnetham, Hargrave, Hawstead, Little Welnetham, Rede, Stamingfield, and Whepstead, the municipal borough of "Sudbury, and the urban district of Glemsford, Hadleigh, and Haverhill.

Surrey

The administrative county of Surrey, and the county borough of Croydon.

Twelve

North (Kinghton-upon-Thames, Richmond, Wimbledon).

Three

The municipal borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, and the urban districts of Surbiton and The Maidens and Coombe.

The municipal borough of Richmond, and the urban districts of Barnes and Ham.

The municipal borough of Wimble-don, and the urban district of Merton and Morden.

North-East (Croydon, Mitcham).

Three

The county borough of Croydon, and the urban districts of Beddington and Wellington, Carshalton and Mitcham.

South-East (Eastern, Epsom, Reigate).

Three

The rural district of Godstone and the, urban districts of Caterham and Coulsdon and Purley.

The rural district of Epsom, and the urban districts of Epsom, Leatherhead and Sutton.

The rural districts of Dorking and Reigate, the municipal borough of Reigate, and the urban district of Dorking.

West (Chertsey, Farnham, Guildford).

Three

The rural district of Chertsey, and the urban districts of Chertsey, East and West Molesey, Egham, Esher and the Dittons, Walton-upon-Thames, and Weybridge.

The rural district of Farnham, the part of the rural district of Guildford which consists of the civil parish of Pirbright, and the urban districts of Farnham, Frimley, Windlesham, and Woking.

The rural district of Hambledon, the rural district of Guildford (except

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Surrey—contd.

West—contd.

the civil parish of Pirbright), the municipal boroughs of Guildford and Godalming, and the urban district of Haslemere.

East Sussex

The administrative county of East Sussex and the county boroughs of Eastbourne, Hastings and Brighton.)

Seven

East (East-bourne, Hastings, Rye).

Three

The rural district of Eastbourne, the part of the rural district of Hailsham which consists of the civil parishes of Arlington, Chalvington, Chiddingly, Hailsham, Hellingly, Laughton, and Ripe, and the county borough of Eastbourne, and the county borough of Hastings, and the rural districts of Battle, Hastings Rye, and Ticchurst, the part of the rural district of Hailsham which is not included in the Eastbourne Division, the municipal boroughs of Bexhill and Rye, and the urban district of Battle.

Mid. (Brighton, East Grinstead, Lewes).

Four

The county borough of Brighton and the municipal borough of Hove, and the rural districts of Cuckfield, East Grinstead, and Uckfield, and the urban districts of Burgess Hill, Cuckfield, East Grinstead, Hayward's Heath and Uckfield.

The rural districts of Chailey, New-haven, and Steyning East, the municipal borough of Lewes, and the urban districts of Newhaven, Portslade-by-Sea, and Sea ford.

West Sussex

The administrative county of West Sussex.

Two

Chichester

One

The rural districts of East Preston, Midhurst, Petworth, Westbourne, and Westhampnett, the municipal boroughs of Arundel and Chichester, and the urban districts of Bognor and Littlehampton.

Horsham and Worthing.

One

The rural districts of Horsham, Steyning West, and Thakeham, the municipal borough of Worthing, and the urban districts of Horsham, Shoreham-by-Sea, and Southwick.

Warwick

The administrative county of Warwick and the county borough of Coventry.

Five

—

—

—

Westmoreland

The administrative county of Westmoreland.

One

—

—

—

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Wilts

The administrative county of Wilts.

Five

—

—

—

Worcester

The administrative county of Worcester and the county borough of Worcester.

Five

—

—

—

York, East Riding

The administrative county of York, East Riding.

Three

—

—

—

York, North Riding.

The administrative county of York, North Riding (exclusive of the part thereof comprised in the municipal boroughs of Stockton-on-Tecs and Thornaby-on-Tees), and the county borough of Middlesbrough.

Six

Middlesbrough and Cleveland

Three

The county borough of Middlesbrough and the rural district of Middlesbrough, the part of the rural district of Gainsborough which is not included in the Scarborough and Whit by Division, and the urban districts of Eston, Gui-borough, Hinder-well, Loftus, Redcar, Saltburn-by-the-Sea, and Skelton and Brotton.

North Riding (Richmond Scarborough and Whitby Thirk and Malton).

Three

The rural districts of Aysgarth, Bedale, Croft, Leyburn, Northallerton, Reeth, Richmond, Startforth, and Stokesley, the municipal borough of Richmond, and the urban districts of Kirklington-cum-Upsland, Masham, and Morthallerton.

The rural districts of Scarborough and Whitby, the part of the rural district of Guisborough which consists of the civil parishes of Commondale, Danby, and Westerdale, the part of the rural district of Pickering which consists of the civil parishes of Allerston, Ebberston, Kingthorpe, Levisham, Lockton, Marishes, Newton, Thornton Dale, and Wilton, the municipal borough of Scarborough, and the urban districts of Pickering, Scalby, and Whitby.

The rural districts of Easingwold, Flaxton, Helmsley, Kirkby Moorside, Malton. Thirsk, and Wath, the part of the rural district of Pickering which is not included in the Scarborough and Whitby Division, and the urban district of Malton.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

York, West Riding.

The administrative county of York, West Riding, exclusive of the municipal boroughs of Batley,Morley, and Ossett, and the county boroughs of Brnsley, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, Rotherham, and Wakefield.

Twenty-three.

Barkston Ash.

One

The rural districts of Bishopthorpe, Selby, Tadcaster, and Wetherby, the part of the rural district of Great Ouseburn which consists of the civil parishes of Acomb, Hessay, Knapton, Moor Monkton, Nether Poppleton, Rufforth, and Upper Poppleton, and the urban districts of Garforth and Selby.

Barnsley (Barnsley, Penistone, and Went-worth)

Three

The county borough of Barnsley, and the urban districts of Ardsley, Darton, and Monk Bretton.

The rural districts of Penistone and Wortley, and the urban districts of Clayton West, Denby and Cumberworth, Gunthwaite and Ingbirch-worth, Holand Swaine, Kirkburton Penistone, Shelley, Shepley, Skelman-thorpe, Stocksbridge, and Thurlstone.

The part of the rural district of Barnsley which consists of the civil parishes of Billingley and Stain-borough, the part of the rural district of Rotherham which consists of the civil parishes of Brampton Bierlow and Wontworth, and the urban districts of Bolton-upon-Dearne, Darfield, Dodworth, Hoyland Nether, Thurnscoe, Wath - upon - Dearne, Wombwell, and Worsborough.

Doncastor and Rotherham (Don Valley, Don-caster, Rother Valley, Rotherham).

Four

The municipal borough of Doncaster, and the urban districts of Adwick-le-Street and Bentley-with-Arksey.

The rural districts of Doncaster and Thorne, and the urban districts of Mexborough and Tickhill.

The rural district of Kiveton Park, the part of the rural, district of Rotherham which is not included in the Barnsley Division, and the urban districts of Handsworth and Swinton.

The county borough of Rotherham and the urban districts of Greasborough and Rawmarsh.

Halifax. (Elland, Halifax and Sowerby.)

Three

The rural district of Halifax (except the civil parish of Norland), the municipal borough of Brighouse, and the urban districts of Clayton, Elland, Greetland, Hipperholme, Queensbury, Shelf, Southowram, and Stainland; and

The county borough of Halifax.

The rural district of Todmorden, the part of the rural district of Halifax which consists of the civil parish of Norland, the municipal borough of Todmorden, and the urban districts of Barkisland, Hebden Bridge, Luddenden Foot, Midgley, Mytholmroyd, Rishworth, Sowerby, Sowerby Bridge, and Soyland.

(5) ENGLAND, EXCLUDING LONDON AND MONMOUTHSHIRE—continued.

Country Constituencies—continued.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

York, West Ridinig—contd.

Huddersfield, (Colne Valley, Huddersfield and Spell Valley.)

Three

The urban districts of Farnley Tyas, Golcar, Holme, Holmfirth, Honley, Linthwaite, Marsden, Meltham, New Mill, Saddleworth, Seammonden, Slaithwaite, South Crosland, Springhead, and Thurstonland; and

The country borough of Hudderfield.

The urban districts of Birkenshaw, Birstal, Drighlington, Gildersome, Heckmondwike, Hunsworth, Kirkheaton, Lepton, Mirfield, Spenborough, and Whitley Upper.

Keighley and Shipley, (Keighley, Shipley and Pudsey, and Otley.)

Three

The rural district of Keighley, the municipal borough of Keighley, and the urban districts of Denholme, Haworth, Oakworth, Oxenhope, and Silsden.

The part of the rural district of Wharfedale which consists of the civil parishes of Esholt, Hawksworth, and Menston, and the urban districts of Baildon, Hingley, Guiseley, Shipley, and Yeadon.

The part of the rural district of Wharfedale which is not comprised in the Shipley Division, the municipal borough of Pudsey, and the urban districts of Burley-in-Wharfedale, Calverley, Earsley, Horsforth, Ilkley, Otley, and Rawdon.

Pontefract. (Hemsworth, Normanton, Pontefract and Rothwell.)

Four

The rural district of Hemsworth, the part of the rural district of Barnsley which is not included in the Wentworth Division, and the urban districts of Cudworth and Royston.

The urban districts of Altofts, Castleford, Featherstone, Methley, Normanton, and Whitwood.

The rural districts of Goole and Pontefract, the municipal borough of Pontefract, and the urban districts of Goole and Knottingley.

The rural districts of Hunslet and Wikefield, and the urban districts of Ardsley East and West, Emley, Flockton, Horbury, Rothwell, and Stanley.

Ripon

One

The rural districts of Knaresborough. Pateley Bridge, and Ripon, the part of the rural district of Great Ouseburn which is not included in the Barkston Ash Division, the municipal boroughs of Harrogate and Ripon, and the urban district of Knaresborough.

Skipton

One

The rural districts of Bowland, Sedbergh, Settle, and Skipton, and the urban districts of Barnoldwick, Earby, and Skipton.

(6) WALES, INCLUDING MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Country Constituencies.

Name of Constituency

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Anglesey and Carnarvon.

The administrative counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon inclusive of Bardsey Island.

Three

—

—

—

Brecon and Radnor.

The administrative counties of Brecon and Radnor.

One

—

—

—

Cardigan

The administrative county of Cardigan.

One

—

—

—

Carmarthen and Pembroke.

The administrative counties of Carmarthen and Pembroke.

Three

—

—

—

Denbigh and Flint.

The administrative counties of Denbigh and Flint.

Three

—

—

—

Glamorgan

The administrative county of Glamorgan, exclusive of the parts thereof comprised within the constituencies of Cardiff and Merthyr boroughs.

Nine

East (Caerphilly Ponty-pridd, Llandaff).

Three

The urban districts of Caerphilly and Gelligaer, the rural districts of Cowbridge and Llantrisant and Llantwitfardre, t he municipal borough of Cowbridge and the urban district of Pontypridd. The rural district of Llandaff and Dinas Powis and the urban district of Barry.

Mid. (Neath, Aberavon, Ogmore).

Three

The rural districts of Pontardawe and Neath, the municipal boroughs of Neath and Aberavon, the urban districts of Briton Ferry, Glencorwg, Margam and Porthcawl, the rural district of Penybont, and the urban districts of Bridgend, Maestag and Ogmore and Garw.

East or Swansea. (Swansea, Gower.)

Three

The county borough of Swansea and the rural districts of Gower and Swansea, and the urban district of Oystermouth.

Merioneth

The administrative county of Merioneth.

One

—

—

—

Monmouth

The administrative county of Monmouth.

Five

—

—

—

Montgomery

The administrative county of Montgomery.

One

—

—

—

(7) SCOTLAND.

Country Constituencies.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Aberdeen and Kincardine.

The counties of Aberdeen and Kincardine, inclusive of all burghs situated therein and including the county of the city of Aberdeen.

Five

—

—

—

Argyll

The county of Argyll, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Ayr and Bute

The counties of Ayr and Bute, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

Four

—

—

—

Banff

The county of Banff, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Berwick and Roxburgh.

The counties of Berwick and Roxburgh, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Caithness and Sutherland.

The counties of Caithness and Sutherland, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Dumbarton

The county of Dumbarton, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except the burghs of Dumbarton and Clyde-bank.

One

—

—

—

(7) SCOTLAND.—continued.

Country Constituencies.—continued.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Dumfries

The county of Dumfries, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Fife

The county of Fife, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

Four

—

—

—

Forfar

The county of Forfar, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, and inclusive of the county of the city of Dundee.

Four

—

—

—

Galloway

The counties of Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Inverness and Ross and Cromarty.

The counties of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

Three

Inverness

One

The county of Inverness, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except in so far as contained within the Western Isles Division.

Ross and Cromarty

One

The county of Ross and Cromarty, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except in so far as contained within the Western Isles Division.

Western Isles.

One

So much of the county of Ross and Cromarty as is contained within the Lews County District, inclusive of the burgh of Stornoway, together with so much of the county of Inverness as is contained within the Harris County District, the North Uist County District and the South Uist County District.

Lanark

The county of Lanark, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, except the county of the city of Glasgow and

Seven

North (Northern Bothwell, Coatbridge, ; Motherwell).

Four

The parts of the Lower Ward and Middle Ward County Districts which are contained within the parishes of Glasgow, Cadder, New Monkland, Shotts and Cambusnethan, exclusive of any burghs or portions of burghs or portions of burghs situated therein.

The part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the parishes of Old Monkland

(7) SCOTLAND.—continued.

Country Constituencies.—continued.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Lanark—could.

North—contd.

so much of the burgh of Renfrew as is contained within the parish of Govan.

and Bothwell, exclusive of all burghs situated therein.

The burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie.

The burghs of Motherwell and Wishaw, together with the part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the extra-burghal portion of the parish of Dalziel.

South (Ruther glen, Hamilton, Lanark).

Three

The burgh of Rutherglen and the parts of the Lower Ward and Middle Ward County Districts which are contained within the parishes of Carmunnock, Cambuslang and Blantyre and the extra-burghal portion of the parish of Rutherglen.

The burgh of Hamilton and the part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the extra-burghal portion of the parish of Hamilton and the parish of Dalserf.

The Upper Ward County District, inclusive, of all burghs situated therein, together With the part of the Middle Ward County District which is contained within the parishes of Avondale, East Kilbride, Glassford and Stonehouse.

Lothians

The counties of Linlithgow, Midlothian and Haddington, inclusive of all burghs situated therein except the county of the city of Edinburgh and the burghs of Leith and Musselburgh.

Three

—

—

—

Moray and Nairn.

The counties of Elgin and Nairn, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Orkney and ; Zetland.

The counties ; of Orkney and Zetland, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

(7) SCOTLAND.—continued.

Country Constituencies.—continued.

Name of Constituency.

Contents of Constituency

Total Number of Member for Constituency.

Names of Divisions of Constituency.

Number of Members for Divisions of Constituency.

Contents or Boundaries of Division.

Peebles and Selkirk.

The counties Peebles and Selkirk, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

One

—

—

—

Perth and Kinross.

The counties of Perth and Kinross, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

Two

Perth

One

So much of the county of Perth as is contained within the Eastern or Blairgowrie and Perth County Districts, inclusive of the city of Perth and all burghs situated within the said county districts.

Kinross and Western.

One

The county of Kinross, inclusive of the burgh of Kinross, together with so much of the county of Perth as is contained within the Central, Highland and Western County Districts, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

Renfrew

The county of Renfrew, inclusive of all burghs situated therein, together with so much of the burgh of Renfrew as is contained within the parish of Govan, in the county of Lanark.

Four

—

—

—

Stirling and Clackmannan.

The counties of Stirling and Clackmannan, inclusive of all burghs situated therein.

Three

—

—

—

(8) UNIVERSITIES.

Description of University Constituency.

Number of Members.

England and Wales:—

The University of Oxford

2

The University of Cambridge

2

The University of London

1

The University of Wales

1

The University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, and the University of Bristol

2

Scotland:—

The University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Edinburgh

3

LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR said: A new Schedule has to be introduced owing to the adoption of the principle of proportional representation. In the Schedule as printed, though I do not wish to make any amendment as regards any matter of principle, there are certain Amendments in matters of detail, and I have handed in a schedule of verbal Amendments at the Table. They deal with certain local divisions which, do not affect the general principle at all. It is only a matter of verbal accuracy. I should like to point out one or two matters upon these schedules in order that they may be clear. We have heard a good deal about the London constituencies, and if the noble Marquess who is specially interested in London will look at the schedule as regards Parliamentary constituencies in London, he will find that there is no interference whatever with the local and administrative areas. In some cases there is a grouping of boroughs, but in no case is there a division of boroughs in the sense of taking a boundary across existing boroughs, as it was suggested that we contemplated at one time. Of course, we never contemplated anything of the kind. As regards eight boroughs, it is merely a question of re-grouping—Battersea, Camberwell, the City of London, Islington, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, and Westminster. That would include 28 Members in the metropolitan area. As regards the other boroughs in the metropolitan area, it is a mere grouping of two boroughs into one, in order to get the numbers requisite for proportional representation; apart, from that, no change is
134
made at all. So that, if it is desired to maintain what has been called the borough spirit in the London area ample provision has been made in this Schedule, because it is based upon the principle of the borough areas themselves.
Then as regards the city and town constituencies, there are only five of the larger towns in which anything would be required except re-grouping—Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Sheffield. It is nothing but re-grouping, and therefore outside those five large boroughs there would not have been any necessity for the Redistribution Commissioners to be consulted. Of course, directly you get beyond re-grouping, it is necessary that they should be consulted—a principle to which we have expressed our adherence more than once. In the same way with regard to the country constituencies in England. Look at the Schedule and take the first four examples. Nothing except re-grouping is required; but then; are counties where redistribution would be required. The principle is to maintain the administrative local areas so as to give the greatest possible weight to what is called local patriotism and local life.
I will pass by the English constituencies, and turn to Wales. With the exception of the case of Glamorganshire, there is nothing to be done except re-grouping. In Scotland there is only one county where any distribution would arise apart from mere re-grouping namely, Lanarkshire. With regard to the Scottish boroughs, Glasgow is the only case which would

135
require anything except re-grouping. We propose that Glasgow, having fifteen Members, should be re-divided into three constituencies, with five Members each.
Those who have prepared this Schedule fully realise that it will have to be criticised and re-considered. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has put down an Amendment with reference to the Kent part of the Schedule, based on his great local knowledge. I heartily accept those Amendments. We have endeavoured to get the best local opinion to assist us. In the two most difficult cases—Lancashire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire—we were assisted by the Manchester Guardian in the ease of Lancashire, and by the Yorkshire Post with regard to the West Riding. But doing all we could, we could not ascertain—in the way in which it will have to he ascertained—what is the local opinion on these points. I beg to move that the Ninth Schedule be omitted, and that the new Schedule be here inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I have no intention of detaining your Lordships for any length of time, but I think I ought to say a word—as my noble and learned friend has alluded to London—about the question of London representation. As your Lordships are aware, the system of proportional representation has not, so far, commended itself to the London Members as a body. And even after making every discount on account of the fact, which, of course, would apply everywhere—that a sitting Member cannot be expected as a rule to view with satisfaction a great alteration in the size of his constituency—even making every allowance for that, the opposition of London is a fact with which my noble and learned friend and those who act with him will have to reckon. Lord Parmoor stated in his speech that, practically speaking, the boundaries of the London boroughs are not interfered with. It is, of course, clear that the recommendations of the Conference have not been entirely adopted, in that there are a certain number of boroughs left to which proportional representation does not apply. Westminster, Holborn, Finsbury, and Battersea, are left out for reasons into which it is not necessary to go. I should like my noble and learned friend to consider whether the principle (of which he countenanced the adoption this evening) of admitting in some in-
136
stances, and where desired, or required, the possibility of a seven-Member constituency, might, in some London cases, be applicable.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I do not express any opinion upon that; but no doubt the noble and learned Lord would consider whether that would enable him to work out a somewhat more consistent scheme. The only other point I wish to mention with regard to the London Schedule is that it is not quite clear why the present divided constituencies, such as, for instance, Westminster, Finsbury, and Holborn, should be combined and turned into two-Member constituencies.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: They are not.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Apparently they are.
LORD PARMOOR: Finsbury and Holborn are.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I understood that Finsbury and Holborn were going to return two Members, and that Westminster will also return two Members; and it is not quite clear to us why the single-Member system should be altogether abandoned in the metropolis of London. There are one or two other points. The case of Deptford and Lewisham, as he will have noticed, is a curious one, because the noble and learned Lord has given it only two Members, whereas it has a population of close upon 69,000 above the limit required for three.
LORD PARMOOR: It has three.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It will undoubtedly put in a claim for four. I do not wish to pursue those points, but merely to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to some of the anomalies which appear to affect London.
LORD PARMOOR: By permisson of the House, may I say that I cordially welcome any criticism such as the noble Marquess has applied to the Schedule; and I hope that any suggestions which come from London will be given the fullest weight before the Schedule is finally settled.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to supplement what my noble and learned friend has said. We had calculated—we now know erroneously—upon having the assistance of the Boundary Commissioners in forming our Schedule. At the last moment we found that we were thrown entirely upon our own resources. There were two respects in which local knowledge, and such special knowledge as the Boundary Commissioners alone possess, are essential for making a satisfactory Schedule. The first is in connection with the grouping of the constituencies in the very big cities like Liverpool and Glasgow. The second is in the combination of a very small borough returning less than three Members with a contiguous county division.
As I said in my speech at another stage of the proceedings, from the moment that you proceed to apply proportional representation to the county divisions, the question of uniting some of the small boroughs in the county divisions in the industrial districts becomes insistent. The question is to make a proper discrimination where that principle is to be applied and where it is not to be applied. In my judgment, and in the judgment of those who act with me, in many cases—for reasons of history and tradition—boroughs ought to be kept distinct (although returning less than three Members) from the county divisions contiguous to them. But we found that discrimination which might be accepted from the Boundary Commissioners as beyond question, might on the other hand, if put forward by a private Committee of Peers or Members of Parliament, be subject to suspicion of partizanship. We found that discrimination was not a thing which could be done except by an official body acting beyond all suspicion of party bias. That is the reason why we applied the principle of a wholesale scale, except in very few cases where it seemed to us obvious it could not be applied, and I do not want the public or the House of Commons to think that we out forward our Schedule as one which could be accepted without revision by the Boundary Commissioners. We have put forward a Schedule upon which they can operate, and we do not contend that it is fit for acceptance until it has been revised the Boundary Commissioners.
LORD PARMOOR: As I stated, the Schedule has been amended as it stands
138
on the Paper in certain verbal particulars, and as amended I have handed it in to the Clerk at the table.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS had on the Paper the following Amendments to Lord Parmoor's proposed new Schedule.
Page 42, line 18, column 5, leave out ("four" ) and insert ("three").
Page 42, line 18, column 6, leave out lines" 18 to 25.
Page 42, line 19, column 4, leave out ("Canterbury")
Page 42, line 41, column 5, leave out ("four") and insert ("three")
Page 42, line 41, column 6, leave out lines 41 to 50.
Page 42, line 42, column 4, leave out ("Faversham")
Page 43, line 10, column 5, leave out ("four") and insert ("three")
Page lines 13 and 14, column 4, leave out ("and Sevenoaks")
Page 43 line 23, column 6, leave out lines 23, 24 and 25.
Page 43 line 26, line 26, column 0, leave out lines 26 to 31.
Page 43, line 27, column 4, leave out ("Ash-ford").
Page 43, line 29, column 4, alter ("Tonbridge") insert ("and Sevenoaks")
Page 43, line 38, column 6, at end insert ("The rural districts of Malling and Sevenoaks and the urban districts of Sevenoaks and the urban districts of Sevenoaks and Wrotham").
Page 43, after line 38, column 4, insert ("Mid Ashford, Canterbury, and Faversham")
Page 43, after line 38, column 5, insert ("three")
Page 43, after line 38, column 6, insert:
("The rural districts of Cranbrook, East Ashford, Romney Marsh, Tenterden, and West Ashford, the municipal boroughs of Lydd, New Romney, and Tenterden, and the urban district of Ashford.
"The rural districts Bridge and Elham, the rural district of Blean (with the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hernhill which are wholly surrounded by that rural district), the county borough of Canterbury, and the urban districts of Berne Bay and Whitstable.
"The rural districts of Milton and Sheppey, the rural district of Faversham (except the detached parts of the civil parishes of Dunkirk and Hornbill which are wholly surrounded by the rural district, of Blean,) the municipal boroughs of Faversham, and Queenborough, and the urban districts of Milton Regis, Sheerness, and Sitting bourne.")
LORD HARRIS: Before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack puts the Motion, I have only to say this about my Amendments, that the effect of them is to change the grouping from three groups of four Members and one group of three, to

139
five groups of three, and in doing so those who have drawn up this re-grouping seem to me to have given careful consideration to the peculiarities of each group, that is to say as regards similarity of employment and interests. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to my experience of the county, but in this matter I defer to my noble friend Viscount Chilston, whose experience of the county in this matter is really unrivalled, and I understand he is quite prepared to support the proposal. I know that it has been approved by other persons of experience in the county, and I have therefore no hesitation in moving it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is that the new Schedule, as amended by Lord Parmoor and with Lord Harris's Amendments, be inserted instead of the present Ninth Schedule.
On Question, new Schedule agreed to.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Peel.)
[The sitting was suspended at half-past eight o'clock and resumed at twenty-five minutes before ten.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: It is the usual practice of this House, though there is no Standing Order upon it, that Amendments cannot be made on Third Reading without notice of them having been given. I suppose that course will not be applied this evening, as it has been impossible to give notice of any Amendments in the usual way. Perhaps it would be as well that I should know what is the view of the House on that subject before I venture to move one or say anything about it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The Bill should be read a third time first.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not know whether the remarks of the noble Lord—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The usual course is that before we begin to discuss Amendments or points of order arising out of them, the Bill should be read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I was saying, when the noble Marquess quite correctly interrupted me, that I was not quite sure whether the remarks of the noble Lord were in the nature—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Might I ask what clause the noble Lord is on, because I have an Amendment on one of the earlier clauses.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not think the noble Lord was on any particular Amendment, but was on a point of order, and was asking the view of the House on the point. The point he raised was this. In the particular circumstances of the case it is impossible to observe the ordinary usage of never moving Amendments on the Third Reading stage in this House without notice; and he was asking, such notice in the circumstances of the present case not being able to be given, was he thereby precluded from moving Amendments. I am sure I am speaking in accord with the general sense of the House when I say, Certainly not. The opportunity can, of course, be conceded only by general consent in all parts of the House, and in so far as I can speak for this side of the House—and I believe I can speak for all your Lordships—we shall not interfere with the liberty which in ordinary circumstances he would possess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I certainly shall not differ from my noble friend, but I think it is right to know that it is a most inconvenient practice to move Amendments without notice on the Third Reading, not because of any theoretical attachment to the bare bones of technical order, but because there is no means of setting right any mistake which takes place in the process; and without having the Amendments actually printed on the Paper before your Lordships, it is always possible that mistakes may creep in. This only bears out what some of us ventured to say earlier in the evening. In the circumstances no other course is open, but I am not sorry this point of order should have been raised, because it gives me the opportunity of pointing out the possibly serious consequences of the decision which the noble Earl induced your Lordships to take earlier in the evening.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I may point out as mitigation, although I agree

141
in substance with what my noble friend has just said, that there is a marked difference between a Bill which comes up from another place to be amended, and therefore has to be returned to the other place as amended, and an agreed Bill which comes up from another place and on which an Amendment is moved on Third Reading and may pass almost without notice. In a case of this kind, I do not think that in fact the departure from the rule can be regarded as important.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I want to ask a question on Clauses 26, 27, and 28. I will not do it now if any other noble Lord has an Amendment earlier.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I should like to move an Amendment which I honestly believe to be consequential to Clause 19. Your Lordships may remember that I succeeded in persuading—
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: Mine is to insert a new clause after Clause 39.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: Your Lordships may remember that I succeeded in persuading you to amend a particular set of instructions to the Boundary Commissioners in one of the Schedules. We changed the figure from six to seven, and if you refer to Clause 19 you will see that no proportional voting is possible in a constituency which returns more than five members, as it stands. I submit that we want to get rid of these words "no more than five."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that I cannot quite agree with my noble friend. The words "not less than three and not more than five" are taken from the Speaker's Conference, and I should be sorry to see them altered. The words to which the noble Lord alluded are contained in a sub-paragraph which allows the Boundary Commissioners, under very exceptional circumstances, to go beyond the general rule of the Bill, and I am not prepared to assent to the alteration of these words.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope that the words will not be altered. They were very carefully considered when they were inserted, and are undoubtedly based upon the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he can give me any assurance with regard to the matter that I wrote to hint about a few days ago, upon the subject of the difficulties which the Sheriffs in Scotland will have in acting as superior officers under the Bill. I wrote a full explanation to the noble Viscount which I do not want to repeat. These gentlemen hold high and distinguished offices; many of them are well known to me personally, and they have asked that these representations might be made, and that Parliamentary assurances might be given that the difficult position in which they are being placed would be carefully considered.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In reply to the letter which the noble Lord sent to me on this point, with respect to the various difficulties in which the sheriffs might be regarding the printing of ballot papers and other matters, I am able t o give him this assurance, that very shortly there will be a Conference of the various Departments concerned at which the sheriffs will be represented, and at which all these matters will be thoroughly gone into. The Government hope that they will be duly arranged. I am, therefore, able to give the noble Lord the definite assurance that the views of the sheriffs upon all these matters raised in his letter will have a real and sympathetic consideration.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I propose to raise almost immediately a question of order upon my Amendment. But, in the first place, I feel that I ought to apologise to the House for not having been here last night when the Amendment that I refer to now was on the Paper for Report. As another preliminary remark, I think that perhaps I ought to offer some justification for putting down an Amendment of this kind. I think that the justification is this, that the subject does not come to the House for the first time. It was mentioned in speeches at early stages in Committee both by the noble Earl Lord Selborne, and by myself. Then it was put upon the Table for the Report stage and was for several days before your Lordships' House, and now it comes on again. Therefore I suggest that it is not going too far to move this Amendment on Third Reading. Then comes the question about order, because it seems to me that it is not of much use

143
for me to proceed with the merits of this clause if your Lordships consider that it is out of order.
My Amendment is to insert as a new clause after Clause 39:—" Where a person has been returned as a Member to serve in Parliament, the subsequent acceptance by him from the Crown of any office of profit shall not vacate his seat." Perhaps the House would allow me to state what is my own view upon the point of order. I think that I am right in saving that, as a matter of practice in this House, it has never allowed itself to be ruled by any technicality in regard to the relation of the contents of the Bill to the Title; that is to say, that if any one objects that a proposed clause does not come within the Title of the Bill and the House desires to proceed with the clause an Amendment is made in the Title after the clauses of the Bill have been completed. In this case the question, therefore, really is whether your Lordships desire that the debate on this Amendment shall proceed or shall not. If I may mention my own personal feelings on the subject I must say that I have always regarded the tendency, which I believe is quite modern, to add to the Title of a Bill words such as those which occur in this Bill "and for other purposes connected therewith." and then to act, as I dare to say that the House does act, without principle in the construction of these words.
I certainly understood, when I spoke on this matter in Committee, that the feeling of the House was in favour of proceeding with some such Amendment as this. The question is whether it can be described as for any purpose connected with the specified objects of the Bill. It started on this occasion with the idea of removing an objection to the introduction of proportional representation, and I think it is open to any one to say that it is within the purposes of the Bill if you bring in an Amendment which would remove an objection to that which has now become, on the face of the Bill, a scheme with reference to the representation of the people. I do not myself favour such a construction, but I think it would be easy to find many precedents in this House for at least as wide an interpretation of these words as I have attempted to go upon. If your Lordships should shrink from that view but do not intend to accept any check upon this occasion, it would be in accordance with practice at
144
the proper time to add words to the title of the Bill which will bring this within the practice of this House with regard to order. Before I proceed with the merits of the Amendment I should like to know whether anybody will take objection on the point of order.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me whether I wish to offer any observations on the question of the point of order. He says that he considers that there is some relevance to the Bill in his Amendment, because it was mentioned on Committee stage in connection with the question of proportional representation. No doubt one of the difficulties of proportional representation—as was stated in the course of our discussions—was that it was very difficult to arrange for by-elections; and it was pointed out that a certain number of by-elections would be rendered unnecessary if those who took places of profit under the Crown were freed from the obligation of again going to consult their constituents. I am bound to say that this is a very far-fetched reason (if I may use the expression) for extending the scope of the Bill, because it may effect some detail in one of the proposals of the Bill in this way; and I should certainly have submitted to my noble friend that the Title of the Bill, as it stands at present, certainly does not cover the proposal which he wishes to make. The title of the Bill is" to amend the law with regard to Parliamentary and local Government franchises; the registration of Parliamentary and Local Government electors; the conduct of elections; and to provide for the redistribuiton of seats at Parliamentary elections; and for other purposes connected therewith." I confess that I entirely fail to see how the proposal of the noble Lord comes within any one of those particular propositions. His proposal is to alter the Title of the Bill. I suppose it is not necessary to point out that the Bill has been through the other House, and has now reached the Third Reading stage in this House; and I should have thought that it was an extraordinarily inconvenient thing (to say the least) at so late a stage to alter the Title of the Bill in order to bring in an Amendment. I suggest that the question of the vacation of seats in the circumstances dealt with by the noble Lord is a matter which could be dealt with by the particular Act itself; and to bring it in here is wholly out of order and

145
irrelevant to the Bill. Those are the considerations which I respectfully submit to your Lordships' House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to express my own individual opinion as a member of your Lordships' House. My impression is that the Amendment is certainly not within the Title of the Bill, and that it would probably be inexpedient to amend the Title so as to let in this Amendment. The Bill relates to the provision of electoral machinery; who are to be the electors; how elections are to be conducted, and so on. The Amendment of my noble friend raises a totally different set of considerations. The Rule which this Amendment proposes to repeal was originally introduced for the purpose of preserving the independence of Members of Parliament. I think it may be considered that the reason for the introduction of the Rule may have become obsolete. But nevertheless there are a great many other instances where although the reason for its introduction may have ceased to apply, the rule has a sort of definite use, and the rule itself affords a valuable test for ascertaining how far a Government which is in power is losing the confidence of the country; and I put it to your Lordships that, that rule existing, the question whether it should be maintained is really a matter of general policy, rather than one which is at all relevant to the purpose of this Bill which deals with electoral machinery. I submit that we should get into a different region altogether if we proceeded to the more exalted sphere to which the noble and learned Lord invites the House to ascend, and that it would be better if we confined ourselves to the terrestrial region in which we have so far moved.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot advise the House to depart from the advice just presented by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, although I quite appreciate the wish of my noble and learned friend to bring this question before your Lordships' House. We have not kept, perhaps, very closely already to the Title of the Bill. It was on Clause 10 that I drew attention to what appeared to me to be a departure, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack then said that he regarded it as being very near the line, but he gave reasons why it might be regarded as just within it, and I said no more. What I confess biases me at this moment,
146
is the admission of my noble and learned friend, that it might be a desirable thing, for the benefit of another place, to alter the Title of the Bill. I think that would be a highly objectionable course for us to take at this stage. To send this Bill back to another place with some addition to the Title of a general character, would. I think, arouse suspicion in that Assembly. On the whole, therefore, I should advise my noble and learned friend not to press his point, although the matter is one which I think we all agree at a proper time is well worthy of consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think we must exclude altogether, necessarily, on a point of order, the noble Lord's proposal to alter the Title of the Bill. There is no question that if it be required to alter the Title it would be very easy to bring the Amendment within the scope of the Bill with the Title as altered, and therefore we are brought back to the question whether it would be required to alter the Title of the Bill. Nothing was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack which was strictly contrary to that view. He said he thought it would be highly inexpedient, and I am inclined to share that view, but that is not the same thing as being out of order. It is a different point. There may be many things which are inexpedient but which are strictly within order. It may be inexpedient at a late stage of the Bill to press an Amendment which involves changing the Title of the Bill, but I do not think we should rule it oat of order to change the Title unless the Lord Chancellor has other grounds for thinking it would lie out of order to change the Title of the Bill on the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite agree.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am anxious to say this, because what passes in your Lordships' House upon a point of order becomes part of the settled law of the House and therefore it should not be taken as a precedent that what is inexpedient is out of order. Then, to turn to the Amendment the question is whether it is out of order without changing the Title of the Bill; and I am inclined to think it is out of order It certainly is not so clear a case as some of your Lordships think it to be, because Clause 10, to which the noble Marquess has called

147
attention, is not a clause introduced in your Lordships' House. It was in the Bill as it originally reached us, and that clause certainly goes a good deal outside the strict reading of the Title of the Bill. Until you come to the last few words, namely "or other purposes connected therewith," Clause 10 will be out of order, but it is quite clear that in another place they held that Clause 10 was in order by right of those words, "or other purposes connected therewith." If the determination of who may be a candidate comes within the scope of the Bill, it is only one step further to deal with such a subject as the noble Lord has suggested. Still it is a step further, and I am inclined to think it would be out of order. Therefore, if a humble member of your Lordships' House is entitled to have an opinion, I think it would be out of order without changing the Title. I hardly think the noble Lord would be well advised to ask us to change the Title at so late a stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I take advantage of the agreement of your Lordships that no notice should be given of Amendments to move one which I think comes before Lord Balfour's Amendment on Clause 42. It is to insert in Clause 42, on page 31, after line 43, as a new paragraph the words "(3) the expression 'land or premises' means any land or premises other than a dwelling-house of the yearly value of not less than five pounds or any dwelling-house." The object is to adapt the provision as regards Scotland to one of the Amendments introduced in your Lordships' House.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have one earlier than that. I am sorry I did not know where the change would come in. My noble friend will see the extreme necessity of this at once if he will refer to page 31, lines 4 and 5. There is there a definition of a Parliamentary county or a Parliamentary borough. I desire to move to leave out "Parliamentary county or in the same Parliamentary borough" for the purpose of inserting "county or in the same county of a city." This is absolutely necessary in consequence of the alteration of the Schedule and the Amendment agreed to earlier in the day. There is a second one after line 18 which is also before that of the noble Viscount, and it is consequential on the one I have just suggested. It is to insert the definition
148
of a county—"a county means a county inclusive of all boroughs therein except a county of a city."
Amendments moved.
Clause 42, page 31, lines 4 and 5, to leave out ("Parliamentary county or in the same Parliamentary borough") in order to insert ("county or in the same county of a city").
Page 31, after line 18, to insert the words ("A county means a county inclusive of all boroughs therein except a county of a city").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL assented.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I now beg to move the Amendment which I indicated a few moments ago.
Amendment moved—
Clause 42, page 31, after line 43, insert as a new paragraph ("the expression land or premises' means any land or premises other than a dwelling-house of the yearly value of not less than £5 or any dwelling-house ").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The second is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 42, page 32, line 14, at the end insert ("and provided further that in the case of land or premises other than a dwelling-house the aggregate yearly value thereof must be not less than the amount produced by multiplying £5 by the number of joint occupiers").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This is merely consequential on what was done on the English clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I call the attention of the House to the proviso on page 33, lines 4 to 9. The House will recollect that in Committee I moved to omit this proviso, and some discussion took place in regard to it. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, made an offer of certain words, and I asked time in order to communicate with Scotland in regard to them. I could only write on Friday and get the answer on Monday, and I gave notice on Monday to pursue, on the Third Reading, not being in time for Report stage, my opposition to the proviso and to move to omit it. I know quite well the

149
noble Viscount will not agree to accept it, and it has been suggested to me that, possibly, the Treasury—I know the Scottish Office will agree—that the Treasury will agree to some words being inserted as follows: "But such consent shall not be necessary in the case of the re-appointment, as assessors for any borough or county, of any officer of the Inland Revenue who is, at the passing of this Act, assessor for such borough or county." Those words save the existing interests so far as we can, but they do not, in the least, satisfy those for whom I am speaking. I understand it is the best I can get, and I have reason to believe that, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, they approve of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 9, after ("Treasury") insert "but such consent shall not be necessary in the case of the re-appointment as assessor for any borough or county of any officer of the Inland Revenue who is, at the passing of this Act, assessor for such borough or county").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This matter has been fully considered by the Inland Revenue, and I regret to say that their view is that they must abide by the provision as it is now drawn. They maintain that they "mist keep full control over these officers. Their interests are connected with the revenue, and the heavy duties that may be placed upon them by the registration work might. interfere with their duties as revenue officers. The Inland Revenue, therefore, wish to keep complete control over them. I am able to give this assurance to the noble Lord, that if the Inland Revenue does terminate their appointment as assessors, they will give them fresh work and have full regard to the loss of emoluments they might suffer by being disconnected with this work. I hope the noble Lord will be content with that assurance, because I am afraid in the circumstances that is all I am able to give him.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That does not touch the point at all. It does not save the privileges of the boroughs. I do want to make a very earnest protest. This proviso was put in by the Treasury in one of the last stages of the Bill in the House of Commons. It is—I will not say
150
what I think about it—upsetting a compromise which has been in existence for forty years, and for which I fought hard all the time I was at the Scottish Office. I think it is a very mean thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This again illustrates the extraordinary inconvenience of the Government not allowing Us to have a proper Third Reading. Here is a gross injustice alleged by my noble friend, and at any rate he had a right to submit it to the judgment of the House. But for the action of the Government earlier in the evening he would have had full opportunity to give notice, and the Amendment would have been on the Paper when we came to consider it. At the present moment not one of us can follow the point and know whether it is right or wrong. This is proof, if any proof were needed, that it is better, if I may say so respectfully, to adhere to the proper Standing Orders of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move that this Bill do pass.
Moved, That this Bill do now pass.— (Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: On this Question, I am unwilling to allow the Bill to reach its quite final stage without expressing the gratitude of those of us who sit on this side of the House for the manner in which it has been conducted by the noble Viscount who has been in charge of it. All through our proceedings he has shown the most masterly knowledge of a complicated and a difficult Bill. As those who are experienced in this House very well know, no amount of skill or tact can enable a man to conduct a Bill satisfactorily through the House unless he knows it in all its clauses and in all its features. That knowledge the noble Viscount has shown I that he possesses. But in addition to that he has shown all those qualities of good temper and forbearance which commend the conductor of a Bill to your Lordships' House. I was most unwilling to let this occasion pass without expressing my own opinion, and I am sure it is the opinion of all your. Lordships, of

151
the admirable manner in which the noble Viscount has performed his task.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I do not know that it is a usual thing for a Minister to join in praise of one of his own colleagues, but I cannot allow the generous tribute that has been paid to my noble friend, Lord Peel, by the Leader of the Opposition to pass without saying, on behalf of those with whom I act, and on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House, as their cheers just now showed, how cordially I endorse the language he used.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend has not given us a chance of saying how much we agree with it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The whole House is really agreed. As the noble Marquess intimated, it is a great stage in the Parliamentary career of any man when he is put in charge—and complete and full charge, as my noble friend has been—of a first-rate Parliamentary measure, and the manner in which he has fulfilled that duty is, I think, an augury of a Parliamentary career of singular distinction. The noble Marquess has referred to the knowledge of the Bill shown by my noble friend, and to his good temper and unfailing resource. There is a further difficulty that he has had to encounter, and has successfully overcome, to which the modesty of the noble Marquess did not allow him to allude. And it is this. My noble friend Lord Peel has been confronted throughout by an array of talent on the Front Bench opposite which we all of us admire, but from which we sometimes suffer. The noble Viscount has successfully met that artillery, directed at him from so many powerful weapons at all stages of the Bill, and, whatever may be your opinion about the form in which the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, there is no one who will dissent from the view taken by the noble Marquess that it has added greatly to the public reputation of my noble friend, Lord Peel.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill. But before the noble and learned Lord puts the Question, I should like to be allowed to make a remark or two. Your Lordships will see that I have a large number of Amendments on the Paper, but they are all more or less of a drafting nature. There may, however, be one or two upon which your Lordships may desire an explanation, and I shall, of course, do my best to give it to you.
On Clause 22 there is an important Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, especially in regard to what has been, I think, miscalled the "wedding present" of £2. Lord Knutsford has put down Amendments with which I am sorry to say I cannot agree, because the money in the Bill would not meet the necessary expenditure. I have observed through the ordinary channels, and also from various indications, that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the minds of your Lordships with this £2 marriage benefit as it is in the Bill. The reasons for that I need not repeat, because they are well known to your Lordships. At the same time I think it is fair to say that I do not share them. I am, however, most anxious to meet your Lordships' general wish, and as far as I possibly can to meet my noble friend Lord Knutsford in the direction in which he is anxious to move. I propose to withdraw the suggestion as to the £2 marriage benefit in its present form, and instead to place to the credit of a woman that amount, resulting in spreading the benefit, including the maternity benefit, over a longer period—that is, to the end of a calendar year next after ceasing employment. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is more in the spirit of insurance, and more in the spirit of the Act of 1911. I hope that when I am able to explain my Amendment your Lordships will consider that it is an honest endeavour to meet the situation. It is true that I have, to some extent, to sacrifice what was considered by my advisers as a great inducement to those women to give the notification of their marriage, which is a very real necessity,

153
but I hope to compensate for that, if not entirely, to a very great degree, by arrangements being made to notify oft insurance cards and in insurance books in large visible letters the rights of these women and the advantages that will accrue from giving this notice.
I am very sorry to say that it has been impossible for me to put upon the Notice Paper to-night, owing to the immense rush of business, the drat of my Amendment. But there has been a certain amount of virtue in delay, because in the interval that has elapsed I have been able to come to agreement with my noble friend, Lord Knutsford, in regard to the Amendment which I shall propose to-morrow. I propose to bring it up on Report, and on that account I do not propose to press Clause 22 finally. I therefore also hope that my noble friend, in his turn, will see fit not to press his Amendment to Clause 22, and that as the Bill came up as an agreed Bill to your Lordships from the House of Commons, so it will leave your Lordships' House when the proper time comes.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Viscount Sandhurst.))
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: As Lord Sandhurst has kindly alluded to me, may I say that I certainly agree not to move the Amendment which stands in my name and in Lord Sydenham's name. Lord Sandhurst, in his firm and very courteous way, has disarmed opposition, and he says that he will bring in a clause on the Report stage which we have already considered and to which I earnestly hope we shall be able to agree. But my main reason for not moving the Amendment which stands in my name to-night is that the £2 wedding gift is to-day as dead as the dodo, and it will never be revived. There is no suggestion that when the Report stage arrives there shall be any £2 wedding gift. The money will be used for the purposes for which it was subscribed. The country owes a great debt of gratitude to Lord Sandhurst for the firm and conciliatory way in which he has considered the opposition of those who have very great regret in ever differing front him. We shall therefore wait with interest for to-morrow, when he will bring up his Amendment, and I most earnestly hope that we shall be able to agree to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The three Amendments standing in my name on this Clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("societies") insert ("and who are employed contributors")
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("moneys") to ("towards") in line 30, mid insert ("applicable")
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("their liabilities") and insert ("the liabilities of the Insurance Commissioners").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The first seven Amendments on this clause are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 10, leave oat ("meaning") and insert ("making good")
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("in meeting") and insert ("towards making good")
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("in" ) and insert ("towards")
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("so far as is possible")
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("meet") and insert ("make good").
Page 4 line 11, leave out ("meeting") and insert ("making good")
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("meeting") and insert ("making good").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment deals with the case where an employer guarantees the solvency of a fund. The clause deals at present only with the case where he makes good the amount of any deficiency. But there is also the case where he is liable to make good the benefits; and this Amendment is to put the clause in order.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, after ("fund") insert ("or for the benefits payable thereout.").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, after ("deficiency") insert ("or to make up to their full amount the benefits payable out of the fund").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("contributions towards") and insert ("substantial contributions to").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The object of the next Amendment is that Section 16 of the Act of 1913 does not provide that the powers must be exercised within six months, but that representations must be made within six months.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("representations") and insert ("submission").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page, 6, line 19, after ("exercise") insert ("on representations made").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("are") and insert ("were") and after ("exercised") insert ("on representations made").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The object of this Amendment is that it is not intended to require a representation in the society as a whole, but by some of the members only.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, leave out ("by the society").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The two Amendments standing in my name on this clause are drafting and consequential respectively.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("fifth day of November") and insert ("first day of January")
Page 8, line, 20, leave out ("seventeen and have") and insert ("eighteen, or who having at any previous time been insured as voluntary contributors ceased to be so insured by reason of becoming employed contributors and were insured persons at that date, and have in either case").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: This Amendment on Clause 8 is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("hereafter") and insert ("thereafter").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The first Amendment on this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, leave out ("the rate of contribution") and insert ("contributions").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The clause fixes a flat rate of contribution, in the case of exempt persons, at 3d. for England, and 2½d. for Ireland. At present a foreign-going seaman pays a contribution of 2d., and the object of the Amendment is to secure in these cases that the present arrangement may be continued; otherwise the employer would have to pay the larger sum.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("be a sum") and insert ("except where the person employed is a master, seaman, or apprentice to the sea service or the sea fishing service, serving on a foreign-going ship, or a ship engaged in regular trade on foreign stations, be at the rate").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment on the Paper is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 34 and 35, leave out ("the amount mentioned in") and insert ("at the rate payable under the provisions of").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My first Amendment to this clause is to enable a Society to dispense with the formal proof where it is satisfied from prima facie evidence already in its possession that the delay in notifying a sickness claim is not due to the member's default.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("in the ease of any"), and leave out ("proves to").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The words in the Bill suggest that a dispute can be decided only by the Commissioners. That is a mistake, and the object of my next Amendment is to get rid of that erroneous impression.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("or on appeal to the Insurance Commissioners") and insert ("are satisfied, or if in the case of a dispute it is decided in manner provided by the principal Act").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next three are drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("as from the third day "of") and insert ("commencing on the fourth day of the" ).—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("as from the commencement") and insert ("commencing on the first day").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 39, after ("on") insert ("the day next after").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM moved a new subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I will not detain your Lordships except to say one word about this Amendment, the object of which is to abolish the misconduct rule, which is admitted by everybody to be a dangerous mistake and a mistake that must be removed. The effect of it has been to cause concealment of disease, thereby preventing treatment from being given at the proper time and increasing the dangers to the public afterwards. The economic effect upon the insurance societies has been that they get burdened in later years with the later effects of these diseases and suffer financially therefrom. I think it is generally conceded now that this rule must go. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a few words from a letter which I have received from Sir Thomas Barlow in support of my Amendment. [The noble Lord read the letter and proceeded.] I think it expresses and gives full reasons for this Amendment and the need for it; but the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill has very kindly discussed the matter with me and has a proposal to make. It partly meets my view, though not quite; but I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved.
Page 11, line 6, after subsection (3) insert the following new subsection:
"(4) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any rule of an approved society, or branch of such society, an insured person who is suffering from any form of venereal disease, shall not, on the ground that this disease is or may have been due to misconduct, be deprived of any sickness or disablement benefit to which he or she would, but for that provision have been entitled."—(Loral Sydenham.)
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Of course, I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said and also the great authority of Sir Thomas Barlow, but I am advised that the object of the Amendment is more likely to be gained, and without friction, by not putting it in the Bill but leaving it to be done by the rules of the societies. There is a great delay unquestionably in regard to making rules by the societies, because, like every other institution of whatever kind, the difficulty of getting people to attend public meetings to ratify rules is almost insuperable; and, as the noble Lord has said, I have agreed to submit an Amendment which will enable a society to make rules without holding these meetings.

159
Many societies have acknowledged the desirability of the change. It is proposed to issue a circular to the societies by the Commissioners indicating the views put forward by the noble Lord, and if, when the circular is drafted, he will be good enough to assist the Commissioners they would be glad to avail themselves of his services.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, after ("months") insert ("commencing").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendment I now move is designed to make clear that the society concerned is responsible for the cost of the medical and sanatorium benefit until the expiration of the year in which the person ceased to be an insured person, if he ceased to be a member during the term of the year. It makes it clear that such a person is to be treated as if he were still a member of the Society.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 17, after ("person") inert ("and a member of an approved society").— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The proviso which I now move is interesting. Under the provisions of Clause 13 persons who have ceased to be employed are afforded a year's free insurance after they have so ceased. That has been called the "year of grace." If employment has not been resumed before the expiration of the year the benefits cease, and in the event of persons subsequently resuming employment they are treated as new entrants and there is to be a fresh waiting period. The continuance of insurance for a strictly limited period, which I have described, is secured to members of certain classes of persons temporarily engaged in war work, which is not employment within the meaning of the Act, or who have been otherwise employed in ordinary occupations. These include (1) nurses, (2) women enrolled in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps and
160
analogous services employed outside the United Kingdom—if they are employed at home they would be insured on the ordinary terms—(3) other persons ordinarily employed in civilian capacities in France or elsewhere, whether directly in the employ of the Government or of contractors, and (4) civilians, merchant seamen, and others interned. It is proposed to safeguard the position of these classes by providing that their benefit rights shall subject to prescribed conditions, be continued for two months after the expiration of their war occupation or twelve months after the commencement of it, whichever is the longer. The Amendment deals with cases of persons who entered into a war occupation after the coming into operation of the Amending Act. A later Amendment on page 12 safeguards the position of those who have already entered in the same way.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 17, at end insert:
"Provided that where any such person yeasts to be employed as aforesaid by reason of entering on some prescribed class of occupation in connection with the war, not being employment within the meaning of Part I of the principal Act (in this section referred to as 'war occupation') or by reason of being interned in an enemy country as a prisoner of war or otherwise, he shall, subject to such conditions with respect to payment of contributions and otherwise as may be prescribed, remain an insured person until two months after the termination of the war occupation or internment, as the case may be, or until the expiration of twelve months from the date on which he ceased to be employed as aforesaid, whichever date is the later."—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendment in lines 23 and 24 is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 23 and 24, leave out ("on appeal to the Insurance Commissioners") and insert ("if in the case of a dispute it is decided in manner provided by the principal Act").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 24, after ("is") insert ("or was")
Page 11, line 25, leave out from ("work") to ("or") in line 26, and insert ("due to some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement")
Page 11, line 27, after ("within") insert ("and in respect of")

161
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("during which he is unemployed") and insert ("of unemployment")
Page 11, line 31, after ("months") insert ("commencing")
Page 11, line 36, at end insert ("and a member of an approved society").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit from the commencement of subsection (6) to the word "so" ["that date so"] in order to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: The object is to make it clear that, where a person has ceased to be employed before the commencement of the new Act, the twelve months is taken to run, not from the date when he ceased to be insured but from the date when he ceased to be employed. It also safeguards the position of those who have been engaged on work.
Amendment move—
Page 12, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("so") in line 8, and insert
"Where any person having been insured as an employed contributor at any time within twelve months before the date of the commencement of this Act ceased to be employed within the meaning of Part I of the principal Act before that date, or where ally person having been insured as an employed contributor at any time since, the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fourteen, ceased before the commencement of this Act to be employed within the meaning of Part I of the principal Act by reason of entering on war occupation or by reason of being interned as aforesaid, this Act shall apply to him though it had been in force on the date when he so ceased to be employed."—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: All the Amendments on the Paper to Clause 14 are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("six months") and insert ("twenty-sewn weeks")
Page 12, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("their satisfaction") and insert ("the satisfaction of the Commissioners")
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("they") and insert ("the Commissioners").
Page 14, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("or who has ceased to be an insured person before") and insert ("before or who having previously been insured is not an insured person at the date of")
Page 14, line 24, after ("person") insert ("not being a member of any approved society").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendment is a drafting one.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 37, after ("value") insert ("it").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17, at-reed to.
Clause 18:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: These are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 33, leave out ("benefits") and insert ("benefit").
Page 18, line 16, leave out ("is not") and insert ("has not been" )
Page 18, line 19, leak out from ("the") to the second ("of") in line 20, and insert ("period during which he was not so employed in each such year was not so employed for some reason other Clout incapacity for work due to some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendments to this clause are drafting. The first is put in as the money might, be paid into Court.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("paid to the insured person") and insert ("duly paid")
Page 19, line 35, after ("to") insert ("receive or") and after ("not") insert ("received or")
Page 19, line 39, after ("committee") insert ("or in the case of a dispute as determined in manner provided by the principal Act").
Page 20, line 7, after ("any") insert ("or the weekly value of the lump suns (if any) paid or")
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("to")
Page 20, line 9, leave out ("is entitled") and insert ("would, if there had been no such payment, allowance or benefit, have been entitled to receive or recover ")—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: These are two drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 15, leave out ("be applied")
Page 20, line 18, after ("person") insert ("be applied").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Amendment standing in my name is intended to strike at the root of what is really a grave scandal, and not only a scandal in itself but a very grave waste of public money. It certainly ought to be cured, and the opportunity of this Bill ought to be taken to cure it. Insured persons often take advantage of Poor Law and public institutions. They are entitled to claim maintenance and treatment in Poor Law institutions, and during the period of that treatment the insurance benefit of 10 s. a week is funded on their behalf, and paid to them when they leave the institution. No payment is made for the cost of maintenance and treatment. The persons who take advantage of this class of institutions are usually drawn from a rank of society who may in some cases have had great difficulties but who certainly are not those who can be described as in any way well behaved or as objects of sympathy. They are usually drawn, I think I may say, from the lowest rank of society, and are in many instances practically hopeless in their habits. They often have no responsibilities which have to be met during the course of their treatment. They often pay no rent, they live in common lodging houses, and their money accumulates. At the termination of their treatment a lump sum is paid to these individuals and is spent in riotous living of various kinds.
I respectfully argue that no person should be entitled to draw benefit from two public funds at the same time. If individuals are maintained in a Poor Law Institution, they ought not to get the benefit of the insurance, or if they do they ought to pay for the benefits they receive. I do not go so far as that in this Amendment, because the Poor Law authorities for whom I speak have no desire to make a profit out of those people; but they do dislike the idea of their living at the expense of the rates and then getting a sum of money out of public funds and spending it upon no useful purpose.
The object of my Amendment is to save the money for the insurance. The Poor Law authorities for whom I am speaking
164
do not ask that it should be paid to them. If the institution is a private one I think it is paid to that institution now, but I do not think at any rate that the people should get the benefit of the institution and pocket the money. This is no small thing. I have the figures for last year for Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Govan. In Edinburgh nearly a thousand people in the year have got this benefit wrongfully, as I think; and in Glasgow, between January, 1917, and January, 1918, nearly 10,000 people received this insurance benefit, having been supported in Poor Law institutions during illness. I think I have said enough to show, whether this Amendment can be accepted or not, that there is a strong case for reform and that a public scandal exists which this opportunity ought to be taken to remedy.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 31, leave out ("unless that institution is") and insert ("provided always that where such person is an inmate of")
Page 20, line 35, leave out ("is") and insert ("of")
Page 20, line 36, after ("provided") insert ("No sickness or maternity benefit shall be paid in respect of the period of such treatment, but such benefit shall be applied in the provision of surgical or other appliances for the benefit of the person; and so far as not so applied shall be paid to the Insurance Committee towards the general purposes thereof").
Page 21, line 14, after ("infirmary") insert ("or in Scotland to any poorhouse hospital or the sick ward of any poorhouse").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: May I just say a word in support of Lord Balfour's Amendment. It does seem very wrong that where a man has no dependants and where he comes into a voluntary hospital no payment whatever should be made to the voluntary hospital for the help which is given to him. If the man has dependants I quite see that the insurance money may go fairly to them, but it does seem to me quite unfair that a man who has no dependants should come into a voluntary institution and that the societies, when he conies out of that institution, should give him the money instead of paying it for his maintenance in the institution. Therefore, if seconding the Amendment is needed, I should like humbly to second Lord Balfour's Amendment.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: With regard to what was said just now by Lord Knutsford,

165
I think there is nothing to prevent an insured person, if he chooses, from paying a sum of money, or being allowed to pay a sum of money, to a voluntary institution. I think I tried to explain that in my speech on the Second Reading. But Lord Balfour's remarks, I understand, refer entirely to the rate-paid institutions. The noble Lord will remember that a decision was deliberately come to four years ago, in the Act of 1913, when it was made quite clear that the insurance money towards which an insured person had paid his own money as a contribution was his own money. The matter having been left somewhat obscure by the Act of 1911, it was put beyond doubt by the Act of 1913.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In favour of the insured person.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Yes; that the money was his own. I may point out, what the noble Lord knows, that, by law, guardians of the poor have ordinary powers to recover expenses of this description if they believe that there are means available other than those from insurance. The inference, as the noble Lord says, is that there may be sought to be drawable two benefits—one from the rates front which the expenses of the infirmary are defrayed and to the relief and shelter of which sometimes some of these people go, and to which as a right they can go; and the other, the insurance which he and his employer, if he has been an employed person, have paid for years.
Take another example—the case of a man who has been for years a member of a sick benefit society, paying his 2d. or his 6d. a week, and now belongs to what is known as the private side of one of the great friendly societies. I think that it could hardly be said that a man who had saved his money in that way should be mulcted in the way that is suggested. And if that is so, so much the less so, I submit, for one who has had to insure compulsorily. I think that the noble Lord will agree—I believe, in fact, that he stated so—that there are many people who find themselves in infirmaries who are not necessarily ne'er-do-wells. In my experience, and in the experience of my noble friend, Lord Knutsford, there are many
166
cases in which unfortunate people, through no fault of their own, have to take advantage of the aid and shelter of Poor Law infirmaries. Poor Law infirmaries, as many noble Lords will remember, are now magnificent State hospitals in this country. They were the old workhouse infirmaries, and by the Act of Mr. Gaythorne-Hardy, when he was President of the Poor Law Board about fifty odd years ago, he established these State hospitals to which these unfortunate people find their way.
Moreover, I would point out this, in regard to what the noble Lord has said, that if a man is a ne'er-do-well and has been a loafer all his life, he would not have been an employed person, and therefore would not have been an insured person. On these grounds I beg my noble friend not to press the Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Viscount has put a number of suppositions. If always all, or even a majority, of them are true it would in all probability go far to justify the action taken. Do I understand that the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied with the present state of circumstances in cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh, especially Glasgow, in regard to which the facts that I have given him are given upon the authority, not of careless casual people, but of those who spend their whole lives in regulating these Poor Law institutions? It is all very well to talk about State infirmaries, but they are not State infirmaries. They are supported out of the rates of the district, and I should like clearly to understand whether the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that there is discipline enough in this matter, or whether they would be willing to have a conference with those whose case I have endeavoured to present, with a view to seeing whether, in some form of the Act, something cannot be done to get rid of what I can assure the noble Viscount is, all over Scotland, which I know, a very grave scandal.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: I do not know anything about these matters in Scotland, and I think that the utmost I can say is that I will faithfully report to the Insurance Commissioners what the noble Lord has said.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I point out that if there were a larger House one might have pressed this matter to a Division and see who takes one's view, but if that were done now the result would be that this stage of the Bill would be postponed, because I am perfectly certain that there are not thirty Peers within the precincts of the House at the moment. I am precluded from taking up the matter on Report, because the noble Viscount has told us that he is going to take Report to-morrow, and by that time I cannot see the Bill printed, to line and page the Amendment. This is the sort of proceeding that is thought good enough for the House of Lords in these times. The thing is an absolute and downright scandal, and until your Lordships assert yourselves, and throw out these Bills, and stop it, and put inconvenience on the other House of Parliament in the same way that they put inconvenience upon us, your Lordships will never be list on et to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Do yon withdraw?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would rather that the Amendment was negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment is to adapt to Scottish conditions.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 14, after ("infirmary") insert ("or in Scotland to any poorhouse hospital or the sick ward of any poorhouse").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause, 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved an Amendment in Clause 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 40, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendments here are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 30, leave out the second ("in") and insert ("for")
Page 27, line 31, leave out ("seaman, marine, or soldier") and insert ("person")
Page 27, line 32, after ("person,") insert ("and to be resident in such county or county borough as may be prescribed")
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("such seaman, marine or soldier") and insert ("person to whom the said section forty-six applies")—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: These also are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 34, after ("Force") insert ("or from the Air Force to the Navy or Army") and after ("extend") insert ("and be deemed always to have extended")
Page 28, line 40, at end, insert:
"In this section the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners in conjunction with the Air Council."—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question. Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendments on Clause 26 are likewise drafting.
Amendments moved
Page 29, line 10, leave out ("the Committee shall credit") and insert ("there shall be credited")
Page 29, line 11, leave out ("their opinion") and insert ("the opinion of the Committee")
Page 29, line 12, leave out ("shall charge") and insert ("the amount so credited shall be charged")
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("the amount so credited").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The next Amendment is intended merely to widen the clause, and to let in other people who may not be necessarily engaged in one particular employment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 10, leave out ("in the case of pupil teachers") and insert ("to the conditions prevailing in the employments specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment a greed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Treasury wish to know what is going on with regard to any balance there may be over the stamp account. These three Amendments agree with that matter.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 17, leave out ("are satisfied") and insert ("satisfy the Treasury")
Page 32, line 18, leave out ("them") and insert ("the Commissioners")
Page 32, line 27, leave out ("are satisfied") and insert ("satisfy the Treasury"). ( Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended agreed to.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendments which I now move are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 34, line 1, after ("(3)") insert:
The power to make regulations under the last preceding subsection with respect to the enquiries therein mentioned shall not extend so as to authorise regulations to be made with respect to any such inquiries held in Scotland, but"
Page 34, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("as aforesaid").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: These Amendments are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, line 7, after ("cent") insert ("and that such excess was in whole or in part due to any such cause as aforesaid the amount of any")
Page 36, line 10, after ("aforesaid") insert "the amount of that")
170
Page, 36, line 11, after ("and") insert ("the words 'or such part thereof as aforesaid,' whenever these words occur in subsection (3) of the said section, and").— (Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendments on this clause are all drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, line 21, leave out ("this Part of this") and insert ("Part I of the principal").
Page 37, line 1, leave out ("an employee who") and insert ("If an employee")
Page 37, line 2, after ("society") insert ("he or any person claiming through him")
Page 37, line 3, leave out ("his") and insert ("the")
Page 37, line 4, leave out ("he") and insert ("the employee").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendment, which I have to move en this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 31, leave out ("said") and after ("regulations") insert ("made under the said subsection").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The Amendment on this clause is the one which I said I would move with regard to what has been said by Lord Sydenham.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 40, after ("acting") insert ("and to any variations required to secure that no insured person who is suffering from any form of venereal disease shall, on the ground that the disease is or may be duo to misconduct, be deprived of any sickness or disablement benefit to which he would otherwise have been entitled").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved the insertion of a new clause. The noble Viscount said: The 1909 Act reduces by 5s. the sickness and disablement benefits of officers, seamen, marines, and so on, who receive pensions in respect of disablement in the highest degree. The object of this Amendment is to widen its scope so as to include Volunteers and others.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 46 insert as a new clause:
".The National Insurance (Part I Amendment) Act, 1917, shall be amended as follows:—

"(1) By the insertion in section one thereof after the word 'marines' and after the word 'soldiers' of the words 'or other persons.'

"(2) By the insertion therein after the words 'to whom section forty-six of the 'National Insurance Act, 1911, applied 'wherever those words occur of the words 'or who was an insured person.'

"(3) By the substitution for the words 'naval or military service,' wherever those words occur of the words 'naval military, or other pensionable service.'"—(Viscount Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: These are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 39, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as")
Page 39, line 4, at end insert ("and this Act may be cited together as the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1918")
Page 39, line 6, leave out ("January") and insert ("July")
Page 39, line 14, after ("which") insert ("has been amended by any other Act or,").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The order of procedure in Scotland differs from that in England. In Scotland the auditor will not himself make a surcharge but report irregularities to the Commissioners, and the accounts cannot be considered until his report is received. Therefore this paragraph is unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 14, leave out paragraph (3).—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: The object of the Amendments to this Schedule is merely to bring societies with branches into line with societies without branches.
Amendments moved—
Page 44, line 7, after ("society") insert ("or to any two or more other societies")
Page 44, line 29, after the second ("to") insert ("members and")
Page 44, line 32, leave out ("the seamen marines and soldiers") and insert ("any persons being persons to whom section forty-six of the principal Act applies and").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 133.)

NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOY MENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: It is provided in the National Insurance Act, 1911, that benefits shall be paid in the proportion of one week's benefit to every five weeks' contributions paid by the workman. Clause 2 of this Bill provides that "as respects workmen employed in trades insured under the National Insurance (Part II) (Munition Workers) Act, 1916, any variation in the said proportion shall be subject to the consent of the Treasury," and this would give the Minister power to alter the proportion so far as the principal Act is concerned without the consent of the Treasury, although in practice it practically never occurs. The Treasury have asked that their consent shall be required whether under the Act of 1911 or the Act of 1916.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 26,Ieave out from ("that") to ("any") in line 28.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Report of Amendment to be received to-morrow.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): This Bill extends to Ireland the system of the registration
174
of midwives which already exists in this country and in Scotland. The Bill has been very carefully considered. I believe it is now an agreed measure, and I commend it to your Lordships' favourable attention. I beg to move it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off till to-morrow.
BISHOPRICS OF BRADFORD AND COVENTRY BILL. [H.L.]

  WILLS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock.