Sitting of 31 January 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) ACT, 1891.
Copy presented of Land Registry of Ireland Order, 1918, prescribing fees to be taken under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, Err.) ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Minute by the Secretary of State for the colonies stating the reasons for the grant to Sir Gerald Strickland, G.2.M.G., of a Pension at the rate of £711 3s. per annum [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 30th January; Mr. Baldwin]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 184.]
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Edible Offals (Maximum Prices) Order and Public Meals Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    COLLIERIES (BRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has had his attention directed to the recent discussion at a special meeting of the Dublin
    1714
    Corporation and to the Report of the corporation's states and finance committee in relation to the supply of coal from Irish collieries, and, in this connection, whether any and, if so, what steps were intended. to be taken to relieve the congestion at the Castlecomer collieries and to provide transit facilities for these collieries, with a view to enabling their stocks to be made available for public consumption, and,. further, for the purpose of securing an increase in their output?
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is now in a position to state what is the decision of the Government with regard to the project of building a railway from Castlecomer, county Kilkenny, to the main line in order to transport the coal which is lying idle at the pithead?
    The CHIEF SECRETARI for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation referred to by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. The question of improving the transit facilities at these collieries is at present under discussion between the owner, the Irish Office and the Board of Trade.
    Mr. FIELD: Is their any prospect of any arrangement being brought about while the coal famine exists in Ireland, as this matter has been going on for twenty years?
    Mr. DUKE: It is very difficult in a question of this kind which has been awaiting solution for twenty years to find an emergency solution, but I am doing my best.

    CIVIL BILL OFFICERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received any communication on behalf of the Civil bill officers of King's county asking for a war bonus; if he is aware that Irish Civil bill officers only receive an annual salary of £10 for the performance of very onerous and troublesome duties; and whether it is intended to grant a war bonus to these men?
    Mr. DUKE: The memorial referred to has been received. Civil bill officers arc appointed by County Court judges under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act 14 and 15 Vic., cap. 57, and their salaries are regulated by Section 17 of the Act. They

    1715
    also receive certain fees in addition to their salaries under Section 18. They are not whole-time officials and do not come within the classes of officers to whom war bonuses are payable.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if lie is aware that the majority, if not all, of the teachers of Kildare district, sixteen are discontented owing to the methods of and the manner in which Mr. Cussen, the senior inspector, performs his duties; whether complaints have been made that the inspector's attitude to both teachers and pupils is irritating and offensive; whether he will consider the advisability of having this senior inspector appointed to the vacant position of private secretary to Dr. Starkie; and if he is aware that such appointment would meet with approval in the district and probably avoid a repetition of the Tipperary incident?
    Mr. DUKE: The performance by the senior inspector of his duties is entirely a matter for the Commissioners of National Education. The appointment of private secretary to the Resident Commissioner rests with the Resident Commissioner.

    PRISON WARDERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, seeing that the increased allowance for boots for Irish prison warders, owing to the high cost of footwear, due to war conditions, is not now sufficient, he will now consider the advisability of making representation to the proper authority with a view to having this allowance substantially increased, so that they may not still sustain a loss by the deprivation of their former two free issues per annum; whether he is aware that an increased allowance for boots has recently been given to postmen; that Irish prison warders perform much longer hours of duty on foot than postmen, many of whom are provided with bicycles; and that the warders' allowance for boots is equally as inadequate as the postmen's was; and will be take steps to allay the discontent existing in the service on that account?
    Mr. DUKE: As to the boot allowance for Irish prison officers, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to his question on the 15th November. I have no information as to the boot allowance of postmen, but I may remind the hon. Member that prison officers have received an increase in war bonus to enable them to meet the increased cost of commodities due to war conditions.

    RAIDS FOR ARMS (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the 2hief Secretary for Ireland whether any intimation has been given to the Irish Press that references to, or description of, raids for arms and the rescue of military deserters by organised bands of sympathisers are. not to appear; and, if so, will he give the reason for the intimation?
    Mr. DUKE: No such intimation has been given.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are these people in Ireland who are in possession of arms loyalists who imported arms from Germany in 1914?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not think that that arises on this question.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the systematic disarming of loyalists that is taking place in many districts by means of raids of small parties of armed and masked men, who demand and appropriate arms in the name of the Irish Army; whether amongst other places raids have lately taken place at Kinvarra, Rocklawn, Ennis, and Bansha; and what action does lie propose to take?
    Mr. DUKE: Numerous cases of midnight attacks on isolated dwelling-houses by parties of men searching for arms have lately been reported. In some instances the assailants have been put to flight by the inmates. Certain arrests have been made, and the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabularly has directed various preventive measures.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are not the loyalists referred to in the question in possession of arms? Is not that in contravention of the law, and are not these guns that were imported in 1914 from Germany?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not think that the question has any relation to the events of 1914.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Of course it has!
    Mr. DUKE: A considerable number highly respectable people in Ireland, in conformity with the law, have weapons of various kinds, some old and some modern.
    Mr. FIELD: Have they German rifles?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not sure that they have guns which come from foreign sources. I do not think they have, but the raids complained of were made on law-abiding people by other persons who are minded to break the law, and every step that can be taken is being taken to prevent it.

    WORK HOUSE TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Breland whether, in view of the fact that the position of Irish workhouse teachers has been under consideration since last July, he will now state definitely what decision has been arrived at; and when will he publish the nature of the proposals?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not at present in a position to make a statement on this subject.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT REGULATIONS.

    PAMPHLETS AND LEAFLETS.
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in cases where it is decided to destroy pamphlets and leaflets under Regulation 51 of the Defence of the Realm Acts an intimation with regard to the decision will be sent to the owners of the pamphlets and leaflets in question?
    The SECRETARI of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I cannot undertake that notice shall be given whenever pamphlets are destroyed, as there is sometimes a difficulty in ascertaining the owners, but I will request the police to give notice if the circumstances permit.

    LABOUR MANIFESTO.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that no prosecution has been undertaken of those responsible for the issue of the labour mania-
    1718
    festo on the War and the making of peace. without submission to his Department, he will now withdraw the Regulation of the Defence of the Realm Act, which has been contiavened and found to be impossible of application in the face of organised defiance?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no reason to think that there will be any difficulty in enforcing the Regulation, and I have no intention of advising its withdrawal.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to enforce the Regulations, or does he intend to enforce them only on the weak and not. on the strong?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have already replied twice on that subject. I was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the breach in this case was solely due to inadvertence.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have you made any representations to the people who issued this manifesto to assure yourself that it was due to inadvertence? Have you taken simile steps with regard to other people who have issued manifestoes or pamphlets in contravention of the law?
    Sir G. CAVE: I acted on the best information I had. If I was wrong, I am sorry and I shall take care where there are farther breaches.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was the evidence such as to show that the authors of this manifesto were ignorant of the Regulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: Not by any means; but people sometimes forget.

    ALIENS RESTRICTION ORDER (HAROLD AIDALBERG).
    Mr. L. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie is aware that Harold Aidalberg, of 62, Oxford Street, E., a Roumanian, aged eighteen and a half years was charged at Tower Bridge Police Court on 25th January with being a few days late in registering, and given a sentence of six months' imprisoment; whether he is aware that Aidalberg's house was raided on 18th January, and the books, papers, etc., of the Stepney Herald League, of which he was treasurer, taken away; whether the missing £42 odd belonging to the league is in the posses-

    1719
    sion of the police; and will he say what reason they had for carrying out this raid?
    Sir G. CAVE: From inquiries which I have made it appears that this man had committed two offences against the Aliens Restriction Order, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Two police officers, in the course of the inquiries which they made in connection with the case, searched his lodgings, and certain books and papers were taken away for examination, but no money was found in the house or taken away. The books belonging to the league mentioned in the question were returned to an official of the league.
    Mr. SMITH: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that this is a boy of seventeen, whose only offence is that he was three days late in registering a change of address Is he aware that in the evidence against him it was stated by the inspector that he was a Socialist, that the magistrate thereupon said, "This makes the offence very serious," and that this heavy sentence was a mere piece of political persecution?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have replied to the question put down. 2ertainly, this is a much more serious offence.
    Mr. SMITH: What was the offence?
    Sir G. CAVE: The offence was a breach of the Aliens Order.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. E. DAVIESasked how many appeals were made to the Central Appeal Tribunal by conscientious objectors claiming total exemption under the Military Service Acts; and in how many cases total exemption was granted?
    The PARLIAMENTARI SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. S. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. Two hundred and eighty-four appeals in all on the ground of conscientious objection have been received by the Central Tribunal. It would necessitate looking up each case to state in what number the claim was for
    1720
    absolute exemption. The 2entral Tribunal have not granted absolute exemption in any case.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Minister of National Service whether, considering that Gunner E. W. Kealey, No. 290930, Royal Garrison Artillery, now in hospital at Drake's Island, Plymouth, in consequence of being buried in a trench whilst fighting in France, was brought home and placed in a mental ward, and has been in several hospitals during the last twelve months suffering from injuries to his head and legs, in addition to having his foot crushed, and his consequent inability to render further service to his country as a soldier, he may be released and return to civilian life?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I have been asked to answer this quetion. Inquiries. are being made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible.

    DUNRLANE LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet had any report from the Board of Agriculture in Scotland as to the summoning of agriculturists from their work to the local tribunal of Dunblane, whereby one whole day for each is lost from the growing of food for the people; and is this system now altered?
    The SECRETARI for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): From information furnished by the Board of Agriculture and the local tribunal it appears that, on the occasion to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, only about. one-fourth of the agricultural applicants were actually summoned to attend. In the other cases the tribunal sent an intimation that they were prepared to grant temporary exemption without the attendance of the parties concerned, provided the men enrolled in the Volunteers. I am informed that in no case were any of the parties kept by the tribunal after one o'clock. The necessity for attendance of applicants must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and no uniform rule can be laid down. I quite appreciate, however, the importance of minimising interruption of agricultural work, and I am assured that the local tribunal are fully alive to this consideration.
    Mr. WATT: Is the one-fourth, to which he referred, as many as a hundred?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have not the precise figures before me, but I think that is an over-estimate.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Mr. WILESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain voluntary patrol societies have been formed in many parts of London who appear to do a useful work in warning inhabitants who are nervous on the approach of a raid and assisting women and children to the nearest shelters; and, if so, can he make arrangements that the police authorities should give to the recognised representatives of these societies in the various areas immediate information as to the approach of raiders upon application?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware of the existence of these societies. The police warning is given to the public as soon as there is reason to believe that London may be attacked, and B am advised that it is not possible to give earlier notice to the representatives of patrol societies.
    Mr. WILESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the uncertainty as to the kind of warning which will be given in the event of air raids over London owing to different practices being in operation in the various Metropolitan boroughs, he can arrange for a uniform system of warning throughout the whole of London?
    Sir G. CAVE: The police warnings by sound signals and "Take cover" notices are uniform throughout the Metropolitan Po:ice District. Where other means of warning are used, such as syrens or coloured lights, these have been established not by the police, but by the local authorities. The police are endeavouring to secure uniformity in the colour of the lights so used.
    Mr. WILES: Cal the borough councils use any kind of warning they like?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is very desirable that the authorities should consult the Commissioner of Police before deciding.
    Major NEWMAN: Who is responsible for firing off those maroons?
    Sir G. CAVE: Those are the sound warnings which have been so much desired in London.
    Major NEWMAN: Who fires them off—the local authorities or the military?
    Sir G. CAVE: Neither.
    Mr. WILES: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the warnings satisfactory?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think that they do form a very effective warning, and certainly they have the effect of clearing the streets.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Germans have conducted several important air raids over London, and that their aviators have escaped every time from the London area with little or no loss, steps will be taken by the War 2abinet to overhaul the whole system of London's defences; and whether it will give orders that all officers whose capacity has been found to fall short of the requirements of their position shall be retired, and that this rule shall apply even to those most highly placed?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The 2abinet are satisfied that everything possible is being done to maintain and improve the efficiency of the London defences.
    Mr. LINCH: Is not that the same kind of answer that we have had on every occasion for the last three years, and have the authorities any further policy in such matters than that of covering up big reputations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not the policy of the Government, and I fancy everyone in the House except the hon. Member has been rather surprised at the success of the defence.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask whether, having regard to the view taken of the casualties in London, he will give an assurance that greater regard will be paid to the 4,000 or 5,000 casualties at the front?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: For once I quite agree with the hon. Member. I think the casualties at the front deserve quite as much sympathy as casualties in London, and both are regarded in the same way by the Government.

    HIGHER COMMAND.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Home Secretary the reason for allowing certain journals to criticise and disparage officers in the Higher Command of the

    1723
    naval and military forces of the Crown; and whether the Government will restrict this privilege, in view of the interests of the senior officers and the morale of the forces?
    Sir G. CAVE: B have nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, on the 24th instant.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Will my right hon. Friend seek from the House further powers to protect officers who are one by one marked down for disparagement, which constitutes a grave moral danger to the State?
    Sir G. CAVE: I should be very glad if I had rather more power than I possess. Whenever that is suggested I find objection raised in different quarters. I can only repeat. that it is a very great pity that these articles are continued.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great majority of the Press of this country is nothing but an official Press, and that if any campaign is started in that Press it is due to official stimulation?
    Sir G. CAVE: Nothing of the kind!
    Mr. L. SMITH: Is not the right lion. Gentleman's inaction due to the fact that he only uses his repressive powers to the weak and poor newspapers?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is wholly untrue.

    SHIPPING LOSSES.
    Mr. BIRNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the number of lives lost on the city of Dublin boat which was sunk on the morning of 26th January
    The PARLIAMENTARI SECRETARI to the BOARD of ADMIRALTI (Dr. Macnamara): I deeply regret to say that on the occasion referred to the lives of seven passengers and five of the crew were lost. The passengers lost consisted of five men and two women; and of the crew. two seamen, two firemen, and one stewardess, were lost.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer sunk by enemy action inside the Mersey Bar lightships on the morning of 28th December last, when nine-
    1724
    teen Liverpool pilots and a number of pilot apprentices lost their lives, was at the time she was sunk acting as Government examination boat for the port of 'Liverpool as well as a pilot boat; and whether, in view of the fact that these men and youths lost their dives on board a Government ship by enemy action, he can state what scale of compensation and pensions will be given to their dependants and relatives?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I am aware that the vessel referred to was acting as an examination boat at the time she was sunk. Compensation will be granted to the dependants of the pilots and pilot apprentices in accordance with the scheme, of which I am sending particulars to the hon. Member.
    Mr. HOUSTON: is my right hon. Friend aware that the Liverpool pilots, by their own efforts, had created a benevolent fund, and that owing to this appalling loss of twenty-eight lives at one time, the fund has been completely depleted; and can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to urge upon the Treasury a sympathetic—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question. There is nothing on that point in his question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Very well, Sir; I will put down a question.

    COMMITTEE OF PRODUCTION.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that advances of wages paid to workmen engaged on Admiralty work on the Clyde by the order of the Committee of Production, the total of which was agreed upon six months ago, have never yet been paid; and will he see that the money is remitted without further delay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend is referring to the Committee on Production's award of a war bonus of 3s. on 1st August last; another war bonus of 5s. was, of course, awarded in December last. I can scarcely believe that in either of these cases the money has not been paid. But if my hon. and learned Friend will give me particulars of any case in which it has not been paid, the matter shall be dealt with at once. I gather from what

    1725
    my hon. and learned Friend has said in putting his question, that it is the subcontractor and not the men who have not been paid. If he will let me have particulars, I will go into the matter at once.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether lie is aware that in the cases dealt with by the Committee of Production last year, herein advances were granted to workmen engaged on contracts for his Department and such advances were loyally paid by sub-contractors to their workmen engaged on Admiralty work, that the shipbuilders and others, particularly on the Clyde, contracting direct with his Department are refusing to forward to him the sub-contractors' claims for those advances paid whereby these sub-contractors are unable to recover the extra wages paid; and will he indicate some method by which these sub-contractors can recover these advances paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In some few cases the Admiralty is aware that sub-contractors have experienced difficulty in obtaining a refund of the advances in wages granted to their workmen by the Committee on Production, and paid by them in accordance therewith. It is not, possible to say, from my hon. and learned Friend's question, whether the sub-contractors whom he has in Lind have Cade representations direct to them Admiralty. Bf they have not done so, I suggest that they should at once communicate to the Admiralty details of their case, when the matter will be at once investigated on its merits.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    DISABLED MEN (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of National Service whether the month within which a discharged disabled man can apply for work of national importance dates from the calling - up notice or from the 21st January?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on this subject on the 21st instant, in which it was stated that the period of one month would run from the coming into force of the arrangement in the case of men already discharged, and from the date of discharge in the case of men who may be discharged hereafter.
    1726
    A detailed Instruction to all officials of the Ministry of National Service concerned as to the procedure to be followed to give effect to the arrangement is being prepared, and it is not intended that the month should begin to run until that Instruction has been circulated. It will probably prove advisable, in order to avoid possibility of misunderstanding, to name. in the Instruction a particular date (subsequent to the date of the Instruction) as the point of time fromwhich the month will run.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the men concerned themselves will be sure to get the Instruction, or that such steps will be taken that they cannot avoid knowing about it?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I can only say that very great publicity has been given to it within reasonable amounts of cost; and, as the lion. Member may be aware, I have already said that if any individuals among these discharged soldiers can show a good case for not being founds work within a month, the period will be extended.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of National Service whether he can state the list of occupations of national importance which his Department are prepared to make available to discharged disabled men who wish to take advantage of the same?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Discharged soldiers engaged in any one of the following occupations will be regarded as undertaking work of national importance:
    Shipbuilding.
    Ship repairing.
    Marine engineering.
    Munitions.
    Agriculture.
    Agricultural implement making.
    Food production.
    Railways.
    Tramways.
    Iron ore mines.
    Gas, water, electric undertakings.
    Other work granted priority by the National Labour Priority Committee.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the already depleted labour in the cotton trade, why that trade is not included in the list?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There is more labour available than is required to work up the material available to be worked up.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Minister of National Service whether he will take steps to secure that George Coutts, of Falkirk, Edenkillie, Dunphail, who, owing to delay on the part of the Board of Agriculture in issuing his voucher, has been called up for military service, shall return to his original employment on his father's farm; whether he is aware that the farm consists of 85 acres, including 18 acres of old pasture which is to he put in crop this year, making in all 50 acres in grain; that only the father, who is over seventy years of age, is now left to work the place, and that the National Service representative, who recently visited the farm after George Coutts had been called up, reported that this man is absolutely necessary for the proper working of the place?
    Sir A. GEDDES: The case of George Coutts has been investigated, and when information is received as to his regimental number and unit his release will be recommended to the War Office.

    EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. LINCHasked the Minister of National Service whether he will direct his attention to the number of exemptions granted in various WHITEhall offices, and particularly in the Foreign Office, to young men of military age enjoying good health; and whether, in view of the spirit of demoralisation which is fostered by this state of affairs, he will lay the matter before the War Cabinet with the advice that no useful one-man business be broken up or no skilled artisan be removed from essential work until WHITEhall has been cleared of embusqués?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Allegations with regard to the improper retention of young fit men in Government offices are repeatedly made in this House and in the Press. The staffs of Gover4ment offices are frequently reviewed, and I cannot find adequate basis for the allegations. If the hon. Member will assist me by supplying me with the names of ten or a dozen gentlemen whom he regards as embusqués, I shall have their cases fully investigated.
    Mr. LINCH: Did the right hon. Gentleman read the answer given, for instance, by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to a question of my own, that for the efficient working of his own Depart-
    1728
    ment he will recognise the importance of this question, which sticks in the gizzard of the ordinary person?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I ask whether the over-nicety on this question comes from Ireland or not?

    BOARD OF WORKS, DUBLIN (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. BIRNEasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the wages paid by the Board of Works to their employes in Dublin, and if he will recommend the payment of an increased war bonus?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I understand that the full amounts of war bonus authorised under the awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board are paid to all employes of the Board of Works to whom such awards are applicable, and I am not aware of any ground for making any additional concession.

  MUNITIONS.

    BONUS (IRELAND).
    Mr. BIRNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he will issue Instructions for the payment of the 12½, per cent, to all munition workers in Ireland; and if he will send a copy of the Instructions to Kynoch, Arklow?
    The PARLIAMENTARI SECRETARI to the MINISTRI of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The 12½ per cent. bonus Orders have been applied to the same classes of establishments in Ireland as in Great Britain. The bonus has not yet been extended to the general workers in the chemical and explosives trades either in Great Britain or in Breland. The application of the bonus in these trades is now under consideration by the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. THOMAS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all those who are now receiving the 12½ per cent. bonus in England will be eligible for the 12½ per cent. bonus in Ireland?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The same conditions will apply to Ireland as to this country.

    DUBLIN FACTORY (MAJOR DOWNIER).
    Mr. BIRNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state whether Major Downie, the director of the Dublin munitions factory, has resigned his position; if so, for what reason; if he is aware that since Major Downie's absence from Dublin the output of the factory has been reduced and that, owing to the anti-Irish actions of one of the officials, the men had to temporarily cease work on Friday last as a protest against his conduct; if he is aware that there is a conspiracy on foot by anti-Irish officials to reduce the output of the factory and to provoke trouble with the employes in order to harm Dublin city as a manufacturing centre; and if he will cause inquiries to be made into this conduct?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARI to the MINISTRI of MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that Major Downie resigned because he did not agree with certain measures taken to increase the efficiency of the Brish factories. The temporary stoppage of work referred to was due to the dismissal of an incompetent foreman. know of no grounds which justify the statement that there has been any conspiracy as suggested, or, indeed, that any officials have taken any anti-Irish action. On the contrary, the action taken has been directed to improving the efficiency and reducing the cost of the output of the factories so that they may be a credit to Irish industry.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Minister of Munitions whether it is proposed to use the resources of contractors who have suitable factories and staffs for the construction of aeroplane parts and other war material in Dublin and the rest of Ireland?
    Sir W. EVANS: It is proposed to utilise Trish resources for certain forms of aircraft work. Some orders have already been placed.
    Mr. FIELD: Are there any orders given in Dublin?
    Sir W. EVANS: I must have notice of any detailed orders, but some orders have -already been placed.

    FREIGHTS (ARGENTINA).
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the
    1730
    Shipping Controller if he is charging 120s. per ton freight on coal out to Argentina and only about 57s. per ton on wheat home; if he has received any representations from the Argentina railway companies regarding the former charge; whether the freight on coal out is usually very much lower than the freight on wheat home; and whether he will reconsider the rates with a view to a just apportionment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRI of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The freight charged on wheat which, as in the case of all Government cargoes, is based on cost of running at Blue Book rates, is not 57s. but 100s. There, is, therefore, not the wide discrepancy which my hon. Friend had supposed between that rate and the rate on coal outwards. Moreover, as the latter is a commercial rate arranged with the railway coal pool, no comparison could, I think, properly be made between the two, and it is not proposed to make any change.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Does the hon. Gentlernan suggest that because the rates are accepted they are therefore justified when they are accepted under compulsion, and, furthermore, if it is to cheapen food why does he fix the rate at its present rate?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: As I have tried to explain to the House before, the rates on Government cargoes are purely cost rates, and, moreover, they are discounted by any receipts from voyages out. Bf my hon. Friend will confer with me privately I think lie will find that is the case.

    NAVAL AND MBLITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister if discharged soldiers are entitled to pensions as from the date of discharge; if not, will he consider the advisability of making pensions retrospective as from the date of discharge instead of from the date on which the claim is established, in order to prevent hardships due to delay in establishing or admifting claims?
    The PARLIAMENTARI SECRETARI to the MINISTRI of PENSIONS (Sir Arthur Griffith-Boseawen): If the claim to pension on the part of the man discharged on account of medical unfitness for further service is allowed in the

    1731
    ordinary course or on appeal, if the appeal is made within three months of the original disallowance, he is given his pension from the date of discharge, but if he delays his appeal more than three months the pension, when subsequently granted, will only carry arrears from the date of his first application. In the case of a man not discharged on account of medical unfitness for further service, but who subsequently becomes disabled owing to causes due to his service, the date of commencement of pension is that from which his claim to it is established.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister (1) if he is aware of the sending out to discharged soldiers of Army Form 3529 requesting them to sign a statement to the effect that they agree that any pension granted on transfer to the Reserve should cease if they are recalled to the Colours; if so, will he say if this form is in accordance with paragraphs I and 2 of Army Council Instruction 1131 of 1917, and has been sent out with the sanction of the Ministry of Pensions; will he state what the effect of signing or not signing this form has upon the men from a pensions point of view; (2) if he is aware that discharged soldiers are having sent to them a form in which they are requested to sign and return a statement to the effect that they agree that any pension granted to them on transfer to the Reserve will cease from the date of their rejoining in the event of their being recalled to the Colours; and, if so, will he explain what is the object of sending out this form and what the effect is upon a discharged soldier who signs it and also upon one who does not sign it?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The form in question was used for men temporarily transferred to Class P of the Army Reserve who drew pension until recalled to the Colours. No transfers to Class P have taken place since last July, and Class P Reservists have been discharged. The form, therefore, is altogether out-of-date, and should not now be used, and if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of cases where it is now being used inquiries will be made with a view to the practice being stopped.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Do I understand that it is not correct in the form in which it is being used or has been used?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.
    Mr. WATTasked the Pensions Minister whether there is any income the possession of which precludes the widow or mother of a deceased soldier from receiving a pension; and, if so, will he say what is that income?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The pension of a widow is irrespective of income, as is also that of a mother whose claim to pension rests on pre-war dependence. But under the concessions announced last September, pensions are now also paid to parents who cannot establish pre-war dependence, provided that there is pecuniary need. In such cases the possession of income is obviously a material factor, but it is not the only factor, and therefere a precise limit of income cannot be fixed.
    Mr. WATT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the same applies to officers?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The officers' warrant is different. If the hon. Member wishes to know the exact provision for officers, I would be glad if he would give notice of the question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    COLD STORAGE.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he can now give the information promised on two separate occasions during last summer as to time total tonnage of-refrigerated meat, dairy produce, rabbits, and other goods usually kept in cold stores which were condemned in the boroughs of Southwark, Bermondsey, Stepney, Finsbury, and Poplar, respectively, and in the area of the City of London and the Port Sanitary Authority of London, between 1st April and 30th June last?
    Mr. WALSH: I am sending the hon. Member a table showing the information asked for.

    MEAT.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can explain the decline in meat supplies; whether supplies have been affected by price adjustments; whether he has evidence of the holding back of meat supplies; and whether he can make a statement as to the position, during the next three months?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRI of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): The decline in meat supplies is primarily due to the fact that the imported meat, which before the War was consumed by the civil population, is now, for the most part, required by, and allocated to, the Allied Armies, and civilian requirements have, therefore, to be met almost entirely out of home-killed supplies. The shortage of concentrated feeding-stuffs has operated to reduce the number of beasts fit for slaughter in this country during the early months of the year. The fixing of maximum prices is bound to cause difficulties in distribution where the supply of the commodity is not equal to the demand. These difficulties, in the case of meat, are being adjusted by the scheme of distribution recently initiated by the Ministry of Food. There is no evidence of a holding back of meat supplies now. The Food Controller will make a further statement as to the general position at an early date.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the decline in the meat supply is to some extent due to his Ministry having fixed the lowest price for the month of January, which is the dearest month of the year for the production of meat?
    Mr. CLINES: I do not think the decline in the meat supply is clue to any great extent to causes other than those enumerates? in the answer.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman state whether the further statement by the Food Controller to which he refers will be delivered in the House of Lords?
    Mr. CLINES: I cannot anticipate the statement nor announce exactly where it will be delivered.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Not at the Aldwyeh Club, I hope.
    Mr. CLINES: There are worse places than the Aldwych Club.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: Has any revision been recently made in the price the cattle dealers are allowed to charge, and will that have any effect on the supply—in render the supply greater?
    Mr. CLINES: There has been no revision—only so far as the announcement of live-weight prices.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a statement made by a
    1734
    well-known cattle dealer giving figures to show that the arrangements for the intermediate parties have increased the cost of cattle per head by over £7?
    Mr. CLYNES: Comments made upon the subject of food must be discounted very often according to the sources from which they come.
    Colonel YATEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Leicestershire Agricultural Society on 12th January, stating that the main cause of the meat shortage is because Lord Rhondda refused to alter the price of Army beef, fixed at 60s. per cwt. as from 1st January, 1918, soon enough to avert this disaster; and what steps he proposes to take in order to avoid a repetition of the present shortage?
    Mr. CLINES: This resolution has been received by the Food Controller, who cannot, however, agree that the main cause of the present shortage is that suggested. The maximum prices for live cattle now subsisting, which were fixed after consultation with representatives of agricultural interests, are, in the opinion of the Food Contrcller, sufficiently high to secure a fair profit to the farmer producing cattle for slaughter. The Food Controller will not hesitate to take such other steps as experience may suggest to ensure such a supply of home-produced meat as may be possible under present conditions.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the Food Controller any power to make farmers put beasts upon the market?
    Mr. CLINES: If we had that power, as indeed we have, I am not sure that it would be beneficial to the public to exercise it. It is not always advisable merely to take the produce. We want to have the good will and the service as well.
    Mr. THORNE: Supposing you have not the good will?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is it a fact that farmers have cattle which they are withholding from the market?
    Mr. CLINES: My reply indicates that there is no withholding of cattle at the present moment.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether a large quantity of beef has recently been condemned at Smithfield

    1735
    Market suffering from tuberculosis and other diseases; if he will tate what the quantity was and where this meat was slaughtered; and what. steps he has taken to prevent any repetition of this complaint and consequent loss of food for London?
    Mr. CLINES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The information asked for in the second part will not be available until the early part of next month. As in most cases the diseases are not. app Trent until after slaughter, it is impossible to take any steps to prevent the occurrence of such incidents.

    SUGAR.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that hardship is entailed upon widows endeavouring to make a living and bring up a family by the sale of sweets in small shops; that a statement that a further reduction of the supply of sugar is pending causes them to entertain fear as to the possibility of continuing to keep themselves and their children out of the workhouse; and can he see his way to do something to alleviate their position?
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether further restrictions are contemplated upon the use of sugar for manufacturing purposes; whether he is aware that the present allowance of 25 per cent. of the 1915 supply is wholly insufficient for manufacturers and wholesale and retail confectioners, whom a further reduction must most disastrously affect; and whether he can make any announcement as to the position and its exigencies?
    Mr. CLYNES: As I informed the hon. Member for Oldham yesterday, no further restr ction upon the use of sugar for manufacturing purposes is at present contemplated. In view of war conditions it is impossible to increase the existing allowance, but it is recognised that if further restrictions become necessary they will seriously affect those engaged in the confectionery trade.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it will not only seriously affect them, but their very existence is at stake by the reduction of the present allowance?
    Mr. CLINES: I quite agree, and therefore my reply says it is not at present contemplated to reduce it.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade the average sum per annum paid for imported sugar during the five years previous to the declaration of war?
    Sir A. STANLEY: During the five years 1909–1913 the declared value of the sugar imported into the -United Kingdom amounted on the average to £24,209,845 yearly.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his great influence to have sugar beet growing and manufacture encouraged in the United Kingdom?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am sorry I did not catch the question of the hon. Member.

    CATTLE SALES.
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it has been brought to his notice that five cows which had been put in the fourth grade and valued in accordance with the 2attle (Sales) Order, 1917, were bought by a purchaser at the Lewes market last week at such valuation and sold by him at a realised net profit of over £59; and whether in the final 2attle (Sales) Order, to be shortly promulgated, he will insert provisions sufficient to ensure the impossibility of such unfair valuations being made in the future?
    Mr. CLINES: I have no information with regard to this transaction, but if my hon. Friend will give me further particulars I will cause inquiries to be made. If the description is correct, it would appear to involve a breach of the 2attle (Sales) Order already in force.

    ARRANGEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked what arrange-merits have been made by the Food Controller with the American Food Controller for the delivery of food to this country; and whether orders placed in America are being delivered regularly and promptly?
    Mr. CLINES: By arrangement with Mr. Hoover, the American Food Administrator, purchases of food for the Allies are made by joint purchasing organisations in America, and the prices of important cereals have been fixed. Further, by means of a co-ordination department, Mr. Hoover has arranged that as regards other important foodstuffs the Allies shall have the advantage of the same terms

    1737
    as to prices and delivery as the American Navy and Army. Mr. Hoover has also appealed to the American people to reduce their own consumption of food, so as to provide the great additional quantities which, owing to the failure of other sources of supply, the Allies require from the United States. That appeal, I am glad to say, is meeting with a splendid response, and the voluntary saving of the American people is providing food so urgently needed here. The recent severe weather conditions in America have considerably delayed both railway and overseas transportation. Every effort is being made by the United States Government to expedite delivery to Atlantic ports, and to mitigate the difficulties caused by the recent exceptional blizzards.

    SUGAR BEET.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what encouragement, if any, has been given to promote the growth and manufacture of sugar beet in England; whether he is aware that the by-products and leaves contribute valuable food fur cattle, and that in France it is utilised to aid the production of cement; and whether he is aware that many millions per annum are paid to foreign producers and manufacturers for this food commodity, which could be largely produced in the three Kingdoms?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): In reply to this quesion, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question the same subject by the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool on the 29th inst. With regard to cement, I understand that sugar factories use large quantities if lime for neutralising and clarifying the juice of sugar beet, and that the waste lime is sometimes used in the manufacture of cement. I hope that it may be possible after the War to build up a sugar beet industry in this country, which, apart from other considerations, would be of great value to agriculture.
    Sir C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether sugar beet seed can be obtained by those who desire to grow the root in their gardens for culinary purposes in place of sugar?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I will endeavour to give my hon. and gallant Friend the information he requires.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (TORPEDOED OFFICERS AND MEN).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend that some decoration or reward should be given to merchant officers and seamen who have been torpedoed more than once while on duty, and who are still carrying on despite the submarine menace?
    Sir ALBERT STANLEI: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on 28th January. The suggestion now:made with iegard to officers and seamen who have been torpedoed more than once will be borne in mind.
    Mr. LAMBERT: When will the decision be arrived at in order that these men who have displayed this I1igh form of courage shall be recognised?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I hope without delay.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Will "tor-pedoed" be extended to include "mined"?

    ALLIED WAR AIMS.
    Mr. TREVELIANasked the Prime Minister whether the conference now being held in Paris to frame a reply to the Central Powers on the Allied war aims is constituted partly of British, French, and Italian generals; and whether it is intended that military men shall have a share in framing the policy of the country while there is no representation either of Parliament or of labour?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No such conference as is suggested in the question is being held.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Is there no declaration of the War Aims of the Allies imminent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should have thought, and the country thinks, that our declaration of War Aims is both explicit and moderate.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Are we to understand that all the announcements and suggestions in the newspapers are in correct, that there is a general declaration of War Aims imminent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are incorrect, if there was any such suggestion.

    CLERICAL ESTABLISHMENTS COMMITTEE.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the additional clerical staff employed in the new Ministries and other Departments is largely composed of women, he will invite women to serve on the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Treasury under the chairmanship of Sir John Bradbury, K.C.B.?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated in Debate on Tuesday last, I am considering the appointment of a woman to serve on this Committee.

    BANK DEPOSITS (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the amount at present held on deposit in Irish banks; what is the average rate of interest allowed on the amount so held; and can he say how the amount now held on deposit compares with that held in January, 1915, or on any other convenient date for comparison?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury has no figures beyond the published returns, which do not distinguish between fixed deposits (the subject of the question) and deposits on current account, nor give the actual deposit rates allowed.

    The total deposits in Irish banks were:

    June,

    1915

    £76,851,000

    June,

    1917

    88,273,000

    have no information as to deposit rates in Ireland.

    FIVE-SHILLING TREASURY NOTES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the 2hancellor of the Exchequer if it is the intention of the Government to issue 5s. Treasury notes; and, if so, at what date they will be issued?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no present intention to issue 5s. notes, but, in view of the existing silver situation, and as a measure of precaution, a stock of such notes has been printed, with a view to having them avalable without delay should it be desirable to use them.

    GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Postmaster-General at what stage the negotiations now stand with regard to the rebuilding of the General Post Office at Dublin; what is the cause of the delay in commencing the work, in view of the fact that so many other buildings in the neighbourhood are in course of re-erection; is he aware that a site adjoining that of the General Post Office is being built upon; and whether it has been acquired by a private trader in competition against the Department?
    The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I am sorry that I am not in a position at present to supplement the reply which I made to the hon. Member's question of the 19th November last, except to say that I am not aware of competition in respect of the site to which he apparently refers.
    Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will take steps to have this re-built as soon as possible? Because it is causing great dissatisfaction in Dublin.
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The whole question is very complicated, and I can assure the hon. Member it is being expedited as much as possible. No time is being lost.

    SHIPPING TELEGRAMS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can explain why a telegram dispatched from Leghorn by the 2unard agent at 2.45 p.m. of 18th January, was not delivered to R. P. Houston and Company, Liverpool, until 9 a.m. of 28th January, while a telegram dispatched from Leghorn by the Cunard agent at 10.45 a.m. of 26th January was delivered to R. P. Houston and Company, Liverpool, at 9 a.m. of 28th January, neither of these telegrams making any mention of ships?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The telegrams in question, which were sent over foreign lines, did not reach this country until the 28th instant. The Administrations concerned have notified their inability to furnish information as to the treatment if individual telegrams in cases of this kind.

    TELEPHONE OPERATORS' DUTIES.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telephone operators are employed by their superiors during working hours in waiting in queues for margarine, bacon, etc., when they should be attending to their public duties; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the continuance of this practice?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am not aware of any such occurrence. I shall be glad if the Ilion. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases which have come under his notice.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allegations in this question emanate from the telephone operators themselves, and can he say whether his Department is in a greater state of confusion than any other Government Department?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I was not aware that it emanated from the telephone department, but if the lion. Member will be good enough to give me particulars I will have them inquired into. As to the question of confusion, I think under the circumstances the business of the Post Office is being transacted in a very credit-.able way.

    HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will give figures, similar to those already given for England and Wales by the English Local Government Board, showing the number of houses which local authorities in Scotland are willing to build at the end of the War, provided the financial assistance promised by the Government is satisfactory?
    Mr. MUNRO: From the return made by 297 local authorities out of 311 from whom information was asked, it appears that the total number of houses that local authorities in Scotland indicate their willingness to build on the condition specified in the question is nearly 99,000.

    INDENTURED APPRENTICES.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether, in view of the fact that many indentured apprentices have been called up for service in the middle of their
    1742
    apprenticeship, and that it would be in the national interest that these young men should return to skilled trades and not be allowed to drift into unskilled employments, he will consider the advisability of recommending to the Government that a maintenance grant be made to young men returning to skilled trades, so that their rate of pay may not be less i than that of unskilled workers of the same age?
    The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The question of apprenticeship is now under the consideration of the Ministry of Reconstruction and the Ministry of Labour, but I am not able at present to make any statement in regard to the policy to be adopted.

    RAILWAY TRAVELLING (DIRECTORS).
    Sir JOHN FLEMINGasked the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that all the railways of the country are. now under Government control, if he will give orders that the privilege hitherto enjoyed by the 500 or more railway directors of the United Kingdom of unrestricted travelling over all railway systems first-class, without payment of fares, be now withdrawn, and thus ease the prevailing congestion as regards seating accommodation as well as add to the railway revenues?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I have no reason to suppose that the issue of free passes to railway directors results in any abuse of travelling facilities, and it does not seem to me that a departure from the existing practice would lead to the result which the hon. Member desires to attain.
    Sir J. FLEMING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the price of the privilege tickets given to railway employes, not for free travelling, but for reduced travelling for specific objects, have been raised 50 per cent. since the War began; does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this special body, whose fees have not been reduced, and who have no work to do, should also share in the increase of fares?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I quite agree that the special privilege tickets which are given to the employes of railway companies have been increased by 50 per cent. during the War; out I would remind the hon. Gentle-

    1743
    man that the amount paid by railway employes is considerably less than that paid by other classes of the travelling public. As regards the duties performed by railway directors, I am not in agreement that they have no work to do at this particular time.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commercial men are precluded from travelling because the berths are taken up by directors?

    NEWSPAPERS (SUPPLY OF PAPER).
    Captain Sir CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the assistance which the newspaper Press, including the weekly provincial newspapers, have given and are giving to the Government during the War, especially in making clear the true aims of the War and in promoting the patriotic activities of farmers and allotment holders, which assistance will be forthcoming as long as and in proportion as facilities for publication exit, he will take steps to secure that, in the national interest, the supply of paper to newspapers, including the weekly provincial papers, shall rank next in priority after Government requirements have been met; that sufficient quantities of paper or paper material be reserved and allotted for distribution amongst established newspapers before the stocks in the country are depleted for other and less urgent publications and purposes; and that, especially, the unnecessary packing in paper of tradesmen's parcels be prohibited and discontinued before the reasonable requirements of British journalism be unduly curtailed?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Paper Commission, under instructions from the Board of Trade, is at the present time framing Regulations to govern the importation and distribution of paper and paper-making materials for the year commencing 1st March, 1918. The Government fully realise the importance of the considerations raised in the question, and will do their best to give effect to them.
    Sir C. BATHURST: can the right hon. Gentleman see his way, in order to save tonnage for food, to induce the public to forego the wrapping-up in parcel of purchases from tradesmen, when the contents and the weather permit it?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Steps have already been taken in that direction, and I will see if anything more can be done.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the increasing difficulties of the newspapers getting a supply of paper, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of prohibiting newspapers from utilising one-half of their space for useless advertisements?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I do not think I can agree that they do utilise a half of their space for unnecessary advertisements, but I will bear that point in mind.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these advertisements-are actually decreasing the revenue of the country in respect of excess profits?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I cannot agree that that is so—
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is so.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Is the right lion Gentleman aware that one firm, two days ago, occupied the whole of one side of the penny newspapers with a single advertisement of its system of memorising—one single firm?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I was not aware of that.

    ASSURANCE POLICIES.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has lately had sent to him a number of cases in which assurance policies have been unfairly lapsed; and whether he is able to take any steps to prevent assurance companies from taking an unfair advantage of working people, and especially of sailors and soldiers and their dependants?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Certain eases have recently been brought to my notice in which it is alleged that policy holders or their representatives have not been treated fairly, and inquiries are being made into those cases. The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act prevails the lapsing of industrial policies to which the Act applies without an application to the Court.

    TRAMWAY FARES.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if any decision has

    1745
    been come to by the Tramway Committee set up by his Department to increase all tramway fares by at least 50 per cent.; and if he can state whether he has power to consent to any increase of statutory tramway fares under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The Tramways Committee have recommended that, to enable tramway undertakings to meet the increased cost of labour and materials, powers to increase statutory maximum tramway fares should be obtained by the Board of Trade. At present the Board of Trade have no general powers of this kind, and the question whether such powers should be sought is being considered.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is it a fact that this Committee was really set up to deal with tramway material, and is the question of the increase of fares within their purview?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I can only point out that in order to secure the material it may be desirable that tramway fares should be increased. The Committee have no power to authorise this; that would be for the consideration of the Board of Trade alone.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the Committee is travelling outside—and much outside—the terms of its reference by going into such issues?
    Sir A. STANLEY: They are, I think, within their reference in bringing this mattter to the attention of the Board of Trade. It does not bind the Board.
    Mr. GILBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way this matter can be brought up again; will he bring up a recommendation to the House to increase the fares?
    Sir A. STANLEY: This matter has just been brought to my attention. I had not heard of it previous to the question.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter before action is taken?

    INDUSTRIAL RECONSTRUCTION (EMPLOYERS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Reconstruction whether he is aware that
    1746
    at a national conference of representatives of over thirty central associations of employers held at Westminster on 12th December, 1917, to consider a united policy on the part of employers with respect to the proposals of the Government in relation to industrial reconstruction and the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, a resolution was adopted welcoming the recommendation of the sub-committee on relations between employer and employed, and submitting. that to successfully give effect to the proposals referred to it is essential the agreements between organisations of employers and enployed should he legally enforced, and that the necessary legislation providing for this should be passed before the industrial councils are established; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to give effect to this?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRI of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Minister of Labour has read the report of the conference to which the hon. Member refers. The question of giving legal effect to agreements between organisations of employers and employed and to the recommendations of industrial councils is receiving his careful consideration. The subject was thoroughly examined by the Industrial Council of Employers and Trade Union representatives, who sat under the chairmanship of Sir George Askwith in 1913, and they made recommendations for giving effect to the principle. The question is one of some difficulty, and different views are likely to be taken on it in different industries and by different organisations. The Whitley Committee stated in their report that it might be desirable at some later stage for the State to give the sanction of law to agreements made by industrial councils, but that the initiative in this direction should come from the councils themselves. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend is inclined to accept the views of the Committee on this point.

    AIRCRAFT CONSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been drawn to the request of the Dublin branch, Society of Coachmakers, in which they ask the Gov-

    1747
    ernment to adopt a scheme by which construction of aircraft could be immediately proceeded with on Irish railways, where other work is suspended, and also other coachbuilding factories where up-to-date machinery exists; and if he will consider the request?
    Sir W. EVANS: The request has been carefully considered. For the present it is not possible to make use of the facilities referred to in my hon. Friend's question, as arrangements have already been made which are more than sufficient to meet all our present demands for woodwork in connection with the manufacture of aircraft. I hope it may be possible later on to make use of Irish coachbuilding factories for work of this nature.

  NATIONAL WAR AIMS COMMITTEE.

    PAMPHLET ("MURDER MOST FOUL").
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether the cost of printing and publishing a pamphlet entitled "Murder Most Foul," which is at present being distributed gratis throughout the country, has been met from public funds; and, if so, whether the War Aims Committee accepts responsibility for the accuracy of the statements contained in the pamphlet?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): The pamphlet has been circulated, among many others, by the National War Aims Committee. It consists of an address delivered by a distinguished American clergyman, circulated widely in America, and reprinted under his own name in this country. The author visited the invaded districts of France to investigate the subject, and most of his statements are made from official records. I have no reason to think that any of them are inaccurate.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Before the Department for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible decided upon publishing this pamphlet, did they make any inquiry into the character and reputation of the writer of this pamphlet?
    Captain GUEST: Most certainly.

    GERMAN PRISONERS.
    Mr. G. FABERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) if he
    1748
    will state the respective dates when Captain von Muller, of the "Emden," and Lieutenant von Tirpitz became our prisoners of war; and whether their release from this country for internment in Holland was made strictly according to their priority of capture in conformity with the arrangement recently entered into with Germany by our Government?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed that Lieutenant von Tirpitz was captured on 28th August, 1914, and Captain von Müller on 9th November. Their internment is strictly in accordance with the provisions of The Hague agreement as to priority of capture.
    Mr. FABER: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Germans on their part made arrangements to release prisoners, we should know it?
    Mr. HOPE: Certainly we should know it after it had taken place, but we cannot have a consignment of prisoners delayed until a list is sent to us to be certified. When the prisoners come into Holland a record is kept.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: is the House to understand that no special request was made?
    Mr. HOPE: I have not heard of any such suggestion.
    Mr. FABER: Can the lion Gentleman say how many have been released on each side?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    PARASITBC MANGE (HORSES).
    Colonel FABERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that horses with parasitic mange are constantly being sent by train and that the washing and disinfecting of the trucks used is totally inadequate; if he is aware that the disease is making strides, especially in the Midlands; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. PROTHERO:Article 7 (3) of the Parasitic Mange Order of 1911 makes it unlawful for a horse affected with parasitic mange to be sent for carriage on a railway, and the Board have no information that diseased horses are actually being carried by rail at the present time. If my hon. and gallant Friend has such informa-

    1749
    tion I shall be pleased if he will pass it on to the Department. We will at once bring the facts before the local authority whose duty it is to administer the Order.
    In reply to the second part of the question, it is the fact that the disease has increased in Great Britain during the past year. Two thousand six hundred and fourteen outbreaks have been reported in 1917 as against 2,147 in 1916, but the increase is not specially marked in the Midland counties. In reply to the last part, I may say that the Department is aware of the prevalence of this disease and is considering what are the best means of meeting it.
    Colonel FABER: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have horse trucks as well as cattle trucks lime-washed which would lead to a checking of the disease?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am much obliged for the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, and I will bring it before the authorities.

    CATTLE DETENTION.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has read a letter from the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stock Owners' Association, which has been sent to every Member of Parliament, pointing out that, although Ireland has the cleanest animal bill of health in the world, being practically free from any serious disease, still the 10-hours' detention is rigidly enforced at Birkenhead notwithstanding that those imported animals are all required for immediate slaughter, which minimises any danger; and, in view of the fact that delay in grading and distribution and shipping causes wastage of meat, whether, under existing circumstances, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the order or reducing the period of detention?
    Mr. PROTHERO: A special inquiry was recently made by the Board at all ports in Great Britain where Irish cattle are landed. I shall be happy to show the Report to the hon. Member. Its results strengthen the view that any disadvantages caused by the ten hours' detention are more than outweighed by the benefit which the animals derive from the rest. The Board's inspectors at the ports have been given discretion to release animals within the ten hours period should this be necessary to meet the
    1750
    abnormal difficulties now attending the cross-channel traffic. With regard to grading, the case is met at Birkenhead by the admission of the grading officers during the first hour of the period of detention, and similar facilities will be given at other ports, if required.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that enormous wastage of valuable food is caused by this ten hours detention in many cases?
    Mr. PROTHERO: No, Sir; I am not aware of that, at all events on this side of the water.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to find out whether the statement is true?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I think the hon. Member will find, when he receives this Report, that it deals with that point.

    IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM, EDINBURGH CASTLE.
    Mr. TENNANT(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any statement in regard to proposals for the use of Edinburgh Castle for the purposes of a Scottish National War Memorial?
    Mr. MUNRO: The question of a Scottish National War Memorial in Scotland has been brought before the Government in connection with the larger scheme for the creation of an Imperial War Museum in London and with special reference to the fact that after the War Edinburgh Castle will no longer be required for the accommodation of any large body of troops. It has been suggested that no site could be found so appropriate to a Scottish National Memorial associated with the present War and with other wars by land and sea in which the Scottish nation, Scottish troops or regiments, or men of Scottish birth or descent have played a part, as the castle of the ancient capital of Scotland, and that, if His Majesty's Government were willing to allow it to be so used, under suitable safeguards for the protection of its architectural and other distinguishing features, an appeal would be made to Scottish patriotic sentiment which would meet with a unanimous response.
    I regarded it as my duty to lay this suggestion before the Cabinet Committee

    1751
    appointed for the consideration of the scheme for an Imperial War Museum, and through them before the War Cabinet. I am glad to say that the War Cabinet have indicated their general approval of the proposal to dedicate the Castle to the purposes named, which may ultimately develop into the even wider purpose of a treasure-house for the National History of Scotland. The scope and objective of the proposal, however, including the desirability of any such development, must be closely scrutinised. I propose, therefore, to nominate a Committee to consider how the scheme, which will at the appropriate time involve an appeal for a national subscription, can best be matured during the War. I should add that I approach the subject with an open mind, and that I am in no way committed to any particular scheme which may have been under public discussion.
    Colonel ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will nominate this Committee, and whether there will be any delay?
    Mr. MUNRO: No, Sir; there will be no delay.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Will this Committee be purely Scottish?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is what has hitherto been known as the National War Museum in future to be known as the Imperial War Museum?
    Mr. MUNRO: The Imperial War Museum is the appropriate and proper title, and not the National Museum.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, while concessions have been made to old age pensioners in receipt of pensions, these concessions do nothing to meet the disability and hardship imposed on applicants for pensions who may be denied a pension because their weekly earnings exceed 8s. per week or £21 per annum, while an existing pensioner might enjoy over £2 per week from old age pension, separation allowance, and earnings; and, if this is so, will he do anything to meet their case?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that the concessions do not apply to applicants for
    1752
    pensions, and it is, I fear, not possible to meet their cases without an alteration of one of the most important of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts, namely, that laying down the means qualification for the grant of a pension. I can hold out no hope of being able to introduce amending legislation.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    Midwives (Ireland) Bill.
    National Registration Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.
    National Insurance (Unemployment) Bill with an Amendment.
    National Health Insurance Bill, with Amendments.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
    Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
    NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) BILL.
    Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.
    PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
    Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    MILITARY SERVICE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) ACT, 1917.
    Report of the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 185.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSBNESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Can my right hon. Friend say what he expects the business will be for the rest of the Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If, as I hope, the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Representation of the People Bill be completed to-night, then, at the Adjournment, B shall move, "That the House adjourn until Tuesday," as the only other business to be completed is the consideration of Amendments coming from another place.
  Mr. D. MASON: is the House to be asked to sit to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the Representation of the People Bill be finished to-day there will be no sitting to-morrow; but if the Lords Amendments are not finished to-day, then I shall make the Motion, "That the House do sit to-morrow."
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is it intended to sit late to-night?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is really a question of convenience, and I fancy that the majority would preier to sit late tonight than to come here to-morrow.
  Mr. LOUGH: Are we to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that if, as he expects, the Lords Amendments to the Representation of the People Bill are completed to-day, the present Session will terminate on Tuesday, next?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is possible that it may terminate then, but, of course, it depends upon what is done between the two Houses with regard to this Bill.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that the House will meet for the new Session on Tuesday week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather not name the day.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not mentioned in the Lords?
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  Lords Amendments further considered.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I should like to put to you, Sir, a point of Order as to the procedure upon the remainder of these Amendments. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, after concluding the consideration of the few Amendments which remain to be dealt with on Clause 18, on which we are now engaged, we went back to the beginning of the Amendment Paper. I imagine it would be open to me at that period to move that the remainder of the Amendments should be postponed, so that they might take their place after the-first Amendments on the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be the right way of doing it. The House would then begin at the beginning, and, of course, any Amendments relating to this Clause would have been disposed of.

  ALTERNATIVE VOTE.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Modification of Method of Voting in Certain, Constituencies.)
    (1) If at an election for one member of Parliament there are more than two candidates, the election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote as defined by this Act.

    (2) At a contested election for a university constituency, where there a-re two or more members to be elected, any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.

    (3) At a contested election for a university constituency in England or Ireland, the voting paper shall be signed by the voter in the presence of one witness who personally knows the voter and attests the fact of the voting paper having been signed by the voter in his presence at the place therein mentioned by signing his name thereto, and adding his designation and place of residence.

    (4) His Majesty may by Order in Council frame Regulations prescribing the method of voting, and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the principle of the transfer-

    1779
    able or of the alternative vote and for adapting the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act relating to Parliamentary elections thereto, and with respect to the duties of returning officers in connection therewith; and any such Regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.

    (5) Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided herein, affect the method of conducting Parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act.

    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out Sub-section (1).
    Mr. F. WHITE: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a Bill to secure the more adequate representation of the people in the House of Commons. Last night we were discussing and arrived at a decision upon a proposal to secure the better representation of the people by providing unrepresented minorities with an opportunity of electing members to this House. For reasons put forward during the Debate yesterday, that Motion was defeated. The proposal which we inserted in the Bill in this House to secure the election of a majority member in single-member constituencies by means of the alternative vote is the reversal of the proposal of proportional representation, for while proportional representation is proposed to secure the representation of minorities, the alternative vote is inserted to secure the return of a member elected by a majority. It is almost a self-evident proposition that this House rests upon the democratic principle that those who are returned to it to represent the country shall be returned by a majority of electors voting at any public election. Therefore, it is difficult to sec why anyone who accepts the principte of majority representation in a democratic State should resist the proposal that where there are more than three candidates for a two-member constituency the election should be conducted on the principle of the alternative vote. Indeed, the proposition seems to me to be so self-evident that there can hardly arise any substantial debate upon it, except on the purely partisan and time-serving supposition that it is desirable to secure the representation of minorities by what I can only call a side-wind. But, seeing
    1780
    that the House deliberately by a large majority last night turned down the proposal to secure the representation of minorities in this House by a properly devised scheme of proportional representation, I think I am entitled to claim the unanimous support of this House in favour of the proposal which suggests that as long as the return by a majority of the electors remains as the basic principle of representation in this House, the electoral system should be so devised as to secure the practice of that principle in every individual case.
    I know that there are some persons taking a more or less short-sighted view of the subject, who think that it will be disadvantageous to one party or to another, and particularly perhaps to one party, to retain the present system and not to introduce the alternative vote. But as that particular form of argument will not bear examination in the light of an enlightened public opinion, I am not prepared to give it the compliment of-detailed consideration in this House. I rest the claim that we should disagree with their Lordships House in their proposal to delete Sub-section (1) of Clause 18 on the broad public ground that it is desirable in every election for a member to sit in this House that he should represent a clear majority of the voters at such election. It is upon that ground, and upon that ground alone, that I base the proposal to disagree with the House of Lords, and having based it upon the only legitimate principle, I think no further argument need be added.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: B beg to second the Motion.
    4.0 P.M.
    Having regard to what has happened in previous Debates, I do not propose to take exactly the same line as has been taken by the Mover of this Motion. I had the opportunity of saying on a previous occasion that I regarded this as almost the most important Clause in the Bill. Therefore, I make no apology for saying a few words about it. I cannot understand how it comes that the other Chamber has thought fit to strike out a provision which was put in by this House after exhaustive discussion for the purpose of securing fair elections. In almost every part of the world there has been some effort made to deal, either by way of second ballot or the alternative

    1781
    vote, with the problem that arises when more than two candidates woo the electors. We know what the history of this particular question has been in this House. It is about twelve years ago since my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. M. Robertson) introduced a Bill into this House making provision for the alternative vote. So far as I recollect, at that time there was no particular party move against that proposal, and it was generally considered very undesirable that you should have no means of solving the question, which has to be solved in so many other walks of life, of what you are to do when no one has an absolute majority of votes. When the matter originally came before this House, many of us thought that it was part of the compromise, and we were very much surprised when we found that it was one of the matters which were to be left to the House. As a result, when the matter first came before the House, the proposal for the alternative vote was only secured by one vote. On a subsequent occasion it was secured by a considerably larger vote. I make no excuse for referring to the question now by way of party politics, because on that occasion no one will deny, and especially the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) will not deny—because he took a very active part in the matter—that there was an absolute party vote, and riot only that, but there was a deliberate whip up for the sake of their being a party vote.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Exactly the same as at Mr. Speaker's Conference.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: We did not know it at the time.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: The hon. Baronet is mistaken. There was no party Whip at Mr. Speaker's Conference.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I want to understand why the House of Lords left the proposal where it was. After the second time the matter was discussed here, when the alternative vote was carried by a substantial majority, and when the Government had put in a certain Schedule, by a carefully organised snap vote, which the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs, with his usual candour, never made the slightest effort to disguise, a Schedule was added to the Bill which was practically never considered. I have a very vivid recollection
    1782
    that at that time it was generally said, and the Press generally affirmed, that as the House of Commons had put in a ridiculous Schedule, no doubt the whole thing would be dropped and the Upper House would know how to deal with tile matter. The Schedule in question, on examination, proved to be not so ridiculous as some people suggested. The hon. Member in question, and many of his Friends, supported it, as they said quite frankly, without having read it. When they read it, they proposed to make it ridiculous by leaving out its main feature, paragraph (b). We need not disguise from ourselves that the whole manœuvre had a frankly party character, and, as my lion. Friend who moved this Motion said, there is no other reason by which you can leave this provision out of the Bill. The proposal was subsequently restored to the Bill in its original form and we are now considering the Bill as originally introduced by the Government, making the provision discussed for-many years for dealing with the multiplicity of candidates at elections and by elections. I have never yet heard any argument put forward against it, except the very remarkable argument that there is something unsporting in interfering with what people regard as the first choice of the electors, namely, the man who is apparently at the head of the poll before the votes are properly counted. It would be just as fair to suggest that the man who wins the first heat in a hundred yards race had seine sort of prior claim to be considered the winner of the final heat. It entirely ignores the fact that the result is never declared until the whole machinery of counting has been employed, because the public is only informed of the result, the whole thing being done in privacy and the whole question being decided in private. That was one argument used.
    When we were discussing another Schedule on another occasion, we had a most interesting discussion, because the. Schedule then under discussion, which was put forward by one of the hon. Members from Scotland, contained a provision that the particular proposal now before the House does not contain. In the particular proposal now before the-House, the proposal the Government originally introduced, and the Schedule the Home Secretary considered as the only possible Schedule, although he personally was not in favour of the thing

    1783
    at all—in this particular proposal, one eliminates the third man in a three-cornered fight and practically one gets all the advantages of a second ballot without the expense and trouble of it. It was seriously suggested that a good reason against this particular proposal was that it eliminated the third man, whereas it possibly ought to have eliminated the second or the first, and we suddenly found hundreds of hon. Members on the other side of the House, or what used to he the other side of the House, most concerned with the position of the man who in a three-cornered fight was third. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs and others said it was unfair to the third man to eliminate hint. Of course, that is an argument which would come quite well from the mouth of the hon. Member who originally put forward this Schedule, 'but in their mouths it seemed to lack sincerity, because their proposal is not to consider the case of either the second or the third, but only to consider the first. Although there might be an adequate argument for saying that you ought to devise a scheme by which the third man might find himself at the top of the poll, there is no argument for saying that, because we cannot do that we are now going to leave out of our calculations claimants who are at the top or second on the poll. I do not defend the scheme on the ground that it is perfect.
    The whole question was exhaustively examined by a Royal Commission. They went through all the schemes, and they reported unanimously that they considered this was the best of the schemes. There was obviously something that required, a remedy.Primâ facie, one would have thought that was a good reason for putting it in now. What we have seen during the past ten or twenty years is nothing to what we are going -to see during the next few years in regard to the difficulty of settling the question where there is a multiplicity of candidates. One would gather from the Debates we have had on proportional representation that many hon. Members would welcome a system under which there is a considerably larger choice of candidates. If you are going to have a larger choice of candidates, You must have some machinery which will secure that they are fairly elected. What has happened throughout the world has been that the lack of a good system of demo-
    1784
    cratic voting, in the eases where there were more than two candidates, has always been to the advantage of toe party which—I say it in no offensive way—is either the Conservative, or, as some would say, the reactionary party, because reformers are naturally inclined to split into different groups. Everyone has different views as to how things should be changed, although people may combine, and only have the same view as to how they should be kept in the same position. There must be in all cases in all countries these differences of opinion between people who are wanting to change things. We have had the evidence and the Rennet of the Royal Commission. There is always this demand in progressive forces in all countries that they should have some weight in deciding these matters.
    Let me take an instance. During the next few years there is bound to be, if one follows affairs in this country and certain uprisings of political forces. a very great difference of opinion in the world between progressive men and women who certainly are by no means backward in the progressive movement. who would class themselves, some as Individualists and some as Socialists. You might have the case of candidate A., who wants to keep things practically as they are, while candidate B. is a keen Individualist, and candidate 2. is a Socialist. There are many points on which Individualists and Socialists can combine, but to say that every constituency should be deprived of saying whether in certain matters of progress they should be represented by an Individualist or a Socialist seems to me to be perfectly absurd. We are told that during the next few years the. Labour party in this country is going to put into the field three or four hundred candidates. There is no Member in this House who will deny that they have a perfect, right to do so. Just as the Conservative party wish to fight every seat, and just as the Liberal party wish to fight every seat, so you would imagine the Labour party would want to fight every seat. One would even imagine that the National party would be with us in the Lobby on this matter, because they would want to fight every seat, if they have not already disappeared. It is inconceivable that any party desirous of having independent existence can possibly stand aside on a question like this. We all know what has

    1785
    happened for some years past, that there has been a desire in this constituency or that the Labour party should put up a candidate—I am sure the Labour Members will not deny this—and it has been said to them: "Do not put forward a candidate now; it will split the vote." Again, in another division a Liberal candidate has been told the same thing. On the whole these arguments have told admittedly against the Labour panty. The Liberal party, being the party in possession, have sought to gain by arrangement of that sort.
    Now we have got on, and we have to face the situation that at the next election you may have, not thirty or forty Labour candidates, but three hundred or four hundred. What may be the result? That you will find that a party which is in a substantial minority all through the country may get a majority of Members in this House. I wonder if any hon. Member really thinks that in dangerous times, such as were alluded to by the Minister of Blockade last night, we are going to do justice, either to this House or to the country, or to our consciences if we are going to allow a state of things to arise in this country under which, through a faulty electoral machine, we may find a minority controlling the fortunes of this country at the most dangerous time, perhaps, through which we have ever passed, because that is what we may drift to. The Minister of Blockade told us that he was terribly oppressed by the danger of what might happen after the War. I am not in the least oppressed by what would happen after the War, provided we have two things, first, if we have a franchise based on the widest possible principles and secondly, if our electoral system is absolutely fair. But if we are going to have a system which loads the dice in favour of any one political party, and which results in the minority ruling where the majority should rule, we are going to drift into a very dangerous position. Suppose we have a case where, in the majority of constituencies in this country we have minority candidates returned and the Government is not representative. Does anyone deny, if we had a position like that, where the Government really represents a series of accidents in our electoral machine, there would be a great danger that the people of this country would resent it? I do not think they would be wrong.
    1786
    I regard it as absolutely essential to the, safety of the country that at the next election the method of election in every way should be absolutely fair and the right of the voter to choose particular men should be absolutely unchallenged. I am told sometimes by some of my Labour friends that this might possibly tend against the Labour party because you might find the two propertied parties would combine against Labour. I do not think it would matter if they did because Labour only expects to rule if it has a majority over all other parties.
    Sometimes people say this would hurt the Liberal party because there will be a deluge of Labour candidates. I do not think it matters which party is going to. be hit as long as the system is fair and we are perfectly clear that the party which wins is representative of the country. We argued yesterday a question the only-object of which is said to be that we should. get a fair representation of the people in. the House of Commons. We have been. told again and again by Members who support proportional representation that this House should be a microcosm of the nation. At any rate this House is not going to be a microcosm of the nation if you are not going to have any system of alternative vote or second ballot, and I urge those who have opposed this on former occasions to give it more serious consideration and to consider whether in the interests of fair play they have any right to pursue an opposition which is based upon no political principles but merely upon an idea that they are going to win a party advantage which if they won it would be extremely dangerous not only to themselves but to the country. We may have before us very difficult and very stormy times, but I am confident that they will be a great deal less difficult and stormy if our constitutional government is based upon the rock of really popular representation and that half the benefits which will have been won by this Bill are nut thrown away. We are entitled to be told the reasons why we should accept the Lords Amendment in this case and why we should sink our own views. We were told yesterday that the Lords were speaking absolutely without prejudice of any sort because it did not matter to them and it was not a party question. We cannot say the same upon this question. Throughout our discussions in this House there has been no disguise of the fact that this is absolutely a party question.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Commission had recommended this proposal or said it appeared to them among the various proposals which were suggested the one least open to objection?
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I was under the impression that they used words like that and recommended it.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am only asking for information.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I believe they actually recommended it, having considered all these proposals, and as far as I know no Committee appointed by the Government has ever done anything else. After we have settled so much in this Bill on the principle of give-and-take it would he most unfair to both the Liberal party and the Labour party—and I know I am speaking the views which have already been voiced by the leader of the Labour party on a former occasion—to let us have this whole scheme crippled merely by the desire of certain people to win a party advantage which would be very dearly bought and would strike at the root of the whole stability of our national government.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In his last sentence the hon. and learned Gentleman embodied the crux of the whole situation. He said the Speaker's Conference recommended this, and having more or less accepted the whole of these recommendations we ought not to spoil the scheme by excluding the alternative vote. What is the history of the alternative vote? If it had been known to the Government that the alternative vote in the Speaker's Conference was carried by a purely party vote it would not have been embodied in the Bill. This Bill was based on the desire of the Government to give an opportunity to the House of carrying out proposals agreed upon by the Speaker's Conference. In two other cases it was left to the House to decide quite freely whether or not to accept the majority recommendation—women suffrage and proportional representation. But the difference between the vote in the Commons on proportional representation and women suffrage and the alternative vote was a very distinct one. There was a cleavage of parties in both the other cases, but there was none on the alternative vote. This is a highly contentious party question, and it is almost a public scandal that it should
    1788
    be launched in the House at this juncture. Many hon. Members are fighting in France and cannot be brought here for a thing of this kind at a moment's notice, so that we are handicapped in a matter of this kind which is so contentious. I am not going to argue again all I have said before on the alternative vote. The House is weary of the arguments, and knows what there is to be said on either side already, and probably would not take very long in coming to a decision. But we are faced by a difficulty which is not easily surmounted. Yesterday a certain section of the House did its very best to see that minorities were reasonably represented. They did not succeed. In this particular case they desire, if the Government scheme is adopted, to put in the hands of any two parties in any constituency the absolute power to crush the third. They are giving to the second choice of the man lowest on the poll the absolute settlement. A good deal has been said about the Schedule of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Chapple) and my support of it, for party reasons, as my hon. Friend opposite said. But that Schedule, at all events, had this merit, that it recognised that the first choice was of more value than the second. It is intolerable that there should be placed in the hands of any two parties in any constituency a power, by a bargain which it would be perfectly easy to make beforehand and to carry out, utterly to crush the minority, which may be only, after all, a very small minority. That itself shows the faultiness of the thing. I have an extract here from the Royal Commission, which I shall read:
    "We are bound to draw attention to the fact that in Australia the opportunities for party intrigue and the gratification of personal ill-feeling which are conferred, both by the power of using and by that of withholding preferences, have been found to produce regrettable results."
    I should have thought that that itself would be sufficient to induce the Commission not to make the recommendation. I had an opportunity yesterday of talking to a very prominent member of one of the Legislatures in Australia. He said, "Whatever you do, I hope you will give the transferable vote and not the alternative vote. The one is fair and reasonable: it has been used in my particular section of Australia for a considerable time and no one would wish now to go back on it; but as to the other, it is poison." That is the view I take of it.
    Mr. PETO: I wish to say a few words with regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hemmerde), particularly in relation to the inference he drew from the way this question was left by Mr. Speaker's Conference. This is one of the questions which was only introduced by a majority, and not a very large majority, vote, and the Division was a solitary exception in that it was only arrived at on a party vote. But that is not the point I want to devote myself to. Introduced into the general recommendations of the Conference in the manner which has been indicated it formed a part of the whole of those recommendations, and the part which has the most bearing on it is obviously the recommendation for proportional representation to be applied to a considerable area, but not the whole area, of the country. If you eliminated from the single-member constituencies all that considerable number, I think about 160, which were intended to be grouped, quite unanimously so far as the Conference is concerned, into three- and five-member constituencies, the proportion that the alternative vote assumes is altogether different. It, seems to me that the House, having now rejected it three times, really carries with it as a necessary corollary that this experiment in the alternative vote is an entirely different thing and should, of course, go, and if we are to have only single-member constituencies and do nothing in the way of representation of minorities, we certainly should not introduce into the Bill that part which commanded no great body of support and no unanimity, but is an acute matter of party controversy, while you have rejected that part which was unanimously accepted upstairs and which in this House, at any rate, is regarded as a much fairer and more equitable method of arriving at minority representation. The hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me if I pay him a lather backhanded compliment. He is a learned as well as an hon. Member. He is no doubt a very distinguished advocate. He made an extraordinarily good case out of exceedingly difficult material. He especially appealed to the House to include this proposal of the alternative vote because he pointed to the fact that after the War—and, indeed, before the War is over—there is no probability of there being anything like a cleavage into two parties, as in the Victorian era, but that we shall have
    1790
    the country divided into three parties, which will all be minorities. How does the alternative vote, which one supposed was going to remedy this state of affairs, remedy it? It cannot really convert any one of these three minorities into a majority. If there are only three minorities, the most that the alternative vote can do is to enable two of those minorities to see that the third has practically no representation in this House at all. That that should be a proposal calculated to give confidence to the electorate in the legislation of this House passes my understanding. Under the simple system where there are three candidates for one seat in a single-member constituency, the principle of the beat man winning—that is, the best man in the sense that he has received more individual votes than either of the other two—seems to be infinitely the best method, although nothing like so satisfactory as the method of doing away in a large measure with these single-member constituencies and getting a real and accurate representation of the people by proportional representation. However, the House has decided against that, and it seems to me that to introduce this further method of the alternative vote, far from making the matter better, will make it infinitely worse, because it will simply enable any two minorities to combine together and practically secure the whole representation of the country. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hemmerde) made one remark which seemed to me most extraordinary. He said one of the arguments against the alternative vote had been that the electors would come to the conclusion that the man who was at the head of the poll was somehow or other jockeyed out of his seat by the counting of the alternative or second votes, and that, therefore, the electorate would be dissatisfied. He said that was not so; that it would all be done secretly, that the electors would never know, and, therefore, would have no cause to be dissatisfied. If that is so, then the machinery to give effect to the alternative vote makes the matter much worse than I had thought. Surely it is better, if the best man is not going to win, that the electors should, at any rate, know how the parties are divided in the constituency.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I never suggested that they would not know. I said they would not know until the poll was declared

    1791
    and that when they did know they would know who was the first on the poll, but that they would not know who was at the head of the poll in the first instance until they knew who was first after the complete count.
    Mr. PETO: If that is so, I do not follow the hon. and learned Member's point. If they are to know that the man who commanded the greatest amount of support is not the man who is elected, but that the man who is elected is only the man elected by a combination of two minorities, then, I think, they will have greater cause for dissatisfaction. The fact that the two announcements are made at the same time, that the best man has not won, but that the third man, perhaps, has won, seems to me to make the result of the election even more unsatisfactory than I imagined it to be. There is no argument based upon proportional representation in favour of the alternative vote. I would ask hon. Members to consider the great difference between the two proposals. Proportional representation has been opposed almost exclusively on the ground of inconvenience or the complication of machinery, etc., but no hon. Member has said that in a five-member constituency, where something over one-fifth of the electors, a small minority, would have the opportunity of electing their own member to represent their own views without any collusion or support from any other section at all, that that could possibly act otherwise than as a great safeguard in times of stress and revolutionary change. But if we keep to the single-member constituency and have a mere device by which two parties can arrange together that the third shall not by any possibility get its member elected, that can give no sense of security, and can give no possible sense of justice to the electors of the country, or confidence in a House elected on such a system.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: As has already been pointed out, this proposal comes before the House with what may be called a double recommendation. It. comes with a recommendation from the Committee on electoral systems, which reported some years ago, and it also comes with a recommendation, it may he a majority recommendation, from the Speaker's Conference. The general case for-it has been stated repeatedly with
    1792
    very great clearness, and I do not want to cover the same ground again, but 1. would take some exception to several of the points raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto). He spoke of the alternative vote as if it would prevent the man who got the most votes from being elected and as if the present system secures that the man who got the most votes was elected. The present system does secure that the man who gets more votes than any other individual candidate is elected, but what we want to secure is that no man shall be elected until and unless he gets a majority of the total votes in the count. That is the only in which the rights of the majority can be fairly secured. Reference has been, made to proportional representation, and it has been suggested that because proportional representation has been defeated that this scheme should be defeated. That is entirely a non sequitur. I voted for proportional representation, and I am disappointed that it has been defeated, because I would like to have seen the minority more adequately represented; but the fact that the minority is not to be more adequately represented is no reason for depriving the majority of the controlling voice-Therefore, I support this proposition.
    There is another consideration which has not been put forward very strongly which appears to me to reinforce the importance of the alternative vote, and that is that it would tend very naturally to promote political progress. The opponents of this proposal are rather given to speaking of the voters as if in any single constituency all the, voters can be card-indexed as belonging to one party or another. That does not fairly represent the condition of the voters. It certainly does not represent their condition fairly in Scotland, and I do not believe that it represents their condition fairly in other parts of the country. Where they have a choice of candidates they naturally vote for the candidate they prefer, or the candidate who comes nearest to their views. But they are by no means marked with some distinguishing mark, as if they belonged to a flock of sheep and would always go one way. In Scottish constituencies and in other constituencies there are large numbers of electors who generally vote with one or other political party, but who hold strongly their own views and are prepared to vote in support of their own views. I will take a given

    1793
    constituency—and there are many of them—where the electors have been accustomed to having two candidates, one belonging to each of the two great historic parties. Suppose they have been used to having a Unionist and a Liberal candidate and that those who vote Liberal under normal circumstances are in a substantial majority over those who vote Unionist. Suppose that a considerable number of those electors feel very strongly in favour of promoting local option over the drink traffic or of promoting the land values movement, or of promoting any of the other variations from strict party lines with which we are more or less familiar. What is the position of those electors, assuming that the official Liberal candidate is against the particular movement which they have particularly at heart? They may prefer him over the Unionist and they would not vote for him if they had a candidate of their own in the field. If they have a candidate of their own the result is to split the Liberal vote and to hand over the seat to the Unionist, although the Liberals as a whole have a majority in the division. In these circumstances the Liberals who would vote for the unofficial Liberal candidate would prefer the official Liberal candidate to have been elected rather than the Unionist candidate. Under the present system the result is that they lose their majority and hand over the seat to a man who has only a minority of votes. The practical result over the country is that they do not put up an unofficial candidate and the party machine is stronger than ever. It seems to me that that is a very undesirable result.
    We want as far as possible to give scope for variations. I have taken as an illustrative case the position in the Liberal party, because, as my hon and learned Friend has pointed out, these variations are, and naturally are, more common in a party which, taken as a whole, is rather more associated with progress, than in a party, which, taken as a whole, is more concerned with preserving what is good in our existing institutions. Development of our political institutions comes with progress and comes through successful variations, therefore, variations ought to be given every fair opportunity of developing in order that progress may be promoted. If we had this opportunity of developing our system I believe that new ideas would gain ground, new ideas would take hold of our political life and both
    1794
    our political life and our national institutions would to a very large extent be developed and brought more keenly into touch with the life and thought of the people. I therefore support the motion for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment and in favour of the alternative vote because of its inherent justice, because it would secure that in any single-member constituency the member would be returned by a majority and not by a minority vote, and also because I am strongly inclined to think that the general effect of adopting it throughout the country would be to promote and develop our political institutions and bring them more in harmony with the general development of national thought.
    Mr. BUTCHER: The Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) delivered a speech which was wanting neither in courage nor in candour. He condemned his opponents for proposing the alternative vote upon the ground, as he said. that they were animated by partisan feeling. Literature is full of condemnation of that particular form of hypocrisy Which consists in reprobating those sins to which you are yourself most addicted. Two classical instances are, of course, those of the Gracchi and of the Devil rebuking Sin. I venture to think that neither the offences of the Gracchi nor the alleged offences of. the Devil are comparable with the offence which has just been perpetrated by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Norfolk because, while he accused those who oppose the alternative vote of being influenced by partisan feeling, the whole sum and substance of his own speech was instinct and ripe with partisan feeling of a most objectionable and most candid character. What was his argument? He pointed out, I think, with perfect truth, that Ii the past difficulties had arisen in single-member constituencies where a Unionist was standing between the Labour and the Liberal candidates, it being felt that the presence of a Liberal and a Labour man, as well as a Unionist, might imperil the success of the Liberal or Labour man. He pointed out, too, that these difficulties had been squared to a very large extent and squared to the disadvantage of the Labour party. I gathered from him that the superior intelligence and capacity for intrigue of the Liberal had overcome the stupidity of the Labour candidate, and in many cases had

    1795
    caused him to retire so as to leave a straight contest between the Liberal and the Unionist. He foresaw that this highly desirable result for the members of the Liberal party might not be achieved in the future, as the Labour party were awakening to the true nature of the alliance and were not going to be the pliant instruments in the hands of the Liberal party in the future which they had been in the past. He said, further, that the Labour party would contest a very large number of seats at the next election and then came the danger that the Liberals would not be able to square the Labour man, and there would be three-cornered fights. How was that disastrous result to be avoided? By the adoption of the alternative vote, in the interests, frankly, of a partisan object.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: In the interests of fair play.
    Mr. BUTCHER: That is the name you give it, but I suggest a partisan object is its true description. The object is to prevent the man who gets in at the head of the poll having the seat, and to enable the other two—it may be the Labour and the Liberal candidates—to make a corrupt bargain by means of which a man whom the voters had refused to place at the head of the poll should by some juggling be given that position which he ought not to occupy. I think I am not wrong, therefore, in suggesting that my hon. and learned Friend has himself committed those sins which he so lightly attributed to us. What was the object of the hon. Member who moved the Motion? It was founded on the well-known petitio principii. He says my object is to have the man elected by the majority, and then he adds—a little ignoring the facts—my method will secure that. I venture to say it is exactly the reverse. You have three men standing for a constituency. The voters say A. should be first and put him at the head of the poll; B. is placed second, and C. third. The whole object of this Amendment is, however, to reverse the decision of the voters. A. is not to be at the head of the poll, but either B. or C. is to take that position; in other words, the will of the majority to put A. at the head of the poll is to be reversed and by some more or less corrupt bargain be-
    1796
    tween the supporters of the other two candidates one or other of those two will be placed at the head of the poll.
    Mr. WHITE: Does the hon. and learned Member wish this House to consist of minority members who do not represent the constituencies?
    Mr. BUTCHER: I want the man at the head of the poll to remain there. I call him the majority member because he is elected by the majority of the voters, and is put by them at the head of the poll. Let me put this to my hon. Friend. If you are going to transfer the second votes to one of the two candidates who failed to get at the head of the poll, how are you going to be sure that it is the real wish of the constituency that the man so elected should be at the head of the poll. What I suggest is this: When a constituency votes for A., B. and C., the man who gets the greatest number of votes should be elected. That is quite an intelligible proposition which the voters will understand, but if, by means of some corrupt bargain between the supporters of two of the candidates agreeing to give one another their second vote, you are to alter the decision of the electors in this way, you introduce a totally new element into the election, an element partly of chance and partly of intrigue. I am afraid the intrigue will play a very large part, and the result will be that when the electors say that A. is to be at the head of the poll you will, by this combination of chance and intrigue, defeat the wishes of the electorate, and secure the return to this House of the second or third man. To call that a, vote by the majority is to use a false term; it is, in fact, an ingenious device by which the partisan wishes of the hon. and learned Member for North-West Norfolk can be promoted, and it is for that reason that I hope this House will accept the decision of the other place and thus give effect to the true voice constituencies.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The Debate which has proceeded thus far has no doubt afforded many of us great enjoyment, but those of us who want to reach a decision which would represent the positive aspects of the question will probably feel that the hon. and learned Member, apart from the momentary enjoyment which he has given us, has not really advanced very far the solution of

    1797
    this problem, because, while he disclaimed party feeling in the matter, every bargain he referred to was corrupt, every action of persons, be they Liberal or Labour, was described as an intrigue, and everything,which would happen under the alternative vote was put under a moral slur. Although these views may be valuable as throwing light on the mental attitude of my hon. and learned Friend, they really do not carry us very much further. It is not true that the majority of any constituency are deprived of their rights by the proposal of the alternative vote. If a majority of the voters vote for any man, whatever his political opinion, he is, and ought to be, returned to Parliament. It is only when there is not a majority of the votes cast concentrated on one individual that this problem arises at all. May we not attribute to one another, as I am sure we should, a desire to deal with this problem in a spirit of what is best for Parliament when the election is over? I have very grave doubt whether any party can in any way hope to get any immediate or contingent benefit by the adoption of the alternative vote. Those who think that it helps either Liberals or Conservatives appear to me to be singularly wanting in profundity of thought and in experience of electoral matters. For a considerable period of our history the balance of political cleavage was such that it is not unfair to say that one side was anxious to retain things as they are, while the others thought more or less rapidly in a variety of ways, and no doubt there was a more vociferous tendency among those who wanted to change things.
    But does anybody imagine that that will be the state of things after the War? Is it the state of things now in America? Persons often ask themselves and occasionally answer political conundrums, and one of those conundrums is, Which is the Liberal and which is the Conservative party in the United States? There the lines of parties run in quite different ways. For years before the War it must have been obvious to Members of this House that the public outside the great parties in this country was divided in regard to securing great political changes. When you have parties no longer concerned for great political changes, some in one direction and some in another, then both sides will have the same danger, if it be a danger, of
    1798
    cleavage within their own ranks, and there will be a greater danger of this House having it ranks filled by persons who, whatever party they may belong to, do not really represent the majority of the constituents for whom they will speak when in this House. The whole object of the proposal of the alternative vote is not to help one school of political thought against another, it is not to benefit any political party, and the difference of opinion between us is surely summed up by my hon. Friends who are anxious not to have the simplicity of ordinary elections disturbed, by which, if a man gets at the head of the poll, although he only represents one-third of the voters, is said to represent the constituency. On the other hand, many of us think that that is most unsatisfactory, and that the weight of such a man's vote in this House would be less than it should be, and that the collision between his opinions and the balanced opinions of his constituents would weaken the power of this House and widen the gulf which is always growing after an election between this House and the constituencies. On the other hand, if you have by means of the alternative vote a person who is returned by at any rate a majority of the people voting, his position in this House is stronger, and his connection with the constituency which sends him is closer and more stable. I honestly believe it will conduce not to more violent changes, but to greater stability in the decisions of the House. Now that this House has rejected the other method for increasing the stability of the electoral relationship, it surely is much more important that it should look favourably on this attempt to gain that stability, and, in spite of what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend, I believe this proposal would tend towards greater stability of political action in this country, and that it would strengthen in this House not those forces which make for changes which I like or those forces which make for changes that I detest, but that it would trengthen in this House the true kind of stable and conservative influence, because it would make the members of this House more truly representative, and would in many cases make a man, where he felt that he represented not only those who agree with him on important political questions, but others who agree with him on fewer, more cautious in his Parliamentary action. If that

    1799
    were prevalent, while it would lead to less rapid change it would lead to a more permanent adherence to the position which this House should occupy in the Realm.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir R. Adkins) has made a very interesting and closely reasoned contribution to our Debates, but before I come to what he said—with much of which, in its premises, though not in its conclusions, I was in agreement—I should like to make an observation or two upon the earlier speeches which have been made, and, if it is not impertinent to do so, on the attitude of the House as a whole on this question. I cannot but regret that through a series of accidents this subject has each time been discussed in very thin Houses, and, as I think, the real opinion of the House has never been properly tested upon it. That is not the fault of any of us. I hasten to add that this is the first occasion on which I have been present at one of these Debates, because B was one of those who was absent on the other Occasions. We all know that the calls upon us at this time are very many, and I think most of us find great difficulty in bringing our minds, in the midst of the circumstances of to-day, really to consider seriously questions of electoral policy, however grave they may be. What are the arguments by which this Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and to insist upon the retention of the alternative vote, are commended to the House? The hon. Gentleman who moved that Motion dealt with it very briefly. He expressed himself as incapable of seeing how any man who wished the majority to prevail could come to any other conclusion. He thought it unnecessary to argue the question, and was content to make the Motion. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion took a different line. He permitted himself argument, but I am not sure that he served his cause better by the arguments that he adduced. He announced that there could be no question that the whole of the opposition was because, in the opinion of one party in this House, the proposal would work to their disadvantage. He happens to belong to a different party, but lie must see that the converse of his argument is true and that
    1800
    while lie imputes to everyone who opposes the proposal that they are influenced by party considerations it is obvious that these party considerations have not been absent front his own mind, or from the minds of those acting, with him.
    I say plainly that I rank myself with the hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Adkins) in saying that those Members who think there is a great party advantage in this matter one way or the other are living in a Fool's Paradise. It would have been true, even under our old conditions. Bf members of the Liberal party, as our party divisions exited before the War, thought that every vote given to a Labour candidate would have been theirs if there had been no Labour candidate in the field, they are making a profound mistake. If they had seen some of our Unionist canvass returns they would have known that under given conditions men who have been life-long Unionists have considered that, in a particular election, it was more important to put in a direct representative of Labour than to assert any other political principle, and, accordingly, it is by no means to be assumed that if you have three candidates for a single seat the votes given to the third candidate will of necessity all go to either one or the other of the two candidates who stand first on the list. On the contrary, if the third candidate were not there they would be divided into proportions which none of us can tell. I do not think therefore that there ever was any clear party advantage on the one side or the other as we existed before the War. If I foresee anything of our political situation after the War, I am afraid—for I should regret that result —that it will tend to the multiplication of groups and sections. I am rather afraid it is inevitable. I hope we shall work through that phase, and come back in the main to the large parties united on broad programmes: but I think that we shall go through a phase when there will be a great deal of fissiparous tendency in all quarters. If that is so, it becomes still more certain that you cannot say beforehand, even if you could say at all how we are going to group ourselves as parties when the War is over, what the relations of those parties will be to one another, or if the candidate of one happens to be at the bottom of the poll—whose votes have, therefore, to be transferred to one of the others—how they will go. It will not follow that they will certainly go to a particular party. They may go to any party

    1801
    I do, therefore, so far as I know my own mind, come to the consideration of the question without the idea of reaping a party advantage, not because I am insensible of party advantage—if I knew exactly which my party 'vas going to be,,or what party I should have the opportunity of belonging to—but because I do not believe, as a practical man, it is worth betting sixpence one way or the other on whether it is to the advantage of one party or not.
    I come to the second argument. It is that the Royal Commission reported in favour of this. I do not want to be disrespectful about Royal Commissions, but I think the composition of this Commission was rather peculiar for the purposes for which they were appointed. They consisted of a gentleman who had belonged to the unionist party, but who was associated with the Liberal party at the time of his appointment—that gentleman had ceased to be a member of the House of Commons, though he had once been so; two members of the Liberal party, one of whom had also ceased to be a member of the House of Commons; three permanent officials, I think; a gentleman from New Zealand, not intimately associated with our electoral system here, though I think he has been in very much sympathy with the Liberal party also; and one member from the party to which I belong. It does not seem to me that if you wanted an impartial examination of the question by men who were really experienced in the working of electoral systems that is exactly the Commission you would have chosen. But did they recommend this scheme? Let us see what they said about it. Perhaps I had better begin by saying that they did recommend it. My right hon. Friend opposite is quite right in saying that
    "We recommend the adoption of the alternative vote in cases where more than two candidates stand for one seat. We do not recommend its application to two-member constituencies."
    But they recommend the abolition of the two-member constituency. You are, therefore, carrying out only half their recommendation, and I venture to think you are carrying the most contentious part of their recommendation. For my own part, I have never understood why the two-member constituencies were retained when we adopted the one-member system, and I regret that it survived that revolution in our Parliamentary system. That was their
    1802
    conclusion. What are the arguments by which they were led to make this recommendation?
    "The scheme eliminates the worst candidate, but gives you no security that the best shall be returned."
    Meaning, I think, by that that the worst candidate is the one for whom the fewest people vote, and not any reflection on him—the man who is numerically weakest. But there is no security that you shall have the best candidate, by which I understand the candidate whom most people would prefer to see elected if they were choosing between the two then in the field. Secondly, they say:
    "It involves for the electorate a serious and intermittent change of habit."
    When there are two candidates standing, the elector, as in the old days, marks his ballot paper with a cross for one or the other but the moment there are three candidates, or more, lie has to adopt a perfectly different system—the system which he would have had to adopt if we had not yesterday rejected the proposal for proportional representation. He will then have to give a series of preferences in proportion to the number of candidates, and unless lie arranges the whole of the candidates in his order of preference the scheme will not work. He must not only mark his first preference and second preference, but he must go on to mark his every preference afterwards, and, say the Commissioners, the result will be not to get the man elected whom the majority desire, but somebody else. Thirdly, they observe that as a matter of fact the electorate will not do this, and that
    Experience of the alternative vote in other places, which may be expected to be repeated here, shows that the wastage of the alternative vote would probably be as high as per cent."
    Sixty-live per cent. will not use their alternative vote, and certainly if you come to a third and fourth alternative the wastage will be very high indeed. It is essential for the proper working of the scheme that that wastage should not take place, and yet the wastage is shown in practice to take place. Then they go on to say that the difficulties are greater if more than three candidates are in the field, and in this connection they point out that the very adoption of this system will lead to the multiplication of candidates. It will be an encouragement to a frivilous multiplication of candidates, and there is no effective way of preventing it. I am merely repeating what is reported by the Commissioners who are claimed as

    1803
    recommending this system. If the recommendations stood without any reason we might wonder at it, but we should have to take as the whole of the arguments, but they set forth these objections, and when they are taken as in favour of this we should at least know what they have said about it. They point out that if more than three candidates stand the real issue which is decided, when you come to the final choice, might inevitably be obscured from the elector when he had to mark his preference. In other words, the issue which was actually decided by the transfer of the vote is not the issue on which the voter voted at all. I do not want to take up time by reading extracts, but anybody who cares to see what the meaning is in that respect will, if he turns to the Report, find a hypothetical illustration arising out of Free Trade and Tariff Reform candidates in the Unionist party on page 8, paragraph 23. They also say that they are bound to draw attention to the fact that the system has not worked well elsewhere where it has been tried:
    "We are bound to draw attention to the fact that in Australia the opportunities for party intrigue and gratification of personal ill-feeling which are conferred, both by the power of using and by that of withholding preference: have been found to produce regrettable results."
    Finally, they observe that the system cannot be applied to two-member constituencies.
    Having thus examined it and set forth its defects, having damned it with the faintest of praise, they proceed to include it in their recommendations. I think that the case which they have made against it is overwhelming, and I do not follow the reasoning which led them, after making such a case against it, to recommend it for our adoption. I fear exactly what they say has happened in Australia, exactly that which in a brief but eloquent passage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs dwelt upon at a late hour last night as being the greatest scandal and danger of our electoral system, the formation of small groups with some personal, sectional or class interest, who approach candidates, where the electorate is nearly equally divided, and, without regard to the broad, national interest on which the contest ought to be decided, say, "Here are so many votes. If you promise to do this thing for us, you shall have them." That is the worst feature of our present electoral system, and the only thing that prevents it having
    1804
    a much greater effect is the fact that majorities are not so equally divided as that, and the fact that our political life is an honourable life in which honourable men take part who will not be blackmailed by that kind of thing. We should have the same system there multiplied and increased to a great extent.
    I was spending a brief holiday in France some years ago in a southern town when there was an election going on. I occupied part of my leisure by reading all the electoral literature that I could find, which there, as here, largely coloured the walls of the town in which I was. I thought it very difficult to make out what the parties and sections of parties were fighting about, just as I dare say foreigners sometimes find it equally difficult to disentangle the real choice of our elections from the party literature which we are accustomed to issue about them. But I asked a French friend, and I have asked others, to explain to me the multiplicity of candidates, which is a common feature at the French elections, where it must be known, both to many of the candidates and their friends, that they could not possibly have a chance of succeeding, and I got from all the same answer. They want to create something which they could afterwards use as an instrument for bargaining. They propose a candidate in order to group a certain number of electors around him, not with any hope that he will be elected, but in anticipation of the second ballot—of course, it is equally applicable to the alternative vote—so as they can go to the candidates among whom lies the real choice and can say, "Now we have got so many hundred votes to transfer; what are they worth to you? They mean the difference between success and failure. Are they worth a prefecture, or can you get a bureau d'étape or some little position for myself as a slight recognition of ray long, unswerving, and unselfish public service, and from a kindly feeling for the friends to whom you owe so much?" That is the kind of thing that goes on, and will go on, if you encourage it by this system, and it is not because it is not in the interests of any party—I do not care what party—but it is because it lends itself to that kind of bargaining, that kind of subordination of broad issues to little issues, of national issues to person and class issues, that I oppose this, as I opposed the other fantastic scheme that has been developed by the same people, in the hope of pro-

    1805
    ducing some result other than that which would be produced by a plain, straightforward contest among plain, straightforward men.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There will be very wide agreement in this House with the opening remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He appealed to the House not to discuss this matter in relation to the fortunes of a particular party, but to view it on the broad ground of sound electoral principle, and he said, what appears to many of us to be true, that no one can forecast, probably not at any time, and certainly not at the present time, what will be the future of parties, and what will be the effect upon parties of a particular proposal of this kind. The question is, How can we get a true representation of the people? My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs said that this was a scheme that enabled two parties to crush a minority. What is his proposal? Thai the minority is to rule. He uses the term "crush." I should prefer the term "defeat." He desires to see the minority triumphant and sending in here the representative of the constituency which it contests. The facts are notorious. We need not go to distant countries or to the Reports of Royal Commissions. We have only to search over our own recent memories. We have only to hook back at the experience of the last few years to recall the fact that again and again Members have reached this House, and at this moment there are Members sitting in this House, who notoriously, to their own knowledge and to the knowledge of all of us, do not on the main questions of the day represent the desires of the majority of their constituents. That is the essential fact, and, compared with the inherent vices of the existing system, none of the defects—and it has some defects—of an alternative system can for a moment be allowed to weigh.
    If in one of these elections for a single seat in which there are three candidates a minority candidate has been returned, and everyone knows he is a minority candidate, and if on the very next day it was possible to take a referendum of the same constituency and ask whether the man who had been returned to this House had the support of the constituency, you would have an overwhelming majority in the negative. Is that a sound system? Am I misrepresenting the facts? Are not
    1806
    those circumstances within the memory-of all of us? The right hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission the concrete case of an election turning on Tariff Reform. It is always dangerous to give concrete instances, because it immediately arouses prejudice; but take the concrete instance. Tariff Reform might be the question at issue before the country at the moment. Assuming that it is, and that there is no division of opinion between the Liberal voters and the Labour voters on a number of ultimate issues, they might both be equally in favour of Free Trade and opposed to Tariff Reform.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They might not.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes; but suppose they were. Take the not altogether improbable assumption that they were equally against it. In that constituency there are, say, 15,000 electors. The Tariff Reformer might get 6,000 votes, and the other two between them might get 9,000 votes, yet the one who gets the 6,000 votes, who, on a straight issue, would certainly be defeated, walks up the floor of the House, presents his writ to the Clerk, is sworn a Member, and votes in all our Debates.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is assuming, which is not the case, that every Liberal and Labour elector will vote in the same way on the question of Tariff Reform. I do not think they will. A man may vote for a Labour representative, because lie is a Labour representative, to the exclusion of all decisions between Tariff Reform and Free Trade. The assumption is that you are to cut out the Labour man because he has got the lowest number of votes, and go on to distribute the votes of the Labour man between the Free Trader and the Tariff Reformer without having the smallest idea of what his ideas on that subject are.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Precisely. The whole object of the alternative vote—that is its very purpose, and that is what it achieves —is that the individual elector is enabled to say when he expresses his first preference for a Labour man that he wishes a Labour man to be elected, and he votes (1) for him; and if this law is passed, suppose that the particular candidate whom he desires to be elected cannot be elected, suppose it is obvious on the first count that he is at the bottom of the poll and cannot be elected, then the question arises which of the other two candidates

    1807
    he would prefer to see elected. If he wishes a, Tariff Reformer elected he would vote (2) for the Tariff Reformer. If, on the other hand, he wished to see a Free Trader elected, he would vote (2) for the Free Trader, and his vote would be counted accordingly. What is there unreasonable or wrong in that? You say to him, Tell us what you wish, and if you cannot have that first desire, tell us what is your next wish, and it shall be acted upon. If, on the other hand, you do not wish either of the alternatives, if you regard them both with equal hatred and contempt, then, of course, you will not vote for either; and the matter remains as it is now, in that respect, that if you do have a wish, surely the State is entitled to elicit it and act upon it. That is the whole principle of the alternative vote. With the other principle, suppose his own candidate is defeated and he wishes to have someone else rather than the third; or suppose that the constituency as a whole desires a certain man not to be elected, nevertheless, though that is desired on the part of the 9,000, the candidates supported by the 6,000 is, in fact, under the existing system, elected, and comes to this House and votes on all questions. That is the essential vice of the present system, and, whatever minor difficulty may be pointed out, in any alternative plan, however ingenious mathematicians may wish in certain circumstances for mathematical accuracy, it is, unfortunately, one of the gross and patent abuses that attach to the system we now have. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Royal Commission. They proceed upon that assumption. They begin by saying—
    "It is remarkable that while a single-member constituency is very general in Europe, the relative majority method—"
    —that is a system which provides that any person elected and who gets the majority relatively to any other candidate, and not the candidate who gets the absolute majority for the vote—
    "the relative majority method is practically confined to English-speaking countries. All the great European States, and most of the smaller ones, have rejected it or abandoned it."
    They go on to say—
    "The failure of the present system in this respect and the necessity of reforming it, were urged upon us strongly by representatives of party organisations on both sides."
    Later in the Report they say—
    We therefore think it incumbent upon us to examine carefully the defects of the system which are more likely to escape attention than its merits."
    1808
    That was a very wise and prudent course on the part of the Royal Commission. Then they conclude:
    We have set out these objections in full, if not at undue length, because it is desirable that no more shall be expected from the system than it is able to give."
    This is the essential conclusion, the unanimous conclusion of the Royal Commission representing all parties, several officials of the State, and gentlemen who have made the subject a life-long study.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It did not represent all parties.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Who is the Labour or the Irish member?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It was a comparatively small Commission.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Three Liberals, one Unionist, no Labour, no Irish; three officials, and a Dominion official.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Lord Richard Cavendish was a chairman of it, and the members Lord Lochee, the Secretary of State for India, Sir F. Hopwood, who is now a Member of the House of Lords, the Clerk of the House, Sir 2harles Eliot, who was a Colonial Governor, Professor W. Pember Reeves, now Director of the London School of Economics, and Mr. John W. Hills, Member for Durham, and who is a member of the party opposite. There was only one Liberal member of the House of Commons, and one Unionist member of the House of Commons.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There were three Liberals—the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, Lord Lochee, and Lord Richard Cavendish, who was at that time a member of the Liberal party.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know that Lord Richard Cavendish could be regarded as a party man. All these gentlemen, whatever their political origin, whatever their political views, were unanimous on this one point, and after prolonged examination they came to the conclusion:
    "We have set out the objections in full, if not at undue length, because it is desirable that no more shall be expected from the system than it is able to give; but when all clue weight has been given to them, the alternative vote remains the best method of removing the most serious defect that the single-member system can possess—the return of minority candidates—and accordingly we recommend its adoption in single-member constituencies."
    It is reported that in Australia, in a particular case, 65 per cent. of the electors, or two-thirds of the electors,

    1809
    appreciated the value of the opportunity given them, and did in fact make use of it: but, as experience stands, I do not think it right to say that the alternative vote stands on the same basis as the second ballot, which is practised on the Continent. The second ballot is a system under which you take a poll on one day, and then on a subsequent day, after a week's interval, you take a second election as between the two candidates who are at the head of the poll at the first election.
    Mr. M. HEALY: No, at the second election.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Systems vary. I do not know that my hon. and learned Friend's recollection is quite correct. In Germany, I think certainly, there is a second poll, and that those two who are at the head of the first poll are allowed to be nominated. A week's interval gives rise to all those intrigues and bargains to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It is because of these defects of the second ballot system that I myself and all those who in early days recommended it as a means of curing existing evils, have been converted in favour of the alternative vote as the right method, because it includes the whole process in a single day, and does not give any opportunity for bargaining. It would be quite impossible to make bargains of the character referred to at all, because no one knows the electoral strength of a particular person, in addition to which, you can deal in all those matters with the voter himself, and classes of voters, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 men, and those men will not allow themselves to be moved like pawns on the chess-board by skilful electoral agents who manipulate votes on a large scale. These people have minds of their own. They know quite well to whom they wish to give preference, and it would need a great deal of persuasion before they would give preference to a candidate they did not approve, in order to carry out a political bargain arranged by various heads of parties. If there can be arrangements behind the backs of electors, surely it is the present system more than others that allows that. At present, if arrangements are made in respect of a contest, it is in the form of the two parties saying, "You contest this seat, and we will contest the other," or, "You abstain from contesting this seat, and we will abstain from contesting the other." These things are carried on behind the back of the electors, and
    1810
    there is no opportunity of checking it. Under the system of the alternative vote, it will be for the alternative voter himself to say what selection he desires to make. The House of Lords shut out this alternative vote in a very small House, some seventy Members being present when this Motion was taken. It was regarded purely as the consequence of proportional representation, and the argument was used that this system of alternative voting was proposed without any Schedule embodying the method of its operation. Several of their Lordships complained that they could not possibly accept a Bill of that character, which desired to establish a system of voting without particularising its working. When this Bill comes down to us again, we find in it, inserted by the other House, that the requirements of proportional representation shall he applied almost to all the constituencies of the country; but there is no Schedule, there are no rules, or indication at all, how that system of proportional representation is to operate. I think that mere fact disposes of the Lords' objection. Furthermore, let me say that the method of the alternative vote was defined by the Bill as it left this House, and a WHITE Paper embodying the detailed rules was laid on the Table of the House. The provision is as follows:
    "The expression 'alternative vote' means a vote (a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's preference for the candidates in order: and (b) capable of being transferred to a subsequent choice in case no one candidate has a clear majority of the total number of votes counted at any count."
    If the House of Lords had thought it necessary to insert a Schedule, it was quite in their option to urge that such a proposal should be inserted by the Government themselves on the introduction of the Bill. Let me, lastly, reinforce and emphasise the view that has been put by several of my hon. Friends in the discussion this afternoon. We have to look forward after the War to the possibility of troublesome times. The Government of this country will be far from easy, and we may be exposed to severe tests. We are informed that at the next election there will be in some 300 or 400 constituencies three-cornered contests. The right hon. Gentleman says that this alternative vote will facilitate the multiplication of candidatures, but there is no probability, so far as we can see, that it is likely to disappear, and I am afraid it must be accepted as a fact. In these circumstances, the prospect before us—and can it be contemplated with an easy mind?—

    1811
    that there may be sitting here, after the next election, or after the next election but one, possibly 100, perhaps 200, members, who do not meet the desires of the majority of their constituencies, men who, if the constituents were asked to give a single "Yes" or "No" to the question, "Do you desire these men to represent you?" would vote "No" by a large majority; yet, under our existing system, you have these candidates returned, and you may have a House of Commons of that character in the times that are before us. I really do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and to those who take a conservative view in our politics, and not the least to their Lordships themselves, that if we desire to have a stable Constitution, and if we desire to have the people with confidence in the Legislature that it elects, and which governs them, we must adopt some electoral system which will remove the inherent vice that attaches to our present methods, and which will secure that the majority of each electorate shall have a full opportunity of returning its representative.
    Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the importance of this question is due not alone to the form of government, but to the troublesome times ahead. What is disturbing me is whether the troublesome times are not here at this moment, if not very far ahead. I rise to put before the House some facts in connection with this matter. I think my society is the only society in existence at this moment that carries out the alternative vote, and I want to tell the House exactly what happens in actual practice. We have a fairly wide membership, covering England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Prior to four years ago I have known fifteen candidates to be nominated for a seat on the executive committee. Those who received the highest votes were returned, and it was quite common to have an executive member who did not poll one-fifth of the votes cast in the particular constituency, which meant, of course, that in practice by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the man reflected the wish or will of the great bulk of the members. We then decided that, in order to get a more accurate return, a man must receive a majority of the votes cast. That had the curious result that in an election held in order to elect an organising secretary, six different ballots were necessary before we obtained
    1812
    one man with a majority of the votes cast. I put it to the House that both those systems were absolutely wrong. We decided on the alternative, or single transferable vote. At this moment there is an election taking place, and there are forty-seven candidates for the seat. The voters are working men, and I venture to say that 96 per cent. of the votes will have forty-five or forty-six preferences. In Scotland, at the last election, with thirty candidates, the overwhelming number of members gave twenty-eight preferences. It is very interesting to study the result of these votes, because a close examination shows that in 90 per cent. of the cases, the exception being a very popular man, the man who receives the first and second preferences is never the man ultimately elected. You may just as well know the facts. That is easily explained, because what happens is this: There may be one or two big branches in the group and the nominee of the big branch would receive sufficient first preferences to secure being at the top of the first preferences. But he might not be the choice of the smaller branches, who constitute the majority, and who, having voted for their first nominee concentrate on someone else for the second or third preference.
    you may say that that does not prove the advantages of the system, but I submit it proves this: that it is the only system that enables you to have a man returned who can say: "I am the choice of the majority of the people in that constituency." It is the only system that enables the man to say: "The majority of the people recording their votes in the election recorded them in my favour," and, after all, that is the only test of confidence. That cannot be said of the present system, where you have three candidates, Liberal, Labour and Conservative, whoever is returned with a minority of votes is not in the representative position of the man returned, as I have indicated under the other system. There is the question of the counting of the votes. In our case we do not have expert scrutineers, or professional men who would be selected in this case. The working railwaymen themselves count the votes, and I am assured that, after one experience there is no difficulty whatever in recording and accurately returning the votes. On the other hand, I admit it is not a fair assumption that you are going

    1813
    to have forty-seven Parliamentary candidates for the one seat, and I should hope at least, that, in a case of that kind I would not be one of them. But I submit if in a representative society such as ours, you can get men and women to interest themselves in this system and to carefully think out first and second and third preferences, it does clearly give them an interest in the election, and it does enable the person returned to feel that he has got the confidence of the majority of the people. In spite of the fact that I have fairly and honestly told the House the disadvantages as well as the advantages, I do submit that we ought not to regard the question from the standpoint of party, because, I do not care who smiles at it, I take the serious view that the interest of the State is more important than the interest of a party, and in the problems that are ahead of us the interests of the State will be of far more importance to consider. Therefore, what we ought to aim at is to ensure that the majority will of the people shall be reflected in the representation in this House. I believe that that can only he done by the alternative vote. It could, I admit, be done by the second ballot, but, as has already been explained, that would necessitate further elections and all manner of wire pulling. On the balance, I hope that we will reject the recommendation of the other House and give an opportunity for the alternative vote to be put into effect. Whilst I hope you will not get as many candidates as I do in my own society, I am quite satisfied if you get the same result it will be to the advantage of this House.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), in speaking of the Report of the Royal Commission, said that it was defective because it had no Irish opinion expressed upon it. I am not sure that he was quite serious in that. At any rate that observation gives me some justification for now rising to express an Irish view on this question. As between the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) I rather sympathise with the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as to the value of the Report of the Royal Commission on this question. This question
    1814
    is primarily a political question, and on political questions every man must make up his own mind, and the opinion of a Royal Commission is not in the least calculated to help any individual as to how he will vote on political questions. The value, I take it, of a Royal Commission is that it makes inquiries and finds out what is done in other places like France or America, and compares that with the law in England, and in that way it may or may not throw some light on the question, because it is quite conceivable that what is good in America or France may not be good in this country. Ultimately this no doubt is a political question, and I fear that utimately the people will vote on it on purely political grounds.
    6.0 P.M.
    I rise to support the Amendment for the rejection of the Lords Amendment. I do not do so for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I think his speech was, if anything, a speech rather against the alternative system, because he began by admitting that in the case of the Labour executives the man who gets the first preference is never the man finally elected. I think, therefore, the analogy he gave is not a sound one. I am in favour of the alternative vote, because I consider a Parliamentary election wholly different from an election such as that described by the hon. Member for Derby. An election of a great trade union is a personal question, but I venture to say that a Parliamentary election is not a personal election. We are told that there are three parties, but I say that for the primary purpose of a Parliamentary election there never can be any but two parties —namely, the "Ins" and the "Outs." When a constituency votes at an election, and all the world looks on, the interest is not whether Mr. A. or Mr. B. or Mr. C. is going to be returned; in this country the essence of every election is that you vote for or against the Government of the day, and for the purpose of every Parliamentary election there are no more three parties in that sense than there can be three Lobbies in this House. Take the series of elections when the Home Rule question was before the country. At a great many of those elections there were three candidates. No one can doubt that on the, main question on which the constituency voted the candidate who got in did not represent the opinion of the electorate. The electors wanted to vote

    1815
    for the "Ins," but the man who was sent into the House came in to vote for the "Outs." If it were a mere question of electing individuals, such as the election of secretary to a great trade union, what you would want would not be the alternative vote, but proportional representation; but in the class of Parliamentary elections which take place in this country, which has a traditional party system with a Government and Opposition—I do not care how you call the Government, be it Liberal, Unionist, Conservative, or anything you like—the great issue which is before every constituency when a poll is taken is, Are you going to vote for the Government of the day or are you going to vote against it? Nobody can pretend that a three-cornered contest conducted in the lines as it is at present conducted gives the real opinion of the constituency for what I say is the main purpose of the election, namely, to select a supporter of the Government or an opponent.
    Arguments have been addressed to the House which might be of value in Australia, America, or other places, but they have no value in this country, for the reason I have given, that the primary question at every election is, Are you for the Government or are you against the Government? On that great issue, which is the primary issue in all Parliamentary elections, the present method of election undoubtedly leads to a result which the constituency does not contemplate. That class of argument assumes that this House is primarily a legislative assembly. It is nothing of the kind. This House is the Executive Government of the country, and that is its primary function. As the Executive Government of the country it exercises power through the Cabinet, but for all reasons when an elector in this country is voting he is not voting primarily for A., B., or C., but he is voting for or against the Government of the day. Everybody knows that in a whole series of elections which have taken place in this country during the past dozen years, the result of the elections under the present system has misrepresented the views of the majority of the electors. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham said that the alternative vote might lead to corrupt bargains. I wonder if he heard the concluding passage of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs last night? That right hon. Gentleman defended the necessity for pro-
    1816
    portional representation on the ground that the existing system led to these very corrupt bargains, or led, at any rate, to the temptation to them, which the right hon. Gentleman fears. We accordingly have the strange picture of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham opposing this proposal because it leads to corrupt. bargains, whereas we had the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary saying that it was the existing system which led to corrupt bargains, and which required some reform because it had that vice in it.
    Whatever may have been the case in the past, it appears to me that in the future there is a most vital necessity for the passing of some reform of this kind. The next Parliament to be elected will be the first Parliament in which every member will have a strong pecuniary interest in getting elected. Hitherto members have been elected to this House unpaid. At the next Parliamentary election every candidate will be trying to draw from the lucky bag a large pecuniary prize. In addition to that, this Bill for the first time facilitates the multiplication of candidates by the payment of election expenses, and in other ways this Bill contains almost an invitation to multiply candidates, and to put an end to the state of things that existed in the past, when most elections were conducted on the basis that there were only to be two candidates. I think we must inevitably look forward to a state of things in which, instead of an election being limited to two candidates, a multiplicity of candidates will come before the electors, with the inevitable result that the candidate at the head of the poll in the first instance will be a candidate who has not the support of the majority of the electors. I confess I am surprised that a very large number of Members should look forward to a state of things, which is quite inevitable unless some reform of this kind is passed, under which there will be a large number of Members in this House who cannot claim to speak for the majority of the constituents. It is quite inevitable that that will happen unless some device of this kind is adopted.
    We considered at the Speaker's Conference long and anxiously what method could best solve this difficulty. We discussed the second ballot, and it was unanimously rejected. No one wants the second ballot in this country, and the arguments of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were largely arguments against the second

    1817
    ballot, which nobody has proposed. But I am amazed that anybody should contemplate the new electoral state of things which will arise when this Bill passes into law, and ask that no steps should he taken to mitigate, or put an end to, this possibility of elections being determined so as to send a minority representative into the House. It is unfortunate that this matter should be a party question—I suppose it is a party question. I am not so sure that a decision one way or the other will necessarily be against one or other party, but it is unfortunate that both sides of the House apparently should consider that there is some party advantage for one or other in this transaction. I think that has deceived the House into shutting their eyes to everything but the party aspect of the matter. I think that, apart from the party aspect, there is a more serious electoral difficulty to be solved, and I know of no good way of solving it except by the alternative vote, and, accordingly, I shall give my vote for it.
    Sir G. CAVE: I rise mainly for the purpose of suggesting that the House might now come to a decision on this question, which has been considered fully, and, if I may say so, most ably debated. Having said that, it would not be right for me to trouble the House with any arguments at all upon the merits of the question, because my views are already known to the House. I, therefore, only make two observations directed to other points. In the first place, with regard to the course to be taken in this Division, I would only say this: this question of the alternative vote was one of the very few questions which did not receive the unanimous decision of the Conference. The Conference decided it only by a majority, and we have been told—although, of course, I myself know nothing of it—that in the Division on this question the parties were divided one from another. If that be so, I think it is the only point in that remarkable Conference in which the Division went upon party lines. I think it is a matter on which we have to congratulate ourselves, that this is the only instance in which that can be said. That being so, I am quite sure that, whatever Members may have expected at one time, no one now will complain that the Government have treated this as an open question, and have not felt bound either to put on the Government Whips or as a Government to express any opinion upon it. Therefore,
    1818
    we leave this matter to the free consideration of the House, and we claim the same freedom for ourselves.
    I have only one other observation to make. As the House knows, I am myself opposed to the alternative vote for reasons that have been already stated to-day and on former occasions, and, that being so, the House will quite naturally receive with a certain amount of caution the views which. I express, although I hold them most sincerely, as to the effect of this. question upon the position of the Bill. I have to say very little, but I think I ant bound to say this, that I shall feel regret if we have another cause of difference with another place, which will, of course, put further obstacles in the way of the speedy conclusion of the deliberations on this Bill.—I am riot going to indulge in prophecy, or to speculate as to what course may be taken in another place, but I am entitled, I think—indeed, I am bound—to-say that a difference on this question will make difficulties for those in charge of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that such difficulties may be avoided. In my capacity as Minister in Charge I certainly hope that we, in this instance, at all events, shall agree with, the other House. [HON MEMBERS "No!"] Hon. Members can take that as the opinion of one who is, in this matter, in agreement with the other House. That. being so, I will only add that I propose to vote against the Motion which is now before the House, and to express my personal hope that it will not be carried.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure my fellow Members that I will not stand many minutes between them and the Division upon this important question. I desire, in a very few words. to associate myself with the Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment to the Bill. Not only do I want to associate myself, but I also want to associate the Labour Members with this Motion for disagreement. In the course of the proceedings yesterday one of the members of our party very emphatically disputed my right to speak on behalf of the party in the manner in which I did. I have no intention of dealing with all the points at issue raised between us. I believe I would be entirely out of order H I did so. I only, with your permission. Mr. Speaker, desire to deal with that part dealing with my right to speak on behalf of the party. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) stated that

    1819
    while I might speak on behalf of those associated with me on these benches I was not speaking for the great Labour movement outside this House. I want emphatically to deny that statement. I desire to give my reasons for denying it. When the Conference over which you, Mr Speaker, presided with so much ability had finished its labours the Labour forces of this country were called together to consider the Conference recommendations. All parts of the labour movement of this country were represented at that meeting. After a very full discussion—the Conference dealing with no other question except the recommendations of your Conference—decided to accept all the recommendations that had been made by the Conference. That Labour Conference was not unanimous to begin with regarding the acceptance of the recommendations of the Conference There were parties present who wanted to go much further and to claim much more.
    A section of the Conference, among whom was my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, took up the position that if we pushed this matter too far there was a danger of losing the Bill. On his advice, amongst that of others, the Conference, notwithstanding that we had some parties there who wished to carry our ideas much further than your Conference recommendations provided, agreed to accept the Conference recommendations—as I have
    already pointed out, amongst others, on the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. If he wants to compare what happened at Nottingham with the deliberations of that great Conference, met specially to consider this question, and to say that amongst many other questions, at the fag-end of a very busy three days' Conference, we passed, without due consideration being given to the sweeping nature of the Lords Amendment to this Bill, the general principle of proportional representation—if he compares the value of that Conference with the one to which I have drawn the attention of the House—then I make him a present of the value of that comparison. If I were in order in going on to deal with the issues raised between my hon. Friend and myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—I do not want to do so — [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]—I think I could prove that his reasoning on the main points put to me last night were quite as fallacious as his statement on the point that I have raised now. I do not intend to do so. The future may provide me with that opportunity. If so, I will not fail to avail myself of it. I simply want, in conclusion, to associate myself and my party with the Motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment on the alternative vote.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes. 170.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES.

    [6.25 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hinds, John

    Alden, Percy

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Anderson, W. C.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Armitage, Robert

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Falconer, James

    Hudson, Walter

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    John, Edward Thomas

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Jones. J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Lief (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Guiland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Boland, John Plus

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    King, Joseph

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Buxton, Noel

    Haslam, Lewis

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Hayward, Evan

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Collins. Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Collins. Sir W. (Derby)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

    Henderson, Rt Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk,B'ghs)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Price, C. E. (Edingburgh, Central)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    McGhee, Richard

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Thomas, Rt. lion. J. Henry (Derby)

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Madan, Sir John Henry

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Richardson, Thomas (WHITEhaven)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Manfield, Harry

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wardle, George J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Watson, John B. (Stockton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rowlands, James

    WHITE, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Rowntree, Arnold

    WHITEhouse, John Howard

    Morgan, George Hay

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Themes P.

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Wiles, Rt. Hon, Thomas

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Shortt, Edward

    Wilson, W, T. (Westhoughton)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Smallwood, Edward

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Sutton, John E.

    A. F. WHITE and Mr. Bowerman.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Anstrutber-Gray, Lt.-Col. William

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Astor, Hon. Waldorf

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William

    Macleod, John Macintosh

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Macmaster, Donald

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Land.)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South)

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Malcolm, Ian

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gretton, Col. John

    Mitchell-Thomson, W.

    Bonn, Com. Ian Hamilton

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Blair, Reginald

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. (Kens.,S.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Pato, Basll Edward

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Brookes, Warwick

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E..

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Cater, John

    Hope, Lieut.-Col.J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rothschild, Major Lionel de

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Major Edmund

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robt. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin U.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jessel, Col. Sir Herbert M.

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsford)

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Du Pro, Major W. Baring

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Tryon. Capt. George Clement

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    1822

    1823

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Willoughby, Liealt..Col. Hon. Claud

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mld.)

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir G.

    WHITEley, Sir H.J.

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

    Younger and Capt. Barnett

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    Major NEWMAN: May I call attention to the fact that the door was never locked at all during the Division.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will make inquiries about that.

    UNIVERSITY REPRESENTATION.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "two" and insert instead thereof the word "three."
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Amendment deals with university representation, and what was unanimously recommended by the Speaker's Conference was that where a university was to be represented by two members that the election should be on the principle of proportional representation so that the minority might have one of the members. It was on that understanding that the compromise was arranged at the Speaker's Conference. That was the proposal which the Government made to this House when the Bill was introduced and that was when it went to the House of Lords. That was the position defended by the Government in the House of Lords, but they were beaten by one vote on a Division, and that provision consequently was struck out. I trust now that this House, not by any party division, but, I trust, with unanimity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—but this is an entirely different matter. This was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and it was part of the original bargain. The other matter admittedly gave rise to controversy within the Speaker's Conference, and it was left by the Government in this House an open question, and was the subject of much discussion. Yet this question does not stand in the same category, and it is in the position of all the original agreed proposals of the Conference. If any confirmation is needed of that I can give it in the words of the Government spokesman in the House
    1824
    of Lords, because Lord Peel, who was in charge of the Bill when the matter was before the House of Lords, said:
    "On the ground, therefore, that this proposal of my Noble Friend upsets the compromise arrived at with regard to university representation at the Speaker's Conference, I regret that, speaking on behalf of the Government. I am not able to accept this Amendment."
    The Government Tellers told in the Division against the Amendment. Nevertheless, with that exhibition of independence which is sometimes seen, the House of Lords rejected the provision by thirty-one votes to thirty, and I trust now that this. House will have no hesitation in reaffirming the decision of the Speaker's Conference. That was the ground on which the House, against the desire of many of us, acquiesced in the system of university representation which is greatly disliked by a large number of Members of the House, and now the minority of Oxford and Cambridge are to be deprived of their chance of securing the representation which was recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and, if that is going to be the case, the whole question of university representation must be thrown open for discussion.
    Sir JOSEPH LARMOR: I desire to state my version of the decision of the Speaker's Conference in this matter, a decision for which I am partly responsible because I was a member of that Conference. I think I can make out that the state of affairs is very different from what has just been represented by the right hon. Gentleman. It is rather late in the day to bring up again the question, of general opposition to the question of university representation. There is representation of universities practically in all the progressive nations of the world, and there is no reason why we should be an exception to Italy, to the Central Empires, and even to France in certain other directions. They do not exclude from deliberative Assemblies which direct the progress of the country representatives of the learned professions or people who, by training and education, are more fitted to consider questions affecting national progress than any other class. What has been suggested

    1825
    is a doctrine which savours more of mid-Victorian politics than the fuller national life of to-day. My object is to give a description, so far as I know, of the events that occurred in connection with this question at the Speaker's Conference, and to show how the situation has been entirely changed since that time. When the Speaker's Conference first met, we were very soon up against the question of university representation. It was admitted on all hands that on the existing electorate there was a grievance, and it was felt that minorities had not been adequately represented. Many cases of exception could be quoted: Sir John Gorst, Sir Michael Foster, Mr. Lecky, and many other instances might be quoted in favour of my argument. But it was agreed that on the existing registers there was a grievance, and all members of the Conference were willing that something quite drastic should he done to meet that grievance. At that time the position was taken that the Parliamentary electors for a university should be the same as the persons who possessed the franchise for its internal administration.
    The point was admitted that if you extended the franchise by registering all graduates, and if you upset the internal arrangements of the university, you would probably do away with a large source of university income which comes from the fees of those who take the higher degree which qualifies for the vote. It was admitted that the universities would find it difficult to enlarge the franchise, but later on that difficulty was overruled. The opinion prevailed that an electorate with 7,000 persons, like Cambridge or Oxford, largely confined to a few of the learned profession to whom a degree was most valuable, clergymen, doctors, and barristers, was too narrow and small an electorate for modern purposes, and it was agreed that universities must adapt themselves to a much wider and democratic electorate. Every graduate was to have a vote. The result was that, instead of the small electorate of 7,000 who have sent my colleagues and myself here, the next election will be decided by an electorate of 17,000 or 18,000 people. It will be a totally new constituency, and the electorate is trebled. The universities agree that the old constituency was too narrow and one-sided, and they have assented to the taking in of the whole body of graduates. Now, if you are going to have an entirely new electorate
    1826
    consisting of most of the educated people of the country, an electorate whose opinions have never yet been tested as to whether they are Conservatives or Liberal, surely you should not give the franchise with one hand and take it away with the other.
    The agreement was at an early stage, before ever the very wide extension of the franchise was thought of. I am speaking under correction—there are other members of the Conference who are present—and it is only because the right hon. Gentleman traversed the whole subject that I feel bound in defence to assert my view of the matter. At a later stage, to my great satisfaction, it was found possible to include the recommendation for the enfranchisement of a whole group of the more modern universities. A group was formed of the younger universities in the North of England and the -University of London, a third member was added to the Scottish group, and now I am glad to observe representation for the two more recent universities of Ireland is in a fair was to being included. The extension involved in the enfranchisement of the newer universities goes some way to doubling the number of university members, and it very largely removes any grievance that the university representation is one-sided. The Scottish minority member will be undoubtedly on the other side. The universities of the North of England will certainly not adopt very conservative members for their representatives. The Irish representation will be at least divided. I say that the enfranchisement of the newer universities was not thought of at the beginning, and it came as a totally new point. The third point that was introduced was the large proportion of minority representation that was included as a unanimous recommendation by giving proportional representation to 150 boroughs. I admit that at the final stage it was possible to protest against the recommendation made that fie voting for the ancient universities should be in this one-sided way, and, if for one, had ever thought that the proposal of minority representation for the borough constituencies would he rejected in this House, I should certainly have taken care to put in a caveat against the restricted franchise for the more ancient universities. It was because there was a grievance already to which the representatives of the boroughs had sub-

    1827
    mitted, in that they were grouped for proportional representation, that to my mind it was not fair to ask to go back upon the arrangements that had been made at the very early stage.
    All those subsequent arrangements have now been set aside. One of the university groups has been broken up by this House. The University of London has been allowed to stand by itself without any restriction. That will leave the universities of the North of England with two members, and they will have to submit to the same sort of thing as is proposed for Oxford and Cambridge. As I have said, minority representation for other constituencies has gone. The only minority representation that is now left in the Bill is the case of only five constituencies. Four two-member university seats are to have proportional representation which is of a bastard kind, and which will discredit the system for ever if it is maintained in the Bill. The Scottish group is the one surviving constituency that is to have proportional representation for three members. The proposal is to load up this Franchise Bill for the whole nation by a small sectional proposal which gives proportional representation to one constituency and four others of a bastard type, when the ground for anything of the kind, a preponderance of one-sided representation, has been obviated by enacting new constituencies nearly three times the size of the old. I am not prepared to believe that this House would willingly put a slight upon the more ancient universities, but I would ask the House to reflect that the persons who are enfranchised by this new Bill are the men who are in the trenches. exercising their gift of the command of men, which they have learned at the universities, and doing medical, engineering, and other work in Palestine and Mesopotamia, and who, when they come back, after having saved the nation, so far as their share goes, will find that while they have been enfranchised by this House they have not been entrusted with the free exercise of that franchise. Why should they be thus restricted? Why should it be assumed that these people. who have won the commendation of the whole nation by the way in which they came forward at the beginning of the War in the nation's hour of need, will exercise their new franchise in such a one sided manner that it must be restricted,
    1828
    so that they shall have no real exercise of it at all, and so that the thing shall be decided between the political parties in the background?
    If it were a matter of continuing the university constituencies which now exist, I would have nothing to say. The reason was legitimate as regards those constituencies. It was necessary to have either a remedy in terms originally put in the Bill, or the remedy of remodelling the constituencies and increasing their size three-fold, but to put in both is, to my mind, to stultify the whole matter. I observe that in another place—I was not sorry to see it—that the number of the new universities to receive the franchise has been increased by the inclusion of the University of Wales. On the ground of the number of graduates the University of Wales has no claim to separate representation, but on the ground that Wales is a separate element in the life of the nation. and on the ground that in this crisis in our history the Principality has come to the fore and has done her share in the national defence, I should be very glad to see the University of Wales have separate representation in this House. I would. however, point out that it is proposed to rive the University of Cambridge, with an electorate of 16,000—the same applies to Oxford—two members with a restriction on voting so that the electors shall have no free choice at all. It is proposed to give the University of Wales, with an electorate of certainly not more than 2,000, a member with complete free choice of the electorate. There can be no comparison between those two cases. The only possible way to put the matter right is to give a free choice also to the older universities which have been represented in this House for so many centuries and which numerically preponderate three times. If the new universities are to have free voting for their members, why tic up the two ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the University of Dublin, so that their very much larger constituencies cannot have a free choice at all?
    The more ancient universities have even an Imperial mission. Their functions in the future will be to serve as the connecting links between the universities of the different outlying parts of the Empire. At this very moment negotiations are going on whereby the existing bonds between Oxford and Cambridge and the universities of Canada, South Africa, Australia, and even the universities of the United

    1829
    States will be strengthened. It is hoped that Oxford and Cambridge will take on a still newer lease of activity and become the post graduate schools which will link together all the higher educational institutions of the Empire. Universities have an influence far beyond what may possibly occur to Members of this House. I believe I am correct in saying that the present Chancellor of the German Empire was known internationally before he attained his present high office as the author of a standard book on John Locke and the Cambridge school of philosophers. If the universities of Cambridge and Oxford can thus extend their influence it is not for us to put them in a position inferior to that of the new universities. I think I have made out a very strong case for my proposition that the Conference assented to the restricted representation at the beginning, on the present franchise, bat that later on many other things came in. The universities did not protest because the borough constituencies were in the same boat. All that is now swept aside. Why, therefore, penalise a few constituencies whose electorate is so totally different from the past and so much more numerous that nobody can possibly predict what kind of political opinions they will represent in this House ten years hence.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: I should like to make clear to the House the exact position with regard to this Amendment. The Speaker's Conference recommended that in two-member universities no member should vote for more than one candidate, and, as I understand from my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel), and I accept his statement, it was upon that basis that the conference agreed to continue at all events the two - member universities. Those were the words which were put into the original Bill, but in Committee proposals were made for altering the form of the university vote. There was a long discussion, at which I am afraid T was not present, but I have obtained the report, and, as I under stand, the university Members, and especially the supporters of proportional representation, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts), instead of having the single vote for new universities, desired that there should be the single transferable vote. He and -others preferred that form.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The effect is the same.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am coming to that. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will deal with the matter quite fully think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln who moved that Amendment and the House, apparently without any dissent, accepted it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor) and others did suggest to me a little while ago that this was not a Conference decision, therefore that the matter might be left to the House. I promised at his request that. I would listen to what he had to say on that point before coming to any final decision. That is the reason why I did not move on this Amendment, but left it to others. I have looked through the Debate which occurred in this House when the change was made, and I cannot find that anybody thought that in making the change from the single vote to the single transferable vote any kind of principle was being given away. It seems to me that the change was made as a matter of convenience and agreed to by all parties. I am sure that those on the other side of the House who supported the change did not realise that they were in any sense endangering the position which they held under the decisions of Mr. Speaker's Conference. If that is so, and if it is a mere change for convenience and not of principle, it seems to me that in fairness we must deal with the matter as if this proposal had been recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference. In effect it was not, but in substance it is very much the same thing. More than that, I have no doubt that the effect as regards the return of members for the universities will be very much the same. I only wish to say that having proportional representation for two-member constituencies does not seem to me to be a very wise or sensible arrangement and on the merits I should not have supported it, but I feet that if I am right in my reading of the Debates and my construction of what occurred we are bound to give the same support to this provision as we should have given if the Bill had remained as originally introduced. I am very sorry that I feel bound to come to that conclusion. I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend has said in order to see if he could produce a different impression on my mind, but I must say I maintain my opinion. If I am making a mistake, I would rather make a mistake on the side of keeping a bargain than in the other direction. It,

    1831
    therefore, seems to me that I am bound, on behalf of the Government, to decline to accept the Lords Amendment and to vote against the Motion.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot for a moment find fault with the attitude which the Home Secretary has taken on behalf of himself and the Government. It is a chivalrous arid honourable attitude, and I do not for a moment say that they are not doing the right thing in taking that position. But having recovered a freedom which I have not enjoyed for many of the years I have sat in this House through being on one Front Bench or the other, I propose on this occasion to vote as a free man, and if the hon. Member for my university goes to a Division I shall support him. This is the last remnant of minority representation left in this Bill. It is really the reductio ad absurdum of the principle we rejected last night. You profess to give to a great constituency two members, with a certain knowledge that the result will be that that constituency expresses no opinion on any of the main political issues which divide the nation, unless there is a sudden overwhelming majority of thought in one direction, such as none of us can conceive to be likely. With the old university franchise there might have been something to be said even for that absurdity, but, now that the franchise has been extended as it has, extended by no longer requiring the payment of the higher fees which were necessary to qualify for the Master of Arts degree, extended even in the passage of the Bill through this House far beyond what Mr. Speaker's Conference had contemplated by the admission of women qualified by degrees or the equivalent—now that you have a. wide franchise of that kind, now that you are going, in addition, to enfranchise the newer universities, no one will pretend that there is any likelihood that the representation under this new system will all be of one party complexion. I cannot see any reason for introducing a special exemption and excrescence applied only to these great universities, nowhere else appearing throughout the Bill, and applying to them a system you apply to 110 other two-member constituencies and a principle which, when it was put forward as a principle, we rejected by a large majority last night.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Not, as applied to universities.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say we rejected the particular application, but we did reject the principle.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: We did not reject the principle altogether. We have never rejected the principle for the universities. It has always stood for them.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have rejected the principle every time there has been a Division, in spite of the persuasive arguments and great zeal of the hon. Member. There has been a rumour, or it has been suggested to me, that even now we may not have done with the question, and that either the arrangement we have already rejected or some other arrangement may yet come back to us from another place. If that be the case, and if this House should decide to-day that this principle of minority representation is to apply to two member seats, it will greatly facilitate a Motion I shall then have to make to bring certain particular two-member seats which I have in my mind within the purview of any system of proportional representation or the alternative vote which may be proposed.
    Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON: After the statement made by the Home Secretary there is not very much to say, and I should not have risen to speak at all had it not been that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) evidently thinks that we are to have a revision of this question. I regret very much that this matter has been raised at all. I have been very much astonished at the attitude which has been taken by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Larmor). I do not want to bring in any recrimination at this moment, but it must be clearly understood—and I cannot understand how he has come to any other conclusion—that when this question was before the Conference the question of the continuance of university representation as a whole was dealt with as a whole, and we decided to retain the peculiar representation of a university only upon the distinct understanding that the representation of two members from each of the two great universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be such that the two political parties, if one of them possessed at least one-third of the voting power, should be represented. That was perfectly clear. I really listened with great astonishment to the speech of the hon. Member with regard to that

    1833
    point. I am perfectly certain that no other member of the Conference would fail to bear me out in what I am saying now.
    Sir J. LARMOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the extension of university representation to the other newer universities came at a later stage?
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Yes, but I understood front the hon. Member's speech that there was not the agreement at the Conference to which reference has been made. I say that that agreement was absolutely essential. I am very glad that the Home Secretary has taken this view, because if fie did not take this view there must be an end to good faith in Parliamentary matters. I noticed that on several occasions the House of Lords have taken the attitude that it does not matter what the Conference said and that compromises do not affect them. After all, this compromise was based upon a mutual understanding. I am perfectly certain that a very large number of the Conference, I do not know about the majority, would have refused to have anything to do in any sort of way with the continuance of the representation of the universities unless those who represented the universities had agreed to these two compromises. I am very much astonished at what the hon. Member said, because when this matter came before the House on the. 9th August it is quite true we were discussing how it was to be adapted and applied—the hen. Member himself spoke and the Amendment was agreed to by this House without a Division. I cannot say whether I am or am not misrepresenting him, but I will read his words. He said:
    "The Clause which has been passed with reference to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge leaves the voting there in such a way that the Members of those three universities—I can speak myself for Cambridge, and my hon. Friend can speak for Dublin and I· know the view of the Member for Oxford—all wish to have an election of two members for each university conducted on the plan of proportional representation. Any other plan would be extremely inconveuient, while there would be all sorts of arrangement, that would be automatically avoided if this Amendment, with others, were adopted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th August, 1917. col. 695, Vol. XOVII.]
    I read his speech as meaning that he himself agreed that the representation of Oxford and Cambridge should allow of minority representation.
    Sir J. LARMOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain again? That was an Amendment on the text of the Bill, which said that in a two-member constituency- each elector should have one vote. We were discussing whether the
    1834
    text should stand as it was, and whether each elector, having only one vote, the surplus of votes of a successful candidate should be transferable to the next candidate. I had an Amendment of my own on the Paper to make it possible to transfer the surplus of votes for one candidate to the next candidate. That was an Amendment to the Clause as it appeared in the Bill, which provided that a person was to have one vote and to express no other preference at all. I said that if the Clause rested as it was it would be extremely inconvenient, and when the advocates of proportional representation got in a prior Amendment, which said that proportional representation was to apply, I recognised that that was practically the same as the one of which I had given notice, which was to modify the Clause in the Bill, so that the extreme inconvenience of arranging beforehand that no candidate should have too many votes, and thereby imperil his colleague, should be got rid of.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I do not wish to follow this too far. All I say is that my hon. Friend has sat still until now on the main principle. He has not, as I understand, raised this objection to the principle of applying proportional representation to the two-member constituencies of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge for the simple reason that he assented to it as part of the compromise in the Speaker's Conference. He has assented to it, as far as I know, up to the present moment, when the House of Lords has said, "It does not matter what the compromise was. It does not matter upon what terms you obtained it, we are going to deal with the whole thing." That is the position we are brought into. I very much appreciate the action of the Government, because I think they are really doing the only thing that is fair and square in this matter; and with regard to the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), whatever may be our views on proportional representation in ordinary elections by ordinary electors, it does not apply to the position of universities. The only reason why some of us would assent to university representation being continued is that it affords an opportunity for bringing into this House men of high educational and scientific attainments and a particular grade of man, like my hon. Friend opposite, whom we welcome in this House. But to leave the universities as they are at present, in a position in which they can

    1835
    return two members of one particular party, is to condemn the whole system of university representation, and that is the real reason why we press for this difference with regard to Oxford and Cambridge. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) would not challenge the matter at all and would let it go through, as it was a perfectly clear, open understanding at the Conference, clearly understood in this House, which the House agreed to without Division, and is only challenged now by a very small number of Lords voting in another place.
    Mr. HEMMERE: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member for Cambridge. University means by his proposal, but I am still more puzzled at the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain). He described himself to-day as a free-lance. I was under the impression that he was a member of the Government at the time when this Bill was first brought in, and that the Government determined that this Bill should be brought in. on a certain basis. I hold in my hand the Report of the Speaker's Conference, and in the light of what we have been told by the hon. Member behind me it makes rather remarkable reading. He says because we have altered the electorate since we made these arrangements there must be some rearrangement of the number of votes given to each member, but according to the very words here, when this arrangement was made about the one vote for each candidate, a widening of the electorate was actually contemplated:
    "The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge shall continue to return two members each, the electorate shall be widened, and, in order to secure a proper representation of minorities, each voter shall be allowed to vote for one candidate only."
    Upon that statement and that honourable agreement I supported university representation, which I have always opposed and which I absolutely detest. I believe there are hundreds of Members in this House who have all through supported the conpromise arrangement of university representation although they and their leaders for a good many years have been consistently against university representation at all. I agree with the Home Secretary, who has consistently in all these matters treated us with the greatest possible fairness, that the Government has simplified the matter, hut I really cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) can consider that his
    1836
    hands are not tied either. I think he has got the question of proportional representation for the moment rather on his mind as he sees something here equivalent to what we were discussing yesterday about the division of Birmingham into constituencies of four members each. The compromise should be honourably carried out and we should stick to it throughout.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to make an appeal to my hon. Friends who are moving the Amendment. I am sure those members of the Speaker's Conference who found the greatest difficulty in accepting university representation have done so on the understanding quite loyally, and have defended in this House and outside it the retention of university representation. After what the Government has said, we all know what the result of a Division will be. It would surely be more helpful to the cordial acceptance of this Bill, which is in essence a compromise, if this point, taken so lately alter the unanimous decision of the House, were not pressed at present, and I earnestly appeal to them not to press it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out Sub-section (3).—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "or of the alternative."—Disagreed with.
    Ordered, "That the consideration of the remaining Lords Amendments be postponed until after the consideration of the postponed Amendments."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Lords Amendments to Clauses I to 18 [consideration postponed, 30 th January] considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Parliamentary Franchises (Men).)
    (1) A man shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and—

    (a) has the requisite residence qualification; or

    (b) has the requisite business premises qualification.

    (2) A man, in order to have the requisite residence qualification or business premises qualification for a. constituency—

    (a) must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the

    1837
    constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency as the case may be; and

    (b) must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises, or occupied business premises, as the case may be, in the constituency, or in another constituency within the same Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county, or separated from that borough or county by water, not exceeding at the nearest point six miles in breadth:

    Provided that—

    (a) a man, though he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to reside there within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside;

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

    (c) for the purposes of this Sub-section the administrative county of London shall be treated as a Parliamentary borough.

    (3) The expression "business premises" in this Section means land or other premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade of the person to be registered.

    Where business premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, and the aggregate yearly value of the premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying business premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds:
    Provided that in a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being
    1838
    such joint occupiers, shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises unless they are bond fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Subsection (2), paragraph (a), leave out the words "on the last day," and insert instead thereof the words "during the last fourteen days"; leave out the word "be" ["be residing in premises"], and insert instead thereof the words "have been."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This will revive the memories which we all have of the Debates in this House on the swallow voter. The Bill provides that in order to qualify by residence a voter must, on the last day of the qualifying period, be residing in the constituency, and must have qualified by residence in the constituency or an adjoining constituency during the six months. Objection was taken to that provision on the ground that you might have voters coming into the division a day or two before the end of the qualifying period from some adjoining constituency so as possibly to affect the result of the election. I think my lion. Friend (Mr. R. McNeill) moved that there should be a residence, instead of one day, of thirty days. That was debated, and in the end a suggestion was adopted to insert proviso (a), which disqualified a man wee commenced to reside within the last thirty days of the qualifying period if he ceased to reside within thirty days after he came into the division. I was never quite satisfied with that, because I thought it would put difficulties in the way of registration and necessitate a number of objections. The point was raised in another place, where a decision was come to which seems to me to be a not unfair compromise. They proposed to require a residence, not of thirty, but of fourteen days—the last fourteen days of the qualifying period—coupled, of course, with the other qualification of a residence in the same division or some adjoining division during the whole of the qualifying period of six months. If that Amendment is adopted, we shall have a much simpler electoral law. There may he objections, which I shall be very glad to listen to, but this is a fair and reason-

    1839
    able compromise on a somewhat difficult question, and I suggest that the House should agree to it.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I am very sorry the House of Lords has made this change and the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to accept it. Most of us remember the difficulty of the point before the House. The whole question was how we could preserve the voting right of men who bonâ fide moved from one house to another in adjoining constituencies, and I think the House was quite unanimous in desiring to make that effective. The Bill as originally brought in provided that everyone who was in residence on 15th January should be counted if he had moved from somewhere else any time during the last six months. He could come into his new residence at any moment or a single day before the qualifying clay. By that means you continued the enfranchisement of every man who was qualified and who would only be disqualified by moving his abode. When this came before the Committee a question was raised about the swallow voter, and the House took a very serious view of the swallow voter, much more serious than I have taken, because I do not believe that in England it is a very serious matter, and we discussed how you could prevent people being brought into a constituency at the last moment to swell the majority and then go away. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that the best way to do it was to say that anyone who arrived in a new constituency thirty days before the date of registration should be entitled to be registered unless he departed within thirty days from the time he arrived. That was the test. He was to stay for thirty days. But we were very anxious in doing that not to disfranchise the bonâ fide people who conic in permanently. The Lords Amendment disfranchises these people. Anyone, however bonâ fide he may be, if he happens to move his house within fourteen days prior to the 15th January becomes disfranchised, and cannot get on the register for another six months. I said, when we were discussing this matter before, that I thought it would affect a good many people. I understand that it affects a great many people. In fact, I have been told since then what I did not know before, that there are parts of the country where the ordinary quarter day is the 6th January. I am told on good authority that in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cam-
    1840
    bridgeshire, Lincolnshire, and Huntingdonshire, the ordinary person moves his house on the 6th January. If that is so, in all these places anyone who moves his house on the 6th January, although he may have been a voter for years before, will lose his vote, the only reason being that certain people are afraid of the swallow voter. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has been made aware of that fact. From the party point of view I may say that I am much more afraid of the swallow voter than anybody else, because if he is going to he made use of I do not think it is our party that will make use of him. I anticipate that if there is such a thing as a swallow voter it will not be on our side. However that may be, the solution in the Bill was a fair solution. The test of the swallow voter is whether he stays in the place thirty days or not. Having administered that test that is all we are entitled to do. I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this point, because it really is not fair that a bonâ fide person who has had a qualification for years should be disfranchised because he happens to move at this particular time of the year. I am sorry to have to object to this, but I earnestly hope the Home Secretary will reconsider it, because I do not think the House of Lords really appreciated the point. I listened to a good many of the discussions in the House of Lords, and I do not think they showed as much knowledge of the law of registration as the Home Secretary has shown throughout the whole of these proceedings. I do not think they fully appreciated what they were doing in regard to disfranchisement and the little good the Amendment will be in preventing the swallow voter.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing regret that the Lords have introduced this Amendment. I am not here to take small points against the Government on this Bill. It is a large Bill and it gives large rights, and if this was a small point I would not dream of raising it; but it is not a small point, it is a very large point. If there was one matter in the whole compass of the Bill with which the other House should have abstained from interfering, it was this point, because it is highly technical and one with which necessarily the average Member of the House must be unacquainted, although he may be highly qualified in other respects. It is very easy to make a primâ facie case

    1841
    for the Amendment, but when you come to examine it with knowledge it is perfectly plain that there is absolutely no foundation for this change. It is an Amendment which will affect about 200 constituencies. Take a constituency like the Tower Hamlets. Hitherto a voter could move his residence within the qualifying period, and so long as he remained within the borough he did not lose his vote. It sounds a strange thing to say that one night or one day's qualification will qualify for a constituency, but it is a survival of the state of things which existed when the whole of the Tower Hamlets was one borough. Take the case of Manchester or Liverpool. Hitherto, ever since those great centres of population returned Members of Parliament it was the right of any person living there to change their residence from place to place with impunity at any time within the twelve months, and he did not lose his franchise. Now the House of Lords say that in certain cases if a man crosses the street in a particular fortnight he loses his vote for six months. Is that reasonable? It seems impossible that anybody who understands this question, and who approaches it with a real knowledge of the subject, can submit to such a state of things.
    If what my right hon. Friend said is true, this particular fortnight in some constituencies is a very critical fortnight which involves large changes owing to the quarter-day falling within it, and it would be a monstrous thing that any person changing his residence within that period should lose his vote. Taking the case generally, a working man in order to follow his work may be compelled to change his residence. He may cross the street in one case and suffer no harm, but if he crosses the street in another case, and in so doing crosses the boundary of another constituency, a perfectly arbitrary boundary, he loses his vote. Even if that only happened in one case it is a case which ought to be prevented. This House has always recognised the principle that a change of residence within a particular area, no matter how close to the qualifying day, was not to constitute a disqualification. Now for the first time in our electoral history since there has been an occupation vote, the House of Lords, through want of knowledge of the subject, put in this proposal because of the alleged swallow voter. It is a perfectly preposterous idea that a party agent could by
    1842
    merely lifting his hand forthwith get voters to migrate from one place to another in order to please him. Such an idea could only exist in a nightmare. It does not happen in England, and it does not happen in Ireland; but because of this visionary idea the House of Lords insert an Amendment which has the effect of saying that if a workman changes his residence within a particular fortnight he must come off the register. The result of this Amendment. will be wholesale disfranchisement by this great enfranchisement. Act.
    I hope the House will not support the other House in this proposal. It will be nothing less than a scandal and an outrage if at this time of day the Legislature declares that the workman is to lose his vote because he changes his residence. At the Speaker's Conference our efforts were directed to enlarging the area within which change of residence could be effected safely without disfranchisement, and, accordingly, the Bill as it left this House did enlarge the area within which the elector might change his residence. The whole scheme of this Bill is an enfranchising Bill, and yet at this stage we are faced with this monstrous proposal. In the Clause as it left this House the Government were driven to agree by fair argument. Now, because the swallow voter has been suggested to them, the Lords ask us to agree that this great enfranchising Bill shall be turned into an enormous disfranchising Bill.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether lie will not abandon this suggestion to agree with the Lords in the Amendment. This goes further in breaking up the agreed results of the Speaker's Conference than my right hon. Friend realises. In that Conference our attention was called repeatedly to the fact that in all the great urban centres of population, in London, South-East Lancashire, on the Tyne, and on the Clyde, disfranchisement resulted from the fact that if a man moves from one side of the street to another his previous occupation did not count. The Speaker's Conference went into that matter with great length and with great care, and there was no difference of opinion upon this point when their Report came before this House. At the present moment a man in Liverpool can vote in any part of Liverpool if he changes his residence at any time in the year, providing he has been in occupation before. The same thing applies to Man-

    1843
    chester, and those of us who represent constituencies in South-East Lancashire know what a real grievance it has been that while a man in pursuit of work can move from one part of Manchester to another, another man cannot move without risking his vote. Our desire was to meet the situation, but it will not have been met if this Amendment is carried. I cannot think the President of the Local Government Board really desires that there should be reintroduced, I will not say wantonly, but, at any rate, at the last moment, the very thing which will give rise to grievances in many parts of England and Scotland. One of the things which commended this Bill to the working men in the districts which have been referred to was that it got rid of those unfairnesses which it is now proposed to put back, and you will have men disfranchised who ought not to be so. That is not the way to commend a great Reform Bill to the public. You ought not to disfranchise large numbers of men who have no chance of having a second vote in any form whatever, but this you will do in the boundaries of places like Liverpool, Manchester and Bradford, if you agree to this Amendment. Does the Government realise the difficulty as to the actual working quarter day in different parts of the country I am quite sure that they do not mean that people who move on the 6th January are to be placed at a disadvantage compared with people who move on the ordinary quarter days in March or September. Will not the Government disagree with the Lords on this matter? If any further safeguard is wanted it ought to be capable of being put in without either involving the loss of the franchise to thousands of people who have got it now or taking away a portion of the new franchise rights recommended by common consent at the Speaker's Conference and not seriously questioned in this House.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I would like to associate myself with what has just fallen from my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Ryland Adkins) who has spoken with reference to England, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) who has dealt with the case of Ireland. I Would like to associate the case of Scotland with their cases. It would be monstrous if at this stage a Bill which is intended to be an enfranchising Bill were to undergo a change which would in effect disfranchise a large number of working
    1844
    men, because they have moved at some particular time. I submit to the House that the Clause ought to be left as it stood when we parted with the Bill. I am surprised that the Government should even. dally with an Amendment of this character; but if they really look with favour on it, I would suggest that they supplement it by some such proposal as this, that if a working man in moving is not to get his vote in his new constituency, he should at least be secured the vote in his former constituency until he has had time to obtain a qualification in the new constituency. I hope that on further consideration the Government may see their way to adopt a different attitude. If I had the opportunity I would make a strong appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, but in his absence I do earnestly urge the Home Secretary to associate the case of Scotland with that of England and Ireland and to meet our views on this question.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I am not going to depart from the position taken up by this House in regard to this matter when we dealt with it in Committee. There were very few points gone into more thoroughly than this, winch has regard to the effect that these words would have in disfranchising a large portion of the industrial population of the country. I really for the life of me cannot understand what reason there can be for the change which has been made. We all of us in the best spirit have gone through this measure earnestly and anxiously, and one of the main principles upon which we have acted has been that the largest possible number of persons duly qualified shall be put on the register. We ask the Government to adhere to that position on the present occasion. I do not want to argue the question over again. It was pointed out in Committee what the effect would be if at the end of a period of removal you allowed a large number of the industrial classes to be disfranchised. I do most sincerely appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to let the measure be put on the Statute Book as it was when it left this House.
    Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: I also desire to appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the view he has placed before the House in the light of what has fallen from those who have spoken on this point. It is not a question which has any party interest one way or the other. Every one

    1845
    of us who has had experience of electioneering knows how acute the dissatisfaction is and what irritation is caused when people lose their votes accidentally. I did not appreciate how many people were likely to be affected in many parts of the country by the difference in quarterday customs. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dundas WHITE) has referred to the case of Scotland, and I agree with him that the difficulty likely to be caused by this alteration is very much increased in the case of Scotland by recent legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) will, I am sure, agree that that is so. It seems to me quite gratuitous irritation will be caused to a lot of people who will be automatically affected in many constituencies. I was surprised to find how many constituencies there are in which the old quarter days, the 6th of January and the 6th July, are practically unanimously observed. They include Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and Lincolnshire, and the custom is partly observed in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Yorkshire. These are places where a large number of people will be automatically disfranchised through pursuing the ordinary course of moving at the quarter day, which is the custom in their district. I am sure my right hon. Friend does not desire anything of the kind, and I trust that, in view of the opinions which have been so universally expressed to-night, he will see his way to disagree. with this Amendment, which deals with one of the matters in which Members of the House of Commons who are accustomed to electioneering are much better judges than the Noble Lord in another place
    Sir G. CAVE: I am quite sure that this Amendment was proposed in the other House without the least desire to disfranchise anyone. The only wish was to apply some convenient form in substitution of the thirty days' residence. I quite realise from the speeches that have been made that there is a bonâ fide apprehension in the minds of many hon. Members that the effect may he to lose some people their votes. We have not the least desire to do that, and therefore I shall be prepared to withdraw my Motion, it being understood, of course, that we shall have to restore the thirty days' Clause when we come to the proper point.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.
    1846
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (2, b), leave out the words, "within the same Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county or separated from that borough or county," and insert instead thereof the words, "contiguous thereto or separated therefrom."—Disagreed with.
    At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words "measured in the case of tidal water from low water mark."—Agreed to.
    Leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).—Agreed to.
    In paragraph (c), leave out the words. "parliamentary borough" and insert instead thereof the words "single constituency."—Disagreed with.
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words from "where business premises" to "business in the premises" inclusive.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the, said Amendment."
    This raises a very instructive but somewhat difficult point, but I think this is the right place at which to raise it. The Speaker's Conference decided, under the heading of reform franchise in Clause 9, paragraph (b), that for the purposes of this resolution no change should be made in the law relating to the joint occupation of business premises. There are many cases among the professional classes of joint occupation which entitle to a vote. Doctors share premises at which they see their patients not necessarily on the same day or at the same hour. Barristers not only in London, but in other large cities, have a system of joint occupation.
    Sir G. CAVE: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend? This is a mere Amendment to transfer words to another part of the Bill. We are omitting them here with a view to introducing them in. another place.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I asked if it were necessary to raise it here. My point is this. As the Clause left the Lords it does not contain the original words, and it now applies both to boroughs and to counties. The point is raised now because it is sought to leave out words which safeguard the rights of borough voters, and if those words are struck out and it is determined that they should he struck out at this point, the Amendment which I have put down is necessary.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir G. CAVE: On a point of Order. Would it not he open to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Pollock) when we come to Clause A, to move the insertion of these words. I am not asking the House to omit these words here on a point of principle, but in order to rearrange the Bill, and I submit that when we come to Clause A the words he desires to add might be reinserted.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it is really understood that it is a matter of drafting here, and of transposing words from one place to another in the Bill, I think perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Pollock) would move his words then.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I am quite content with that.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(University Franchise (Men).)
    A man shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a university constituency if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and has received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at any university forming, or forming part of, the constituency, or in the case of the Scottish universities is qualified under Section Twenty-seven of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868.
    Lords Amendment: At the end of Clause insert the words "or in the case of the University of Dublin has either received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at the university or has obtained a scholarship or fellowship in the university, whether before or after the passing of this Act."
    Sir G. GAVE: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House will remember that in the ease of the Scottish universities we have preserved special qualifications that were conferred by the Act of 1868. It was pointed out in another place that the effect of the Bill might be to abolish certain qualifications for voting in the University of Dublin. We do not desire to make a change of that character, and therefore these words are proposed to be inserted.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Local Government Franchise (Men).)
    A man shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and—

    (a) is on the last day of the qualifying period occupying jointly or severally, as owner or tenant, any land or premises in that area; and

    (b) has, during the whole of the qualifying period, so occupied any land or premises in that area, or, if that area is not an administrative county or a county borough, in the administrative county or county borough in which the area is wholly or partly situate:

    Provided that—

    (i) for the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, shall be deemed to be a tenant;

    (ii)for the purposes of this Section the word tenant shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms arc let to him in an unfurnished state;

    (iii)a man, though he may have been occupying land or premises in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if he commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to occupy them within thirty days after the commencement of his occupation;

    (iv) the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Section by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for a Dart of the qualifying period not. exceeding four months in the whole, or by reason only of notice to quite being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house; and

    1849

    (v) not more than two persons shall be entitled to be registered as joint occupiers in respect of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners, carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises.

    Lords Amendments:
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words "is on the last day," and insert instead thereof the words "has during the last fourteen days."—Disagreed with
    Leave out the word "occupying," and insert instead thereof the word "occupied."—Disagreed with.
    have out provisos (iii), (iv), and (v).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir E. POLLOCK: This also must be accepted formally, and not as a matter of principle, to safeguard my rights.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Franchises (Women).)
    (1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she—

    (a) has attained the age of thirty years; and

    (b)is not subject to any legal incapacity; and

    (c)is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered.

    (2) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a university constituency if she has attained the age of thirty years and would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man.

    (3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man; or where she is the wife of a man who is entitled to be so registered in respect of premises, in which they both reside, and she has attained the age of thirty years.

    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1, c), after the word "occupation," insert the words "in that constituency."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That tins House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Is this not proportional representation?
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: it is merely transposing the words.
    Sir G. CAVE: This and the next Amendment run together for the purpose of drafting, and I do not know whether any objection is raised to it. At present I move to agree with the Lords.
    Mr. M. HEALY: As the right hon. Gentleman says this involves the next Amendment, I shall be glad to get an explanation of the next Amendment. As I understand it, the consequences will go a meat deal further than he may suppose, because it introduces for the first time the word "dwelling-house." Hitherto the word "dwelling-house" has not been introduced, and no definition has been necessary, but if you once introduce the word "dwelling-house" we are back again at the Act of 1867 and the question of whether part of a dwelling-house is a dwelling-house. I apprehend that there will be very few of us who would be content to let the word "dwelling-house" be introduced in this way without, at any rate, qualifying it in the way in which it was qualified by the Act of 1867, when part of a dwelling-house separately occupied was deemed to be a dwelling-house. In the first place, this disfranchises a woman who occupies part of a dwelling-house.
    Sir W. DICKINSONindicated dissent.
    Mr. HEALY: I am glad my right hon. Friend disagrees with me, but I think this is a, most formidable objection to this Amendment and one which requires explanation. This Bill will entirely get rid of the existing Code of the Franchise. [HON. MEMBERS "Page 26."] Well, that meets the first part of my objection, that as regards a dwelling-house this would really make a distinction.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is not "dwelling-house" confined to that Section?
    Mr. HEALY: I think the House will see that this is a matter of great importance,

    1851
    and will not blame me if I am somewhat insistent about it. I thought I was right in saying that the Act contains no different definition of "dwelling-house," and the reference of my hon. Friend, instead of giving an answer to me, is a corroboration of what I say. That definition is in the Scottish Clause; and why was it introduced in the Scottish Clause? Because the Scottish Members most foolishly want a special lodger qualification, and, because they want that special lodger qualification, they have revived for themselves the old tangle created by the Act of 1867 and all the difficulties with which we have been familiar.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am quite in agreement -with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and if he will move to put in the words "part of a dwelling-house," I will accept them.
    Mr. HEALY: I have not the slightest doubt that if we agree to admit this word "dwelling-house" we shall have to have a definition for England and Ireland of the word "dwelling-house," just as Scotland has had to do by reviving the lodger franchise and bringing in the old definition of dwelling-house. I confess that, according to my view, one of the advantages of this Bill was that it got rid of all that class of matter, of what was a dwelling-house and what was not. I suppose since the Act of 1867 was passed there must have been a thousand cases gone to the High Courts of the three countries on this question of what a dwelling-house was, what was assumed to be a dwelling-house, and what construction was to be put on the word. My view of the matter was that it was one of the great advantages this Bill gave us that it got rid of all that tangle, and now when the Scottish Members—
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Might I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that on page 12 of these Amendments it says
    The expression 'dwelling-house' includes any part of a house where that part is occupied separately as a dwelling-house."
    I think that applies to this Section.
    Mr. HEALY: Of course, I am taking the Bill as it stands, and here we have not the word "dwelling-house." That is to me a blessed relief, and I do not regard it as a benefit to introduce the word even in the definition. We shall have all the
    1852
    old difficulties now for the purpose of the female franchise, and we cannot regard that as a good thing. To tell me that you are going to bring back the definition of a dwelling-house is to me an abominable thing. Since the word got into our Acts in 1867 there has not been a year since in which there has not been this litigation.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Might I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the word "dwelling-house" appeared in the Bill as it left this House?
    Mr. HEALY: I am aware of that in connection with what is called the service franchise. I was very reluctant to let it in, and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it was let in undefined. I do hope that we shall hesitate before bringing back upon our heads all the old class of case which has produced this terrible litigation.
    Take the case of the latch key. It is not six years since that went three times to the English Court of Appeal—whether you want a latch key or not in order to have a separate dwelling-house. Are you to have all that over again? That I gather is what is proposed, and I regard it with apprehension and dismay. We have got rid of it for male suffrage, and we should not vote for it for the purpose of female suffrage if this old tangle as to what was and what was not a dwelling-house is to be brought back. The only object of this is to create a property franchise in reference to land. Why should we have a property franchise? Is it to be laid down that a woman of means is to have a vote while the poor woman is not to have one? That was the rock upon which the Conciliation Bill split. In other words, for the whole of the local government franchise and for the Parliamentary franchise, in the case of women, we are creating this new aristocracy among the female voters. We discussed this matter fully in Committee. A Motion was made that no one was to be qualified out of land unless he had a valuation. That was negatived in the case of men. Why is it to be the law now in the case of women? There is no ground for it. In Ireland it would work very unfairly. There are a great many small holders whose votes would be affected by it. Over great parts of Ulster there are many female occupiers on whom this Bill, as it left the House of Commons, conferred a vote, and who would be deprived of the vote because they have

    1853
    not a £5 franchise. The proposal is contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill. It is bad in itself, and it is doubly bad because it brings back the whole terrible tangle of what is a house, whether a latch key is necessary, whether your landlord must live on the premises. In one of the cases in Ireland a poor man lost his vote because another poor man, in order to get to his own room, had to cross his room. The House should know what it is voting in this matter, and we should have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. D. WHITE: As these two Amendments appear to be bound up with one another, I would reinforce the appeal of my hon. and learned Friend for an explanation of what is proposed to be done. I am not clear as to what is the object of bringing in this £5 limit to which we did not assent on a previous occasion. It adds to the complication of what this House has tried to make a comparatively simple matter. Under the sub-Clause referred to, dealing with franchise for women, a woman is entitled to the franchise if she is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in the constituency, or as the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered. These words seem to be plain enough, but, if you bring in this Amendment, you bring in a £5 limitation in the case of land or premises but not in the case of a dwelling-house, and so it qualifies the man for local government enfranchisement in respect of land or premises of somewhat less than the value of £5, and, as I gather, the result then would be that though a man would have a vote, his wife would not have a vote, and if the lady had land or premises of less than £5 she would not have the vote which she would have if they were over £5. This seems to bring in a new property qualification, and a property qualification of a character which threatens to make something which is of necessity fairly complicated a great deal more complicated still.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I think that the House of Lords in putting in this Amendment desired, as the sole purpose, to prevent women voters in respect of occupation of land being made on a very large scale, a thing which could very easily be done by
    1854
    taking some small allotment and sharing that allotment out among a great many women. The allotment might not be of any considerable value, and might not be obtained for the purpose of cultivation as an allotment, but for the sole purpose of making it the means or channel by which votes might be obtained. There was some apprehension expressed in this House when we were taking this point, and certainly on one occasion, and I think on more than one occasion, there was a suggestion to put a limitation on the value of land which would qualify a woman for a Parliamentary vote. I would point out that it is quite possible that a small piece of land might be acquired and divided into allotments, with the object of manufacturing votes for the Parliamentary franchise. None of us desires that. We all of us desire to grant the franchise, but that does not mean that votes should be obtained by someone purchasing a piece of land of no high value and separating it into small allotments in order to create votes. This Amendment proposed by the House of Lords is to limit the value of the land and dwelling-house, and it is not contemplated that there should be an occupation of an allotment which has not a dwelling-house.
    Mr. WHITE: It should be "buildings," and not "dwellings."
    Mr. FISHER: It should be "dwelling-house." The point raised by this Amendment gave rise to a good deal of feeling. I may state that we, also, desire to stop faggot votes, and so far as the Amendment achieves that object, I think we ought to agree to it.
    Mr. WHITE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the £5 limit is rather high, and that the limit should be reduced to £3?
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot very well alter the Amendment. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to come to an agreement with another place, and I think £5, after all, has a good deal to be said for it. We find that figure in more than one statutory example, and I do rot know of any example of less than £5.
    Lords Amendment agreed to. Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph (c), leave out the words "in that constituency," and insert in-

    1855
    stead thereof the words "(not being a dwelling-house of a yearly value of not less than five pounds or of a dwelling-house").—Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "and" ["years and would"], insert the word "either."
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a drafting Amendment and is associated with the Amendment following, which is also a drafting Amendment, but relates to an important point which was much debated in this House. It relates to women who are qualified at Oxford and Cambridge Universities and who desire to have the vote under the university franchise. There was a good deal of feeling expressed in the House, and I thoroughly shared it in regard to this subject. It would have been most disappointing that while men, after all the examinations to qualify and by residence for degrees at Oxford and Cambridge get the degrees, yet degrees are refused to women, how ever well qualified by examinations, and there was a good deal of disappointment, for they felt that they would never find themselves on the roll of the universities. I promised that T would communicate with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to see whether some means could not be found by which those women who were highly qualified for the vote might be put upon the register in those two ancient universities, and thus find themselves on the roll of electors. A good deal of correspondence took place, and I think it was largely owing to the fact that the attention of those who are responsible for the government of Oxford and Cambridge was called to the Debate in this House, where some very strong opinions were expressed in regard to the matter, that the authorities of the two universities consented to support an Amendment put down in another place, by which women would be permitted to obtain the vote if duly qualified. This Amendment proposed by the Lords carries out that object, and I hope it will have the unanimous approval of the House.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the success of his efforts, and to thank him for the steps he has taken to remove ·what was a flagrant injustice to women.
    Lords Amendment:
    At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words "or has been admitted to and passed the final examination, and kept under the conditions required of women by the university the period of residence, necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any university forming or forming part of a university constituency which did not at the time the examination was passed admit women to degrees."—Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "or" ["or where she is the wife"], and insert instead thereof' the words "and (b)."
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I want to draw attention to the fact that if this Amendment be adopted there would be no paragraph (a). I think we ought to have a paragraph (a), and apparently neither this House nor the other has thought of it. I propose to put in the paragraph after the word "area" ["electoral area"] and to insert (a)."
    Mr. FISHER: I think my right hon. Friend is right, and that "(a)" ought to come in before the word "where," and then (b).
    Sir W. DICKINSON: With my Amendment the Clause would read—"A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area," and after "area" I propose to insert "(a)," and it would go on "where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man, or (b) where she is the wife of a man who is entitled to be so registered," and so forth.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must have the Amendment before me.
    Mr. SAMUELThere is a prior point that arises. It is proposed at the end of the Sub-section to insert the words "and is not subject to any legal incapacity." If we have the paragraphs (a) and (b) and leave these words in at the end they would only apply to paragraph (b). Therefore, under paragraph (a) a woman would be entitled to be registered although she might be subject to any legal incapacity.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I have discussed that very position with the draftsman, and he holds the view that it is only necessary to insert the words in the place proposed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "area," insert "(a)."—[Sir W. Dickinson.]
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "or" ["or where"], and insert instead thereof "and (b)."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. HEALY: I think the word should be "or," as otherwise there is some risk that both branches of the Clause will not be included.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I differ from my hon. Friend for this reason, that a woman is entitled to be registered in certain cases, and by the introduction of the second "where "you read the two paragraphs (a) and (b) disjunctively, and those cover the cases in which the vote is given. I think my hon. Friend will see that the Clause carries out what is desired.
    Lords Amendments:
    At the end of the Clause, insert the words "and is not subject to any legal incapacity."—Agreed to.
    For the purpose of this provision, a naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a residence qualification which he would have had but for his service, shall be deemed to be resident in accordance with the qualification.—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (3) (i), leave out the words "or military" ["or military forces"], and insert instead thereof the words "military or air."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Special Provisions for Persona Serving on War Service.)
    (3) This Section applies to any person who is of the age required under this Act in the case of that person and is not subject to any legal incapacity, and who—

    (i) is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown; or

    (ii) is abroad or afloat in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, and is engaged, and is—

    1858

    (a) in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of moneys provided by Parliament; or

    (b) serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object.

    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (3, ii, a), after the word "Parliament" ["provided by Parliament."], insert the words,
    "or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions or in service as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such ship or boat."
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is in two separate portions, one of which is designed to include Dominion soldiers, and the second part to bring in merchant seamen.
    Mr. SAMUEL: This raises a point of very considerable substance and importance which seems to have been overlooked in another place. It is a proposal to insert that any person shall have the military or naval vote who has received payment not only out of moneys provided by Parliament, but also out of public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions. I should like to know why those words have been put in. We, of course, have every reason for appreciation and gratitude for all the soldiers who have been sent to the assistance of the Empire in this War from other parts of His Majesty's Dominions. But mark what would be the effect of this Clause if inserted in this form! I ask the special attention of the House to the matter, because it is one of importance and gives rise to some very surprising results. Any Canadian battalion which has been here for six months will be enfranchised under the Bill as it stood. That is, perhaps, rather a surprising thing, but still the effect of the residence qualification is that any person who has lived anywhere for six months in this country and who is a British subject—as, of course, they are—will have the vote. However, that would not very much matter, because in all probability when the election comes they will have moved elsewhere. Now

    1859
    they are brought in as naval and military voters, and consequently will be enfranchised from the age of nineteen, and they will have the postal vote if within reach of the post at election time, and, if not, they will have the proxy vote. So that any portion of the Canadian or New Zealand or South African Army or any of our Indian forces or subjects from Africa or anywhere else who have lived in this country for six months for the purposes of training during the War will not only be put on the register for the purpose of voting, but will have ballot papers sent to them in France, or be called upon to appoint proxies if in different parts, and will have to vote apparently for the constituency in which they carried out their training. Surely that is not what is intended by either the Government or by those who inserted this Amendment in the other House. It may be said that there are comparatively few who would have been here so long as six months. I do not know whether that is so or not, but it is generally supposed that there is one Canadian division which has been here for a prolonged period. I do not know whether it is still here or not. I would like to ask the representatives of the Government how this matter stands, and whether I am wrong in thinking that the somewhat surprising result which I have sketched will really follow from the acceptance of the Amendment?
    Mr. FISHER: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right that the effect of this will be that all those who obtain money out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions will, by this Amendment, be entitled to the vote, and I think it would include a large number serving here at the present time. I am not sure that I should object, on merits, if these soldiers were residing, and are residing, in this country for some considerable period, to their being on the register and taking part in the political life of this country.
    Mr. HEALY: They would also have the vote in Canada.
    Mr. FISHER: They would, to that extent, be double voters.
    Mr. SAMUEL: If any of our soldiers were quartered in Canada for six months' training, should we expect the Canadian Government to enfranchise them for the election for the Dominion Parliament?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not sure they would not be enfranchised if quartered there for that period. I rather think they would be. As a matter of fact, it would work out in this way. If British soldiers were quartered in Canada for a year, and if they did obtain votes for an election for the Canadian Parliament, that would cease to operate, because probably at the end of the year they would return to their own country; similarly, after this War, we can hardly expect that any large number of Dominion troops will be stationed in this country. If they attain the qualification in the usual way, why should they not have the vote?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My point is that they are here for training, and when they leave they will be given proxy votes by this Clause.
    Mr. FISHER: I think if this Amendment is accepted they will probably be enfranchised. They will be placed on the same footing as the British soldier. While I have not had the opportunity of hearing the discussion in another place, or of hearing it discussed in this House, again on merits I can perceive there will be no grave objection to including men who are stationed here, say, for six months, amongst those who will elect our Parliament. That is a matter on which, perhaps, there may be a considerable difference of opinion. My own opinion would be that they would be well qualified, and rightly qualified, to take part in the next election. After that election they would probably nearly all return to their own country—all except a very few who are going to make their permanent home here. We must recollect that the whole of this operation of the franchise is almost dominated by war considerations. The next register will be made up on absolutely different lines from any register that has ever been made up before. It will be made up with a view to putting on the register as many as possible soldiers and sailors who have any reasonable claim to be put on, and if any Dominion soldiers and sailors should find themselves on the register because they had been quartered here, say, for six months, and are still residing here when an election takes place, or if a proxy vote has to be sent to them, I do not think we should be a loser in that way, or that we should have a worse Parliament from the fact that even a few thousands of these men were to take part in our election. I know of no argu-

    1861
    ment advanced in another place for this Amendment, because I was not able to follow it, but it is not an Amendment with which I propose to disagree. On the contrary, I agree with it. We enlarge our franchise, and give the opportunity to our Dominion soldiers who have been quartered here some time to take part in the next election, if they are so disposed, and are qualified.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I must say I think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is a very remarkable one. Does he really think it would be a good thing that Colonials in training in this country should be in a position to influence the future development of this country? Take one practical question—take the question of licensing. The system of licensing in Canada and the attitude there on the drink question are very different from this country. During the War the Canadians—I do not say wrongly, and, from my point of view, I think very rightly—decided they would have total prohibition. Now the attitude of this country on that subject is very different. Will Canadians who happen to be in training in this country be able in their district to put in as their member a prohibition candidate, although the English electors may hold very different views on that particular problem? There are a great many other questions. They cannot possibly know the public opinion of this country, and understand the working of our laws, and I think if our soldiers bad to be quartered for various reasons in South Africa, South Africans would be the very first to take Exception to our soldiers interfering with their elections, and sending to their Parliament members not representing South African views, but English views. I really hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this suggestion of the Lords. It would be really the negation of representative government, because it would be introducing practically an element with no location and no interest in the future political development of the country, and would, I am sure, be forming a bad precedent that would create, instead of good feeling in the Empire, bad feeling and hostility between the component parts.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I believe that this Amendment is not intended to carry out the wide purpose which was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of The Local Government Board. I think
    1862
    myself, after such consideration as I have been able to give to the Clause, that it is all governed by the question of whether the soldier or sailor is not subject to any legal incapacity, and I think the intention of the Clause is this: you may find some soldier or sailor who is for the time being at any rate in, or possibly has joined, some forces which are paid by the Dominions, and not out of moneys paid by Parliament, and if he is receiving pay from some other source—from the Dominions—he is not, therefore, held to be disqualified, and that pay is just as good as the pay received from Parliament. I believe it was only for that purpose that this Clause could have been put in. A very large question indeed would arise, because, so far as I know, a man shall he entitled to register if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity. For that purpose he must be an actual subject of the King in Great Britain. I am not going to develop a long, legal argument, but I venture to say that I think that would be held to be the law. If that be so, that is one of the reasons why in this Clause, as well as in all other Clauses which refer to this matter, you get the words "or not subject to any legal incapacity" over and over again. Whilst I am not prepared at this stage of the Bill, and would think it very unwise, to discuss all the persons who may be British subjects, it is evident, I think, that it was not the intention of the House of Lords to make Empire plural voters, and to give the right suggested here to any soldier or sailor belonging to the Overseas naval or other contingents who have been quartered for the purpose of the War here for a short time to become voters. The right hon. Gentleman has said that his other duties prevented him hearing the Debate in the House of Lords; for my own part I cannot help feeling that there must have been some indication of the sort to which f have referred in the House of Lords when this Amendment was put in.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: At the very beginning of the Debate, when I moved to agree with the Clause, I did so because in my opinion it was desirable to cover the cases of those soldiers and sailors who had had a residence were, but who, for one reason or another, were paid out of the public funds of Canada, Australia, or the Union of South Africa. Whereupon my right hon. Friend opposite asked "Does not this really cover really more than that? Does it not cover soldiers who have really

    1863
    been Dominion soldiers who have been paid out of the funds of the Dominions residing here possibly for six months, and never in any permanent habitation, but here only for the purposes of the War?" To that I replied that I thought the words were open to that interpretation, and that the little parasol had turned into a rather big umbrella, with a large sheltering capacity. It would appear that—what I take it was never intended—after a residence of six months for the purposes of the War if an election came along Dominion soldiers, if they were physically fit to take part, would be able to be on the register and be able to give a postal vote. I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite in that interpretation. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I still think that the intention of the other House was really to cover those other soldiers who had a residence here, and who for some reason or another were paid out of the funds of the Dominions. I still think that the intention of another place in this Amendment. If the result of it was, as I say, to erect a bigger umbrella which would cover not only a few thousands of soldiers who were Dominion soldiers, either abroad or at home in connection with the War, but many others—if the words were so wide as to cover those and to give them the vote, not for one election—that is, the next election after the new register is made out—but for other elections, then that is another matter. I did not myself see that, and therefore I moved to agree. I did so thinking the Amendment would only cover the smaller section to which I have alluded. If it did so happen that it covered a larger class, as the right hon. Gentleman thinks under this Amendment it would, I do not see any great objection to reconsidering the matter.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman said—
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Perhaps it might clear up matters if I may be allowed to read, in a few words, what took place in the House of Lords:
    "Viscount Peel moved, in paragraph (a) of Subsection (3), after the word 'Parliament,' to insert or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions'; and after the first 'or' to insert in service.' The Noble Viscount said, 'This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by Lord Burnham, namely, the case of those members of the Dominion Forces who can claim a vote in this country. These words fulfil that obligation.'
    Viscount Harcourt: Before this Amendment is moved I should like to ask a question. I imagine that a
    1864
    Canadian resident for six months, say on Salisbury Plain, can become a voter for that district? I think that these words would apply to a Canadian so qualified the privileges which attach to the naval and military voter—that is they would make him a voter at nineteen instead of twenty-one, and I think they would enable him to exercise his vote by proxy or by post, even after he had left this country for good, if he were serving abroad with no intention of returning to this country. So long as the War lasted he would lie able to exercise a vote although he had left the country for good.
    Viscount Peel; I think the Noble Viscount knows that a man can exercise a vote so long as he is on the register. The question of residence applies only during the six months.'
    Then the Amendment was agreed to without further discussion.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think we are all agreed that we wish to enfranchise the people that the Lords originally intended to. At an earlier stage it was suggested there was a number of men really resident in England before the War who had for some reason or another joined the New Zealand or Australian Forces and were paid out of the funds of the Dominions. It was suggested that they ought not to lose their votes, and I think we were all agreed that some such Amendment as this should be made. Now it appears that this Amendment, from what it does, has a much wider significance. I do not think anyone will dispute that those concerned are under no legal incapacity seeing that they are British subjects, and they would certainly be enfranchised. The President of the Local Government Board agrees they would be enfranchised—these men who had been here for six months in training. Let the House mark the consequences! The consequences will be that the military authorities will be obliged, by this Act, to get the names of all these men. The obligation is laid upon them to collect the names. The names, having been collected, must be put upon the register, as well as their place of residence. The Canadian or Australian battalions here for six months must be enfranchised for the constituency in Wiltshire in which Salisbury Plain is situated or for the borough of Folkestone, where, I think, Shorncliffe Camp is situated. If we pass this amazing proposal we shall find, as an inevitable consequence, to our immense surprise when we come to look at the register, that there will be ten, twenty, or thirty thousand Canadan and Australian soldiers enfranchised in the borough of Folkestone or in the county of Wiltshire. Is that really a situation which we can seriously contemplate? It is an absurdity. No one ever suggested it! They will be sent the

    1865
    papers for a postal vote for a member for Folkestone or for a constituency in Wiltshire, or, if they are in distant parts of the world, they will be required to appoint a proxy vote. I would, therefore, make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. The Amendment in its present form clearly cannot be accepted by this House, and, as it is likely the House of Lords will be sitting on Monday or Tuesday to discuss some points of difference which may require to be discussed, I would suggest that we should disagree with this Amendment as it stands now on the understanding that we are quite willing to agree to an Amendment which would carry out what was the original intention of the House; and that the draftsman should attempt to draw up an Amendment which would have the precise consequences required by limiting the vote to those persons in England—the small class that we want to include—and exclude this possibly immense class that the Lords never intended to bring in and which, I think, the common sense of both 'louses agrees ought not to be brought in.
    Mr. FISHER: This is a matter of legal interpretation. I doubt if any Law Officer were present whether he would be able to give us an opinion which would be reliable on a matter of this kind. There are two possible interpretations to which I am asked to agree. The first is that it would bring in very few men indeed who would have a residence here who came from the Dominions. The second interpretation is one which would undoubtedly place upon the register a great many more electors, but not tens of thousands, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland thought fit to suggest. That is absolutely impossible, for at the most this proposal might possibly bring in 2,000 or 3,000. I am in this position: I have already moved to agree with the Lords in their Amendment, but I admit that I did that before I thought of the possible interpretation which might be put upon this proposal. I do not feel at all sure that the second interpretation is the right one, and my own view is that it would be limited to a very few thousand of those who have been abroad in connection with the present War. I think it would be better for the House to adopt the attitude that it does not refuse the franchise to those who have qualified themselves by residence, and have been to another country for the purpose of fighting our battles. I think the
    1866
    House will put itself in a false position if it takes up the attitude of denying this privilege to these men. I do not say there is not some other way out of the difficulty than by refusing to enfranchise soldiers and sailors who are paid out of the funds of the Dominions.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Would it not be better to adopt the course we have already taken this afternoon, in which the Government have withdrawn their Amendment to agree, and have thus avoided any conflict, and then move to disagree? The Government can move to disagree with this Amendment, and at the same time an undertaking might be given that if this Clause came back in a different form it would be welcomed by this House. This is a course which has already been adopted by the Home Secretary this afternoon to meet a difficulty of a somewhat similar nature.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, we might disagree for the purpose of reconsideration.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Donald Maclean): I do not know what was done previously, but if the Motion were negatived the same effect would be produced.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: There is this diference. In one case the responsibility of the Government is that they have definitely asked the House to agree, and possibly the House may disagree; while in the other case the Government would ask toe House not to agree to this Amendment upon the understanding that they would communicate with the other House on the point through their responsible advisers.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will not take tae responsibility of doing anything else contrary to what Mr. Speaker has already done, and if that course has already been adopted by Mr. Speaker, I must follow it.
    Mr. FISHER: I take it that the views of hon. Members are not in the least expressed against the desire of the other House that this should apply to soldiers who have a residence here, and who are paid out of the Dominion funds. If that is the intention, then this House will welcome any form of words which the other place would suggest to carry it out.
    I understand that this House is apprehensive that these words might be made to cover a very much wider extension

    1867
    which the other place did not intend, and as the only possible way of getting this matter put right and getting the right interpretation we suggest for the moment disagreeing with the other place. On that understanding I am perfectly willing to adopt that attitude. I have made it clear that this House is not taking up the position that it desires to disfranchise the Dominion soldiers whom the other House desires to enfranchise. We are not taking up that attitude at all, but we think the words suggested by the other place cover more than they intend. If that is the understanding, then, I think, we shall put ourselves in a right position by adopting the course which was taken by Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I fully assent to that course.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (3) insert the words "(c) serving in any other work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the War."
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House will recollect that considerable debate took place on this point, the object being to include those connected with the Young Men's Christian Association and others doing similar work. It was thought impossible to limit this new franchise to the members of the Young Men's Christian Association, and that possibly words might be chosen to cover all those who were doing similar work. These words have been inserted in another place, and are wide enough to cover the Young Men's Christian Association and all others doing that work. It will rest with the Admiralty, the Army Council and the Air Council to determine who are doing sufficient work of national importance to have these privileges.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Qualifying Period.)
    The qualifying period shall be a period of six months ending either on the
    1868
    fifteenth day of January, or the fifteenth day of July, including in each case the: fifteenth day:
    Provided that in the application of this Section to a person who is a naval or military voter, or who has been serving as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown at any time during the said six months and has ceased so to serve, one month shall be substituted for six months as the qualifying period.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "or military," and insert instead thereof the words "military or air."—Agreed to.
    After Clause 6 insert new Clause A.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Residence and Occupation).
    A.—(1) Where land or premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, each of the joint occupiers shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be treated as occupying the premises, subject as follows:

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

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

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

    (2) Residence in a house or the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Act by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole, or by reason only of notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house, but the express enactment of this provision

    1869
    shall not affect in any way the general principles governing the interpretation of the expression "residence" and cognate expressions.
    Lords Amendment read a second time.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning of Sub-section (c), to insert the words "For the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency, and for the purpose of the local government franchise."
    This raises the point which I indicated to the Home Secretary. I would call attention to the great importance of altering this Clause in this way. If we do not, we disfranchise a very large number of persons in boroughs. It is necessary therefore, to confine the Clause to the local government areas and to the Parliamentary counties. The Speaker's Conference determined that no change should be made in the law relating to joint occupation of business premises. Not many voters in county areas—I am dealing with the Parliamentary franchise—are concerned in this joint occupation, but in London and many other large towns a large number of the professional classes occupy premises jointly and contribute towards the expenses. I refer to doctors architects, and certainly to barristers. Under the Bill, as amended in Committee and on Report in this House, the rights of those borough voters were safeguarded by a provision which will be found in the copy of the Bill that I have got. I am afraid it is not the most recent copy, but perhaps it has all the charm and value that belong to an early edition. There is in it the proviso—
    "In a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners."
    That only applies to Parliamentary counties. It did not require that there should only be two persons in joint occupation of premises in boroughs, nor did it require, if there were more than two persons, that they should be partners. It is notorious that in the case of barristers they are not partners, and the same applies to doctors. The rights of borough voters occupying premises under these circumstances were, therefore, safeguarded by that proviso. A similar proviso was made in the case of the local government franchise. It therefore left it that where
    1870
    there was this occupation in boroughs all those who could at present secure the vote were entitled to retain the vote. In the case of the counties, and in the local government electoral areas, only two persons were to be registered in respect of premises unless they carried on business as partners. The matter really concerns the professional classes in the boroughs. The Lords in Committee put in a new Clause, and before that portion which now appears as their Amendment they inserted these words:
    "For the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency and for the purpose of the local government franchise not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land and premises."
    They therefore adopted the intention of this House and safeguarded the rights of the occupiers in boroughs. They limited this provision to Parliamentary counties and to the local government franchise, or, in other words, to the areas which are specified in Clause 7, paragraph (b) as it then stood. That was all right. There was no difficulty. The Speaker's Conference was adhered to and no alteration was made in the matter of joint occupation of business premises except in the area of the county which mattered very little, and the rights of the professional classes in the boroughs were safeguarded. These words, I am sorry to say, for some reason or another were taken out on Report, so that now under this Clause it is provided by paragraph (c) that not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners, and that prevails whether in boroughs or local government areas. I cannot for the life of me see why the professional classes who occupy premises under this system should be disfranchised. What happened between the Committee stage and the Report stage in the House of Lords that led them to leave out the words that they had put in in Committee, thus disfranchising a number of persons who otherwise would be qualified to vote? It occurs to me that some small mistake in drafting must have been made. I have no doubt that the persons engaged on this Bill in another place must have been heavily burdened with work, and I cannot help thinking that the words were left out per incuriam. At any rate, some definite explanation must be

    1871
    given to this House. What led the House of Lords between the Committee stage and the Report stage to alter what had been definitely decided and agreed upon in the Speaker's Conference, what had been definitely decided and safeguarded in this House, and what had been definitely decided and adhered to by the House of Lords in Committee when they brought up their new Clause? What was it that made them so suddenly and for some unknown reason make the alteration between the Committee stage and the Report stage? I hope that the Home Secretary has had an opportunity of following the point, because it is an intricate one and seems to have arisen either from some difficulty or lapse. I cannot see what changed the views of the House of Lords between those two stages and made them leave out these words, with the result of disfranchising a number of persons otherwise qualified in their boroughs to exercise a franchise they have hitherto enjoyed. Therefore, I beg to move to insert the words which have been unfortunately dropped out. All that I do is to restore the paragraph to exactly the form in which it read w hen it passed the Committee stage in the House of Lords.
    Sir G. CAVE: On a point of Order, Sir. Before you put that Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, which seeks to make a change in the new Clause, would it not be in order for you first to put the Motion that the House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment? If you adopt that view, I would like to move that we agree to the Amendment with certain Amendments, not including the point to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. Then he would be entitled to move to insert his words.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: On that point of Order. May I say—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will permit me to speak, because what I am going to say will solve what is probably in his mind. It is not open to the House to move an Amendment after the Question is put from the Chair that the House doth agree or disagree with the Lords Amendment. The proper time to move Amendments is, as the hon. and learned Member has done, before that Question is put.
    Sir G. CAVE: Will you please say how the Question will ultimately stand?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment to the Lords Amendment is, as it is put to me—I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member in the course of his remarks indicated any change?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: Yes, I said that the words should come at the commencement of paragraph (c). That would be the right place, instead of at the commencement of the Clause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Question will be, at the commencement of paragraph (c), to insert the words "for the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency and for the purpose of the local government franchise"
    Sir G. CAVE: I have an Amendment to propose in an earlier part of the new Clause.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Then perhaps the hon. and learned Member will withdraw his Amendment for the time being and allow the Home Secretary to move his Amendment., which I understand is an earlier Amendment to the Clause.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I will certainly give way to the Home Secretary, subject to reserving my right to move my Amendment again at the proper time.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I desire to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "of joint occupiers; and"
    These words seem to have been omitted by some mistake. Obviously, the paragraph will not read as it stands, finishing at the word "number."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand it is a printer's error in the Amendment Paper. I am informed by the Clerk at the Table that the words appear in the Bill; therefore, there is no need for the Amendment which the Home Secretary proposes to make.
    Sir G. CAVE: Then it is understood that those words are included?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, at the beginning of paragraph (c), to insert the words "For the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise in a Parliamentary county constituency and for the purpose of the local government franchise."
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite follow the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend. I understand he desires to restore the Clause to the shape in which it appeared after Committee in the House of Lords. It is true that the words were contained in two different Clauses, and I quite agree that the effect of my hon. and learned Friend's proposal is to restore this paragraph as it came from Mr. Speaker's Conference.
    Sir E. POLLOCK: And from Committee in the House of Lords.
    Sir G. CAVE: That is so, but my hon. and learned Friend knows that the Lords have their own procedure, and make Amendments at later stages than we do in this House. I understand that the Clause was introduced in this shape. My hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that under the law as it now stands the restriction in paragraph (c), which confines the number of possible joint occupiers to two, unless they are bonâ fide partners, applies only in a Parliamentary county and not in a Parliamentary borough, so far as the Parliamentary franchise is concerned. But in fact the Amendment was made deliberately, and with the intention of assimilating the law in the boroughs to the law in the counties. After all, there is good sense in it. The desire is to render it impossible in a borough to manufacture a whole number of voters simply by making them joint occupiers. If they are bonâ fide partners there is no objection. If you have five or six bonâ fide partners in a business they become, as such, occupiers and joint occupiers of business premises, and there is no objection to them all being voters, and the Bill is sufficient for that purpose. But is it right that you should manufacture votes by splitting up an occupation among five or ten or twenty people who are not partners at all, but who are only occupiers, perhaps, for the purpose of having the vote? The law in counties has long been a reasonable one. It is not possible in a county to succeed in that process, and I believe that when Parliament prevented that being done it did a wise and proper thing. It is thought—and the Lords are not the only people who think it—to be a reasonable thing to assimilate the law in boroughs to the law as it obtains in counties. It is exactly the same for local government purposes, but for Parliamentary purposes but differs. I think the county law is the right one, and the
    1874
    borough law might fairly be assimilated to it. I hope that with that explanation my hon. and learned Friend will not persist in his Amendment, and that the Clause will be accepted.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of the Lords Amendment, to insert the words,
    "(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a man shall not be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency in respect of a residence qualification, although he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, if he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to reside within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside.
    (3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area, though that person may have been occupying land or premises in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, if that person commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period, and ceased to occupy the land or premises within thirty days after the commencement of the occupation."
    This Amendment is consequential upon what passed at an earlier stage of the day. The House disagreed with the proposal to alter the provision as to swallow voters, and, therefore, we must reinsert in this Clause the thirty days' provision which was originally adopted in this House. These two new Sub-sections will give effect to that provision.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I do not in the least object to these words because they are the necessary consequence of our disagreement with an earlier Amendment, nor do I object to their being inserted at this stage, but I suggest that this is not the proper place for them, because this is a Clause which deals solely with residential occupation. The earlier Clause deals with time, and this is an Amendment dealing with time and not residential occupation. It does not very much matter, but it is a matter of form.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will consider that.

    1875
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Right of Person Registered to Vote.)
    (2) A person registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area shall while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage) be entitled to vote at a local government election for that area, but where, for the purposes of election, any such area is divided into more than one ward or electoral division, by whatever name called, a person shall not be entitled to vote for more than one such ward or electoral division.
    Lords Amendments:
    At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words "notwithstanding anything in this provision a person may be registered for more than one such ward or division of a local government electoral area (not being a municipal borough), and may vote in any such ward or division for which he is registered at an election to fill a casual vacancy."—Agreed to.
    After the words last inserted, add as a new Sub-section:
    "(3) A naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a qualification which he would have had but for his service, shall be deemed for the purpose of this Section to be registered by virtue of that qualification."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is for the purpose of preventing a possible legal argument founded on the fact that a soldier is deemed to reside at a certain place though he does not in fact so reside. It is to make that hypothetical residence a real residence for the purpose of plural voting and other purposes.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Provision as to Disqualifications.)
    (1) A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he or some person for whose maintenance he is responsible has received poor relief or other alms.

    1876

    (2) Any person who has been exempted from all military service (including noncombatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection, or who, having been convicted by court-martial of an offence against military law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment in lieu of detention, shall be disqualified during the continuance of the War and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector:
    Provided that this disqualification shall not apply to any person who, within one year after the termination of the War, proves to the Central Tribunal. as established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916, that he had during the continuance of the War taken up either—

    (1) service as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown on full pay; or

    (2) service in connection with the War of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament; or

    (3) service afloat or abroad in connection with the War in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object; or

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

    and obtains a certificate from the tribunal to that effect:
    Provided also that no woman shall be disqualified from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason of any disqualification imposed upon her husband by this Section.
    The Central Tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this provision for a period of a year after the termination of the present War.

    (3) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector if he is not a British subject, and nothing contained in this Act shall, except as ex-

    1877
    pressly provided therein, confer on any person who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered or to vote either as a Parliamentary or local government elector any right to be so registered or to vote.

    (4) A person shall not be disqualified from voting at any election as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he is legally employed for payment by or on behalf of a candidate at any Parliamentary or local government election.

    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or local government" ["as a Parliamentary or local government elector"].
    Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment is connected with the next, dealing with disqualification. The meaning of the two Amendments, I understand, is that whereas this House had practically abolished the disqualification consequent on Poor Law relief, it is proposed in another place that that disqualification should continue as regards local government elections. Of course that is a point of substance. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be somewhat singular. So far as the election of guardians is concerned, there is of course something to be said for the Amendment. It was thought, I understand, that it would put both the elector and the candidate in rather a difficult position. The same observation applies to the election of rural district councillors, who of course act as guardians, though only to some extent, because there you are voting for a man who is not only a guardian of the poor but has certain duties of local government connected with highways and nuisances and all the other functions of a local authority. But the Amendment goes further than that. It disqualifies the receiver of Poor Law relief from voting even for an urban district councillor, who has no Poor Law powers at all, for a county councillor, who has practically none, and for a parish councillor, who has none. I think that goes too far, and it is contrary to the policy adopted, at all events in this House, that the receipt of Poor Law relief should disqualify a man from voting for all these purposes. I appreciate the argument in respect of Poor Law guardians only, and it has been suggested to us that instead of taking the whole Amendment,
    1878
    we should move a substituted Amendment proposing disqualification in respect of the elections of guardians only.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I thought guardians were to be abolished.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think there is a good deal to be said for that. It introduces an awkward disqualification. It is very awkward to have a class of voters who may vote for some local government purposes, but not for all. You would have to have the list cumbered with a number of marks indicating that certain persons had received Poor Law relief. It, would be very awkward, and would impose a good deal of work upon the registration officer. It would mar the lists and give a good deal of trouble which is not really worth while. On the whole, I think it would be better not to accept the Amendment, but to let the Bill remain as it left this House.
    Therefore, I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. PETO: While not disagreeing with what the Home Secretary has said in the main, I am bound to point out that resolution 35 of the Speaker's Conference, which dealt with this matter of Poor Law relief, specifically uses these words, that they are "not to be disqualified from being registered as a Parliamentary elector." That was the subject which we considered upstairs, and we regarded it from the point of view of the loss of electoral right from the national standpoint. I think the House of Lords, in putting in this Amendment, have more accurately carried out the decision of the Speaker's Conference than the Bill as it left this House. But for the technical objection, which had more weight, I think probably the Home Secretary would agree, especially as his speech was mainly devoted to the disadvantages of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief voting for boards of guardians, that it would have been better to accept the Amendment. I do not want to oppose the Motion on the grounds which I think really carry the most weight, namely, that it is not worth while marring the voters' list in order to prevent what I think is an undesirable thing and one which was not contemplated in the resolution of the Speaker's Conference.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.

    1879
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of Sub-section (1), insert the words, "But a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector if that person has, curing the qualifying period, received poor relief, which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a Parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed."—Disagreed with.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the following Sub-section:
    (2) Any person being a conscientious objector to whom this Sub-section applies shall be disqualified during the continuance of the War and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector unless before the expiration of one year after the termination of the War he proves to the Central Tribunal as established for the purposes of the Military Service Act, 1916—

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

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

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

    and obtains a certificate from the Central Tribunal to that effect.
    This Sub-section shall apply to a conscientious objector who either—

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

    (b)having been convicted by court-inertial of an offence against mili-
    1880
    tary law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment or detention.

    The Central Tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this Subsection for a period of a year after the termination of the present War.
    If a person disqualified under this Sub-section would have been entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary or local government elector but for that disqualification, the disqualification shall not extend so as to affect the right of the wife of that person to be registered or vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector, as the case may be.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is partly a redrafting and partly an Amendment of the Subsection relating to conscientious objectors. Perhaps it would be better that I should explain to the House exactly where the difference lies between the Sub-section as it passed this House and the Sub-section now proposed. In regard to Sub section (a) the House will observe, on comparing it with the old Sub-section, that it is proposed simply to put in a shorter form the different items which appear in the old Sub-section under the headings (1), (2), (3), and (4). Instead of going through the list and putting in all the items of work, it is proposed to include them in the general words that a man "has during the continuance of the War taken up …. and continued service….for the purposes of this Act." I think, perhaps, that is a more convenient form. Otherwise you may have different interpretations of the different words in the two Sections. That, therefore, is nothing more than a drafting Amendment. The second change made is in Sub-section (c). The Amendment which is proposed is to exempt from disqualification the man who, having obtained an absolute exemption from military service, without any condition, has, nevertheless, taken up and has continued some work of national importance. In other words, that puts upon the same footing the man who has been exempted on condition of his doing work of national importance, and who was exempted by this House, and the man

    1881
    who has had unconditional exemption and, without obligation or condition, has taken up similar work. It was thought that the merits of the latter man were practically the same as those which commended the other man to this House. That is, I think, the only really substantial change in the Sub-section. There are some minor changes. For instance, instead of "imprisonment in lieu of detention," which were the words used in our Sub-section, we have the words "imprisonment or detention," so that if a man has been convicted of a military offence and sentenced either to imprisonment or detention, and has represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, he comes within the operation of the Clause. The second minor change is that a man may apply for his certificate of exemption from disqualification now, and need not wait until the War is over before he asks for his certificate of exemption from disqualification.
    The last change to which I have to draw attention deals with the case of the objector who gets exemption for having taken up alternative work of national importance, and provides that he must persevere in that work unless he is unavoidably prevented doing it.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Before the Question is put I wish to move, as an Amendment to paragraph (c) of the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "taken up," and to insert instead thereof the words "been engaged in."
    The Sub-section is certainly an improvement in very many respects on the form of the Bill as it left the House. It will be remembered that in the discussion which took place in this House when the Bill was before us the point was raised regarding a case in which a man was engaged in work of such obvious national importance that being also a conscientious objector when he applied to the tribunal for exemption they said, "You are a conscientious objector; we give you absolute exemption; we know you will continue your present occupation." The man replied, "I am going to continue that occupation." He has not been exempted conditionally, lie is continuing his present occupation, and therefore is entitled to be covered by this provision. The wording of this paragraph, however, has the effect that having obtained absolute exemption from military service without
    1882
    any such condition, he has, nevertheless, taken up—and these are the two words I object to—and continued some work of national importance. Now "taken up" implies that he has changed his occupation and gone to some other occupation for the particular purpose of securing exemption, and consequently he will find himself excluded from the benefits which this provision is intended to give him.
    Sir G. CAVE: I will accept that as part of the Lords Amendment. I think it is what they meant.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords. Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (4), leave out the word' "legal."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "any Parliamentary or local government," and insert the word "such."—Agreed to.
    After the word "election" insert the words "so long as the employment is legal."—Agreed to.
    Insert as a new Sub-section, "Any incapacity of a peer to vote at an election arising from the status of a peer shall not extend to peeresses in their own right."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I suppose the reason why a peer cannot vote is that he has a vote in his own House, but that does not apply to peeresses who have no such right and, presumably-, their Lordships thought they should have a right to vote for Members of this House.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOLT: I do riot think that argument holds good. If the House of Lords deem it proper that peeresses should have some say in the destinies of the country, surely they should invite them to take a seat in their own House. There is no logic whatever in this Amendment, and I do not think we ought to accept it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Qualification for Membership of Local Authority.)
    A person shall be qualified to be elected a member of any local government authority who is the owner of a freehold or leasehold property within the area of that authority.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "shall," insert the words "in addition to and without prejudice to any other qualification."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "any local government authority who," and insert instead thereof the words "the local government authority for any local government electoral area if he."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "a freehold or leasehold property," and insert the words property held by freehold, copy-hold, leasehold, or any other tenure."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Registration Officers and Areas.)
    (1) Each Parliamentary borough and each Parliamentary county shall be a registration area, and there shall be a. registration officer for each registration area.

    (2) Where the registration area is a Parliamentary county and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the clerk of the county council, and where the registration area is a Parliamentary borough and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough, the town clerk of the borough, shall be the registration officer of the area.

    In any other case such clerk of the county council, or town clerk, shall be registration officer for the area as the Local Government Board may by Order direct, subject to any conditions which may he made by the Order as to the appointment of deputies for any part of the area.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Parliamentary borough and each Parliamentary county," and insert the word "constituency."—Disagreed with.
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "a Parliamentary county and is," and insert instead thereof the words "as provided in the First Schedule to this Act."—Disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Appeals.)
    (1) An appeal shall lie to the County Court, as defined by rules of court, from any decision of the registration officer on any claim or objection which has been considered by him under this Act, and rules of court shall be made for the pur-
    1884
    pose of determining the procedure on any of such appeals and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to County Courts and the procedure therein:
    Provided that an appeal shall not lie where a claimant or objector has not availed himself of his opportunity of being heard by the registration officer on the claim or objection.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["under this Act"], insert the words "or the placing or refusal to place any mark against any name on the register."—Agreed to.
    After the word "opportunity," insert the words "as provided in the first Schedule to this Act."—Agreed to.
    At the end of Sub-section, insert the words "or as to the placing or refusing to place any such mark as aforesaid."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Expenses of Registration.)
    (1) Any expenses properly incurred by a registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care, and attention in the performance of those duties, and any costs incurred by him as party to an appeal (in this Act referred to as "registration expenses") shall be paid by the council whose clerk the registration officer is, subject, in cases where the registration area is not coterminous with or wholly contained in the area of that council to such contributions by the council of any other county or borough as the Local Government Board may direct.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (1), after the words "is" ["whose clerk the registration officer is"], insert the words "or by whom he is appointed."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Special Provisions with Respect to Urban Districts and London.)
    (1) Where an urban district is coterminous with a registration area which is a Parliamentary borough or is wholly contained in such area, this part of this Act shall apply to that district as it applies to a municipal borough, with the substitution of the clerk of the urban dis-

    1885
    trict council for the town clerk, of the urban district council for the council of the borough, and of the general district rate for the borough fund or borough rate.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "which is a Parliamentary borough."—Disagreed with.
    Leave out the word "and" ["and of the general district."]—Agreed to.
    At end of Sub-section, insert the words "and of the chairman of the council for the mayor."—Agreed to.
    After Clause 15, insert a new Clause,

    (1) A freeman of the City of London being a liveryman of one of the several companies who is entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector in respect of a business premises qualification within the City, shall be entitled, if he thinks fit, to be entered in a separate list of liverymen in the register of Parliamentary electors, and to record his vote for Parliament as a liveryman.

    (2) The foregoing provision shall apply to the freemen of any borough if the council of the borough so resolve, and the expression "freemen" shall include any persons by whatever name called enjoying in that borough rights similar to those enjoyed by freemen of the City of London in that city.

    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House will remember we had a long discussion in this House with regard to the livery franchise. By an Amendment moved in this House it was sought to create a certain number, although not very many, of new voters with a qualification based upon membership of the livery of the City of London. I felt bound to resist that proposal, because the basis of the Report of the Speaker's Conference was to limit the number of qualifications to the three with which we are familiar—residence, occupation of business premises, and membership of a university. That proposal, therefore, was negatived in this House. It was raised again, not unnaturally, in another place, and ultimately this proposal was made and embodied in the proposed new Clause. Under the first Sub-section, if a man is qualified to vote for the City of London in respect of the occupation of business premises, and is also a member of the
    1886
    livery, he is to have the right, if he desires, to exercise his franchise as a liveryman, and not as an occupier of business premises. I will point out to the House what the extent of that Amendment is. The man in any case has his vote as an occupier of business premises, but if he desires—in order, I suppose, to mark the importance attaching to membership of the livery of the City of London—he is to have the option of calling his vote by another name. It really comes to no more than that, and I do not see why we should object to that Amendment being made. I have great respect myself for old institutions, and I shall be glad, indeed, if the House is willing to accept this proposal, and to accede to the wishes of the City. The second Subsection applies the same principle, and gives the same privilege to freemen of other boroughs, if the council of the borough so resolves. The effect is the same as in the case of the City. In order to take advantage of this right the voter must already have a vote as a business occupier in a borough, and if he has that right he is enabled by the Clause to be entered as a freeman, and to vote as a freeman, to give a vote which he could in any case give as an occupier of business premises. I hope, in those circumstances, the House will be willing to agree to this Amendment.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I feel sorry to have to take exception to this proposal again, especially as it is now put forward by the Home Secretary, and as my doing so looks as though it were merely trying to prevent somebody getting a small privilege which they wish to possess. To my mind, however, it does raise rather a large question. The Conference laid it down very clearly indeed that the new franchises should take the place of all existing franchises. That was the basis on which we proceeded. Upon that basis when the question of the City of London came up those of us who felt that there was really no justification for the separate representation of the City of London, because there is no real population there, assented to the constituency of that separate constituency. We agreed to do that as part of the arrangement, but it was dependent entirely upon the understanding that the ancient franchises of the liverymen and the freemen, together with all other ancient franchises, should be done away with. We had a new and clean franchise, and we assented to leaving the

    1887
    City exactly as it was with that exception. So far as that particular point goes, therefore, I consider that this is going back from what was understood in the Conference. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will, of course, reply that it is nothing of the kind, and that he resisted all attempts that were made to retain the right of the liverymen as a Parliamentary right of itself. That is perfectly true, and no one fought harder against it than the President of the Local Government Board in the House here, who made a speech pointing out that it was part of the understanding that all the old franchises should disappear and give place to a new one.
    When the Bill went to the Lords, Lord Peel took the same line and argued in the same way. But between the Committee arid the Report stage there were those pourparlers which always go on when the Corporation of the City of London is concerned. I do not blame them for it, and we know perfectly well how able they are in this House in presenting their case. Then, to my astonishment, I noticed that the Government had actually assented to the last proposition, and had stated that they were going to recommend it in this House. I quite appreciate that the point is a very different one from the point when we were asked to retain the liverymen's right to vote for Parliament as a real concrete right, because all this does in theory now is, as the Home Secretary pointed out, to say that a liveryman because he is a liveryman shall have a special portion of the Parliamentary register allocated to himself. I quite agree that this is all it does, and that a man who is going to have a business vote in the City by reason of occupation if lie is a liveryman is to be entitled to have a separate section of the register allocated to himself. But I venture to submit to this House that that is not worthy of the legislation of this Chamber. We have made a clean sweep of all the old franchises, and then simply because somebody or other presses very hard to have a special privilege attached to himself, or a certain class, we go out of our way in order to give it. I have no quarrel with the liverymen in the slightest degree, but I do think that it is quite unnecessary, and that it is going to do, as far as I can see, no good to anybody. It is going to leave the liverymen in a peculiar position as regards the Parliamentary franchise.
    1888
    That is not all, because the Lords, seeing that the City Corporation have been able to use their persuasive powers in this matter so successfully, have suggested that all the other boroughs in England should have the same right. I notice that Lord Jersey, speaking for certain interests in Oxford, insisted that the same rights should be given to the freemen of Oxford. However much we may desire to preserve historical monuments, I venture to think that the freeman voter is an historic monument that ought to be forgotten. There is nothing that has been more corrupt. If any hon. Member will study the history of Parliamentary elections he will find that Parliamentary petitions have been far more numerous in the towns where the freeman voter has been greatest. There is nothing historic to preserve in this respect at all. Therefore, I submit that the House should stand to its guns in regard to this matter, leave the clear franchise that has been put all over the country and the university vote to stand alone, and not adopt this complicated proposal of having a separate register in the City of London, and I do not know how many other towns, but a great many towns in this country, of persons who are entitled to vote there but who are going to stand in a special class simply because they are freemen of the city.
    Colonel SANDERS: I think that my right hon. Friend's objection can only be described as pedantic. After all this institution of the freeman voter is historically very interesting. The history of the freemen of the various boroughs may be complicated, shall we say, but it is exceedingly interesting. They are one of the historical associations of the country. To give them this right does no harm to anyone whatever. It is simply satisfying a sentimental demand. Sentiment counts for a great deal. This gives a chance of making the Act a little less unpopular with certain people, and, as it does no harm, I hope that the Home Secretary will stand to his guns.
    Mr. HARRIS: I do not think that my right hon. Friend was at all pedantic. In fact he was much too modest. I do not think that the proposal is quite the innocent. proposal which apparently it is on the Paper. We have a very friendly feeling towards this great corporation because it has a very distinguished representative in the Lord Mayor, who is a. Member of this House, and naturally,

    1889
    therefore, we look with favour on any proposal coming from that quarter, but the corporation is a very powerful one with many privileges. These companies have many privileges. They are naturally anxious to entrench them, and entrench them by giving a special place on the electoral roll to their members. it is a very remarkable thing that during the whole time of the passage of this Bill there has been a perpetual lobbying of Members on all sides of the House who have no association with the City of London and have nothing to do with its government, and I cannot help thinking that the reason is that the companies want to secure themselves in the enjoyment of the great wealth of which they have the administration, though the ordinary members of the companies, I am of opinion, by history have very little moral right—I say nothing about the legal right—to do so. Out of the seventy-seven companies that form the guilds of the City of of London I do not think that there are more than half-a-dozen which have any direct association with the industries which they pretend to represent. The Fishmongers still take part in the administration of the fish industry, and the same holds true of the Stationers and one or two other companies. But the ordinary member of the City company has bought his position with hard cash. It is true that he has paid a very substantial fee, but he uses his place, which he has purchased by hard cash, in order to exercise the right of patronage over very large sums of money which the companies have in their possession.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is discussing the livery companies. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
    Mr. HARRIS: I bow to your ruling, Sir. My point is that an exceptional position is claimed for these freemen for some sinister motive. I do not see any disadvantage to a voter if he exercises the franchise as an ordinary voter and not under a distinctive title. These voters have no more right to an exceptional position than any other citizens. Barristers would have a very much stronger claim, being on the barristers' roll and members of a very ancient corporation. Trade unionists also could well, in comparison, put forward a claim for a privileged position as practisers of skilled crafts. So far as I can see, one of the reasons of the city companies is that they
    1890
    want to retain the privilege of voting for the Lord Mayor, with the right to nominate from the list of aldermen the gentle. man to fill that position. They have at present also the right to elect a sheriff. I think these are the main reasons why they want to keep this exceptional and separate position on the electoral roll. This Bill has been before Parliament for nearly a year, and there is behind it a strong public opinion in its favour as a democratic measure. It will create an unfortunate feeling if in the City of London the members of these companies are placed in a position different from that of electors in other parts of London. The HOUSE has already male a concession to the City in allowing it two members, when it is only entitled to one, if any at all. The City should be satisfied with that concession, and not ask that these particular electors should be kept apart from other electors.
    Colonel Sir HERBERT JESSEL: My hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of St. Pancras objected to a difference being made in the electoral roll, but I cannot agree with him. It is a privilege given not only to the City of London freemen, but to other freemen throughout the country. It really makes no difference; it creates no new franchise; it is simply allowing, as in other cities, these electors to register in a way that does not hurt anybody else. I do very much object to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He poses here as a sort of sea-green incorruptible Robespierre. I do not know whether it is because he has not enjoyed some good dinners in the City such as I and other hon. Members have enjoyed and which I hope, when the food restrictions are done away with, to enjoy there again. I have no connection at all with the City, but I must say that ail of us who are connected with London resent the unwarranted attack on the livery companies of London. They have done extremely good 'reek in the past and they are doing wonderful educational and charitable work to-day. The hon. Member made allegations of sinister motives on this most harmless Amendment, but adduced no evidence in support of that statement. All I can say is let him go down to the City and dine there and come back in a better frame of mind, and not with ridiculous allegations about the city companies or the liverymen.
    Mr. HANSON: In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, I rise with much diffidence to very earnestly repudiate, on behalf of the City and of the livery companies, the most ungracious motives which have been attributed to the liverymen by the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Harris). I would like to say that there is not a shadow of foundation for a single suggestion of motive which has been made by the hon. Member, and I regret immensely the prejudice which has been evinced in that speech, and yet I am not surprised. I very earnestly beg the House not to listen to the specious arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson), and to accept the lucid and comprehensive statements of motives and reasons which have been addressed to us by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot for one moment pretend to add anything to the statements or the information which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman or by the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), or by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. What we are asking for is not the right to an additional vote or a privilege which would enable us to influence by one shadow or one iota any Parliamentary election whatever. We only ask that we may be permitted to exercise as liverymen the vote which we should be able otherwise to exercise as business men. That is a concession so small and so immaterial in its relation to the Bill that I cannot believe for a moment that the House will allow itself to be prejudiced or to be sufficiently ungracious as to deny to the liverymen of the City the gratification of a sentiment which is very deep-rooted indeed—a sentiment which is the growth of centuries. The right hon. Member for North St. Pancras has told us of the corruption of the City companies.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Will the hon. Gentleman excuse me? I did not say that at all. I said that in the past the freeman vote in the country had been corrupt.
    Mr. HANSON: I venture to say that for centuries this vote, as it has existed hitherto, has invariably been exercised in the interests of the country. The members of guilds are devoted to their livery, and all they ask is that they max preserve this connection with it in the
    1892
    form in which it is proposed this evening. I hope the House will support the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. GILBERT: I hope the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment. I have been looking up the Debate which we had in this House on the Report stage when the hon. Member for North Islington (Sir G. Touche) proposed an Amendment which would have had the same effect as the Amendment now brought down from another place, and I have been reading the reply of the Home Secretary, when that Amendment was moved, in which he used language which, I think was quite convincing to the House at that time not to carry the Amendment which was put before the House very eloquently by the hon. Member for North Islington.
    Sir G. CAVE: That was quite a different Amendment.
    Mr. GILBERT: The Amendment, as I read it, meant exactly the same thing.
    Sir G. CAVE: No; that meant he had business premises anywhere.
    Mr. GILBERT: Then the point is that the Amendment we are now considering is that he can only use the alternative if he has business premises in the City. I read it as being very much the same thing, and I apologise to the House for the mistake. In the early stages of the Bill I moved an Amendment that we should have in the register a record of the soldiers' and sailors' services, and of the regiment or boat to which the soldiers or sailors belonged. That Amendment was not accepted by the Government. It does seem to me that if there is any class of people who ought to have a special register to themselves it is the soldiers and sailors who have been fighting in this War. That has not been agreed to, and I cannot. for the life of me see why a few hundred liverymen of the City of London who have these business qualifications should be allowed to have this special list in the register, and be entitled to claim this alternative vote.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I think we ought to look at this proposition from something like a business standpoint. We have been trying to make a rational, sensible Bill, on clear and distinct lines. Above all things, the point we have had in view has been to make the register as simple as possible, and to give the registration officer the least possible amount of detail

    1893
    work. Now we have a proposition put into the Bill in another place which it is admitted, by those who defend it, does not give any extra power or right to the liverymen. They admit, against their will, no doubt, that the separate vote of the liverymen or the livery companies is gone. But they are not satisfied to allow themselves to be entirely swept off the register, and desire to live in one form or another. They are now asking, not that they shall have any extra political power—that they have denied; they say they have no desire for it—but they want an extra register. What for? Anyone who has studied the livery question and is acquainted with the position before the Bill was passed is quite well aware that the greater number of liverymen who had the right to vote in the City of London had no other qualification within the City. There was always the members of various liveries who did have a business qualification. Possibly in the old days—to trace back the livery franchise to its source—everyone had the vote inside the City, because those of us who belong to the guilds—and I am a member of one of the oldest in the City, and one that does look after its own affairs at the present time— knows that the livery franchise was the popular franchise in those days; the member of the livery was the employer of the locality and had the popular vote of the locality. Since then we have got household suffrage and other franchises which have superseded entirely the old livery franchise. 'What are we asked to do? To keep in existence a figment of a sham. We are told that the opposition to it is pedantic. Can you think of anything more pedantic than that we should be asked in a rational House of Commons to give the registration officer the task of making out in a part of his register a list for a separate body who have no other qualification than that they are liverymen? Because they know the suggestion is indefensible in itself they have found it necessary to put a second Section in this proposed new Clause offering the same to any freemen throughout the country. That even makes the proposition worse! It makes it that in every place where there is in existence a small body of freemen that you are going to plc on the registration officer of that locality the same task that you arc going to pile on the registration officer of the City of London. I say there has been no single word of reasonable defence for this proposition. I am surprised that the
    1894
    Government have accepted it. I do hope that in the name of common sense, that in a Bill like this before the House in which we are terribly in earnest to make a democratic register, that this Amendment will not be accepted.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I should have hoped that my hon. Friend would have been willing to accept the suggestion of the Home Secretary and to agree to the Clause being inserted in the Bill. I have no knowledge of the matter as regards London, but I know something of the freemen of the City of York. I speak as one of them, and I think that the compromise that is suggested is a reasonable and common sense one. I am glad to think that the freemen of the City of York keep pace with modern thought and development, and have very largely passed over their lands to the city council. I am perfectly certain that it is not a had thing for Radicals to keep a certain amount of sentiment in their mind. My hon. Friend opposite says that the freeman vote has been corrupt in the past but many other votes have been corrupt in the past, and I am glad to think that they lave been reformed. As long as you do not give them an additional vote I cannot see why in order to preserve the historic and sentimental interest he should not be allowed to vote as a freeman. It would not mean a lot more paper, because the freeman is asterisked.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Would they be satisfied with an asterisk?
    Mr. ROWNTREE: I am sure they would be; they have been in the past. I hope the House will accept the suggestion of the Home Secretary and agree to this Amendment.
    Mr. M. HEALY: I can assure the hon. Member who has just sat down that he is quite wrong in saying this is a mere matter of an asterisk, because a separate freeman list has to be prepared in every borough. You must first have a list of those who are to have the asterisk. One of the greatest advantages of this measure is its simplicity and uniformity with which it extends to the whole country. The freeman franchise differs in every borough. Each borough has its own customs, and, although many of them resemble one another, the fact remains that they are not the same, and the qualifications of freemen in different boroughs are not the same. In the borough of Galway the qualification was that you had to be a tradesman. There was no apprenticeship, and

    1895
    all you had to do was to say you were a tradesman living in the borough and you got the freeman franchise, and that at a time when the rest of the population could only get a. vote by having a high valuation.
    The first thing you do by this Amendment is that you create to some extent a different franchise in every Parliamentary borough. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] With great respect I say that the qualification of freemen differs in different boroughs, and, of course, there is no qualification in common. I was glad that the. Home Secretary adopted an Amendment on another point with the object of making the county and borough franchise the same. There is riot the slightest reason now why there should be any difference. One of the last acts of the Home Secretary was to sweep away one of the last distinctions of the county and borough franchise on the ground of the desirability of securing uniformity, and now we have introduced a Clause which begins by making a complete difference between the franchise as it exists in counties and in boroughs. I took no part in these discussions in Committee because I regarded it as an English question. It was then limited to the question of the liverymen of the City of London, and the decision was quite immaterial to me, but now it. is extended to other boroughs, and, so far as Ireland is concerned. I know nobody who wants the freemen's franchise. It involves the building of two Courts. The rights of the ordinary voters are decided by the authority set up by this Bill. Formerly it was the revising barrister; now it is the registration officer. There is, for the purpose of the freemen's franchise, an inquiry first by the Mayor under the Municipal Corporations Act. The preliminary admission of the freeman is affected by the Mayor and not by the registration officer: That will be one of the consequences if this Amendment is adopted. We shall not only have a different registration law as between county and borough, but we shall have two different Courts in the borough: First, the Mayor admitting the freemen and afterwards the registration officer adjudicating on the general rights. I am riot in the least interested in it as a concession to the historic memories of London. The City of London has already been specially favoured in the matter of its representation, having
    1896
    been separated from the rest of the administrative county, and now, as a consequence, this wretched freemen's franchise is placed upon our books in every municipal borough in the country. It is most objectionable. It is disorder for order, and difference for uniformity. And what is it all for? The hon. Gentleman speaks of sentiment. Sentiment is a very good thing, and I have no objection to it, but the notion that you are a better man because you walk into the polling booth as a freeman instead of as an ordinary citizen is perfectly ridiculous. There would be some sense in it if it gave you a special right, but the demand is based on the proposition that it gives you no special right—you merely vote as a liveryman instead of in respect of residence.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Compensation to Existing Officers.)
    Every existing overseer who suffers any direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act shall be entitled to have compensation paid to him by the council responsible for the payment of registration expenses, and in determining such compensation—

    (a) regard shall be had to the conditions and other circumstances required by Sub-section (1) of Section 120 of the Local Government Act, 1888, in regard to cases of compensation under that Section; and

    (b) the compensation shall not exceed the limit therein mentioned; and

    (c) the expression in Sub-section (1) of that Section, "The Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service," shall mean the Acts and rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888; and

    (d) the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (7) of Section 120 of that Act shall apply with such modifications (including the substitution of the "Local Government Board" for the "Treasury") as may be required, and including in Subsection (2) the substitution of the words "next before the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen" for the words "next before the passing of this Act."

    In this Section the expression, "overseer," includes any person executing any of the duties of overseer.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "existing overseer," and insert instead thereof the words "person who is an assistant overseer at the time of the passing of this Act and."—Agreed to.
    After the word "him" ["compensation paid to him"], insert the words "as registration expenses."—Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    At end of the Clause add the words "and receiving payment therefor."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Register for University Constituencies.)
    The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not, apply to university constituencies, but the governing body of every university forming, or forming part of, a university constituency shall cause a register to be kept in such form as they may direct of persons entitled to vote in respect of a qualification at their university, and shall make the register available for the purpose of university elections for the constituency:
    Provided that the governing body may direct that a person who before the passing of this Act has received a degree, but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof, shall have no right to be registered unless he makes a claim for the purpose.
    The governing body of any such university may charge such fee as they think fit, not exceeding one pound, for registration to any person who receives a degree at their university after the passing of this Act, and who has received a degree before the passing of this Act but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "form" ["cause a register to be kept in such form"], insert the words "and made up, if desired, to such dates."—Agreed to.
    After the word "constituency" ["university elections for the constituency"], insert the, words "and shall, on the application of any person, allow that person at all reasonable times to inspect and take extracts from the said register."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20. (Penalty for Voting at a General Election in More Constituencies than Allowed.)
    (2) The questions set out in Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act may be asked of any voter at a poll at a general election in addition to those. authorised already to be asked; and unless there is an answer given in. the negative, that person shall not vote.
    In the case of a university election, there shall be inserted in the voting paper, after the words "I do hereby declare that," the declarations set out in Part II. of the Second Schedule to this Act.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "person," insert the words "except as provided in that Schedule."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "In the case of a university election, there shall be inserted in the voting paper, after the words do hereby declare that,' the declarations set out in Part a of the Second Schedule to this Act"—Agreed to.

    CLAUS E 21.—(Voting by Absent Voters.)
    (1) For the purpose of giving persons whose names are entered on the absent voters' list an opportunity of voting at a Parliamentary election, the returning officer shall, where an election is contested, as soon as practicable after the adjournment of the election, send a ballot paper to each such person at the address entered against his name on the absent voters' list in the register together with a declaration of identity in the prescribed form.

    (2) The ballot paper marked by the absent voter and accompanied by the declaration of identity duly signed and authenticated shall, if it is received by the returning officer before the close of the poll, be counted by him and treated for all purposes in the same manner as a ballot paper placed in the ballot box in the ordinary manner.

    (3) During the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter, for the purpose of allowing more time for the receipt of ballot papers from persons whose names are entered on the absent voters' list, His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the counting of votes at any elections to which the Order applies shall, instead of

    1899
    taking place as soon as practicable after the close of the poll, take place at such time (not exceeding eight days after the close of the poll) as may be fixed by the Order, and returning officers shall comply with any such direction; and in any such case any vote received by the returning officer from an absent voter before the time at which the votes are to be counted shall be reckoned in the count.

    (4) The following special provisions shall apply for the purpose of enabling persons whose names are entered on the absent voters' list to appoint voting proxies in certain cases:

    (a) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that voting by proxy by persons registered as naval or military voters shall be permitted in any area on land abroad mentioned in the Order if it appears to him that ballot papers sent to that area by post cannot reasonably be returned before the votes are counted, and that the case cannot be met by an Order under this Section postponing the counting of votes:

    (b) A person whose name is entered on the absent voters list, if he satisfies the registration officer—

    (i.) that he is registered as a naval or military voter and is serving, or about to serve, afloat, or in any area on land abroad in which voting by proxy is permitted in pursuance of an Order in Council made under this Section; or

    (ii.) that he is a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman (including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat) and that there is a likelihood that he will be at the time of a Parliamentary election at sea or about to go to sea;

    shall be entitled, if he so desires, to appoint a proxy, and, having appointed a proxy, to vote by proxy at a Parliamentary election in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act:

    (c) No ballot paper shall be sent for the purpose of voting by post to a person who has appointed a proxy under this provision while the appointment is in force:

    1900

    (d) The provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to voting by proxy.

    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "election" ["at a Parliamentary election"], insert the words "(other than a university election)."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "entered against his name on the absent voters' list in the register," and insert instead thereof the words "recorded by the registration officer."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "close of the poll," and insert instead thereof the words "time at which the votes are to be counted."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Perhaps I may say a word about this Amendment because it is a matter of substance. This Amendment is concerned with the Clause which relates to voting by absent voters. If lion. Members will look at Sub-section (2) they will see that the ballot paper marked by the absent voter, shall,
    "if it is received by the returning officer before the close of the poll,"
    be counted by him. The Amendment provides that if it is received before the time at which the votes are to be counted it shall be valid. Of course that is a difference. It gives the absent voter little more time to get in his vote. Under the Bill, without the Amendment, it must be received before the poll closes, but under the Bill as proposed to be amended it will be valid if received before the time the votes are counted. It would in some cases be the same evening and in other eases I suppose it would be the next morning. I should like to hear what hon. Members have to say upon this difference, and in the meantime I formally move to agree with the Amendment.
    Mr. HEALY: This matter was discussed at some length, the House came to a formal decision on it, and we are now asked to reverse it. The objection to the Amendment is that it gives the returning officer the power to fix the time up to which the votes are to be counted. If there is any existing enactment saying that votes should not be counted within

    1901
    a certain time of the poll, there would be no objection to the Amendment, but in the Ballot Act there is no limit of time. The returning officer may count the same night or the next day or two days after. The Conservative agent goes to the returning officer and says, "I have a lot of voters who are all fishing. I want you to postpone the counting of the votes." The Radical agent says, "No; I object to postponement." The merit of the existing law is that there is no choice given to anyone. Here, then, is, we will say, a closely balanced election which a few votes may turn, and the one agent or the other may expect that a delay in the counting of the votes as between to-night and to-morrow will determine the election and all kinds of pressure will be put upon the returning officer by one agent or the other to put off the counting; and whatever decision the returning officer comes to, he will be charged with being a partisan. For these reasons the Committee decided that the proper limit to fix was the close of the poll. A vote that comes in before the close of the poll should be counted, but there should be a discretion vested in the returning officer, because that is what it amounts to, to fix up to what moment votes coming in should be counted. That would be a most dangerous change in our electoral practice, and I hope the House will not agree to it.
    Mr. PETO: I do net agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman m his recollection of what took place in Committee, or the very sinister interpretation he puts on this Amendment. It seems to me that he knows so much about election law that he sees all sorts of difficulties and dangers and possible intrigues which are not in the least likely really to happen in practice. The proposition is a perfectly simple one. We have an all too limited period for the recording of these absent votes. I believe as a rule only a period of eight days. We felt in the Conference that eight days was a very short time, but that, desirable as it was to enable the greatest possible opportunity for absent voters to record their votes, it was not desirable to protract elections beyond a reasonable period. Now the Lords have seen that here was an opportunity of giving in many cases an additional twelve hours for the post to come in and a certain additional percentage of absent voters to be able to record their votes without inconvenience and without any alteration
    1902
    of the period of the counting of the votes at all, but merely in the ordinary practice the votes would be counted in the morning, the returning officer would see toe morning post is in, and so many additional votes, and to that extent the election will be more perfect than it otherwise would be and a more complete representation of the electors. I do not believe the hon. and learned Member's fears are in the least well-founded, and there will be all these intrigues between one election agent or another or that the country would tolerate for a moment holding up the counting of the votes for two or three days in order that a particular fishing fleet may conic in, because there is supposed to be a majority of absent voters on board who have not already registered their votes and who their all-wise election agents know, or think they know, are going to give them some election advantage. I think we should hear a great deal about it if the counting of the votes was held over for two o three days for the return of a few fishing vessels. Nothing of the kind is in the least likely to happen. This Amendment is to enable an additional number—it may be only a few—of absent voters to register their votes, and for that reason I hope the Home Secretary's recommendation will be listened to, and that the House will agree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: There is enough in this proposition to give the House pause before they seriously consider it. You are asked to make an entire change in the law of the Ballot Act in regard to the conditions under which the poll closes. I am not saying that this suggestion may not be a good one; but it certainly requires consideration before you heartily adopt it. It is all very well to say that you do not have or will not have sharp practices: but we have all in our minds cases where we know sharp practice was resorted to. If you have a returning officer who is at all inclined to sharp practices you are going to put a weapon in his hands which may be of very great use. I feel smile hesitation in letting this Amendment go without taking the sense of the House upon it. You are breaking through all the traditions in regard to the time at winch the poll closes, and you may find that great difficulties will arise as a. result of this Amendment.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has moved to agree with this Amendment. I could quite understand an Amendment fixing a limit of, say, twelve or twenty-four hours, but this is quite indefinite. We ought to have the same law applied to electors, whether the counting takes place on the election day or the day after the election. I do hope that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment, and if the Home Secretary will see his way to withdraw his Motion, I think the House will be unanimous in rejecting the Amendment.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I agree that this is a matter which seems to require some further consideration. Hitherto the returning officers have been able to some extent to influence elections according to the choice that they made of the day for which the poll was to be fixed. That has been swept away by this Bill, and all elections are to be held on the same day. Now, however, with this provision, it will be within the option of a returning officer in certain cases to affect the result of an election by his decision as to the time and day at which the count is to be taken. if in the normal course the count is to be taken in the evening after the poll is closed there will be one result, and if the count is postponed until the following day, in order that votes may come in by post, another result will be secured. You therefore invest a political discretion in a non-political officer, and that seems to be a thing in itself objectionable. At the same time one wishes to give a reasonable opportunity to absent voters to poll. The House of Lords were, if I may say so, not very well advised by the representatives of the Government in that House as to the effect of this Amendment. Lord Peel moved to delete from. Subsection (2) the words "close of the poll," in order to insert the words "time at which the votes are counted," and he said
    "The object this Amendment is to bring this, provision into consonance with the provision at the end of Sub-section (3) so that the absent voters papers can be counted if they come in a after voters papers can be counted if they come in a after the close of the poll."
    There was no discussion and the Amendment was accepted. As a matter of fact, Sub-section (3) deals with an entirely different matter. It is the Sub-section which applies to the General Election that takes place during the War, or within twelve months thereafter, and allows an extension of eight days for the counting of the votes from all over the country, so
    1904
    that the soldiers' votes may have time to be sent home, and the postal vote to be taken over a larger area. It is necessary that these soldiers' votes should be counted if they come in within the eight days. That is different from Sub-section (2), which deals with ordinary elections under normal conditions. I suggest that it may be possible to subject this to further consideration and that would necessitate disagreeing with the Lords at this stage, so that the matter could be considered again in another place. It may be possible to insert a provision limiting the time within which the count is to be taken. If you inserted some provision stating that in certain circumstances the poll should be counted on the same day as the election, and in other circumstances on the day after—it may be rather difficult—and so limit the discretion of the returning officer, there would not be so much objection to this Amendment. If it is not found possible to limit the discretion of the returning officer, then I think it would be advisable on the whole to keep the Bill as it stood.
    Colonel SANDERS: Surely this is provided for in the next Sub-section.
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is a different case.
    Mr. HOLT: I hope that the Home Secretary will disagree with this Amendment. I have had the experience of fighting a county constituency three times. I have always found the returning officer to be a party man and outside of the party opposed to my own party. Everyone knows perfectly well that in a county constituency the high sheriff is always a Conservative, and the discretion exercised by these gentlemen is invariably used to party advantage. For instance, on the occasion of my first election the proposal was made that the polling should take place on a Friday, but the returning officer would not have it as he and his friends were going horse-racing on that day. And that is the sort of thing that occurs whenever the returning officer has to exercise his discretion. Let us make it plain that he is not to have a discretion which can influence the election. Let him be only a judge whose duty it is to conduct the election. Then there will be no exercise of discretion on the side of the party to which the returning officer belongs.
    Sir G. CAVE: The speech to which we have just. listened almost makes me disposed to insist on my Motion. The

    1905
    hon. Gentleman suggests that the high sheriffs throughout the country do not act impartially. I have had the pleasure of knowing many of them, and I should not think of making that charge. The only argument that affects me is one put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. Samuel) when he said that this would enable the returning officer to postpone the time for the purpose of preventing any voter corning in, and that would lay him open to the imputation of favouring one party or the other.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Or he might refuse to do so.
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, or he might refuse, and he would lay himself out to this imputation of unfairness, whereas lie had been actuated entirely by other reasons. I am quite willing to consider that matter very carefully, and I agree that the only way to do it is to disagree with the Lords Amendment and see whether in another place an Amendment. can be inserted to meet the point.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps it might be possible to provide for the count to take place as soon as practicable after the close of the poll.
    Sir G. CAVE: One does not know what might happen to delay the counting.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "and in any such case any vote received by the returning officer for an absent voter by the time at which the votes are to be counted shall be reckoned in the count."—Disagreed with.
    In Sub-section (4, a), leave out the words persons registered as."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (4, b), leave out the words registered as."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (4, c), at the end, insert the words "or to any naval or military voter if the returning officer knows that he is serving in an area in which voting by proxy is permitted in pursuance of an Order in Council made under this Section."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I want to ask a question about this, because I am not at all convinced of its wisdom. We came to the conclusion that no ballot paper should be sent for the purpose of voting by post to a person who had appointed a proxy under this provision while the appointment was in force. Now it is proposed to provide that no ballot paper is to be sent to any naval or military voter if the returning officer knows that he is serving in an area in which voting by proxy is permitted. The proposal we made was simple, that is to say, that a man who has sent in his proxy, his proxy being registered, is not to have a ballot paper. This is a very much more complicated proposition for the returning officer. He has got to discriminate between the people to whom he is going to send the ballot papers. I cannot help thinking that the Government have made this proposition merely on the suggestion of the Post Office. It would be very difficult to carry out. We have never yet said that a man who prefers not to use a proxy should not have the opportunity of voting by post if it could be managed, and we do not know yet what the areas are which His Majesty in Council will decide should be proxy areas. Supposing that they are areas comparatively near England, it is extremely unjust to say that nobody is to have a ballot paper at all unless he sends in a proxy. That would be putting a restriction upon the exercise of the vote by the soldier. I do not think that it ought to be left to the discretion of the returning officer to send or not to send a proxy.
    Mr. PETO: I am very glad that the right lion. Gentleman has raised this point, because it seems to me that the way in which the Bill left this House is, as regards this matter, the proper way to leave it. I do not think it fair to the returning officer to introduce this Amendment, as he may have to make inquiries or may have evidence put before him to make him think he knows that he ought not to send a ballot paper to a certain man because he is serving in a certain area. The information may be perfectly right when it is given, and afterwards may cease to be correct. We do not want a proxy vote where a personal vote could possibly be exercised, and therefore to place a restriction upon a returning officer sending a ballot paper to men because lie thinks that he knows that

    1907
    they are in certain areas is most undesirable, and I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the position with regard to this Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: This is a somewhat difficult point, and I am sure that the House understands what really is the intention of the Amendment. The Bill provides that an area may be made a proxy area where His Majesty in Council is satisfied that ballot papers sent into that area by post cannot be returned before the votes are counted, and the case cannot be met by extending the time for counting the votes. In such a case it would be useless to send the papers to that area in order that the voter should vote by post, as no vote could be given. The intention of the Amendment is this The War Office have agreed to inform the registration officer confidentially of the men who are in a proxy area. Where men are abroad, and the proxies could not be effectively used, or could not be returned in time, it would be simply waste to send them to such an area, for they could have no result. The Amendment is a reasonable one, and really nothing is lost by it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Voting by Persons in the Employment of Returning Officers.)
    Where an elector for any constituency is employed by the returning officer for that constituency for any purpose in connection with an election for that constituency, and the circumstances of that. elector's employment are, in the opinion of the returning officer, such as to prevent, him from voting at the polling station at which the elector would otherwise be entitled to vote, the returning officer may authorise the elector to vote at any other polling station in the constituency, and that polling station shall, for the. purpose of Rule 18 of Part I. of the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, be deemed to be the polling station allotted to that elector.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "constituency" ["constituency for any purpose"], insert the words "other than a university constituency"—Agreed to.
    After the word "elector'' ["authorise the elector to vote"], insert the words "by a certificate given in the prescribed form."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Right to the Use of Elementary Schools.)
    (1) A candidate at a Parliamentary election shall be entitled for the purpose of holding a public meeting in furtherance of his candidature, to the use at reasonable times between the receipt of a writ for the election and the day of the poll, of a suitable room in any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant situated within the constituency for which he is a candidate:
    Provided that this enactment shall not authorise the use of any room used as part of a private dwelling-house nor authorise any interference with the school hours of an elementary day or evening school nor, in the case of a room used for the administration of justice or police, with the hours during which it is used for these purposes.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "election" ["A candidate at a Parliamentary election"], insert the words "other than a university election."—Agreed to.
    After the word "school" ["elementary school"], leave out the words "in receipt. of an annual Parliamentary grant.''—Agreed to.
    After the word "school" ["day or evening school"], leave out the words "nor, in the case of a room used for the administration of justice or police, with the hours during which it is used for these purposes."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Forfeiture of Deposit in Certain cases.)
    (3) If after the deposit is made. the candidate is withdrawn in pursuance of the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, the deposit. shall be returned to the person by whom the deposit was made; and if the candidate dies after the deposit is made, and before the poll is commenced, the deposit shall be, returned to his personal representative.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "deposit" ["after the deposit is made''], insert the words "if made by him."—Agreed to.
    After the word "his '' ["his personal representative"], insert the word "legal"; and after the word "representative" insert the words" or, if not made

    1909
    by him, shall be returned to the person by whom the deposit was made."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Deposit by Candidates at Parliamentary Elections.)
    (1) If a candidate who has made the required deposit is not elected, and the number of votes polled by him does not exceed, in the case of a constituency returning one or two members, one-eighth of the total number of votes polled, or in the case of a constituency returning more than two members one-eighth of the number of votes polled divided by the number of members to be elected, the amount deposited shall be forfeited to His Majesty; but in any other case that amount shall be returned to the candidate:
    Provided that where a candidate is nominated at a General Election in more than one constituency he shall in no case recover his deposit more than once, and in such case the deposits shall be forfeited to His Majesty except such one as the Treasury direct to be returned to the candidate.

    (2) For the purposes of this Section the number of votes polled shall be deemed to be the number of ballot papers (other than spoilt ballot papers) counted; and where the election is held under the system of the alternative or the transferable vote the number of votes polled by a candidate shall be the number of votes polled by him as first preferences.

    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "candidate" ["returned to the candidate"], insert the words "where the candidate is elected, as soon as he has taken the oath as a member, and, where the candidate is not elected, as soon as practicable after the result of the election is declared."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "system" ["the system of the alternative"], leave out the words "the alternative or."—Disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Returning Officers.)
    The returning officer at a Parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, be:

    (1) In the case of a Parliamentary county which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the sheriff;

    1910

    (2) In the case of a Parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a county of a city or town having a sheriff, the sheriff, and in the ease of the City of London, the sheriffs;

    (3) In the case of a Parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough (not being a county of a city or town having a sheriff), or one Metropolitan borough, or one urban district, the mayor or chairman of the council, as the case requires; and

    (4) In any other case, such sheriff, mayor, or chairman, as may be. designated for the purpose by the Local Government Board.

    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Parliamentary county," and insert instead thereof the word "constituency."—Disagreed with.
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "Parliamentary borough," and insert instead thereof the word "constituency."—Disagreed with.
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words. "Parliamentary borough," and insert instead thereof the word "constituency"—Disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Payment of Returning Officers' Expenses by Treasury.)
    (1) The returning officer at a Parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall be entitled to his reasonable charges, not exceeding the sums specified in the scale of maximum charges. framed under this Section, in respect of services and expenses of the several kinds mentioned in the said scale which have been properly rendered or incurred by him for the purposes of the election.
    Lords Amendment:
    After the word "of" ["purposes of the election"], insert the words "or in connection with."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Discharge of Returning Officers' Duties by an Acting Returning Officer.)
    Except as herein provided, the duties of returning officer at Parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall be discharged by the registration

    1911
    officer as acting returning officer, and the acting returning officer shall have all the powers, duties, rights, and liabilities of the returning officer under any enactments relating to Parliamentary elections (including the power of appointing deputies) and those enactments (including this Act) shall have effect accordingly.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "including the power of appointing deputies."—Agreed to.
    At the end, insert the words "and the acting returning officer shall have the power to appoint deputies."—Agreed to.
    After Clause 28, insert new Clause C.

    CLAUSE C.—(Division of Constituency into Polling Districts, and Provision of Polling Places.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of the council, whose clerk is the registration officer for any constituency or by whom the registration officer is appointed, as occasion requires, to divide the constituency into tolling districts and to appoint polling places for the polling districts in such manner as to give all electors in the constituency such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances:
    Provided that before dividing any constituency in the administrative county of London into polling districts, the authority there for shall send a draft of any scheme for that purpose to the London County Council, and shall take into consideration any representations made to them by the council.

    (2) On the exercise of any powers given by this Section the council by whom the powers are exercised shall send to the Local Government Board a report, and publish in the constituency a notice, showing the boundaries of any polling districts or the situation of any polling places constituted as a result of the exercise of the power.

    (3) An election shall not be questioned by reason of any non-compliance with the provisions of this Section or any informality relative to polling districts or polling places.

    (4) This Section shall not apply to university constituencies.

    (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect any polling districts or polling places con-
    1912
    stituted before the passing of this Act until occasion arises for the exercise of the powers given by this Section.

    Lords Amendment read a second time.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after Sub-section (1), to insert the. following:
    (2) If a local authority, or not less than thirty electors in a constituency, make a representation to the Local Government Board that the polling districts or polling places do not meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the constituency, or any body of electors, the Local Government Board shall consider the representation, and may, if they think fit, direct the council whose duty it is to divide the constituency into polling districts, to make such alterations as the Board think necessary in the circumstances, and if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given, may themselves make the alterations, and any alterations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the council.
    In this provision the expression "local authority" means as respects any constituency the council of any county. borough, urban or rural district, or parish wholly or partly situate in the constituency, or the parish meeting of any parish so situate where there is no parish council.
    This is a proposal which simplifies the present law. The Clause enacts that the registration officer shall afford facilities and make arrangements to enable the voters to record their votes. In order that the electors may hate some control over the registration officer in this respect, by the Amendment which we now propose, the Local Government Board, if they are not satisfied that the registration officer has carried out the duties as regards the arrangements for polling districts or stations, may themselves order new arrangements to be made of a more convenient character for the recording of the votes. I think that carries out a desire expressed by many hon. Members.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    After the Clause last added, insert

    CLAUSE D.—(Place of Election.)
    The place of election shall be fixed for each constituency (other than a university constituency) by the returning officer, and shall be—

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

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

    Lords Amendment read a second time.
    Amendments made to Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph (a), leave out the words "or the major part of the constituency is contained in a municipal," and insert instead thereof the words "a Parliamentary borough or a division of a Parliamentary."
    In paragraph (b), leave out the words "in any other case," and insert instead thereof the words "if the constituency is a Parliamentary county or a division of a Parliamentary county."
    Leave out the word "municipal"—[Sir G. Cave.]

    CLAUSE 29.—(Scale of Election Expenses, 46 and 47 Vict., c. 51.)
    (1) The provisions set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for Part IV and paragraph (3) of Part V. of the First Schedule to the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (which relate to the maximum scale of election expenses), and that the Act shall have effect accordingly.
    Lords Amendment:
    After Sub-section (1), insert as a new Sub-section:
    (2) Sub-section (1) of Section five of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884, shall for the purposes of county council elections be read and have effect as if "two-pence" were inserted therein in lieu of "three-pence."
    Colonel Sir H. JESSEL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    1914
    In the Bill sent up to the other House there were certain Acts which had permanent effect, and among the Acts was the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884. The Lords in their wisdom singled out among all those Acts one particular Sub-section of the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, and altered it so as to reduce the amount that could be spent from county funds on elections from 3d. to 2d. Experience has shown that county councils are run very cheaply, and you cannot spend anything like the money you can on Parliamentary elections. If this House agrees with the Lords Amendment, it will be hardly possible to circularise the electors at all. Therefore, I hope the economical tendencies of the House of Lords may be checked, seeing that the amount which is allowed to be expended under the provisions of the Act of 1884 is not extravagant.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    I can assure the House that this reduction would make it very difficult indeed to conduct county council elections. The amount is very low at the present time. In Parliamentary elections we authorise every candidate to have one free postage. In the county council elections he will not even get that. I feel convinced that a great mistake will be made if we reduce this amount.
    Sic G. CAVE: I fear this Amendment opens up a new field of discussion not closely connected with some other parts of the Bill, and as my hon. and gallant Friend and my right hon. Friend agree in a matter of this kind, I expect they are likely to be right. I think, therefore, we might take their view, and disagree with, the Lords Amendment. May I take this opportunity of saying we are proposing to go so far as the end of page 26, and then, I will ask the House to adjourn?
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 30.—Expenses Incurred by Un-authorised Persons.)
    (1) A person other than a candidate or his election agent shall not incur any expenses on account of holding public meetings or issuing advertisements, circulars, or publications, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a Parliamentary election unless he is authorised in writing to do so by that candidate or his election agent.
    (3) Any expenses incurred on account of any such purpose as aforesaid and authorised by the candidate shall be duly returned as part of the candidate's election expenses.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "a candidate or his election agent," and insert instead thereof the words "the election agent of a candidate."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "that candidate or his," and insert instead thereof the word such."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (3), after the word "the" ["by the candidate"], insert the words "election agent of the."—Agreed to.
    After Clause 31, insert

    CLAUSE E.—(Elections for University Constituencies.)
    (1) The provisions contained in Part I. of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to elections for university constituencies other than the Scottish university constituency, and the provisions contained in Part II. of that Schedule shall have effect with respect to elections for the Scottish university constituency, and His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such Regulations as appear necessary or desirable for giving full effect to those provisions and for the effective and proper conduct of those elections.
    Any such Regulations may be made so as to be applicable generally to elections for university constituencies or specially to elections for any particular university constituency.

    (2) This Part of this Act shall, except as expressly provided, apply to university constituencies and university elections.

    (3) In the application of the provisions of this Act which are applicable to university constituencies and university elections to those constituencies and elections the following modifications shall have effect:

    (a) "Voting paper" shall be substituted for "ballot paper," and for any reference to the Ballot Act there shall he substituted a reference to the corresponding provision of this Act, or Regulations made there under in relation to university constituencies or university elections:

    1916

    (b) It shall not be necessary to prepare an absent voters' list, but the right to vote by proxy may be exercised by any person who would be entitled to exercise such right if his name. were entered on an absent voters' list, so long as all other conditions enabling him to vote by proxy are fulfilled:

    (c) Where a candidate's deposit is forfeited the deposit shall be retained by the university.—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 32.—(Redistribution of Seats.)
    (1) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the First Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be a Parliamentary borough returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.

    (2) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the Second Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be a Parliamentary county returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.

    (3) Each of the universities and combinations of universities mentioned in the Third Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be a constituency returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule.

    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "of the First Part of the Fifth Schedule to this Act shall be a Parliamentary borough," and insert instead thereof the words "of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall he a separate constituency."—Disagreed with.
    Leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).—Disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Alteration of Polling Districts where Necessary.)
    The local authority having power to divide any Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough into polling districts shall not later than one month after the passing of this Act, take into consideration

    1917
    the division of such county or borough into polling districts, and make any rearrangements of those districts and of polling places which it appears necessary to make as a consequence of alterations effected by this Act.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "local authority" ["The local authority having power"], and insert instead thereof the word "council."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "any Parliamentary county or Parliamentary borough," and insert instead thereof the words "a constituency."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "such county or borough," and insert instead thereof the words "the constituency."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35.—(Regulations to be Laid Before Parliament.)
    All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation, or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the word "if" ["and if an Address is presented"] and insert instead thereof the words "unless and until."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the next go together. The effect of the Amendment is that the rules are to be laid, and that unless and until" an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House asking for annulment, they shall have effect as if enacted in the Act. The difference, as the House will at once see, is considerable. Under the Clause as passed by this House, if either House passes an Address against the rules and regulations, His Majesty may annul them. Under the Amendment either House may, by having pre-presented the Address, ipso facto annul
    1918
    the regulations. In other words, either this House or the other House will have absolute power to annul any regulations passed under this Act. I do not for a moment suggest that either House will misuse that power. But I think it is undesirable to give so great a power to either House. If the House accepts this Amendment it will be a precedent for other Bills.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I hope the House will not accept this Motion. This is a very remarkable instance of how the Government as an executive body is intruding on the right of Parliament. These regulations are merely entrusted to the Order in Council for convenience sake, and not, as superseding the rights of Parliament, because it is more convenient that the elaborated details should be left to be decided by an Order in Council. It has never been the intention of Parliament that the Executive, by an arbitrary Order, should supersede the Houses of Parliament and impose whatever it thinks proper. The Home Secretary is mistaken in supposing that the universal precedent is in favour of this form of words. This particular form of words has only been used on the present occasion, and involves the supreme power of Parliament, and it was always held that the Order may be annulled if Parliament so desires. For the first time distinguished lawyers advised the House of Lords that that was not so, and an Amendment was introduced to give Parliament the control which Parliament was supposed to exercise, and which has never been abused. On what conceivable ground is it conceivable that the Executive should override both Houses of Parliament in a matter of this kind? These regulations are issued by the authority of Parliament, and it is most important that this House should insist that its authority should prevail over the authority of the Government where they disagree. It is the most presumptuous claim I ever heard of that when this House disagrees with the Executive Government they are to be put on one side, and the authority of Parliament is to be subordinated to a bureaucratic Government. I hope this House will assert the authority of Parliament. These regulations are in place of an Act, and have the force of an Act. On what conceivable ground is a regulation to be adopted which has not the full authority of Parliament behind it? By what right is a regulation to operate if one House of

    1919
    Parliament disagrees with it? The consent of both Houses is necessary to give the force of law to an Act, and the consent of both should be necessary to give authority to any regulation made in place of an Act of Parliament. I hope the House will not accept the proposal of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I entirely dissent from the views expressed by the Noble Lord, who has not properly conceived the constitutional bearing or effect of this particular Amendment. This is a novelty introduced by the House of Lords, and it departs from the usual course.
    Lord H. CECIL: That is not so.
    Mr. SAMUEL: This raises a very grave constitutional question. It is not the case of an Executive intruding its power upon Parliament, but the case of one House seeking to arrogate to itself power which ought properly to rest in the two Houses together. The Amendment inserted by the House of Lords has this effect. Regulations are made of carrying out this very important Act of Parliament, regulations which are essential to the working of the Act, and the House of Commons debates and endorses them. If the House of Lords disagrees with them, and presents an Address against them, then ipso facto they become null and void. It is not a question of the Executive overruling Parliament, but of single-chamber government.
    Lord H. CECIL: The Executive can overrule both Houses.
    Mr. SAMUEL: No; because Parliament has plenty of effective means of bringing the Executive of the day to book.
    Lord H. CECIL: No.
    Mr. SAMUEL: if this House passed an Address declaring that a certain Order in Council was in its opinion improper, and if the Government of the day, after that vote, maintained that Order in Council, and refused to alter it, can you imagine that the House of Commons would not take steps in order to enforce its will? Such a thing is inconceivable. If, on the other hand, the House of Commons bold one view and the House of Lords another, why should we put it in the Statute that the mere will of the House of Commons should overrule the opinion
    1920
    expressed here? The Noble Lord said: "The assent of both Houses is necessary for an Act of Parliament. Why should not the assent of both Houses be necessary for a. regulation?" I say "why should not the assent of both Houses be necessary for the Amendment or the repeal of a regulation?" He assumes that one House is to have the sole right of its own Motion to annul any Order in Council intended to carry out the legislation of Parliament. The matter was debated at very considerable length in the other House, and, as a result, the Amendment moved by Lord Salisbury was rejected.
    Lord H. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was a different Amendment.
    Mr. SAMUEL: An Amendment different in form.
    Lord H. CECIL: It was accepted by the Government.
    Mr. SAMUEL: But precisely the same in effect.
    Lord H. CECIL: Not precisely the same.
    Mr. SAMUEL: The -whole purpose of the Amendment was to secure that if either House of Parliament passed an Address, then the Order in Council or regulation should ipso facto become null and void. The House debated it at great length, and another Amendment was ingeniously put forward by another Noble Lord, and, after a short Debate, was accepted. The Noble Lord says that it was accepted by the Government. It was given a very qualified acceptance. The Lord Chancellor said
    "I think it might have been better to have adhered to the Clause as it stands in the Bill, which undoubtedly has been used with great benefit. I cannot tell my Noble Friend the precise number, but. I am informed by the best authorities that it has been used in a great many eases, and it has been the most usual form of Clause for a great many years past."
    Again, he said
    "I do not think there would be anything improper in not taking a Division on the point if that is the general sense of the House. At the same time, I cannot say that we can undertake to make this a Government Amendment. I do not know what the other House may say to this. All I can say is that I am not prepared to oppose it if the general sense of your Lordships House is in favour of the adoption of this Amendment. I understand that the Government cannot undertake to carry it through Parliament, hut I should not be prepared to divide the House against the Amendment. For the reasons I gave the other night, I think it is better to adhere to the usual form of Clause."

    1921
    That is what the Noble Lord calls acceptance. It was a very unenthusiastic acceptance. The Lord Chancellor, with his long acquaintance of this House, probably foresaw the view that would inevitably be taken here. I cannot for a moment think that this House would agree to the claim that either House should have the right to annul a regulation which may be essential to the effective working of an Act of Parliament.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.
    Lords Amendments:
    Leave out the words "His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation or provision, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done there under," and insert instead thereof the words "the rule, regulation or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."—Disagreed with.
    At the end of the Clause, add as a new Sub-section, "(2) Any Order in Council under this Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
    (4) The expression "university constituency "means a constituency consisting of a university or a combination of universities; and the expression "university election" means an election of a member or members of Parliament for a university constituency; and this Act in its application to university elections, shall be read with the substitution of "voting paper" for "ballot paper," and with such other modifications as are necessary to adapt it to the special circumstances of those elections:
    (7) The expression "alternative vote" means a vote—

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

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

    (8) For the purposes of registration a person's age shall be taken to be that person's age on the last day of the qualifying period.
    (9) The yearly value of premises shall be taken to be the gross estimated rental where those premises are separately assessed to rates, and in any other case shall be deemed to be the amount which would in the opinion of the registration officer be the gross estimated rental if they were separately assessed.
    (10) The expression "afloat" in connection with naval and military voters shall be interpreted in accordance with rules made for the purpose by the Admiralty.
    (11) The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by His Majesty by Order in Council.
    Any Order in Council under the Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (4), leave out the words "and this Act in its application to university elections, shall be read with the substitution of 'voting paper' for 'ballct paper,' and with such other modifications as are necessary to adapt it to the special circumstances of those elections."—Agreed to.
    Leave out Sub-section (7).—Disagreed with.
    After Sub-section (8), insert, as a new Sub-section, "The expression 'dwelling-house' includes any part of a house where that part is occupied separately as a dwelling-house."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (9), after the word "of" ["The yearly value of"], insert the words "land or."—Agreed to.
    After the word "rental" ["the gross estimated rental where those premises"], insert the words "or in the Metropolis the gross value."—Agreed to.
    After the word "rental" ["the gross estimated rental if they were separately assessed"], insert the words "or gross value as the case requires."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (10), after the word "afloat," insert the words "and expressions relating to service afloat."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (11), leave out the words "Any Order in Council under the Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council."—Agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the further consideration of the Lords Amendments be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Lords Amendments to be further considered To-morrow.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Resolved, "That this House do sit Tomorrow."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
    It being after Half-past Eleven or the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Four minutes before Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  "SAVE on STARVE" CAMPAIGN.
  "SAVE on STARVE" CAMPAIGN.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  FEEDING-STUFFS.
  BREWING.
  BREWING.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  HUNTING.
  HUNTING.
  MILITARY RATIONS.
  MILITARY RATIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
  POULTRY BREEDING.
  POULTRY BREEDING.
  ADVANCES TO FARMERS.
  ADVANCES TO FARMERS.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  LAND CULTIVATION.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
  ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.
  ARTIFICER ENGINEERS.
  ARTIFICER ENGINEERS.
  OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
  ENGINEER LIEUTENANTS.
  ENGINEER LIEUTENANTS.
  SHIPPING (SUBMARINE ATTACKS).
  SHIPPING (SUBMARINE ATTACKS).
  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE (DBRECTOR-GENERAL).
  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE (DBRECTOR-GENERAL).
  LEAFLETS (DISTRIBUTION BY AEROPLANE).
  LEAFLETS (DISTRIBUTION BY AEROPLANE).
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
  PALESTBNE OPERATIONS (MEDICAL AND COMMISSARIAT SERVICES).
  PALESTBNE OPERATIONS (MEDICAL AND COMMISSARIAT SERVICES).
  ARMY HORSES (MANGE).
  ARMY HORSES (MANGE).
  ARMY OFFICERS.
  ARMY OFFICERS.
  INVALIDED OFFICERS (Civil EMPLOYMENT).
  INVALIDED OFFICERS (Civil EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-KING MANOEL.
  EX-KING MANOEL.
  WAR SERVICE (SILVER BADGE).
  WAR SERVICE (SILVER BADGE).
  PORTUGUESE IN BARRA2KS (RELIGIOUS SERVICES).
  PORTUGUESE IN BARRA2KS (RELIGIOUS SERVICES).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  DISCHARGES.
  DISCHARGES.
  BOUNTY.
  BOUNTY.
  CROFTER (SOLE SURVIVING SON).
  CROFTER (SOLE SURVIVING SON).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  WOOL (ARMY SOCKS).
  WOOL (ARMY SOCKS).
  PROFICIENCY PAY.
  PROFICIENCY PAY.
  SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS.
  SOLDIERS' ACCOUNTS.
  FORAGE STORES (GUARDS).
  FORAGE STORES (GUARDS).
  OFFICERS' FUNERALS.
  OFFICERS' FUNERALS.
  NAVAL AND MILBTARY PENSBONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILBTARY PENSBONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  FLAX.
  FLAX.
  ALBENS UNREGISTERED.
  ALBENS UNREGISTERED.
  PRISONERS OF WAR (ISLE OF MAN).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (ISLE OF MAN).
  Poor Law School, Cowley.
  Poor Law School, Cowley.
  Diplomatic Service.
  Diplomatic Service.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord STANMORE The Lord STANMORE appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees.
REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a (Lord Hylton), and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion that is in my name upon the Paper—that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting. This Motion is moved solely with reference to two Bills which have already passed the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. They are the two Bills in charge of my noble friend Lord Peel—the Military Service Bill and the National Registration (Amendment) Bill—both of which are down for Committee stage this afternoon. I understand that in neither case is there any Amendment to be moved, and therefore we shall escape the Report stage. My noble friend represents to me that it is a matter of great public urgency to get these Bills on the Statute Book as soon as possible, and it is in order to facilitate that end that I ask your Lordships' consent to take the Third Reading as well as the Committee this afternoon. I believe that just now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked a question about the Second Reading of the Irish Redistribution Bill. I think, my Lords, we had better put that Bill down for Second Reading on Monday next. It will then be before us at the same time as the Representation of the People Bill comes back from the House of Commons, and can be considered appropriately, I think, on the same day.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Earl has mentioned two Bills of which I admit the urgency. Supposing we suspend the Standing Order and pass the Third Reading of both Bills to-day, does he contemplate a Royal Commission this week?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, my Lords; I am doubtful whether there can he a Royal Commission this week. It depends upon arrangements which have not yet been made, but my noble friend Lord Peel is anxious to get these Bills ready for the Royal Commission at the earliest moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that my noble friend desires the suspension of the Standing Order in respect to the Military Service Bill and the National Registration (Amendment) Bill. Speaking for myself only—I have no right to speak on any one else's behalf—I see no objection to the suspension of the Standing Order in respect of any Bill which is really of importance to the conduct of the war. That is strictly in line with all that your Lordships have done during the last three years. But it will be observed that the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill will be affected by the same proceeding. If my noble friend does not intend to use it in regard to that Bill, his assurance on that point, of course, is quite sufficient.
EARL CURZON or KEDLESTON: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl means that he does not intend to ask your Lordships to avail yourselves of the suspension of the Standing Order in respect to that Bill, that is sufficient for us.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I purposely excepted the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill, because I was told just before I came in that it was not unlikely that an Amendment might be moved in the Committee stage of that measure.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I had intended to raise the same point as my noble friend. There are some Amendments on the Paper, and I understand that my noble friend below the gangway, Lord Bryce, has also an Amendment which is not on the Paper.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: May I say one word about this? It would be a great convenience if, whenever it is proposed that Standing Order No. XXXIX should be suspended, the Bills to which it is intended to apply the suspension were mentioned in the Notice. On this occasion there was some alarm created among those interested in the Bill which has been mentioned—the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill—by supposing that the general form in which the Notice was given would apply the suspension to that Bill.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I am sorry that any such apprehension should have been felt, but I think it would have been removed had the noble Lord seen the OFFICIAL REPORT which reached us all this morning of the proceedings of yesterday evening. My recollection is that my noble friend Lord Crawford, who was acting for me in my absence, at the close of the proceedings announced the intention of the Government to move the suspension of the Standing Order, and that he said specifically that it was for the purpose of the two Bills to which I have referred.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that the OFFICIAL REPORT of last night's proceedings was not delivered to the houses of some of us by 3 o'clock to-day.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am sorry to hear that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps on future occasions it would save misunderstanding if the Notice for the suspension of the Standing Order were given in the other form—namely, that the Order should be suspended in respect of certain named Bills instead of generally. That is a small point, however.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My impression is that that course is sometimes followed.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I notice that it has been observed on several occasions by the noble Earl himself, and it is only on this occasion that it has not been followed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition against dealing in certain metals and ores without a licence.
1.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any company, firm, or individual after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or such longer period as the Board of Trade may generally or in any particular care allow, to carry on the business of winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade, in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies, unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade, such licence to be in the form set out in the Second Schedule to this Act :
Provided that the purchase or sale of metal shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal where such purchase or sale is incidental only to the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller :
Provided also that no licence shall be required when the winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to delete the final proviso at the end of subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I called your Lordships' attention to these words in the discussion last night on the Second Reading. I should have been glad to know, before moving my Amendment, what the view of the Government is about it. So far as I understand the history of these three lines, lines 18 to 20 on the first page, I think I am right in saying that they were not in the Bill as originally introduced, and that they were inserted in the course of its passage in another place. The first question that requires deciding is one which I confess I am not myself competent to decide—there are many noble and learned Lords who may advise your Lordships upon it—it is exactly what the word "dealing" would mean in this proviso. Supposing a company is established in this country and, as in the instance I gave yesterday, has a mine in a neutral country and sells the produce of that mine in the neutral country at the month of the mine, to, say,

251
some German agent, it is perfectly obvious that that contract is made under the authority of the company which is domiciled here, and that the proceeds of the sale will ultimately reach the coffers of the company in this country. I do not know whether in law that constitutes a dealing inside or outside the United Kingdom. If, in spite of the actual transaction having taken place outside, it constitutes—as, on the whole, I should have been inclined to suppose it did—a dealing to some extent inside the United Kingdom, then it seems to me that this proviso will not attain the object it is intended to attain. Whether that be so or not I submit to your Lordships, for the reasons I stated yesterday, that this proviso is rather undesirable.
The object of this Bill, so far as one understands it from the Government's explanations, is to obtain some control, or at any rate some knowledge as to the other control, of certain metals, and to prevent that control passing permanently into alien and unfriendly hands. If you keep this proviso in the Bill, then the case may arise which I pointed out—a case which is within my own knowledge, and I have no doubt there are many similar cases—in which a company has bearer shares not being under this Bill and not being required to obtain a licence if the dealing is outside the United Kingdom and whose shares remain bearer shares. Not only does the Government not know but the directors of the company may not know where the real control of the company is situated or who is the real holder of the bearer shares and influences the voting and the dealing. In that case it seems to me that this proviso, if left in, will prevent your meeting certain cases which the Bill as a whole is desired to meet, and I suggest it is very desirable that these words should be excised.
As I have said before, if such a course of dealing is a dealing within the United Kingdom, then the words are idle; but if the words are not idle, then I think to some extent you destroy the effect of the Bill. I think the House as a whole will agree that it is desirable to take any steps you can to prevent the entire control of important metals, in time of war, passing into alien hands and your supply and treatment not existing in this country. If the Bill is justified on that ground, then I think you should make it as comprehensive as you can. I repeat, I do not think this Bill does
252
much towards that. It is intended to be a step in that direction, and if similar enactments took place in our Colonies and Dominions you would have gone considerably further towards it. So long as the proviso remains in, you may have a company domiciled in the City of London the directors of which are largely English and to all public appearance it is a British company, but which, in fact, is making contracts which it is the desire of this Bill to prevent. Seeing that this proviso was no part of the original Bill, I hope I shall be able to persuade the Government to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, leave out lines 18 to 20, inclusive.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD HYLTON: I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, and I am all the more sorry because in the debate on the Second Reading yesterday he was good enough to give the Bill his valuable support; valuable not only as coming from the noble Earl in his legislative capacity, but valuable also as coming from him through his connection with a company, one of the non-ferrous metal companies, doing dealings on a comparatively large scale. But I am afraid the Amendment cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The noble Earl was perfectly correct in saying that this proviso, which he wished to be left out of the Bill, was not part of the Bill when it was originally introduced, in another place, and that it was inserted in Committee there after careful consideration in order to make clearer the scope of the Bill.
The chief objects of the Bill, as I endeavoured to explain yesterday, are first, to prevent enemy influence in regard to metals and ores shipped to and from the United Kingdom; secondly, metals and ores whether or not produced in the United Kingdom but which are in the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, the London Metal Exchange. It is not possible to prevent transactions carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom, nor is it desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to place any obstacle in the way of British companies owning mines abroad disposing of their output as they may deem proper. We believe that any interference of the Government in that respect would simply result in the headquarters of the company,

253
now in this country, being moved elsewhere, or the mine passing into other hands. The general wish of the Government is not to overload the Bill.
I think I may say, speaking on behalf of the Board of Trade, that we fully appreciate the justice of the remarks made yesterday by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and the noble Earl below the gangway, who had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, with regard to, I will not say the apprehension, but the anxieties they expressed that the Bill might in some way interfere with the delicate mechanism of British trade all over the world. The Government are extremely anxious to do nothing in the Bill that would justify such apprehension. Therefore they do not wish to accept such an Amendment as that which the noble Earl has brought forward, which to some extent would overload the Bill, and I am afraid on that ground it is impossible to accept it. The noble Earl mentioned a case yesterday of a British company having a large amount of bearer shares which worked mines either in the United Kingdom, in British possessions, or in a foreign country.
EARL RUSSELL: No, in a neutral country.
LORD HYLTON: Whether or not such a company would come under the Bill would depend on whether the dealings were carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The explanation of the noble Lord opposite, which applies to some of the points raised by the noble Earl, does not seem to me to cover The whole situation. I do not quite understand, if it is the desire to maintain the limitations which the noble Lord has stated and not to overload the Bill, why the operations mentioned in this proviso are confined to those within the United Kingdom. What is the reason for not including the rest of the Empire? I can understand that as regards the Dominions it may be said they are fully competent, as indeed they are, to legislate for themselves. In the famous case of the Australian spotter, which was alluded to last night and which has been one of the main props of the Bill, the arrangements were come to, as the noble Lord knows very well, between the
254
Prime Minister of Australia, who was over here, and the Board of Trade by personal converse, and the communications which passed between the two Governments resulted in a satisfactory arrangement. But when you come to India and the Crown Colonies, I confess I do not see what differentiates them from the United Kingdom. I mentioned yesterday a particular case which I happen to know about, and which has also been mentioned in another place—the monazite sand in Travancore. That is a case where a British company, undoubtedly a British company, was by various means induced, owing I suppose to some changes in its composition or the holding of its shares, to give a preference to the German manufacturers. It was discovered and put a stop to, but I do not see why a case of that kind should not come under this clause. Apparently it would be excluded from it. Perhaps the noble Lord may be able to explain these points.
LORD HYLTON: I think that I can answer the question put by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition. I am informed that it is impossible for us to make enactments in the case of India or the Crown Colonies, and of course the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of Canada legislate for themselves. Although, as I am told, we cannot legislate for India or the Crown Colonies, we have great hopes, if this Bill be passed, that similar legislation will be enacted in the Crown Colonies.
LORD BALFOUR, OF BURLEIGH: I can give an additional reason. I do not know whether it is really the actuating reason or not. This is an illustration of the difficulty of legislating upon this kind of subject. We had the noble Earl below the gangway protesting that this Bill was doing too much, and to-night we have had the noble Marquess protesting that it is not doing enough. The particular thing that is objected to is not requiring a licence when winning, extracting, smelting, and so on, is done wholly outside the United Kingdom. As I understand the matter, the position is this. It is not physically possible, or legislatively possible, to prevent or to stop transactions which are carried on wholly outside His Majesty's Dominions. If you put an obstacle in the way of an honest British Company that has a licence for other things carrying out these transactions you are doing harm to that company's

255
business, and you will be putting a premium upon that company attempting to move its business outside the United Kingdom. It is very desirable that we should have as much as possble of business here, and, therefore, unless you can effectually prevent it being done, you ought not to attempt it.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I do not wish to take part in the discussion upon this Bill, but having been Colonial Secretary for five years, I must put in a caveat against the statement just made that we cannot, or do not, legislate for India or the Crown Colonies. In this House we do constantly legislate for India, after consultation with India, and for the Crown Colonies, after consultation, through the Colonial Secretary, with the Governor of the particular Colony concerned. I should not like it to go out from this House that it is a thing which we cannot do or ought not to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): No one would dispute the omnipotence of the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament is supreme. The question is, is it expedient that we should deal with these matters? I submit that in the House of Commons the right course was taken in their introducing this clause. With regard to the Dominions the case, I think, was conceded by the noble Marquess opposite; while with respect to India he says that, having regard to the mine in Travancore, legislation of this kind might be expedient. Travancore, of course, is an independent protected State; still, it is no doubt very much under the control of the Indian Government, and any person in India dealing with these mines would, of course, be amenable to legislation passed with regard to India. The India Council or the Governor-General in Council can provide the most appropriate machinery for carrying out the purpose of the Bill in India. I submit that it is better to leave it to them, and I also think that the same applies with respect to the Crown Colonies. The truth is, that as soon as you find it is not convenient to legislate for the whole world, it is better to leave outs de the ambit of the Bill what takes place entirely outside the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is no reason why the arguments of the noble and
256
learned Lord should not prevail upon substance and merits, but to say that this Bill would, if these words were struck out, be legislating for the Dominions or for India or the Crown Colonies, and would not naturally be within its scope is to say something that really is not so. It is a Bill which deals with people who are amenable to the law; that is to say, people in this country cannot go abroad and do certain things which in the law of this country are crimes, and we legislate against them on that score, not because they are doing these things abroad, but because they are British subjects at home. It is perfectly open to pass this Bill without the words which the noble Earl proposes to strike out. I think that there is a good deal not only in what has been said about its being expedient that the Dominions should do these things for themselves, but also in what my noble and learned friend here said.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am not learned.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What my noble friend has said, then. My noble friend has been at the head of a Committee which has had an inquiry upon subjects germane to this matter, and I had that in my mind when I described him as "learned." What he said is true, that it is extremely awkward to pass any legislation which might deter companies from having their headquarters in this country. This country has hitherto been the centre of the money market, and anything which you do which prevents people from coming here is deleterious to a very important interest in the State. For that reason I am with my noble friend in the arguments which he has put forward, and I think that, with proper safeguards in the Bill, it would be better to leave it as it stands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is perfectly competent, of course, for the British Parliament to legislate for British subjects not only in the British Dominions over the seas but all over the world. The question here is with regard to acts clone wholly outside the United Kingdom, and whether it is expedient to apply the machinery of the Bill to them. I agree with my noble friend opposite in thinking that it s not.
EARL RUSSELL: May I say a word in reply on the merits without travelling into those high constitutional questions which have been raised on this matter. I confess that the case for the Government left me unconvinced. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said, I think, two things chiefly. The first was that you should not impose the hardships or the annoyance and inconvenience of obtaining a licence upon people whose only occupation was carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom. I did not think that it was part of the Government case that this Bill really did impose a hardship on companies who came under it or on any honest British company and it seemed to me that when the noble Lord came to deal with countries that he passed over a point which to my mind is by no means without importance, that if you do not require these companies to obtain a licence you do not know who owns their shares. The noble Lord said that the mine cannot be transferred to alien hands, but the whole case which I urged was that the mine was already in fact in alien hands although nominally under British control. I confess, however, that I am much mere influenced by the arguments of the noble Lord above the gangway. I admit the knowledge that he has acquired of these matters from his inquiries on Committees, which have been referred to and I should very much hesitate to go counter to anything he has said, and if I am not able to obtain his support on this Amendment I should feel it hopeless to persist in it, although I do think that there is a distinct leak in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 :
LORD HYLTON: The Amendments that I have down upon this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 3, line 27, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the company or firm")
Clause 2, page 3, line 28, leave out ("thereby") and insert ("by the company, firm or individual") and leave out ("therein") and insert ("in such business")
Clause 2, page 3, line 29, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the company or firm").—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
LORD HYLTON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, leave out ("as members") and leave out ("of members").—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Short title and duration.
10.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Nonferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918.
(2) This Act, shall continue in force only during the continuance of the present war and for a period of five years after the termination thereof.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, I thing most of us who listened to the debates yesterday will not contest the view that this Bill may be needed, and perhaps urgently needed. We have had reason to believe that serious injuries to our national interests have occurred by the control of metals specially necessary for war purposes falling into the hands of our enemies, and any proposition which is intended to remove that source of danger comes before us with a very strong presumption in its favour. I agree, and I think we all agree, that any Bill which the Government can assure us is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the war ought to be enacted. We have no difference of opinion anywhere as to the necessity of taking all steps, of any kind that is consistent with sound principles, for endeavouring to do whatever we can for the efficient prosecution of the war.
But in the case of this Bill, whose operation is proposed to be continued for five years after the war, other questions arise. We do not know, as appeared from our debate yesterday, the full facts upon which the Bill is based. We cannot tell with any amount of certainty how the Bill will work. We may have experience during the rest of the war as to how it does work, and we may come to the conclusion, within the experience of the next few months, that more efficient measures may be devised for attaining the end which we desire to secure than this Bill holds out. I was mach impressed by what was said by the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp)

259
yesterday, and I think the same idea had occurred to many of us that what is really wanted in these cases is to get at the sources of supply, that the most efficient remedy, and the remedy which would be desirable for many reasons, is to know where these valuable metals exist within the British Dominions, and to secure that the control of these metals, especially the metals most necessary for war purposes and for all the industries concerned with the war, should not pass into what are possibly enemy hands. But we shall have much light on this subject during the next few months, when this Bill is put into operation, and it is far better that the operation of it should be studied than that we should now, in darkness as to the methods of its working, and with considerable doubt as to whether it is choosing the best means for attaining its end, continue its operations for so long a period as five years after the war, especially considering that there is a certain amount of anxiety in mercantile circles as to whether it may not actually prejudice British trade in some respects.
There is a further reason, and it is upon that reason that I chiefly desire to dwell in recommending this Amendment. This argument applies to pretty nearly all the commercial legislation which has been either proposed or carried, which is to operate after the war. It is this. We do not know in the least and we cannot foretell what the after-war commercial conditions will be, or what the after-war conditions of Europe will be, or what will be the after-war conditions which will affect British trade—our trade with the countries which are now enemies, or our trade with the countries which are now neutral. Now, the threat of being able to apply coercive measures to the trade of those who are now our enemies, or likely to be our enemies, is a very powerful weapon. It is a powerful weapon in any negotiations which we may have to enter into for the settlement of the Treaty of Peace; it is a weapon which may have to be used, but it does not follow that this is the right moment to take it from its sheath and brandish it in the eyes of our enemies. It may be more useful to reserve that weapon for the time when it can be used with most effect.
And I confess that this was to me always the fundamental objection to the publication of the Resolutions of the Paris Con-
260
ference. It seemed to me that those Resolutions, apart altogether from their merits—and upon their merits there is, as your Lordships know, the greatest possible difference of opinion—but apart from all difference of opinion as to their merits it was very doubtful whether it was prudent at that moment to indulge in the threat which the Paris Conference Resolutions contained. It was, if I may use a somewhat colloquial expression, altogether too previous, and it was used by the German Government for their own purposes. One of the most effective instruments which they employed to try and rally their doubtful and discontented mercantile subjects and interests was to represent to them that, whatever sort of nominal peace might be made, we were bent on carrying on a commercial war I against them, and therefore they might just as well fight as hard as they could now because a commercial war was certain to be resorted to afterwards. It would have been better not to have put that argument into their hands, but to have reserved it for a time when it could have been used with the greatest possible effect.
Is it not rather a mistake for us to legislate now for after-war conditions, when we have not the least idea what the after-war conditions will be? Is there anybody among your Lordships who would venture to make any predictions as to the conditions upon which this war will end, as to the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, as to the position in which we shall stand after the war, and the measures that we require for the protection and defence of our trade, and especially of those trading interests which are intimately connected with war or the possibility of war? This only we can say. So far as it is possible to judge, the conditions after the war will neither be what they are now, nor what they were before the war. What they will be we cannot in the least foresee.
I submit, therefore, that it will be far better to put a brief limit to the operation of this Bill. If we limit it to the period of the war and one year after, we shall have ample time when the war comes to an end to continue the Act, if it is necessary, or to amend it, or to resort to some other means, whatever they may be, that are necessary to protect our trade in commodities of this kind, which are evidently of such fundamental importance to us. The case seems to me, therefore, one in which it is far more prudent that we should wait to see what

261
the after-war conditions will be before we attempt to legislate for them, and I think that the space of a year after the war ought to be sufficiently ample for that purpose,
Amendment moved
Clause 10, page 6, line 25, leave out (" five years ") and insert (" one year ").—(Viscount Bryce.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I do not think that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who had it in mind to address the House upon the Second Reading of this Bill; but there were more reasons than one last night why I (and I dare say others) refrained from doing so. I confess that I was very much influenced by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—because I have known him all his life as being a staunch Free Trader—and when he recommended to the House that they should nevertheless accept this Bill, and that, having gone most deeply into the subject, he felt convinced of its necessity, I had very great difficulty in saying anything to the House.
I certainly felt very strong objections to the Bill in many- respects. The way that it brings in proposals for the interference by a Public Department with the course of trade is one thing as to which we heard a great many remarks during the progress of some of the previous Bills that have been before your Lordships this session. There were other reasons into which of course it is not relevant to enter now. But there was one point in the Bill which seemed to me to make it a much more serious matter than the particular objections to the clauses to which I refer—namely, the sting in the very last line of the Bill where it says that it is to continue for five years after the end of the war, whenever that may be. There is a very strong feeling both inside and outside this country upon the subject of continuing an economic war, after the close of the present war, in the ordinary sense. I think that there are many who have felt very strongly upon that subject with reference to this Bill. So far as this Bill can really be described as a war Bill, of course (as has been already said) whatever objections we feel in this House on principle to its details, at any rate no difficulty will ever be raised to its proceeding as quickly as may be necessary. But when you come to such a proposal as its extension for five years after the end of the war, that is serious thing for your Lordships to do in a Bill of this kind.
262
The position with regard to the diplomatic situation when the end of the war comes, surely requires serious consideration. The matter was put before your Lordships last night in very grave words by the noble Marquess (Lord Crewe), and it would be presumptuous of me even to repeat his words. His authority is, of course, a very different affair from my authority. But I believe that there are many persons in the rank and file who feel very strongly on this subject; and I am sure that it would add greatly to the quietude of many minds if your Lordships would consent to an Amendment of this kind, and thereby reduce the time from five years after the end of the war to one year.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before the noble Lord in charge of the Bill responds, I will venture to intervene for a moment. I frankly confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with much that has fallen from the noble Viscount below the gangway (Lord Bryce), and from Lord Muir Mackenzie, in the very temperate and reasoned speeches they have made. Lord Muir Mackenzie talked about the possibilities of an economic war hereafter. I, for one, sincerely hope that this may be avoided; but I believe that intelligent preparation for that eventuality will be one of the best ways of avoiding the possibility of it. In my opinion, whether there is subsequent economic friction or war will depend very much upon the class of peace we are able to make; and it is too soon to prophesy upon what that may be.
With regard to the particular question of whether it should be one year or five years I want to say a word. I am not responsible for the five years term. That term is open to the criticism that it is very long. But I am equally certain that one year is not sufficient. I will tell your Lordships why. The point made yesterday which had most influence on the Bill in giving it a Second Reading, was that enemy influence had undermined this class of business in this country. If it has been undermined—and it has—the new companies, which I hope will be founded and worked under this Bill, must have a certain amount of security for a permanent existence, otherwise it will not be worth while to found them. I suggest that one year is not long enough for that. I do not think that anybody can suppose that, with the difficulty of communication, with the

263
difficulty of acquiring sites, and with the difficulty of getting supplies and bringing them under control, one year will be temptation enough to people in this country to subscribe their capital for the purpose we have in view. Therefore I think that one year would certainly be too short.
The Amendment is a rather important one, and it would have been convenient, in the difficult circumstances in which we are placed, if notice could have been given to us, either for this or for a subsequent stage; because the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has to consult those to whom he is responsible for the conduct of the Bill through the House. If I had been drafting the Bill I should have suggested that the term should have been for a period of two or three years, with power to prolong, not exceeding so and so, by Order in Council. That, I think, would have been the better way of doing it. But, as I have said, I am not responsible, and I am not at liberty to suggest. Yet I strongly put it to your Lordships that, for the reasons given yesterday, one year will not be enough.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble Lord replies I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a word in general support of the views expressed by my noble friend, Lord Bryce. I said yesterday that the proceedings and resolutions of the Economic Conference held in Paris in 191 had been subject to some misapprehension, and I am not quite certain that this is not to a certain degree shared even by my noble friend Lord Bryce. Those who will carefully study the terms of those resolutions will see that no vindictive, or even punitive, action against German trade is contemplated in their terms. What is contemplated is the assurance to the signatory Powers of security for their traders against the particular machinations of which the Germans were, by common consent, guilty. It is not a question, I need not say again, of protection against trade competition, but of security against the particular proceedings which this Bill is designed to defeat. I say that in continuation of what little I said about the Economic Conference yesterday.
Therefore, when one takes the question of the five years or the one year term, one looks at it from the same point of view as my noble friend who spoke last—namely, as to whether the five years term ought
264
to be necessary, in the view of those who favour the Bill as a whole, in order to obtain the security which the Bill desires. On the other hand, there is the difficulty, which I think was appreciated by my noble friend, that the naming in the Bill of a term of five years looks less like an endeavour to obtain security than an attempt to exercise vindictive action against German trade, as such. That I think is the colour which is likely to be put upon the naming of so long a term as five years after the war.
My noble friend who has just spoken, we all agree, is an excellent judge of whether the term of one year after the war would be sufficient to enable those who, under the encouragement of the provisions of the Bill, may desire to invest capital in these particular enterprises to feel secure that they will not be exposed to the particular kind of under-hand dealing which the Bill intends to prevent. I am not nearly as competent as he is to give an opinion on that point, but I confess that if the term of one year is considered so short that capital will not be forthcoming, I should be very glad if His Majesty's Government would at any rate meet the Amendment by some offer such as that which appealed to Lord Balfour of Burleigh—namely, that after a sufficient period the matter should be open to consideration with the intention of prolonging the period if it is found to be absolutely necessary by those who are best competent to judge. The purpose of that is, as I say, to remove from the Bill any suspicion that it represents merely a vindictive anti-German proceeding and not a serious attempt to secure our trade from wrongful dealings on the part of those who are now our enemies, and I am afraid are not likely, so far as intercourse is concerned, to become our friends for a considerable period after the war.
LORD HYLTON: I think, perhaps, it would be more convenient for the House if I should indicate now—
EARL RUSSELL: I was going to put a question to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill which I proposed to ask him to answer in the course of his reply.
LORD HYLTON: The attitude of the Government with regard to the Amendment of the noble Viscount below the gangway. A great deal of discussion took place on this point, as on other points, in

265
the other House, and the Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount. The period of five years was carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and the Government have come to the conclusion that this is the shortest period during which it will be possible to attain one of the objects of the Bill. One of the objects of the Bill is, as your Lordships know, to enable capital to be procured and spent in this country in establishing or developing works for dealing with the refining and the manufacture of these nonferrous metals, owing to the lack of which we and our Allies found ourselves in such a deplorable position at the beginning of the war.
I am not going to trouble your Lordships this afternoon by repeating any of the observations I made yesterday, but I would like to ask the noble Viscount below the gangway, and the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, who spoke in favour of the Amendment, whether they are satisfied with the position in which we and our Allies found ourselves in regard to these metals at the beginning of the war, when this group of great German metal companies like an octopus had swallowed up and destroyed practically all competition in this country. The Board of Trade is advised that five years is the least period during which it will be possible to enable British capitalists to establish or develop works in this country to meet that competition. The noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, quoted the noble Marquess the Leader of tint Opposition in support, I think, of some at all events of his contentions; but I venture to think the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has shown a rather friendly spirit towards this Bill, because whilst indicating yesterday his preference for the Free Trade principle he at the same time admitted that there were certain industries—he instanced the optical glass industry as one, and I think the nonferrous metal industry as another—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: By no means all the non-ferrous metals.
LORD HYLTON: Some of them at all events, where the rigid insistence on the whole doctrine of Free Trade was not necessarily the course he would recommend. There has been more than one suggestion by members of your Lordships' House as to the period during which they think it
266
would be wise that after the war this Bill should remain in force. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, yesterday suggested a period of six months, and the noble Viscount below the Gangway now moves as an Amendment one year. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is not willing to admit that one year would be sufficiently long a period in which to attain one of the objects of the Bill, and in view of the advice that has been given to the Board of Trade that a period of at least five years would be necessary I am afraid His Majesty's Government are quite unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. The noble Viscount told us just now that it would be wise to see how the Bill worked, and that the experience gained during the war and a further short period afterwards would enable us to do that, and then if necessary the period could be extended. But, my Lords, I should much prefer, in fact the Government must ask the House, to allow the period of five years to stand, and if before that period has elapsed experience shows that the Bill needs Amendment it will be open to the noble Viscount or any other noble Lord to bring in a Bill for amending this Bill, but we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
EARL RUSSELL: I naturally gave way to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, but I think on the whole it would have been more convenient that he should have heard all the arguments before replying, particularly as I was going to present him with what I thought would be an argument in favour of his views. I want to put a question which I think is germane to this discussion. We have heard a good deal in the discussion on this Amendment as to the continuance of an economic war. I understand an economic war to mean preventing your economic adversary from getting goods, either by tariff control or any other method. What I want to ask is, is it not a fact that under this Bill as it stands there is not a word to prevent any of these companies under the Bill from selling the whole of their output to an alien enemy or anybody they choose, or buying from or dealing with or having smelting operations carried on by alien enemies? There is nothing, as I understand, in this Bill to prevent ordinary commercial intercourse, and nothing, in the ordinary sense of the word, that can be described as economic war.
LORD HARRIS: Might I ask a question with regard to something in connection with the Schedule which I do not understand. Clause 1, subsection (2), brings in the reference to the Schedule—"In the case of a company, firm or individual, with respect to which any of the conditions set forth in the, First Schedule to this Act apply." That brings in the Schedule, and on turning to the First Schedule I find there is a provision that "Any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager, or other principal officer … is a person who is or has been an enemy." Has been an enemy is a pretty wide term. How far back are you going?
LORD HYLTON: I am going to move an Amendment presently. It has nothing to do with the point before the Committee.
LORD HARRIS: I am entitled in Committee to refer to any question—
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is on Clause 10.
LORD LAMINGTON: The noble Lord did not reply to Lord Balfour's suggestion that two years might be inserted, with power to prolong by Order in Council.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thought it would not be fair to impose it upon the noble Lord without notice., and that any one who proposed it should give notice for a subsequent stage in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, with regard to the question asked, one can see that there is no trace of economic war. The Bill is merely intended to prevent use being made of facilities for trading in this country for the purpose of injuring the interests of this country, and the machinery is as mild as it possibly can be. It is provided that in certain cases, where there is a possibility of such injury being contemplated by those who propose to carry on the business, that a licence should be required, and I do not think that machinery milder in its nature could be devised. It is not for the purpose of carrying on economic war. There is nothing vindictive about the measure at all. It is merely intended to prevent, under colour of trading in this country, an economic war being carried on by persons who take advantage of the facilities which we
268
afford. For these reasons, I put it to your Lordships that there is no reason for departing from the term of years which was agreed to in the Commons, and which, as we have just been informed by my noble friend, the Board of Trade, which is the Government Department concerned, consider necessary. There is at least a possibility that however friendly the position may be there might be an intention to carry on after the war operations with which we have become painfully familiar in the past. One year would not be long enough and five years I submit is not too long; and as my noble friend has said, if circumstances change an Amendment might be introduced with regard to the operation of the measure.
LORD HARRIS: On the term of five years, I think I should be in order. In my humble opinion, the Schedule applies to each clause, or may so apply, and I am a little doubtful whether the Lord Chairman was in order in interrupting me. Certainly I am in order to this extent, that I should be glad if he will explain to me how, supposing, as we all sincerely hope, peace is made within a year, the disadvantage of the five years applies, because all the clauses of the first clause of the Schedule refer to enemies, and I assume that after the conclusion of peace, whether it is a German or Austrian or Turk, or any of those countries which are referred to in the Bill, they will be our friends—if not our Allies at any rate not our enemies—and all these clauses in the Schedule which refer to enemies will not be operative. Therefore, the danger that the noble Viscount opposite. as I understand, sees in the term of five years, really ceases as soon as the war ends, with regard to the persons and companies referred to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble friend, when he comes to the Schedule, will realise that the Bill as drawn is not limited in the way that he suggests, and I apprehend it was for that reason that the Chairman took the view that the discussion would be more in point on the Schedule.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: If the Government had shown any desire to meet me as regards the term, I should not have thought it worth while putting your Lordships to the trouble of dividing, but as they intend to adhere rigidly to the term of five years, I am afraid I must go to a Division.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause ?—

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morton, E.

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

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

Russell, E.

Strafford, E.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

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

Parker of Waddington, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Penrhyn, L.

Chaplin, V.

Rhondda, L.

Marlborough, D.

Peel, V.

Ribblesdale, L.

St. Davids, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Somerleyton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Balfour, L.

Stanmore, L.

Burnham, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Camperdown, E.

Carnock, L.

Suffield, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

Sumner, L.

Grey, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Sydenham, L.

Lichfield, E.

Harris, L.

Wren bury, L.

Lucan, E.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Crewe, M.

Haldane, V.

Lamington, L. V.

Harcourt, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Beauchamp. E. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Loreburn, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Denman, L.

Weardale, L.

Bryce, V. [Teller.]

Inchcape, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 10 agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE. CONDITIONS.
1. That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy.
2. That in the case of a company, any capital of the company is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen held by or on behalf of an enemy, including any stock or shares of the company-vested in the custodian by virtue of any order made under the Trading with the Enemy Acts, 1914 to 1916.
3. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at anytime after the twelfth day of November nineteen. hundred and seventeen party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding, which enables or enabled an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business.
4. That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the twelfth day of November nineteen hundred and seventeen interested, directly or indirectly, to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power in any undertaking whether or not in the United
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 174.
Kingdom, engaged in business of a kind to which this Act Applies, in which enemies are also interested, directly or indirectly to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital profits or voting power.
5. That the company, firm, or individual, is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of their or his business to enemy influence or association.
6. That, in the case of a company, the company has issued share warrants to bearer and has not given notice under this Act requiring the holders of the share warrants to surrender their warrants for cancellation.
For the purposes of this Schedule—
The expression "enemy" means a subject of an enemy State and an enemy controlled corporation.
The expression "enemy State" means Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
The expression "enemy controlled corporation" means any corporation—

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

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

271

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

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

The expression "capital" in relation to a company means any shares or securities issued by the company which carry, or would if the necessary formalities were complied with, carry any voting power with respect to the management of the company and shall also include debentures and debenture stock and money lent to the company.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, in the first Condition, to insert the words "within five years before the passing of this Act" after the word "or," where it lastly occurs. The noble Viscount said: The reason I move this Amendment is the extraordinary limitlessness of the condition as it stands. The words by themselves look innocent, but when you come to the definition at the bottom of the page you see—
"The expression 'enemy' means a subject of an enemy State and an enemy controlled corporation.
"The expression 'enemy State' means Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey."
The Amendment of the noble Lord will not affect what I am going to say. The point is that according to this a man who forty years ago was an Austrian and got himself naturalised, and has been carrying on business all this time in this country, is preceluded, unless a special licence of the Board of Trade is given, from taking part in the direction of a company or being a partner of a firm. It is very awkward if the Bill is to go through in this form, and I will tell your Lordships why. There are certain industries where non-ferrous metals are most extensively used and some of the most prominent members of those industries are persons of remote enemy origin. That is to say, they were German or Austrian subjects many years ago but are now among our most loyal people. Take, for instance, such a place as Sheffield. There are those who have held high office as mayor of the city, who are engaged in the great metal industries of the place, who yet are of remote enemy origin, and who will certainly be affected by this provision. In the industries of Sheffield more and more such metals as vannadium and tungsten—metals which, whether they are enumerated in the definition of Clause 9 or not, are
272
metals to which the Act will certainly be applied—must be used for the purpose of those industries, and the people to whom I referred are precluded from assisting in getting them. Some of our most important men of business come within this category, as the matter stands. It may be twenty or thirty years since they belonged to an enemy nationality and they may be the most loyal people we have in the country, and vet they are struck by the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I suggest that what I think must have been the result of an oversight—the leaving of this definition without any limitation—should be subjected to this limitation, by putting in after the word "or" in line 6 the words "within five years before the passing of this Act." In that case anybody who within five years before the passing of the Act has been an enemy will be struck at, but anybody who was so at an earlier period will be free. Whether five years is the right period or not, twenty or thirty years, which the Bill proposes at the present time, seems to me to be altogether too long.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 6, after the second ("or"), to insert the words ("within five years before the passing of this Act").—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD HYLTON: I am afraid that the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount is one that the Government cannot accept. Your Lordships will remember that I pointed out yesterday that there is no question of refusing a licence ipso facto to a naturalised British subject, but, for the reasons which I stated, it is the opinion of the Government that it is necessary that these persons should have their cases reviewed and that investigation should be made. On the last Amendment I said I did not wish to trouble your Lordships by repeating to-day what I had already said in the Second Reading debate yesterday, but I may remind the noble and learned Viscount who has moved this Amendment that I had then to point out that there had been cases within the knowledge of the Board of Trade where naturalised British subjects had been found, even since the war had broken out, to be engaged in trading with the enemy. There is a case where the books of a firm of that kind were found to have been wilfully destroyed. Those who were responsible for the drafting of the Bill are of the opinion that it is necessary that in

273
the case of all naturalised British subjects their position should be taken into review and investigated. I am afraid it is quite impossible to exempt from the operations of the Bill, as the noble and learned Viscount wishes, those who have been naturalised for more than five years.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: If the Government have set their face against remedying what seems to me a grievous injustice, I, of course, cannot help it. It is not worth putting the Committee to the trouble of a Division if the Government have taken that attitude. I have expressed my protest as strongly as I can.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not know whether I can change the opinions of the noble and learned Viscount. I do not know whether the guarantee of a period of years is sufficient in this case. The point is not the length of time, but whether the person who has been naturalised has behaved himself like a British subject. There are some, undoubtedly, who have, and I hope their number is a much larger number than those who have not. The point of the Bill is to give power to scrutinise the records of those who have been naturalised and see whether, as I said last night, they have "played the game." A period of years is not a sufficient guarantee; it is the personal character of the man that is the best guarantee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I should be much more influenced by the observations of the noble Lord but for the wording of subsection (2) of Clause 1—a licence is to be refused "unless the Board of Trade are of the opinion that the grant of the licence is expedient." The presumption is one which places the burden on the individual which he would find it difficult to overcome, and if the clause had been drawn as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour suggests, I should not have objected.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put to the noble and learned Viscount the class of case to which he refers. The Board of Trade might be of opinion that it might be expedient to grant a licence if it were established that the man, who was born a German, had been for a long series of years a loyal subject. In those circumstances the Board of Trade, of course, would have to exercise their discretion, and it may be
274
that they would come to the conclusion that there was no danger and the licence might be granted. I think that in those circumstances there is none of the grievous injustice to which the noble and learned Viscount referred. Naturalisation does not operate as a complete change, and, as we have learned by experience, there may be cases in which, although naturalisation has been gone through, the sympathies remain as they were before.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in Condition 1, to leave out the words "an enemy," in order to insert "a subject of a State which is now at war with His Majesty or an enemy controlled corporation." The noble Lord said: At present the condition in the Schedule is as follows:—"That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy." I move the substitution of the words of which I have given notice as I am advised they are necessary to cover the case of a firm where the partner is an enemy controlled corporation. The expression "enemy" has been defined to mean Germany. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, but the present wording, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, is unsatisfactory. It is doubtful whether a naturalised British subject of German origin, who lost his German nationality before the outbreak of the war, can be described as a person who has been an enemy, and the Government are of the opinion also that perhaps the suggestion might be taken to be rather unnecessarily offensive. It is, however, a drafting question.
Amendment moved—
Schedule 1, page 7, line 7, leave out ("an enemy") and insert ("a subject of a state which is now at war with His Majesty or an enemy controlled corporation").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON move an Amendment in the definition of the expression "enemy." The noble Lord said: This is merely a drafting Amendment and there is no change in substance. The present definition, which was altered in another place, is thought not to be quite satisfactory. We think this is better.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 34, leave out from ("of") to the end of line 37, and insert ("a state which is now at war with His Majesty and an enemy controlled corporation ").—(Lord Hylton.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I say that we do not propose to take the third Reading to-day, owing to arrangements about the Royal Assent. There are some small drafting Amendments that I propose to move on Third Reading on Monday.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

THE MINISTRY OF FOOD.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call the attention of the Food Controller to the speech delivered by Mr. Clynes at a special conference held in the Central Hall, Westminster, on December 29 last, and reported in The Times on December 31, in which the following statement occurs—
" The Ministry might fall short of what they desired to do, but he could tell them that,
276
speaking to a private gathering of the heads of the Government and some of the most powerful men in the country, Lord Rhondda had said, 'I don't care a hang who suffers, whose interests go under, if I can make this job of the Ministry of Food a success for the consumer'";
and to ask the Food Controller the following questions: (1) Is the statement attributed by Mr. Clynes to the Controller substantially accurate? and (2) To whom and to what class of person or persons was the Controller referring when he used the expression "I don't care a hang who suffers," and what was the industry or the interests he had in his mind when he expressed his complete indifference as to those "whose interests go under" provided he could make this job of his Ministry a success for the consumer; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for the Questions which I have put on the Paper, because the statements referred to that have induced me to ask these Questions appear to me to be so unusual in character as to justify me in asking for some explanation in regard to them. Neither, my Lords, will it be necessary for me to detain you except for a very few moments upon this occasion. The statements referred to were made at a special conference held in Westminster Hall on December 29 and reported in The Times of December 31. I did not see them myself, nor was I aware of them until some time afterwards when my attention was called to them. Having seen them, I thought it right to put these Questions upon the Paper, and they have been on the Paper now for some considerable time. I have done this in order to ascertain precisely at whom the expressions of opinion on the part of the Food Controller were directed.
Your Lordships will remember that earlier in the session we had two or three different debates all of them upon the question of the policy with regard to meat. That was explained to us on the first meeting that we had by the Food Controller. His main object at that time—and I apprehend it to remain his main object—was considerably to reduce the prices of meat, and the general opinion, I think, of this House was that if that policy was pursued it would have a very deleterious effect upon the production of food, especially at this particular time when an enormous increase of food, if it be possible to bring it about in this country,

277
is a matter of the very highest and greatest importance. I share this opinion myself very strongly, and it is this which makes me all the more anxious to know, beyond all doubt, at whom these expressions of opinion were levelled, and exactly at what class and at what interest or industry the expressions to which I have referred were aimed.
But before I ask the two Questions on the Paper, I am going to put a third to the representative of the Board of Agriculture whom I see sitting opposite to me. I do this because, on more than one occasion when Questions have been asked as to the relations between the President of the Board of Agriculture and the noble Lord who is the Food Controller and his Department, differences of opinion have been expressed, and not only with regard to the Food Controller's Department, but also in relation, on one occasion which I remember, to the War Office. We were told one day in regard to one matter that the President of the Board of Agriculture was not only entirely in concurrence with what was being done, but that it had been done at his request. This was afterwards contradicted most emphatically, and your Lordships who were present will remember that the Secretary of State for War had to come down in what he called a "white sheet," acknowledge his mistake, and express penitence for the statement which he had made. Had it not been for that I might have had some hesitation in asking these questions. I do think that it is very desirable that any idea of want of harmony between the two Departments should be cleared up most positively in connection with a subject which at the present moment is of the first and utmost importance. What I want to ask of the noble Duke whom I see opposite is this, "what is the position now as between the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Controller of Food, and does the President admit the Food Controller's versions of his relations with the President which have been given on more than one occasion, and which apparently are intended to hold good up to the present time?
The statement attributed to the noble Lord opposite was made by Mr. Clynes, who said—
"The Ministry might fall short of what they desired to do, but he could tell them that, speaking to a private gathering of the heads of the Government and some of the most powerful men in the country—"
278
I am rather interested in that. I should very much like to know who they were—
"Lord Rhondda had said, 'I don't care a hang who suffers, whose interests go under, if I can make this job of the Ministry of Food a success for the consumer.'"
I am anxious to know precisely at whom these observations were levelled. It is not necessary for me to say anything further, at all events at present, except to ask the Questions which I have put on the Paper. I beg to move.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, I make no criticism at all on the propriety of the noble Viscount's asking me this question at the present time. I will endeavour to do my best to allay his anxiety. I may not be able quite to satisfy him, but I think I shall be able to assure him that I had not any particular industry or any particular section of the community in mind in the observations I made on the occasion to which he refers. I should like to make this clear. At the commencement of his remarks he referred to a statment—not my statement, but the statement made on December 29 at the Central Hall by the Parliamentary Secretary—
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: On your behalf, he said.
LORD RHONDDA: Not on my behalf exactly, but the statement made on that public occasion. The words used by me were not used on a public occasion at all. I desire to be very careful and precise in my interpretation of the remarks made, and quoted by Mr. Clynes, and, if your Lordships will allow me, I will adhere very closely to my notes. I cannot charge my memory with the precise words used on the occasion, but from what I am about to say the noble Viscount will be able to decide for himself to what extent the quotation was substantially accurate, I have repeatedly stated in public that I conceive it to be my primary duty to protect the interests of the consumer, and especially the poorer class of consumer, whatever obstacles or difficulties may stand in the way, and to this opinion I adhere. In saying that no vested interests must be allowed to stand in the way of securing fair treatment to the consumer, I have no particular industry in mind. My statement applies equally to all. I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that I had not the agricultural industry in mind, which evidently he had when he spoke.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: You were not referring to the agricultural industry?
LORD RHONDDA: I was not referring to any industry. My statement applied equally to all industries and to all sections of the community.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: Then the agricultural interest was included?
LORD RHONDDA: It was included. If their interests stand in the way of the national interests at the present time, then my remarks would apply to them; but I do not admit—I do not think the noble Viscount would admit—that they do stand in the way.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I do not.
LORD RHONDDA: I certainly do not, and I have never said so. My view is that vested interests in the way of profit-making must give way to the national welfare. It is in the interest of the consumer that I have endeavoured to prevent prices from rising, and to lower them when they had risen unduly. We shall discuss that on another occasion; I think the noble Viscount is going to raise the matter next Wednesday. But I claim that my efforts in this direction have met with success in the case of those articles over which I have been able to exercise control.
The interests of consumer and producer are not necessarily in conflict, and I recognise that it is of the utmost importance that prices should be so fixed as not to restrict supplies. For this purpose it has been my policy to base prices on the cost of production and allow a fair rate of profit. I realise, I hope, as fully as the noble Viscount that the producer is entitled to a fair remuneration for his labour. I have endeavoured to be just without being over-generous, and to stimulate production without subordinating public necessities to private gain.
With regard to the third Question, I do not know whether the noble Duke is going to reply to that; but I can only say, what I have said elsewhere on a number of occasions, that the relations between the Board of Agriculture and my Department, and between Mr. Prothero and myself, are excellent and of the best.
LORD PARKER: My Lords I think that if the Food Controller could see his way to give the House some information as to how far he has succeeded, so far as the producers are concerned, or how far, on the other hand, his Orders have checked production, the House and the country would be more at ease on the matter. I think most of us who live in the country have very nearly come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Whereas in times past people who kept pigs and poultry used their potatoes when they could not sell them (which is generally the case, as they have a surplus in the country) for feeding their pigs, now they are prohibited, and pigs have ceased to he kept. On most farms, I am told by people concerned, cattle are ceasing to be kept. I am told that now an Order is about to go forth that no poultry should be kept. The country eggs are about the only things the poor people can get now from their chickens. They cannot get meat, and they cannot get a great many other things which are almost necessities of life, and it is all put down currently and popularly—I cannot say whether it is right or not—to Orders made by the Food Controller without consulting the interests of the producer.
Let me give one other instance. In my own parts of Sussex, which are seventeen, eighteen, or twenty miles perhaps from a market town, the ordinary practice of recent years has been for a farmer to sell to a local butcher direct. I understand that this has been rendered impossible. The farmer has to send seventeen miles to a market town. He may be eight or nine miles from a station. The railroads are congested, they have not the traffic sufficient for carriage, and it may take two or three days on the railway to get to the market town. At any rate, you want labour to drive the beasts to the railway station and possibly you have to drive them all the way to the market—for you cannot get railway accommodation. The local butcher has to go out to get his meat those seventeen miles, and he is in the position of having no conveyance, and he does not go. The result is that the parochial people do not get their meat. That is the result, as far as I can see, of an Order made by the Controller.
It may be that these are individual instances, and that the total operation of the Order is beneficial to the consumer. That I am not prepared to say. But I assure the Food Controller that it would

281
give great satisfaction if he could truly say that his Orders in regard to food have not checked production. So far as these Orders regulate prices they are, of course, for the benefit of the consumer; but if, at the same time, they check production so that the consumer cannot get the food at the price fixed, that cannot be of benefit. That is the bind of uneasiness which is prevailing, at any rate in my part of the country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have listened with very great attention to what the Food Controller has said, and I think he will accept this summary of his statement—that in making use of the words quoted by Mr. Clynes he had not any particular industry, or set of persons, in his mind, but all who might be concerned with the production and distribution of food.
LORD RHONDDA: Any interests.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Agriculturists wore not specifically aimed at, but were included in the general scope of the observations. Secondly, he said that, in his judgment, the primary duty was to do the best he could for the consumers, especially for the poorer consumers; subject to this, that he desired to stimulate production, and to try to base his prices on the cost of production. None of us will take any exception to that statement of objects. None of us wishes to see profiteering by agriculture, or by any other industry connected with the production or the distribution of food.
We heartily welcome the statement of the Food Controller that it is his duty not only to regulate prices but to stimulate production; because it is evident that he cannot really serve the interests of the consumer if ho does not stimulate production; and he cannot stimulate production unless he is very careful not to fix prices below the cost of production. In my judgment—and, I think, in the judgment of many others in your Lordships' House—although his intentions have been exactly what he has stated them to be, the Food Controller leas on more than one occasion fixed prices below the cost of production, the result being to diminish instead of to stimulate the production of food in this country. I will not go into the details with regard to the matter of beef, which we discussed in this House some months ago. But I do not think that I am exaggerating when I
282
say that the forebodings we then expressed have verified themselves in fact; that the shortage of meat from which we are suffering at the present moment was foretold by us; and that this was caused by a mistake of the Food Controller in the rates he fixed at one particular period.
There is another thing besides care not to fix prices below the cost of production, and that is, not to use words which frighten those who are concerned with production. What I complain about in regard to the words quoted by Mr. Clynes is that this kind of language—although not so intended—does frighten ignorant men. After all, the great majority of farmers are small men, and that kind of language frightens them. They become Less enterprising, they curtail their commitments, and the result is increased shortage.
The noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Parker) has asked some very pertinent questions about the possible effect on production of certain Orders which have been made. I will take another Order. As it does not affect agriculturists in any way, and is very striking as an exemplification, I make no apology for taking it. I refer to the case of the wild rabbit. Now, if there is one thing more harmful to agriculture or to forestry it is the rabbit. The rabbit is the curse of those industries. One of the things from which both forestry and agriculture are suffering at the present moment is the increase of rabbits, because those whose business it was to keep the rabbits down have gone to the war. There is not one keeper looking after the rabbits on the land now for, I should think, three, or perhaps half a dozen, who were doing so before the war. Every landowner, or farmer, with whom I have discussed this matter has confessed that it has been a difficulty and an anxiety with him to keep down the rabbits. Just at the moment when that anxiety was getting most acute, the price of rabbits went up to 3s. That offered a very remarkable inducement to every kind of person—including anybody who could poach—to get rabbits; and I think it was of the greatest possible advantage to the poorer consumers that those rabbits should be obtained. It is not possible to control rabbits in the way in which the production of butter or of beef can be controlled. The Food Controller fixed the price of rabbits, with the result that the rabbit disappeared altogether from the market,

283
because the inducement which was stimulating people to catch rabbits had disappeared. That is the kind of thing which mill happen unless the utmost care is taken. I think that it is not in the interests of the poorer consumers, or of stimulating production, to make Orders which have that effect.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken quoted a very pertinent instance of the evil effect of fixing prices. He restricted his remarks, however, to the case of rabbits. I would take the case much further. I believe that this fixing of prices has been operating adversely in every direction. I know that the Food Controller is dealing with a problem of extraordinary difficulty, and one which is unprecedented in the history of this country. But it seems to me (and I say it with all humility) that the strenuous energy which Lord Rhondda has put into his task has been directed on wrong lines.
The Preamble to the Act instituting his office says, "The purpose of the office is to regulate the supply and consumption of food in such a manner as is thought best for maintaining a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best to encourage the production of food." There is not a word in that Preamble about fixing prices. I remember reading a speech delivered by the noble Lord in the country in which he took credit to himself that most of his work had been in respect of fixing prices. In doing that I think that the Food Controller has sacrificed economics to politics. My own opinion, perhaps, would be worth nothing, but every agriculturist (including the Scots, who are a fairly hard-headed people), and those engaged in commerce, and also some of those who are purchasing food on behalf of the Government, have told me that they agree with the contention that the fixing of prices has retarded production and prevented importation of foodstuffs.
I will not weary the House with the many instances which I could give in this connection; but I will quote one gentleman whom I met two days ago, and who is largely responsible for making purchases on behalf of the Government. He told me that it was necessary to buy now three cattle where only two would have been sufficient before, in consequence, of course, of the decline in their condition. Therefore the result has been that at the present time
284
there are less sources of food in the country than there would have been if the Government had taken what seem to be the natural steps to take when there is a shortage of food, and that is to prevent waste and also restrict consumption by the individual and leave prices alone. Had the noble Lord directed his attention to preventing waste and to seeing that there was equal, fair distribution of food to every individual in the country, and left prices alone, it is my firm conviction that to-day the position would have been far better than it is.
In one of his speeches I remember he denied altogether that profiteering had been largely instrumental in the raising of prices. As some one tersely put it, in times of national crisis like we are going through now you must have high prices or else, no food. The way to stimulate production is to allow market prices to rise. There are plenty of powers in the hands of the Government to prevent profiteering, cornering, or anything directly against the public interest. Therefore it is in my view quite a wrong line of conduct which has been taken by the Government in trying to give a greater supply of food to the people of this country. I will not put the Question† which stands in my name on the Paper unless the noble Lord would like me to do so. I have nothing much to say about it. There have, naturally, been so many mistakes made by his Department in regard to Regulations that at the present time I believe those who are most desirous of complying with every edict of the Government with regard to the consumption of food are really very much mystified. As I say, mistakes have been made, and therefore I would ask whether the country should not be enlightened before a complete series of Regulations, which I hope will be short and simple, is put before them, and Parliament should have the opportunity of considering whether they are those most likely to fulfil the purpose we have in view.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the question which stands in the name of the noble
† The Question standing in the name of Lord LAMINGTON was as follows: To ask whether, in view of the Food Controller's statement that a system of compulsory rationing will be almost certainly introduced, His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament the proposed scheme in accordance with the statement made on November 20 of last year by the Food Controller that he would see whether this House could he given the opportunity of considering the scheme before it became operative.
Lord, Lord Lamington, is to be regarded now as open to the consideration of the House, there are one or two words I should like to say upon it. In the first place I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Rhondda, that I have no desire to criticise or embarrass him. I know quite well that those phrases often preface some very embarrassing remarks, but they are none the less quite sincerely meant. I am quite satisfied that no man could possibly undertake the difficult and thankless office that he has undertaken unless he were inspired and supported by the strongest possible patriotic motives. Speaking for myself, I think that the noble Lord has discharged his singularly thankless duties with great courage and with some small modicum of success, but of course he must have been well aware from the very first that the work he had undertaken never admitted of any great public successful issue.
LORD RHONDDA: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: He must have known that some things were certain to go wrong and that he would consequently be abused whenever they did go wrong, and that if things went right it would be accepted as the normal administration of affairs and he would get very little credit for it. What I want to point out to him, and I trust he will accept it from me rather by way of suggestion than criticism, is that it is of the utmost consequence that every exhortation and instruction given to the public should be couched in the simplest, plainest and the fewest words. There were some instructions issued the other day which I was informed had become the subject of consideration by two eminent Judges, who professed themselves quite unable to understand what they meant. It is possible that with a little more labour they could have given a judicial interpretation which probably would not have carried out the meaning which the circular was intended to convey, but it is quite certain that if two men trained in the interpretation of documents found it difficult to follow the meaning of a circular like that, simple people who are not always familiar with printed documents will find themselves in grave difficulties and confusion when they attempt to carry them out.
I think it may be that the necessary length, it may even be the necessary difficulty, connected with these documents is part of the reason why the voluntary
286
scheme has so far broken down. I do not myself think that that is in any way the fault of the noble Lord, but I do think that it is the fault of certain members of the War Cabinet. The voluntary system, if it could have succeeded, would obviously have been the best and fairest method of distributing food in this country. It would have saved all the friction and the resistance which will certainly be caused if compulsory rationing is introduced, and I do not think the voluntary system need have failed. Considerable effort was being made by people in different localities to make it effectual, and of some of these I can speak from my own knowledge. But people are always anxious and willing to believe the thing they want to believe, and if you once relieve them from the anxiety and the urgent necessity for difficult privation and economy they will readily take advantage of the opportunity that is offered and consume more food than they should. Now that is exactly the result that followed from the speech that was made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, when he said that he no longer had any fear of the submarine menace.
Several NOBLE LORDS : Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Of course it is not the fault of the noble Earl who is Leader of this House, and, if I may say so, still less of the noble Lord. It merely embarrassed him and made his position more difficult than before. I do think it is a lamentable thing that for the purpose of gaining a brief Parliamentary triumph in an afternoon a great responsible Minister like the Prime Minister should have been so unguarded in his utterances and so careless of the consequences that might follow from what he said. That is one of the difficulties that I think has stood in the way of the voluntary scheme, and I think there are others, too. It is quite true that the food that is consumed at great restaurants makes but little difference in the total consumption of the nation. I dare say if you let them go on entirely unchecked, without restriction or limit at all, it would not make the least measurable of appreciable difference in the rations you are going to distribute among all the people. I quite agree with that. But if you are going to ask people to subject themselves to hardship, either voluntarily or under compulsion, it is of the utmost importance that every

287
example should be set in order to show that the nation is determined as a whole that there shall be no extravagance, not merely in the actual question of the rations but in every department they control.
It is therefore unfortunate that restaurants should have gone on until recently with slight limit upon their expenditure, because the advertisement and object lesson that was afforded by those places to people in the street who do not know what takes place inside are thoroughly misunderstood. People in the street are firmly convinced that they are places where luxurious and extravagant living is permitted, and it has an extremely bad influence on the public. It is to be found in numberless instances of action of a similar kind. At this moment what is needed is that every step that can be taken should be taken to brace and tighten the moral tension of this country, and if that is not done grave disaster may ensue; but the things that are done instead of bracing and tightening the moral tension of the country frequently tend to loosen and slacken it.
I will give another illustration of what I mean. When petrol was stopped motor cars proceeded to use gas. It was pointed out in the newspapers that the use of gas involved the abstraction of sail cloth from purposes for which it was required in connection with aeroplanes. Either that was true or it was false. If it was false it should have been contradicted at once, for the mischief of allowing a statement of that kind to go by without contradiction is immeasurable. If it were true, the Government should never have permitted a single car to have a gas bag on its roof. The matter stands in the same position to-day. Of two things, one. Either this does not matter and anybody can do it, or it does matter and nobody should be allowed to do it. This is merely an illustration of exactly what takes place with regard to all these matters. The Government really must remember that the people of this country are apt to be misled by example to a far greater extent than is generally believed. They misunderstand frequently and are possibly ready to be misled, but when they suffer hardships, as many have recently done in their attempt to get food, their minds are restless and uneasy, and they become an easy prey to discontent and ill-intentioned advice.
I trust that if these rationing orders become vital—and I understand they have
288
become vital—every step will be taken to make them as simple and plain as possible. Secondly, I hope that it will not be found necessary to flood this country with an endless band of inspectors and officials: that as far as possible voluntary and local work will be called in aid, in order to assist in the carrying out of the necessary schemes. Those local bodies will be able to do what is necessary, and that is to get into personal touch with the people to whom the rations will have to be distributed. They will know from their own personal knowledge what each person requires. It is my firm belief that it would be far better in certain cases, if an administration which is not too rigid be adopted, that some people should get more than they are accustomed to or ought to have rather than that you should cause, what I think will certainly arise, ill-feeling and discontent consequent upon having some of the simplest domestic details of life under the control of a vast number of officials, who cannot by any possibility whatever have had any experience of the work which they are called upon to perform.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a very few words upon the important question before us this evening, more especially with reference to obtaining the greatest production of food from the country. I quite agree with what has fallen from Lord Selborne and the noble and learned Lord with reference to the fear that the present conditions do not favour the greatest production from the land. Why? I am afraid that there is a want of confidence among the farmers as to what may be the order or the policy of the Government from day to day. They have great difficulty in looking ahead. Now, in any trading concern it is necessary to look ahead, and in the case of the farmers they are always liable to get a fresh Order with fresh prices named for them. Let me take the case particularly of milk. It is a commodity that we cannot obtain from abroad. It is entirely a home product. The Government have recently issued prices for the next few months, beginning April 1, and they have not included April as a winter month. Any practical farmer knows very well that April is one of the most difficult months for a farmer with a milking herd, and they ought to expect the Government to allow them for April the price that they have had during the winter months. We are now on January 31, and

289
they have that uncertainty before them that there is no Order yet as to their obtaining a fair and remunerative price for April next. The obvious danger is that those who are not satisfied with the prospect before them may sell their cows and give up rearing. You cannot replace these. COWS or their produce—at least it would take a long time—and therefore in the milk trade especially it is most important that the farmers should have some assurance that for some time to come they will get fair and remunerative prices for their milk. Otherwise they are certain to adopt other methods of farming. Milk is a case by itself. In the case of cereals, no doubt the prices will satisfy.
The Prime Minister last October paid a very generous tribute to the action of the farmers, and he told them they were doing everything they could in the most patriotic way for the good of the country. He alluded especially to two troubles which they had to face. One was the labour question, and the other was the weather, but I think he omitted a third and very important one, which is Government interference with their prices. I am far from suggesting for a moment that there should be no fixed prices. I quite agree it is a necessity, but I do think that in the interests of the nation, in order to obtain the highest possible produce from the land, it is important that the authorities in charge of this question should be a little more liberal in the prices that they fix. I have been at farmers' meetings, and I know there is a feeling of want of confidence and insecurity among farmers which does not tend to the greatest production possible, but on the contrary checks production, and so the nation will suffer.
I was glad. to hear that the relations between the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture were very amicable. At the same time I cannot but suspect that the Food Controller in this case is the predominant partner. Be that as it may, I am sure the Food Controller will agree with me that if you are to secure the greatest output possible you must be able to show to the producer that he will secure a fair margin of profit between the cost of production and the price that he realises for his produce, and also that he has fair security that it will continue for a reasonable length of time. The noble Lord the Food Controller will correct me if I am wrong in saving that these two conditions are applicable to all
290
trading, and where you get the greatest output it is because there is a fair margin between the cost of production and the price realised, and a fair prospect of that condition being maintained. What the farmers want are a little more certainty and a little more security, and (if I may say so)—with the object which we all have in view of obtaining the greatest production possible—a little more liberality in the prices they are allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the various speeches that were made have covered so much of the ground that I have no desire to add to them. The noble Lord opposite has been asked a great number of questions, or at any rate a great many points have been put to him on which he may desire to say something further. My only object in rising was to make myself quite clear as to the Question which is on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Lamington. I understood him to say that he did not desire to press for a reply if the noble Lord was not desirous of giving one at this moment
LORD LAMINGTON: That was only as to when I should rise to speak.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My only object was to ask whether, owing to the course the debate has taken, the noble Lord opposite will be able to give some answer to the Question put by my noble friend as to how far he will find it possible to inform Parliament beforehand of the details of the scheme of compulsory rationing and—what I think would be particularly desirable for Parliament and the public to know—precisely to what articles it is intended to apply the scheme. Rationing is sometimes spoken of as though it must necessarily be applicable, or could hardly be otherwise than applicable, to articles of consumption of all kinds, whereas we know it may be limited to two or three of the more important; and if the noble Lord is able—I do not not say now, but at some period, a considerable interval, before the system is introduced—to explain to what articles it is to be applied, and any details that he may be able to produce, I think it would be a great service, not merely to your Lordships' House and to Parliament but to the public generally who are, of course, exceedingly interested.
I merely desire before I sit down to associate myself with much that has been

291
said on the subject of fixing prices. I am willing to admit, like my noble friend who spoke last, that there may be occasions when the popular demand and the popular alarm at the sudden rise of prices may make it hardly possible for a Government to resist the fixing of prices, but I also agree with the noble Lord who spoke before that any such fixing of prices is in itself a misfortune, and that where the ordinary action of the market can have play—every precaution, of course, being taken to make it impossible for any one of the individuals through whose hands the article passes to make an undue profit upon it—it is greatly to the public advantage. From the two instances that have been mentioned—that of the fixing of the prices of beef and mutton, and the later one of the fixing of the price of rabbits—I do not think the noble Lord can congratulate himself on the results which have been obtained so far as the encouragement of production is concerned. I fear that the actual effect produced in both these cases has been directly the opposite, and for that reason I trust that for any subjects of consumption of which the prices still remain unfixed the noble Lord will be very tender in fixing them.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply on the debate which we have had, certainly not at too great length, upon this very important subject. The first thing I may ask is this. The noble Lord says that from lack of memory he cannot say how far the language quoted in my Question as used by Mr. Clynes was accurate. Would it be impossible to ascertain from Mr. Clynes whether his memory is any better, and whether he adheres to the statement which he made. I think we have every right to ask that question and every right to be told, seeing that the noble Lord says he cannot charge his memory with the language that was used. The noble Lord says that he made it known immediately after he was appointed that all interests and all industries were included when he said he did not care what interests went under—that is to say, if they interfered in any way with the object he had in view of reducing prices. He told us that agriculture was certainly included, and immediately afterwards he denounced profiteering, in which I entirely agree with him.
LORD RHONDDA: Anything that stands in the way of the national interests.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am not defending profiteering; nor have I had any experience of it myself. What I do know is this, that both the Food Controller and the Prime Minister—the latter in particular in a speech the other day in the House of Commons (the speech that has already been referred to)—did resent most vehemently the attacks that have been made on farmers in that respect. The Prime Minister said they were utterly undeserving of them, and that he resented them entirely himself. Unless my memory fails me, I think I could find in a very short time observations not very dissimilar with regard to farmers by the noble Lord himself.
LORD RHONDDA: Certainly.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am delighted to have that admission from him. The noble Lord went on to say that it was of the utmost importance not to restrict the supply of food. Has he succeeded in doing that? Why, good heavens! if that was his object a more dismal failure has never attended any policy in the world. I do not know whether he is aware of it but I do not know myself at the present moment, having made careful inquiry, of a single butcher's shop anywhere in the West-end where I could go and buy a mutton chop to-day. I happen to live in a house where there are a series of changes. It is an establishment very well kept and managed by people who have to look after it. I sent for the manager to-day. He said "We have not had a piece of meat, or been able to get a piece of meat, for the last week or ten days"; although he had been dealing for themselves and their customers with a first-class butcher in the West-end who had supplied him for years. That does not sound as if the supply was unrestricted. I mention this because the noble Lord himself announced that it was part of his policy not to restrict in any way the supply.
I am going to ask another question, if I may. Under what conditions has it been that the noble Lord has pursued the policy he has ? Was he not warned by scores of deputations from England, Scotland, and Ireland, composed of men of long experience and knowledge of agriculture in every part of the country. Ah, my Lords, those Scottish farmers were indeed able and hardheaded men. I have known many of them for years, and I had the opportunity, by the

293
courtesy and kindness of the noble Lord, to attend the Scottish deputation which waited upon him, and I was able to be present all the time. I have received hundreds of deputations myself in my time, and I have attended a vast number of others, but never do I remember any deputation where the case of the farmers was so admirably stated, where the arguments used were so conclusive, and where the reply, if I may say so with all respect, was absolutely of the other description. But that is only one instance out of hundreds of others. The noble Lord was told, over and over again, by practical agriculturists, by men representing all the great agricultural associations in England, beginning with the Royal Society and going through all the other grades and societies existing on behalf of agriculture, by men versed in every detail of the breeding, the purchase, the feeding, and the sale of cattle, told also the same thing in this House on two or three different occasions, that if he pursued the policy which he had announced there would be a famine before the New Year. As a matter of fact, it came before Christmas.
Are we to suppose that all these men were talking of what they did not understand, that they were doing this for a joke and were not serious? Never were men more serious, because they knew perfectly well what would happen and the misery of it all. I will tell you later a little bit about the misery of it. Who were right, the men who told all this or the noble Lord, who persisted in turning a deaf ear to every remonstrance that was made to him and who insisted upon pursuing his policy despite everything that practical agriculturists could tell him? And what has been the result of his attempt to fix prices? It is a positive fact that the moment he has fixed the price of any particular article—and God knows there are many of them—the article in question has immediately become more or less scarce. At one time there was a complaint of the enormous number of rabbits. Prices were fixed, and who hears complaints about rabbits now? They have disappeared, and that is the case with almost every other article upon which he has placed prices. It is not in the least surprising; it is only the natural result of a policy which was, sooner or later, to follow.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master, spoke just now of the rationing
294
orders. I agree very much with what he said. I think it is a matter of supreme difficulty, and, for the life of me. I do not see how it is to be carried out. Rationing orders have not come into effect yet, but the people in London, I do not care of what rank they are, have enormous difficulty in finding meat of any kind whatever. The noble and learned Lord mentioned some orders; I am going to mention others. My noble friend Lord Lichfield said there was a general feeling of want of confidence and security amongst the farmers. I have had that complaint from hundreds of farmers; every day from all parts of the country. It is absolutely true, and I will give another reason why it could not be otherwise. How many orders has the noble Lord issued from his Department in the last two or three months? The figures were given to me the other day—my memory is not so good as it was—and I have left them behind me, because I intended making only a short speech this afternoon. I am only led into making these remarks because I feel bound to reply to the statements of the noble Lord.
I think I am right in saying that the orders issued number something like 200 in the last few months. Just think of what that means to the farmers? They have no time to read orders. The only spare day they have, as a rule, is the market-day, when they meet together at the "ordinary" after the market. This long rigmarole of orders, if they had time to read them, probably half of them would not understand. Orders are issued one day and withdrawn the next, or shortly after, and sometimes orders are changed. I have received complaints, over and over again, that these orders should be issued at all and go forth without the sanction of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The one thing that is important at the present time is the production, and the greatly increased production, of food, and everything that has been done in my humble judgment and opinion by the Controller tends in exactly the opposite direction. That is one of the great reasons why you sec this shortage at the present time.
Let me say one word on another subject. I am going to give you a concrete instance of the enormous wastage of actual meat that has been caused by the policy of the Controller. On one occasion in these debates—I recollect it perfectly well—I

295
elicited in reply from the noble Lord that 250,000 immature animals were going to be slaughtered before they were fit for the butcher. I took the liberty of pointing out that I thought that a most dangerous and injurious proposal. First of all because we should lose an enormous quantity of manure at a time when it was specially wanted to increase the corn crops, and secondly because there would be an enormous wastage of meat. I took the opportunity of getting information as to the actual waste of beef that would otherwise have been placed upon the carcases of these immature animals if they had been allowed to get fit for the butcher, and had been fed in the ordinary way. There may have been some reason that I am not aware of for this very unusual and extraordinary policy. I can hardly think of any that would account for it, or that would justify it.
What was the result? I went for information to one of the biggest feeders in England, a man who feeds 1,000 cattle every year. His name is Overman, and he is widely known in all agricultural circles. I said to him "What I want you to get for me is this. What was the actual wastage of beef that would have been put on to the carcases of these animals if they had been allowed the ordinary opportunities of feeding?" What was so shocking to me was that there has never been so much grass in this country for years. It was extraordinarily fruitful and prevalent owing to the seasons, and to there having been plenty of wet during the summer. An enormous amount of this grass was waiting to be converted into beef, and a great deal of it has been wasted, and that at a time when there is exceptional difficulty in getting artificial feeding. I am told that there is a good deal of difficulty about getting the feeding stuffs. The man to whom I put the question got hold of the farmers who were in the Scottish deputation. He went down to Edinburgh, and saw them, and I got a letter from him in these words—
"We spent hours to-day in working this out. We have got every detail of the figures at every stage of feeding. And what is the result? In my opinion it is an under estimate, but I am sure that our figures cannot be impugned by any one. What is more, they are going first of all to the Royal Agricultural Society. What do you think the result was? 27,400 tons of beef thrown away which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been added to the carcases of 250,000 immature cattle."
296
I am aware that since then the Food Controller has found that it was impossible that 250,000 could have been slaughtered, but I believe that I am right in saying that something like 160,000 of 170,000 were slaughtered.
LORD RHONDDA: About 70,000 or 73,000, I think it is.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I believe that the noble Lord will find that there were a great many more than that, and if he will inquire at the Board of Agriculture and get their returns I think that he will find that I am right. But supposing the original policy had been carried out? I asked some Army authorities what it would mean. They said "If you put it at ¾ lb. of meat per man for the whole of the Army we have in France, it would feed that Army for something like one month." For how long would it feed the city of London, which is now wanting meat so badly, at the rations which the Controller proposes? It would feed them for months. I can give all the facts and figures or procure them at any time, and I am ready to challenge contradiction upon it. I know the man well whose figures I have given. He got them from the Scotch farmers who are the longest headed and cleverest men I have ever met in the farming world, and you may depend upon it that the conclusions which they came to are well worthy of the consideration of the Controller and of the Cabinet in particular.
My Lords, I feel bound to offer an apology for speaking so much longer than I had intended to do. I hope that I have not been, as I certainly did not intend to be, offensive to the Controller of Food, but I thought it my duty to say plainly and honestly what I think of his policy, and I am sorry to say that the longer it is continued, in my opinion, the worse will the position become.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I do not mean to make a speech, but I do not quite know, after the closing remarks of the noble Viscount, whether we are to have anything more from the noble Lord, Lord Rhondda.
LORD RHONDDA: Very little. I shall not attempt to reply to all the criticisms.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I was only going to ask one question. I think the

297
noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, referred to certain warnings which deputations to the noble Lord some months ago had given as to what was likely to take place. That I do not want, to go back on. But he also alluded to the same sort of counsel which was given in this House at the time of the fixing of the meat prices. I think that we had a one or two nights' debate, and the noble Lord was most good-natured in listening to everything that we stated, but he did not seem to me to be impressed by any of the points that we tried to make, or by the advice which we gave. He went on with his own policy, and his own policy has had certain results which have been brought out this evening. I think that we are entitled—the noble Lord himself would say so if sitting in his study—to the dismal satisfaction that a prophet, we will not say of a catastrophe but of trouble, is entitled to. I should like to ask him whether he is at all shaken by the results of that policy. I admire him for carrying out his policy, but does he think that it was right?
LORD RHONDDA: I was among the prophets.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Well, if the noble Lord was among the prophets I do not know whether I can apply a suitable biblical analogy to meet the situation. The noble Lord certainly paid little attention to the prophets, of whom he says that he was one. What I want to ask now is whether he considers that the prophets, among whom he numbers himself, were wrong? Is he going to change his policy? We have an admitted shortage of the raw material of food, and we have also a very considerable relaxation of motive all over the country through the course which has been taken. These are two very serious points. If the noble Lend still thinks that he was right in the line that he has taken in fixing prices, and intends to adhere to the line upon which he has fixed prices, it seems to me that the shortage and the relaxation of motive will continue. I should like him to say, "I am sorry this has taken place. Perhaps I should have been wiser to have listened to other people." If farmers think that this is going to continue I really believe that the agricultural conditions of the country, and the conditions of the consuming interest of the country, will get into a very serious position.
LORD RHONDDA: My Lords, the discussion has taken a course which was quite unanticipated by myself, and I do
298
not propose to attempt to reply to the criticisms that have been levelled against the Food Controller. I should be quite prepared to justify nay action—to defend, at any rate, and I hope to justify it—though I dare say I shall be in a minority as to whether I have succeeded in doing so. The noble Lord had on the Paper a Motion raising the whole general question of my policy. I presume that he will still raise the general question of policy, and when he does so I shill be prepared to give a considered and reasoned reply.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I was led into making a longer reply than I thought of making, but I intend to go on with the other Motion standing in my name for next week. Of course, if I had been going on with it to-day I should have given the noble Lord notice. I will take care that he has full notice at any time.
LORD RHONDDA: I hope the noble Viscount will go on with that Motion, and give me an opportunity of a detailed reply to his criticism. If I replied now, it would be merely repetition when he brings on his Motion raising the whole question of policy. I am quite prepared to defend my policy then. I am a new member of the House and I am not conversant with the Rules, but it does appear to me, after my experience in another House for twenty-three years, that the arguments used in the whole course of this debate are to a large extent irrelevant, and the discussion has not strictly arisen either from the Questions put by time noble Viscount or in any way from the reply I made. I shall at the proper time be prepared to defend my action in fixing prices. Frankly, I in no way regret that I have done so. Obviously the tendency of the fixing of maximum prices and of the reduction of prices must be towards a restriction in the supply and an increase in the demand. There is no getting over that fact.
But I maintain— and I hope I shall be able to satisfy at any rate some members of the House—that in fixing the prices as I have done I have had regard to a fair remuneration being left to farmers, and that I have fixed prices at such a figure as has not led to any substantial reduction in the supply. But I, Saul, was among the prophets, for I predicted last autumn, when the discussion took place in this House, that there would be a very grave shortage of meats after Christmas. It was inevitable in consequence of the fact that, whereas

299
hitherto in normal times the civilian population is dependent for its requirements to the extent of very nearly one half—over 40 per cent.—on imports, only the lessened imports that are now coming in are available for consumption. Consequently, there must inevitably have been a shortage. I maintain that that shortage may be due to a small extent to the increased slaughtering that took place in the autumn; it is due to a very small extent to that factor.
With regard to Lord Lamington's Question and to the remarks about it, Lord Buckmaster has asked that when any exhortation is made to the public it should be couched in simpler language. The noble and learned Lord will understand that I am not a lawyer; I have had no experience in the law, and I must be necessarily dependent on the Legal Department of my Ministry.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My humble suggestion is that you should abandon all legal phraseology and legal advice, and state in plain language what is wanted.
LORD RHONDDA: But the Orders that are issued have the force of law, and must be made as far as possible watertight. That is the difficulty. They have to be brought out quickly, and they must be precise in order to have legal effect. We do endeavour to carry out the arrangement suggested, because, on the issue of an Order, whenever we have time, we issue at the same time an explanation in popular phraseology of the meaning and extent of the Order.
With regard to the question of rations and the position of the Government at the moment, the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) is no doubt aware that local schemes of rationing are now being introduced in very many districts, under an Order made at the end of last month; indeed, I hope that early in March practically the whole country will be covered by local rationing schemes dealing with fats and in many cases also with meat, with power to extend to other articles. One unit will be London and the surrounding districts, including altogether 10,000,000 of population, or practically a fourth of the whole population of the country. There is another local scheme for Birmingham and the surrounding districts. We hope there will be one scheme for Scotland, another for South
300
Wales; and practically the whole country will be covered by these local rationing schemes by early in March. By this means we are gaining valuable experience which should save us from many of the dangers and difficulties hitherto inseparable from compulsory rationing.
LORD BURNHAM: Will the schemes be uniform?
LORD RHONDDA: We wish to make them as uniform as possible. That is very desirable indeed, and we issued a Model Scheme with the object of getting the local authorities throughout the country to arrange for uniformity. It has been decided by His Majesty's Government that at an early date these local schemes wilt be combined into one national scheme. I shall be quite prepared, if your Lordships so desire, to make a statement on the subject before the scheme is brought into operation. This will be done in as simple and clear language as possible. I shall be prepared, if your Lordships desire, to make a statement on the subject in the House before the scheme comes into operation. And I shall be prepared also to discuss with the noble Lord and any others who are interested in the matter any points which they may wish to raise as to rationing generally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Viscount desire to press his Motion for Papers?
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: No. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House until Monday, I wish to state that it may probably be my duty on Monday and Tuesday to move the suspension of Standing Order No. XXXIX in order to deal with the remaining stages of the Nonferrous Metal Industry Bill, and with the Irish Redistribution Bill the Second Reading of which we take on Monday next.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Monday next.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.