Sitting of 27 May 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Sunderland Gas Bill [lords]. Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Waterford Harbour Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Cowes and Findochty," presented by Sir AUCKLAND GEDDES, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.—[Bill 90.]

EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Address for "Return of the Net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the three years from 1915–16 to 1917–18 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 99, of Session 1918)."— [Mr. Montagu.]

ULTIMUS H.ÆERES (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES.
Return Ordered, "of Abstract Account of the receipts and payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1917, in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown":
"And of alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the same year."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
Return Ordered, "of Abstract Account of the receipts and payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1918, in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown":
"And of alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the same year."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EXPORT CREDIT FACILITIES.
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade Department the policy adopted by his Department in giving advice to British firms who may desire to take advantage of the export credit facilities which are being provided by American export houses with the support of the Government of the United States?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked by my hon. Friend to answer this question. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast policy which is applicable to all cases, as it must necessarily depend on the nature of the individual inquiry, and especially on the extent to which British needs of the particular commodity are already met from British Imperial sources.

  FOREIGN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Oversea Trade

  997
  Department whether any measures are being adopted to encourage or discourage the investment of foreign capital in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No specific measures have yet been adopted, but the whole question is under the consideration of the Government.

  MOTOR TRANSPORT VEHICLES.
  Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for War whether No. 882 Motor Transport Company, Royal Army Service Corps, has a strength of 207 cars; whether all these cars are for the use of War Offise and other officials; whether he is aware that this company now occupy premises in Ebury Bridge Road, Chelsea, with a floor area of 84,000 square feet, and which are required by the leaseholders for a business which would there employ over 400 discharged men; that the leaseholders were informed that their premises would be freed provided that alternative accommodation was suggested; and that two suitable alternative premises have been suggested and both of them commandeered; and whether, in view of the present amount of unemployment, any date can be given when the Ebury Bridge Road premises will be made available for occupation by the leaseholders?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The number of Motor Transport vehicles on the strength of No. 882 Motor Transport Company is 169. These vehicles are for the use of the War Office, General Headquarters, Great Britain, the Eastern Command and London District Headquarters, the War Cabinet, representatives of Allied Governments, and of the Dominions, etc. I am informed that the area of the Ebury Bridge Road premises is approximately as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend. I understand that the leaseholders are a recently floated company, known as the British Motor Trading Corporation, Limited, which is, I believe, under the direction of Brigadier-General Conway Jenkins, C.B.E., lately retired from the Royal Air Force. Brigadier-General Conway Jenkins has been informed that the premises would be vacated if a suitable substitute could be found, but no suitable alternative premises have yet been suggested. The two brought to notice were
  998
  unsuitable, and in any case were already earmarked by the War Department for another purpose before they were mentioned by Brigadier-General Conway Jenkins. I am afraid it is not possible at present to fix a date when the Ebury Bridge Road premises can be vacated.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will my right hon. Friend say if, when Peace is declared, it is the policy of the Government to confine the use of motor cars to those officials of the War Office who were entitled to them in 1914?
  Mr. FORSTER: I hope to return to peace conditions as soon as possible. I believe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has undertaken to give this matter of the use of motor vehicles by Government Departments his personal attention.

  FIELD FORCE CANTEENS (PROFITS).
  Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what profits were made from the field force canteens in the South African War; how this money was disposed of; and what will be done with the profits of the British Expeditionary Force canteens in this War?
  Mr. FORSTER: The total gross profits made by the Field Force Canteens in the South African War cannot be accurately determined owing to the lapse of time and the grants made prior to the final winding-up, but it is on record that up to September, 1903, a sum of about £150,000 was returned to the troops or distributed as Grants-in-Aid of various military objects. On the Field Force Canteen being finally wound up the assets were estimated at £103,000, of which £70,000 was set aside with the approval of the then Secretary of State to be used as the working capital of the South African Garrison Institute, which took over the work of the Field Canteen after the war, any balance on realisation being spent locally for the benefit of the garrison. The profits of the British Expeditionary Force canteens in this War will be spent for the benefit of the members and ex-members of His Majesty's Forces, their families and dependants, under the directions of the Army Council.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not something now remaining from the South African Canteen Fund?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes. I cannot say how much, but there is a considerable sum still standing to the credit of the South African Garrison Institute Fund, and that, I think, if I remember aright, was largely used in starting the Expeditionary Force Canteen.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have steps been taken to consult commanding officers as to the feeling of their troops as to the disposal of the money from this War?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    ENLISTMENT BEFORE 1916.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to name an approximate date on which demobilisation of all troops who enlisted prior to 1916 or who otherwise come within the exempted classes will be complete?
    Sir S. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether, provided that nothing unforeseen occurs, he can give an approximate date by which he hopes to be able to release from the Army men who were serving in 1914 and 1915, and are eligible for demobilisation from the Army of the Rhine, Egypt, and Palestine, Mesopotamia, India, and other theatres?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret that I am unable at present to give an approximate date by which men who were serving in 1914 and 1915 will be released. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friends that the demobilisation of all these men is proceeding as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service permit, and in cases where they are temporarily retained as part of the military machinery of demobilisation they are being replaced as rapidly as possible by men who are not eligible for demobilisation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are getting tired of this question of men being retained for the machinery of demobilisation? Will his Department take some actual steps, instead of having always the same reply brought up, to replace these men by men who have not served previous to 1916?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is very much easier to talk about demobilisation and replacing men than to do it. I must remind the
    1000
    hon. and gallant Member that we have demobilised since the Armistice going on for 3,000,000 men, which is a very considerable number. The Secretary of State is giving personal attention to the case of men referred to in the question, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman my right hon. Friend is doing everything he can to expedite it.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the 3,000,000 men demobilised a very large number have been those who joined the forces in 1916, 1917, and 1918?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am quite aware of that.

    APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Secretary of State for War if he can now give the result of his promised inquiries as to the release of Private A. G. Surridge, No. 288829, Royal Army Service Corps, Mechanical Transport, 3rd Army Corps, which he gave on 9th April last; and, seeing that this man's papers instructing him that he would be dispersed at Purfleet Rifle Range were issued on 25th February, 1919, he will take steps to avoid the recurrence of such delay, after a promise being given, with a view to avoiding irritation and unrest amongst the troops?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret that the result of the inquiry is not yet to hand. An urgent wire has been sent to expedite the report, and on its receipt the hon. Member will be communicated with without delay.
    Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a telegram in order that this man may be released?
    Mr. FORSTER: We have sent a telegram asking for the report to be expedited,.

    ELIGIBILITY.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether, when the senior officers appointed to inspect registers of units with a view to ensuring that no officers or men who are eligible for demobilisation are being retained without good and sufficient cause are engaged in the work, they will also consider, in the case of low-category men, whether they could be performing in civil life more useful duties than are entrusted to them under military routine?
    Mr. FORSTER: No men, No far as I am aware, are being retained in the Armies

    1001
    of Occupation who are not physically capable of carrying out the duties assigned to them.

    HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that the l/9th Battalion, Hampshire Regiment, Territorial Force, is at present detained in a distant theatre of war, not withstanding the fact that the whole battalion, namely, thirty-two officers and 901 other ranks, is pre-war or of the 1914–16 class, and is, therefore, time expired; and. if so, whether he will give orders for the prompt relief of this battalion?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated by my hon. Friend. It is impracticable to carry out the relief of this battalion at present, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the withdrawal at as early a date as possible of those men who are eligible for demobilisation, is a matter that will not be lost sight of.

    TEACHING PROFESSION.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether after the Armistice a statement was issued by the War Office to the effect that members of the teaching profession would be immediately released from the Army, and that individual application either from teachers or their employers was therefore unnecessary; and whether, notwithstanding this statement, teachers are still retained with the Colours?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of such a statement having been issued, but I may say that a number of the members of the teaching profession who were certified by the Board of Education and registered by the War Office, before the 1st February, 1919, were demobilised as pivotal men. Teachers others than those so certified, must be eligible for demobilisation under current instruction in order to be released.

    MEDICAL FITNESS AND GRADING.
    Mr. A. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men who joined the Forces since 1st January, 1916, have been lowered in category as a result of war service; and whether he will undertake to see that medical fitness and grading are taken into account in deciding whether or not a man shall be demobilised?
    Mr. FORSTER: In order to be demobilised, men who joined the Colours after 1st January, 1916, must be eligible for demobilisation under current instructions, but in cases where they are medically unfit to perform the duties required of them they are discharged. I regret it is not possible to make any alteration in this procedure.

    ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War why Private S. Haynes, 39th Company, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Docks Detachment, Army Ordnance Box, Alexandria, who is over forty, has not been demobilised in spite of the assurance of the Secretary of State for War given months ago that such men were being sent home as fast as transport permitted?
    Mr. FORSTER: Private Haynes is not registered by the War Office either as pivotal or for special release. If his age is as stated, he is eligible for demobilisation unless he is serving under pre-war conditions of service and his term of Colour service is not completed. Such men are being demobilised as rapidly as the exigencies of the Service permit. I would also remind my hon. Friend that, owing to local conditions, all demobilisation from Egypt had to be suspended for a period.

    DEMOBILISED OFFICERS (GRATUITIES).
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the feeling aroused by the delay in granting war gratuities to demobilised officers and the hardship often occasioned by such delay; and whether, having regard to the promptness with which the Board of Trade have been able to obtain and pay over-the sums due to those engaged in the coal-getting industry under recent awards, he can explain the difficulty that stands in the way of an equally prompt settlement of awards to officers of the Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would invite the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a question on 20th instant to the hon. Member for Harrow, to the effect that the Army agents hope very shortly to have overtaken the arrears. There is no analogy with the payments to miners, referred to.
    Major NEWMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Army agents will be able to get up with their work?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I said in the answer to which I have referred, they hope to get up with it by the end of the month.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATED).
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the number of repatriated British prisoners of war at present serving in this country; how many of them are eligible for demobilisation; and whether it is intended to send any of those not so eligible on further service overseas?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret that there are no figures available to enable me to answer the earlier part of this question. As regards the last part, I am afraid I can add nothing to the information given in reply to questions on this subject put on the 25th February and 9th April last by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet respectively.

    ARMY PAY CORPS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are many men in the Army Pay Corps who have permanent civil employment waiting for them, but are being retained in. the Army on the ground that they are indispensable; and whether, in view of the fact that in some cases this work is being done by discharged soldiers, he will consider the possibility of extending this and employing in the Army Pay Corps discharged soldiers who are out of employment, and thus be able to release the men who have civil employment waiting for them?
    Mr. FORSTER: Men of the Army Pay Corps, with many other classes of soldiers, are not entitled to be demobilised until the progress made with demobilisation of the Army generally admits of their release without detriment to the efficiency of the public service. My hon. Friend will appreciate the impossibility of a general release of trained clerks at the time when the Pay Department is strained to the utmost in settling the accounts of the men leaving the Army. Subject to these considerations, everything possible has been and is being done to release individuals, and, where necessary, suitable ex-soldiers are employed in their stead.

  ARMY OFFICERS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue a statement at an early date defining as far as possible conditions of service in regard to pay, allowances, dress, and other particulars of officers of the post-bellum Army?
  Mr. FORSTER: All these matters are being considered by Committees appointed for the purpose, and an announcement cannot be made until their Reports have been made and considered.
  Captain LOSEBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any kind of idea when that will be, in view of the fact that this is really a matter of great urgency to officers?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give any kind of idea as to when the Report will be received.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the setting up of a Committee on the lines of the Jerram Report, applying to Army conditions on the same terms'?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that question.

  LONDON OMNIBUS GARAGES (ARMY OCCUPATION).
  Lieut.-Colonel BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army still retains possession of several garages belonging to the London General Omnibus Company, although that company has urgently demanded their return in order to establish further services which are much needed; and how soon he can give up possession?
  Mr. FORSTER: With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate a full reply to his question in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it is rather too long to read out.
  The following is the reply indicated:
  On the 11th November, 1918, eleven garages of the London General Omnibus Company were held by the War Department. Four of these have been surrendered by that Department, but two of these have

  1005
  since been acquired by the Ministry of Munitions. Particulars as regards the remaining seven are as follows:

  1. Wickham Lane, Plumstead, occupied by 274 Mechanical Transport Company. Arrangements are being made to move this Company into Royal Arsenal, and vacate the London General Omnibus Company's premises.

  2. Warner Road, Camberwell, occupied by a Mechanical Transport Repair Shop, which will, it is anticipated, be clear in three weeks from 22nd May, 1919.

  3. Kingsley Road, Hounslow, occupied by a Mechanical Transport School, will be vacated within three weeks.

  4. Whitbread Avenue, Bedford, occupied by 373 Mechanical Transport Company. This Company is being transferred else where.

  5. Greyhound Road, Fulham, used as store for deceased Australian Officers' effects. To evacuate it would retard Australian repatriation, and the fittings of this store are most elaborate.

  6. Revesby Road, Walworth, used as store of Canadian Forces. Every effort will be made to vacate at an early date.

  7. Bromley Road, Catford, full of machinery of the Canadian Forestry Department, this machinery is being taken over by Board of Trade, who are aware of the importance of vacating the premises.

  The branch of the War Office concerned is in frequent communication with the London General Omnibus Company as regards all these premises, and will keep that company informed of progress made.

  SILVER WAR BADGE.
  Mr. SITCHasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of recommending to His Majesty an amendment of the Order governing the issue of the silver badge, now restricted only to men invalided out of the Navy or Army, so as to include all who have served in any of His Majesty's Forces, thereby affording visual evidence of an authoritative character of services rendered and thus remove any doubt that may at present arise through the indiscriminate wearing of regimental badges, buttons, or other devices procurable by any man who chooses to adopt them?
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member's proposal would have the effect of making the
  1006
  Silver War Badge a commemorative medal, which was not the original intention of the award. The badge is a distinctive mark for those who, having served during the War, were compelled to return to civil life through physical disabilities. Visual evidence of an authoritative character of service rendered will be afforded by the War medals and their ribbons.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the average man who is demobilised need not apply for the Silver Badge? It will save a great deal of trouble If he will say authoritatively that a man who is simply demobilised need not apply.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot say that without notice. I have not lately gone into the conditions of the award of the Silver Badge, but I will look into it.

  HARROWBY AND BELTON PARK CAMPS.
  Mr. JESSONasked the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the War Office to retain either or both the Harrow by Camp and the Belton Park Camp at Grantham; and, if not, can he state, in the interests of the local tradesmen and the public of Grantham, when it is proposed to close either or both of these camps?
  Mr. FORSTER: It is not the intention of the War Department to retain either Harrowby Camp or Belton Park Camp. The evacuation of Belton Park, prior to dismantling, has already commenced. Harrowby Camp will be evacuated and dismantled as soon as the repatriation of Dominion troops has set free camps elsewhere. As far as can be foreseen both camps should be completely vacant by the autumn, but the exact date depends on the rapidity with which Dominion troops are repatriated and this in turn is dependent on shipping facilities.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEYasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that no War Saving Certificates have been issued to those soldiers who subscribed to the war savings campaign con-

  1007
  ducted in France in January, 1918; and if he will take steps to have these certificates issued without further delay?
  Mr. FORSTER: The War Savings Certificates are retained in the custody of the Post Office Savings Bank until application is made for their issue by the soldier who has subscribed for them. I am informed that a large number of certificates have already been issued and that their is no delay.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that Oliver W. Banwell, No. 2332, 4th Southern Company, Non-combatant Corps, who was, prior to his arrest, a schoolmaster, and the sole support of his widowed mother, was court martialled in May, 1918, and sentenced to two years hard labour which he is now serving in Winchester Prison; whether he will remit the remainder of this man's sentence; (2) whether he is aware that A. Bissett, No. 63419, 3rd Highland Light Infantry, was arrested as a conscientious objector in May, 1918, and is at present serving a sentence of twelve months' hard labour in Calton Prison, Edinburgh; and whether he will now remit this man's sentence?
  Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that J. Andrews, No. 326618, 4th Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers, is at present serving his second sentence of two years' hard labour as a conscientious objector in Hull Prison; and whether he will now remit this man's sentence?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement made on the 3rd April in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Plaistow, and to the reply given on the 1st May to a question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, which explained the policy with regard to the release of conscientious objectors and others who are serving terms of imprisonment.
  Captain TUDOR-REESasked the Secretary for War whether he is prepared to extend to serving soldiers the consideration and clemency shown to conscientious objectors and order the release of those who, for purely military offences, have served twenty months in detention or imprisonment?
  Mr. FORSTER: In view of the fact that the provisions of paragraph 583(xi.)of the King's Regulations in so far as they relate to the scales of punishment for various offences have been closely followed there cannot be said to be any comparison between the treatment of conscientious objectors and serving soldiers, the former having been excluded from the provisions of the above quoted Regulations.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS AT BATOUM.
  Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any need to keep doctors at Batoum with the British forces who are married, over forty-one years of age, and who have spent fourteen months or more with the Salonika forces at Salonika, Sophia, and Batoum, to the detriment of their private practices in England; if they have no work at Batoum, and half of them could be sent away without detriment; and, if the number of doctors are really wanted there, whether younger unmarried men will be sent out to relieve the middle-aged men there now?
  Mr. FORSTER: Medical officers are being demobilised as fast as the military situation permits, but at present it is quite impossible to demobilise all who are eligible. I have no information to the effect that officers with the Armies of the Black Sea are not fully employed. In view of the conditions of service it is essential that the medical provision there should be adequate. The importance of relieving medical officers who are deserving of consideration on the score of age or length of service is fully realised, but at present, owing to the large numbers who have been demobilised to meet urgent civil needs, I regret that it is not practicable to send out reliefs.
  Sir A. FELL: Cannot some younger men be sent out to enable these middle-aged men to come home?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have just said that I am afraid that is not practicable.

  NORTHERN FRANCE (EVACUATION).
  Sir A. FELLasked the Secretary of State for War if parties of ladies and of other sightseers have been visiting the

  1009
  scene of the war operations in the North of France; and whether all such visits can be postponed and nothing be allowed to interfere with the evacuation of this territory by our troops, and the removal of the stores and huts and railways with the utmost energy during the summer months?
  Mr. FORSTER: Except in the case of certain distinguished visitors who have rendered special war service, no assistance is afforded by the military authorities to persons visiting the zones of France and Flanders still under the General Officer Commanding British troops. I do not think there is any fear of interference with the military evacuation as suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Sir A. FELL: Can I have an assurance that nothing shall interfere with the earliest possible evacuation of the country during the fine weather now prevailing, which assists it so much?
  Mr. FORSTER: Oh, yes; I think I can give that assurance.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for War how it is intended to organise the Territorial Force; and will the same battalions be grouped together with Artillery brigades, as was the case during the War?
  Mr. FORSTER: The present intention is to reconstruct the Territorial Force on its pre-war basis. Under this organisation the Territorial Force consists of fourteen divisions, composed of units of Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Royal Army Service Corps, and Royal Army Medical Corps, and fourteen mounted brigades with Coast Defence units and Army troops.
  Colonel BURN: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give publicity to this statement on account of the importance of letting people know what is to be arranged, so that they may make their own arrangements?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; but I have no doubt they will receive the widest possible publicity.
  Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ask the assistance of the local authorities in helping with these Territorial battalions and brigades in the same way as was done to raise men for the War?
  Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice of that.
  Major NALL: Will the authorities announce at an early date the organisation of the battalions and brigades in divisions?
  Mr. FORSTER: Before long I think there will be a comprehensive statement that, I hope, will satisfy all those who are inquiring.
  Sir S. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War on what date it is proposed to open recruiting for the Territorial Force; whether, if a Territorial Force officer is not available as adjutant for a Territorial Force unit, a Regular officer will be eligible for appointment as such; and whether a Territorial Force officer when appointed as adjutant to a Territorial Force unit will receive the same pay and allowances as a Regular officer holding the same appointment?
  Mr. FORSTER: New notice papers and attestation forms are now being prepared and attestations can be signed as soon as the forms are provided. All attestations will date from the 1st November next only, but registration of names can be carried out, if desired, forthwith. Both Regular and Territorial Force officers will be eligible for appointment as adjutant of a Territorial Force unit. The question whether a Territorial Force officer appointed adjutant to a Territorial Force unit will receive the same pay and allowances as a Regular officer so appointed is now under consideration.

  BRITISH TROOPS (FINLAND).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether British troops have been landed on the shores of the Gulf of Finland; whether these men are all volunteers; and how many of them had volunteered to relieve British troops believed to be in danger in North Russia?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that no British troops have been landed.

  MILITARY TELEGRAPHISTS.
  Mr. WIGNALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether the services of the British military telegraphists employed

  1011
  on the Baudot in Paris can now be dispensed with; and, if so, whether he will arrange for their demobilisation?
  Mr. FORSTER: As was stated in reply to the hon. Member on Tuesday last, the question of the discontinuance of the employment of military personnel on such work has been taken up with the General Post Office. I regret I can add nothing to that reply at present.

  ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

    CHURCH ARMY CANTEEN CINEMA (BONN).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that recently the Church Army Canteen Cinema at Bonn was closed for eight days to soldiers of the Army of the Rhine in order that the Germans might have their usual Bach festival; and whether he will state who was responsible for the order?
    Mr. FORSTER: A Report has been called for on this matter, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member in due course.

  PEACE TERMS.

    AVAILABLE TROOPS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Secretary for War if he is in a position to state the number of troops who would be immediately available for use in the event of Germany refusing to sign the Allied Peace terms; and will he state what troops could be mobilised in the near future by Ger many to meet such a contingency?
    Mr. FORESTER: I am afraid it would not be in the public interest to give this information.

  TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked whether and, if so, on what grounds officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Territorial battalions now employed in India and other distant theatres, who enlisted prior to 1st January, 1916, and whose services are being retained beyond 1st May, 1919, pending the reconstitution of the old Regular Army, are only en-
  1012
  titled, under Army Order No. 55, of February, 1919, to bonuses as from 1st May, 1919, and then only at half rates, whilst those who enlisted subsequently to that date and are retained for military service are granted bonuses from the 1st February and at full rates?
  Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Paragraph 6 of Army Order 84 of 11th February last, of which I am sending him a copy, fully explains the conditions, except that there is now no half rate of bonus, the full rate having been substituted by Army Order 119 of 5th March, 1919.

  ARMY BOOTS.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why some 600,000 pairs of Army boots, awaiting inspection to see what percentage are repairable, are lying in the open at the White City, most of them without any covering of any sort; and will he take steps to stop this deterioration of public property?
  Mr. FORSTER: The boots were stored in the open because other accommodation for them is not available. I am informed that the greater part are now covered with tarpaulins, and the covering of the remainder is in progress. Sufficient tarpaulins were not available earlier owing to the large demands from overseas.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Will the officer responsible for this great waste of public money be dismissed at once?
  Mr. FORSTER: I can give no assurance of that kind until I have inquired more closely into the circumstances.
  Colonel ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that no place could be found to store these boots in all the Government buildings in that district? Can he not give us a pledge to take drastic action?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not going to give any pledge, and my hon. and gallant Friend knows that he has no business to ask for one.
  Mr. ROSE: Will he make inquiries into the culpability of any officer in this matter and act accordingly?
  Mr. FORSTER: Certainly. That is what I said in answer to the question. My hon. and gallant Friend must agree that I could not give any such undertaking until the whole of the circumstances of the case had been properly inquired into. If, as the result of such an inquiry, the necessity of taking drastic action arises it will be taken.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If found guilty will this officer receive the "Order of the Boot"?
  Colonel ASHLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what money was received for the sale of old Army boots repaired and sold for civilian purposes between 1st April, 1918, and 31st March, 1919; and what regrading and repairs cost during the same period in wages alone?
  Mr. FORSTER: The proceeds of the sales of old Army boots received during the financial year 1918–1919 amounted to £389,128. Of this amount £18,620 represents the proceeds of sales of repaired boots. The wages bill for the boot depots at Southall and Irlam during the above period amounted to £1,381 and £3,204 respectively. These amounts include the pay of the clerical staffs at these establishments. These depots deal exclusively with boots which are unfit for further wear by the Army. In addition, there are other boot depots which deal mainly with the repair of boots for the Army, but at which a certain proportion are found unfit for further Army use and are disposed of by sale to civilians or as old leather. No separate account has been kept of the wages paid in connection with the disposal of boots from these depots.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. N. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending some of these boots to Roumania where they are urgently required?
  Mr. FORSTER: Most of these boots are not very useful.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked why £20,000 worth or more of leather passed for Army purposes is now lying deteriorating in the open at the White City; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the taxpayer?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that no leather passed for Army purposes is lying in the open at the White City.
  Colonel ASHLEYasked what technical knowledge of boots the supervisors, sorters, and graders of the old boot department at the White City possess to enable them to carry out a satisfactory grading?
  Mr. FORSTER: Of the four supervisors, three have been practical bootmakers and repairers for many years. The fourth was trained at the White City under the department's late chief technical advisor. The graders learnt their work at the White City, having been trained by one of the supervisors. The sorters have no technical knowledge. Their duties are confined to sorting the boots into their patterns and sizes, for which no technical training is necessary.

  ROYAL ENGINEERS (C. S. MATHIE).
  Captain ALBERT SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the case of S. and C. S. Mathie, No. 76361, J.B., Royal Engineers; whether he is aware that this man, who enlisted as a sapper, was appointed a shoesmith in January, 1915; that in September, 1915, the officer in charge Royal Engineers' records stated that Mathie's rank had been changed to that of shoesmith and that he had been put upon a consolidated rate of 5s. per day; that Mathie was paid at that rate until early in 1917, when a letter was received from the pay office to the effect that he was £90 in debt; and inquiries were instituted; that Mathie's new commanding officer ordered continuation of payment at the rate of 5s. per day; and that later a debt of £130 was registered against Mathie; whether it is now proposed to write off £78 of the debt; whether he is aware that Mathie has received no pay for a considerable period; and whether, in view of the fact that Mathie was paid the rate on the instructions of two commanding officers, he will give instructions that payment to him shall be resumed from the date on which it was stopped?
  Mr. FORSTER: The matter is being investigated, and I will inform the hon. and gallant Member of the result.

  FORESTRY BILL.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a

  1015
  position to make a statement regarding the introduction of the Forestry Bill; and, if not, whether he will be in a position to do so next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): It is proposed to introduce this Bill in another place at an early date.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over forty questions have been put down on this subject and that no satisfactory answer has been given?
  Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this measure is being introduced in another place?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The reason is obvious. It is because that is considered to be the best way of dealing with it in the time, and we think that time will be saved by introducing it in that way.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is this not a proof that the present system is breaking down?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a proof of the fact which is obvious that we have a great deal of work to do this Session, and that is all.

  GERMAN OFFICERS (DETENTION).
  Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government now holds in detention any German officers whom it is proposed to try for offences against the laws of civilised warfare; and whether, in that case, he will give the number of such officers and the nature of the accusations made against them?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what I said in reply to questions put by my hon. Friend on this subject on 20th May.
  Mr. LYLE: Is it not a fact that we have certain of these officers at present in our hands, and cannot we have an answer 'on that subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I said in answer to a supplementary question that a great deal of evidence has been taken, and in the opinion of the Government if we wish to get these people punished it is, not wise to give this information.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FREE RAILWAY PASSES).
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that under State control the railways systems of the country are no longer paying concerns and increased fares of 50 per cent. are being charged on the travelling public, it is the intention of the Government to grant free railway passes to Members of this House; and, if so, whether the House will be given an opportunity of debating the proposal?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday. In reply to the last part of the question, the sanction of the House of Commons would, of course, be required before such a change could be carried out.
  Major NEWMAN: Does that mean that the House will have an opportunity of debating it, or will it be done by an Order in Council?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, there will be no Order in Council, and it must in some form or other come before the House of Commons.

  COAL INDUSTRY.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Supplementary Estimate of more than £26,000,000 has been presented to the House in respect of increased salaries and other advantages to those engaged in the getting of coal; whether an opportunity to debate this Estimate will be afforded in the near future; and will the Estimate be taken in Committee of the Whole House or by a Standing Committee?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Estimate has been presented to the House in the usual way, and has been referred to the Standing Committee.
  Major NEWMAN: Does that mean that it will not be debated here but upstairs?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I should think that is the probable meaning.

  INTER-ALLIED FOOD COUNCIL.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether the Inter-Allied Food

  1017
  Council has ceased to exist; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the British Government to co-operate with Allied and associated Governments so as to constitute effective control of the world supply and demand for food in view of the present increase in prices and possible future shortage?
  The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The functions of the Inter-Allied Food Council and of other Inter-Allied bodies dealing with shipping, finance, blockade restrictions, raw materials, and land communications, have been centralised in the Supreme Economic Council now sitting in Paris. The responsibility as regards foodstuffs rests with the Food Section of this Council which comprises representatives of the British and other Allied Governments formerly represented on the Inter-Allied Food Council, as well as of the Belgian Government. This Section deals with all questions arising out of the supply of food to both Allied and enemy countries, and also to other countries in receipt of relief. With regard to the latter part of the question, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that measures for the control of buying depending on the unanimous agreement of a number of different countries, whose interests are sometimes opposed, though possible during the stress of war, are becoming more and more difficult of accomplishment as the world's trade gets into ordinary peace time channels.

  PEACE CELEBRATIONS.
  Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has already fixed the date of the national celebration for the conclusion of Peace; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that many annual conferences of friendly societies, educational and other associations, etc., are already fixed for Monday, 4th August, and also that many persons will be absent from their homes on that day, His Majesty's Government will avoid the period of the August Bank Holiday for the Peace celebrations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to what I have said in reply to similar questions on this subject.

  PEOPLE'S LEAGUE.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the question of giving the consumer a direct representation upon the Coal Commission now sitting; and whether he will receive a small deputation from the People's League to submit the claims of the consumer for direct representation on all Commissions and inquiries affecting the prices of staple commodities?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already said in the House, that it is not possible to make any change in the personnel of the Commission at the present time, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in adopting the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is this People's League?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have only seen an advertisement of it. Perhaps that will inform the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a full prospectus and a form of subscription.

  MARRIAGE LAWS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, considerable misconception exists amongst the clergy as to the right of a woman to marry her late husband's brother; and whether, in view of the pledges of the Government to secure equality of sex in all things, he will afford facilities for a Bill to legalise such marriages?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of the misconception referred to, and the Government do not contemplate taking the action suggested in the question.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into the matter if I send him letters from many clergymen who have written me that in all innocence they have solemnised these marriages?

  HOUSING (SHORTAGE).
  Mr. ROSEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the growing difficulty in obtaining housing accommodation; whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of landlords in hold-

  1019
  ing up houses for sale, and refusing to let them; whether he is aware that in other cases, in order to obtain possession of a vacant house, people are having to pay sums by way of bonus, and that discharged soldiers are parting with their gratuities for this purpose; that many people who took cottages in the country to escape air raids are retaining these cottages, although only using them at intervals for pleasure purposes; and whether the Government propose to take action to secure that, during the present shortage, no house shall be kept vacant on the ground that the landlord will only sell, and that any owner of a vacant house who withholds such house from occupation, and any person who accepts a bonus in payment for giving possession, shall be subject to heavy penalties?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD(Major Astor): I have been asked to reply to this question. Under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, any sums paid by way of bonus to obtain possession of houses within the terms of that Act are recoverable by the tenant. I do not think that the Government can hold out any hope of further legislation at present on the other practices referred to by the hon. Member. The Board also have no information that they are generally prevalent.
  Mr. ROSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept from me evidence showing the intensity of the difficulty to which the question referred, and will he undertake to consider that evidence with a possible revision of the answer he has given now?
  Major ASTOR: I shall, of course, consider any evidence or information the hon. Member may send.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the Government still power to take over buildings?
  Major ASTOR: That question should be addressed to the Office of Works.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BEER DUTY.
    Major M'KENZIE WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
    1020
    aware that the whole of the new duty on beer is placed on the retailers of liquor by the Scottish brewers, and that in every class of beer the brewers' new prices, with the exception of one class, actually put them in pocket up to 4s. 5d. per barrel; and what steps he proposes to take to have the duty more equitably divided between both branches of the trade?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. I have no exact information as to the figures to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. I may say, however, that local committees consisting of representatives of the brewers and retailers in the districts concerned are now set up for the purpose of dealing with cases of dispute or grievances arising out of prices charged for beer by brewers to the retail trade. A Board of Appeal has also been established to which cases which cannot be settled by these committees may be referred; further, if the Board of Appeal disagree, the question may be referred to the Ministry of Food. I have every reason to believe that it will be possible by means of this machinery to remove any cases of hardship which may have arisen.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the 25 per cent. increase of beer was allowed in. February the Scottish brewers immediately reduced their prices, and, therefore this question is entirely misleading?
    Mr. REMER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman so fix the price of beer that the whole of the new taxation should be borne by the brewers, and not by the public?
    An HON. MEMBER: It cannot be done, dear boy!

    EUROPEAN BLOCKADE.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Food Controller whether he can inform the House of the anticipations of his Department regarding the supply to the people of this country of the staple articles of food during the coming winter as the result of the raising of the European blockade; and whether he sees any need, and if this need exists is taking precautionary measures, to make provision in advance to cope with all emergencies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: So far as can be foreseen, there is no reason to suppose that there will be any considerable shortage in the supply to this country of the staple

    1021
    articles of food during the coming winter, though one or two articles may still be relatively scarce. The whole position is under close consideration.
    The most effective precaution consists in the provision of adequate, tonnage for the importation of foodstuffs, and I have every reason to believe that this will be forthcoming.

    MILK.
    Captain FITZROYasked the Food Controller whether he will either publish the Report of the Travelling Milk Commission or issue a summary of the evidence upon which the milk prices were fixed?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The full Report of the Travelling Commission will be published almost immediately, if possible before the end of this week.
    Mr. HURD: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman publish these details of costs before he inflicted a penalisation upon these farmers?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It was not incumbent upon me to publish a Report, and I do not admit that farmers are penalised.
    Mr. HURDasked the Food Controller if he is adopting the recommendation of the Travelling Commission and retaining for the administrative expenses of the Ministry the differential twopences collected from milk producers in Somerset, Dorset, Devon, and Cornwall?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The answer is in the negative. The whole of the moneys collected under the scheme of differential prices will be applied for the benefit of the public by a reduction in the prices of milk or milk products, or in some similar way.
    Mr. HURD: Applying only to Somerset and the other three counties?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The scheme will be of general application.

  INCOME TAX (PAYERS).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, precisely or approximately, what number of Parliamentary electors pay Income Tax out of the total 21,392,322 registered in the United Kingdom?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EX- CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The total number of persons in the United Kingdom
  1022
  who actually pay Income Tax after all exemptions and reliefs have been allowed is estimated at 3,400,000. It is, however, impossible to relate this figure in any way to the number of Parliamentary electors.

  NATURALISATION REGULATIONS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Charles William Baschwitz is now applying for naturalisation as a British subject; and whether he will state the present nationality of the applicant?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. Mr. Baschwitz's present nationality is stated in his memorial to be Belgian.

  LOCAL WAR PENSION COMMITTEES (IRELAND).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions whether he will state who were invited to his recent meeting in Belfast; and why invitations were not sent to the two representatives of the Discharged Soldiers' and Sailors' Federation in Belfast?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Sir James Craig): The invitations to attend the meeting in Belfast on the subject of decentralisation were issued to the chairmen of all local war pensions committees in the Ulster region, and they were informed that anyone specially interested in the welfare of discharged disabled sailors and soldiers whom they desired to bring with them would be heartily welcomed.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why there was not a single political opponent of his invited to this meeting, and whether the administration of pensions in Ireland is being carried on by a political caucus which is arousing tremendous indignation amongst the Nationalist soldiers throughout the country?
  Sir J. CRAIG: I think the hon. Member is rather exaggerating his fears. There has been no change whatever in any of the local war pensions committees, to my knowledge, since we took office.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who was it prepared the list of those who were to be invited to this meeting?
  Sir J. CRAIG: The chairmen of the local war pensions committees throughout Ulster were asked to bring with them anyone particularly interested in the subject.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that no Nationalists were invited to that meeting? [A laugh.] There is not the slightest need to laugh. I have a right to be interested in the treatment of these soldiers in Ireland. I am asking the question because this is becoming a serious matter in Ireland. I want to know why only one political section in Ulster were invited to attend these meetings for dealing with the pensions of returned soldiers?
  Sir J. CRAIG: The same procedure as regards invitations to the meeting was carried out in Belfast and in Dublin and no objection was raised. The same procedure was followed in Wales and in Scotland, and it is proposed to follow it throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. ARCHDALE: Is not the Rev. Father Gormley, Roman Catholic curate of Inniskillen, one of the strongest men who was invited to the meeting from Fermanagh?
  Sir J. CRAIG: Certainly. All the chairmen were invited to bring along with them those who were particularly interested in the question. We had a very large, very representative and very successful meeting.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the list of the names of persons invited? I think we are entitled ——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to ask a question.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I will ask the Leader of the House a question. He need not shake his head, because I intend to ask him whether an early opportunity will be given to Members of this House from Ireland to discuss the whole question of pensions as affecting Ireland?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say that anything I have heard in the course of this cross-questioning suggests there is any special need for such a discussion.
  Mr. DEVLIN: In view of the ruling of Mr. Speaker that I am asking too many
  1024
  questions, if I place before the right hon. Gentleman considerations which I think make it desirable he should give us an opportunity for bringing forward this matter in the House, will he reconsider his answer?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will certainly receive and consider any representation which bears out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that pensions are being dealt with in Ireland in a party spirit.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not rule that the hon. Member was asking too many questions. I invited him to ask a question.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Thank you kindly, Sir; I will remember that.

  SHEEP DIP (AUSTRALIA).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the prohibition of sheep dip into Australia was imposed by the Commonwealth Government; and on what date His Majesty's Government received official notification of this prohibition?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): The Proclamation prohibiting the importation of sheep dips into Australia was dated 26th March. Information as to the prohibition was received in a telegram from the Governor-General on the 10th May.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MOTOR-CARS.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry how many motor-cars are allotted to the civilian officials of the Air Ministry?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): Six.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Do the Regulations allow these cars to convey officials to and from their residences or do they come by 'bus?
    Major-General SEELY: I think they are permitted to convey the officials from their residences. I hasten to say I think it is very reasonable that they should.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader

    1025
    of the House said yesterday that Regulations were issued limiting cars strictly to official business?
    Major-General SEELY: Yes; and I regard it as official business for these Civil officials to go to their residences or come from them to their offices. If a different policy is laid down, we shall conform to it, but I say at once, on behalf of those to whom the cars are allotted, that I think it would be a mistaken policy to force these people, who are giving their services to the State, very often free, to go to the expense of hiring cars.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Member of this House gives a large amount of time and money to the State and comes to the House and goes from it at his own expense? Does he really ask the House seriously to believe that people employed at the Air Ministry have a right to use public cars at the public expense to take them to and from their residences to their work?
    Major-General SEELY: I am not speaking of myself, naturally enough—my present office costs me a great deal of money —but I am speaking for the other officials, and under present circumstances where the difficulty is to find time enough to get the work done, where millions of money are involved, the officials to whom I refer, who cannot find the time to get the work done as that is, it would be a reactionary step to force them to hire cars for themselves. It is difficult enough to get the work done as it is.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Magasin de Louvre and other large business concerns have established a system of conveying their employés from their residences in the morning, and that they do that as a matter of business economy in order to save the time of the employés?

    AIR MINISTRY (ACCOMMODATION).
    Major BOYD-CARPENTERasked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry what is the present amount paid for No. 4, Thurloe Place; what is the amount of ground rent for these premises; with whom the rent has been arranged; and who was the owner at the time of the arrangement?
    Major-General SEELY: The rate of compensation paid for the occupation of 4, Thurloe Place, is £2,520 per annum.
    1026
    The ground rent is £2,295. The rate of compensation was settled by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, the legal owner at the time of the arrangement being a Controller appointed by the Board of Trade to wind up the business of the Continental Tyre Company, Limited.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTERasked what is the number of officers comprising the staff known as the South-Eastern area; what necessity there is in accommodating them in such premises as No. 4, Thurloe Place; whether they could not be accommodated at Kenley or Hounslow in huts, thus saving public money; and whether any attempt was made to so accommodate them?
    Major-General SEELY: The present number of officers engaged at Thurloe Place is eighty-one, the number of other ranks and of clerical staff being 288. The possibility of these headquarters being located out of London was fully considered, but it was decided that the administrative disadvantages which would follow were too great to allow of that course being adopted. A large amount of public money has been saved by the move from Covent Garden Hotel, etc., to Thurloe Place.
    Major LANE-FOX: Why is it necessary that the Air Force should take larger premises than they occupied before?
    Major-General SEELY: I am advised that that is not the case. There are fewer persons employed, and the total premises now occupied are smaller than those occupied before.
    Major LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to a question which I asked, I was told that the premises—the number of square feet—were considerably larger than the other premises?
    Major-General SEELY: I think not. They would be larger than the Covent Garden Hotel, but there were other places occupied by the some organisation now at Thurloe Place.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many rooms were occupied at the Covent Garden Hotel?
    Major-General SEELY: It was before my time, but I will find out.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: About a dozen.
    Major BOYD-CARPENTERasked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry

    1027
    if he is aware that when the tender for the purchase of 4, Thurloe Place was submitted it contained a specific statement as to the requirements for which it was being purchased and that, under Government authority, the tender was. accepted without any objection as to these requirements?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I am informed that when the tender for the purchase of Nos. 1 to 4, Thurloe Place, was submitted a statement was made that the property might possibly be utilised for the purpose of letting flats. As the conditions under which the premises were then occupied were known to the would-be purchaser, the tender was accepted without any objection as to these requirements.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not very unjust for the Government to allow a sale like this to go through, knowing the precise conditions under which it was being purchased, and then when it was completed to turn round and take the premises out of the hands of the purchaser?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The purchaser knew the conditions.
    Sir R. COOPER: So did the Government.
    Major LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the owner of the premises stated that before the premises were taken for this purpose notification would be sent, and that no notification was sent?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that offhand. I will try to find out, if the hon. Gentleman will tell me who it was that promised to give notification.
    Major LANE-FOX: It was an official of the hon. Gentleman's Department.

    YATE (GLOUCESTERSHIRE) AERODROME.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Undersecretary to the Air Ministry whether he is aware that many girls and women who volunteered for work at the Yate (Glos.) aerodrome have been recently discharged and their places taken by other women; whether this action is locally regarded as unjust and results in the turned-off women receiving out-of-work donation; whether, as the result of newspaper correspondence, no women received fresh notices on Friday, 16th May, but many girls left that week owing to previous notices and eight
    1028
    or nine fresh ones were taken on; and will he say what justification there is for this conducts?
    Major-General SEELY: I have not yet had time to obtain full information on this matter, and should be obliged if my hon. Friend would postpone his question till Thursday.

  FORTH AND CLYDE SHIP CANAL.
  Mr. GIDEON MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is considerable difference of opinion as to the best route to follow for the Forth and Clyde Ship Canal; whether the Government has had surveys made in order to decide which is the best route; and, if not, whether the Government will put surveys in hand at once so that they may be carefully made and that all essential information may be available?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the-second in the negative. As regards the suggestion made in the last part, I beg to refer my hon. Friend to my replies to questions put on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on 6th instant, to which I have nothing at present to add.

  WASHTUBS (LANARKSHIRE).
  Mr. ROBERT M'LARENasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that, in connection with the providing of washtubs for the houses erected by the Minister of Munitions in Lanarkshire, a letter was sent by the Secretary to the Local Government Board on 27th November, 1918, in which it was stated that the Minister of Munitions had decided that no alteration should be made, and again on 1st March, 1919, the Secretary by letter stated that the Ministry of Munitions were advised that such additional equipment, although desirable, is not essential at the present moment; and, in view of these facts, will he ask the Local Government Board to reconsider the matter with a view of having the washtubs put in and rendering the houses habitable?
  Mr. MUNRO: The facts are as indicated by my hon. Friend. As I stated in my reply of 9th instant, the Minister of Munitions, to whom the houses belong, has

  1029
  expressed his willingness to reconsider the provision of washtubs in these houses at a later date when conditions as regards cost and rental are more normal.

  PRISON WARDERS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. JOHN JONESasked the Secretary for Scotland why prison warders in Scotland are not allowed to voice any collective grievance in the same manner as the prison staffs in England and Wales?
  Mr. MUNRO: I am not aware that prison warders in Scotland find obstacles placed in their way in voicing any collective grievances. They have direct access through their own nominees to the Scottish Prison Commissioners, and I recently received a deputation of their representatives myself in Edinburgh—the first occasion, I believe, on which they had been received by a Secretary for Scotland. I have followed up all the points which were then laid before me.
  Mr. JONES: Do you recognise the men's organisation?
  Mr. MUNRO: I had a conference with represenatives of the prison warders.
  Mr. JONES: But do you recognise the men's union? Some hon. Members in front are saying "Hear, hear," but they do not know what they we talking about.

  SHIPPING (REBATE SYSTEM).
  Sir ASHTON LISTERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if he is aware that the conference lines are endeavouring to create a monopoly in the shipping trade between this country and Australia by eliminating competition; that to secure such monopoly they require those who ship cargo to undertake to confine all their shipments to the conference lines during the ensuing twelve months on penalty of forfeiting a promised rebate of 10 per cent. on the freights for the twelve months; whether these conditions have been declared illegal in Australia; whether the conference line monopoly places British manufacturers in a disadvantageous position as compared with Continental manufacturers, who have a choice of a number of shipping lines in free competition with one another; and is the formation of the con-
  1030
  ference line opposed to the free competition promised the country in the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Shipping Ministry on the 19th May?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): The rebate system to which my hon. Friend refers is one of long standing, and I am not aware that any new methods have been recently introduced by the shipping lines in the Australian trade. The system was fully considered some years ago by a Royal Commission, which did not recommend its prohibition. I am aware that in this matter, as in others, the legislation in force in Australia differs from that of the United Kingdom, but I do not consider that the action of the steamship lines in maintaining their pre-war arrangements with their shippers is in any way at variance with anything I said on the 19th May, and I may add that during the War the liner conferences have proved of the greatest value in the maintenance of essential imports into this country.
  Sir R. COOPER: Does that mean that the Government approve of this rebate system?
  Colonel WILSON: A Royal Commission inquired into the whole question and did not recommend its prohibition. I think it reported in 1909.

  SURPLUS SMALL CRAFT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether lightermen, keelmen, tugmasters, etc., will have an opportunity of combining together to purchase surplus small craft, the present property of the Government, on the same terms as is proposed by the Admiralty for fishermen purchasing trawlers?
  Colonel WILSON: The Ministry of Shipping would be prepared to consider sympathetically any practical suggestion on these lines.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the meantime will the sale of these surplus properties stop?
  Colonel WILSON: No, I cannot undertake that it will be stopped; but I shall be very glad to receive any early suggestions from any hon. Member.

  BARNSTAPLE CONCRETE SHIPYARD.
  Mr. DONALDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he will state the approximate launching weight of the concrete ship which stuck during launching operations at the Barnstaple shipyard; if he will state the number of shipwrights employed at the making up of these launchways; and what previous experience the foreman-in-charge had of launching ships?
  Colonel WILSON: The launching weight of the reinforced concrete barge launched on 21st September, 1918, was approximately 850 tons. I am informed that no shipwrights were employed as it was not considered expedient to take them away from the steel shipbuilding yards, but there were experienced shipyard carpenters engaged on the work. The launch was in the hands of the builder's naval architect, and I would point out to my hon. Friend that these barges were built to Government order by private contractors.
  Sir N. GRIFFITHS: Are there any contracts still running, or have they been cancelled?
  Colonel WILSON: All contracts have been cancelled except in cases where the barges were well advanced, in which case delivery has been taken and the barges are being disposed of.
  Mr. DONALD: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if there had been an experienced foreman the ship would not have stuck on the slip?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is hypothetical.
  Mr. ROSEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether, in the light of the report of two delegates appointed by the Ship Constructors' and Shipwrights' Association to investigate the Barnstaple concrete shipyard, a copy of which report has been sent to him, he still adheres to his decision not to hold an inquiry; and will he state his reasons, if any, for his refusal?
  Colonel WILSON: In consequence of the grave tonnage losses, orders were given by the Admiralty in 1917 to various concrete shipbuilding firms to build a number of concrete vessels. I am not clear whether the inquiry which the hon. Member suggests is an inquiry into the policy of the Admiralty in ordering concrete vessels, or into the method in which
  1032
  the work was carried out by a private firm; but I would point out that the contractors at Barnstaple were in the same position as other shipbuilders building for the Government.

  PASSENGER STEAMERS.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether his attention has been called to the fact that foreign ships are calling at British ports to pick up British passengers while various British lines, which have been maintaining regular services for over half a century, are prevented from taking such passengers owing to the British Government having requisitioned practically the whole of their available accommodation for the return of demobilised men and their dependants and other Government passengers; whether the requisitioning of such a large proportion of the limited passenger accommodation at present available in British ships precludes many producers and merchants from sending representatives abroad for the purpose of re-establishing British export trade and securing at least some portion of the trade formerly carried on by Germany; and whether he can state the steps now being taken by the Government to remedy these defects?
  Colonel WILSON: It is true that the repatriation of troops and munition workers and their dependants results in a very great restriction for the accommodation available for civilians, but this is-unavoidable. We are doing our best by bringing German ships into service to relieve the situation, and conditions should improve as repatriation progresses.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: Is any attempt being made to make use of any of the eighty nine German vessels which have been assigned to America and has my hon. and gallant Friend in view the fact that we lost 7,600,000 tons whilst the whole of the Allies lost less than 2,000,000 tons during the War?
  Colonel WILSON: That is a question which should be asked of the Leader of the House. We are using ships allocated under the terms of the Armistice for the repatriation of Colonial troops, but the remaining part of the question is one which I cannot answer.

  OVERSEA FLIGHTS.
  Sir A. FELLasked the Under-Secretary to the Air Ministry if he will consider the question of the Government forbidding the flight of aeroplanes over wide stretches of sea until the aeroplanes have proved that they are capable of making non-stop fights over land of equal length with reasonable certainty?
  Major-General SEELY: I would refer to my statement in answer to a question on the same lines raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark in the course of the Debate on the Adjournment on the 20th instant.

  ROYAL NAVY (SECRET REPORTS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been sent out to the Royal Navy any circular similar in character to that sent out by the War Office calling for secret reports on trade union influence and strikebreaking capacity of the different units?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We have sent out no circular or official communication such as that indicated in the question.

  RUSSIAN AND BRITISH WARSHIPS (ENGAGEMENT IN BALTIC).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cause of the attack made on the Russian warship in the Baltic; why no survivors were picked up from the ship sunk; and what were our total casualties in the action?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: On the 18th May. Bolshevik destroyers and four smaller craft, supported by a cruiser, came out to support their right flank and to attack Esthonian ships. An engagement ensued in which four of His Majesty's ships took part, and resulted in the Bolshevik vessels being driven back behind their minefields. No Bolshevik ships were sunk. There were no British casualties.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British ships were ordered to fire on the Bolshevik ships, and whether we are at war with Russia? May I have an answer?
  HON. MEMBERS: No.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I want to know whether these British ships had orders to fire on the Bolshevik ships?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must put his question on the Paper.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I submit that it is a perfectly proper supplementary to the question I have on the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for me to judge.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I desire to draw your attention, Sir, to my question:—"If he will state what was the cause of the attack made on the Russian warships in the Baltic?" I asked for the cause, and, so far, I have had no explanation.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot add to the answer I have already given.

  UNEMPLOYMENT DONATION.
  Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister the comparative payments made for unemployment donation (male maximum) arid the maximum pension for complete disability caused by military service; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by the recipients of the latter at the relatively small difference?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rates of unemployment donation at present authorised are as follows: For civilians for not more than thirteen weeks (subject to extension in certain cases) in the period expiring on the 24th November next— Males, 20s. a week; females, 15s. a week, with allowances of 6s. a week for the first child and 3s. for each child after the first.
  2. For demobilised sailors, soldiers and airmen—25s. a week for not more than twenty-six weeks, with children's allowances as above.
  The maximum rate of pension for a private soldier is the alternative pension of 50s. a week plus 20 per cent. war bonus or £3 a week.
  For answer to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk (Northern Division) yesterday.
  Mr. LYLE: I did not hear the figures clearly, but I take it that there is very little difference between the pensions to a

  1035
  soldier who has lost both limbs—both arms or both legs—and the out-of-work bonus of the munition worker. If that is the case I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the unemployment donation and increase the allowance in the case of disabled soldiers?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the answer which I gave yesterday he will see that, in substance, that is the point which was made yesterday.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether he can see his way to reconsider the arrangements for the Whitsuntide Recess and allow the. House to adjourn three days earlier and meet three days earlier, in order to afford Members an opportunity of taking advantage of the Epsom carnival to study the social habits of the people and form an opinion as to the possibility of obtaining revenue by taxes upon racing and betting?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We desired to meet as well as we could the general convenience of the House. I was aware of the carnival to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I thought that, taking the Members as a whole, they would prefer to get away at the end of the week and come back at the beginning of the week. I regret the inconvenience to which my hon. Friend is exposed, but we must do what we often have to do, and that is. decide between two duties.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Docs the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision will deprive the House of the services of several of its most useful Members, who are determined, at any inconvenience, to go down to Surrey to study this problem on the spot?

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the Leader of the House state whether an opportunity will be given to-morrow to discuss the causes underlying the disturbances yesterday in connection with the demonstration of discharged soldiers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that there is every advantage in having a discussion in connection with this incident, and, as I hope that the business down on the Paper will finish to-day I propose that we shall discuss it at the beginning of business tomorrow. With that purpose the Adjournment will be moved by someone sitting on this bench.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. DEVLIN(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the importance of amending Standing Orders, so as to allow fifteen additional minutes for questions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I answered a similar question, I think, a week or two ago. I think we might at least wait until the end of this Session before we consider making any change.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESS MENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 103.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

STANDING COMMITTEE C (SUPPLY).
Mr. MACMASTER reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a sum. not exceeding £1,430,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on

  1037
  the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £176,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon"
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £436,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Expenditure in respect of Ministry of Labour, Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £82,340, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on tile 31st day of March, 1920, for payments under tilt; Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Marino Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways."
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Aneurin Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck.
  STANDING COMMITTEE E.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee E, for the consideration of the Check weighing in Various Industries Bill: Mr. Adamson, Mr. Alfred Davies (Clitheroe), Sir Fortescue Flannery, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Neil Maclean, Major Nail, Sir John Randles, Mr. Swan, and Mr. Wignall.
  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Mr. Arnold; and had appointed in substitution: Major M'Kenzie Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Electricity (Supply) Bill): Mr. George Bal-four, Viscount Duncannon, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hartshorn, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Dr. Edward Hopkinson, Sir Joseph Larmor, Captain Moreing, Sir Philip Pilditch, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Royce, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Waddington, and Captain Watson.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B at the conclusion of the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill: Major Baird, Sir William Howell Davies, Mr. Grundy, Major Hay-ward, Sir Evan-Jones, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Lindsay, Sir Francis Lowe, Sir Donald Maclean, Sir Herbert Nield, Sir William Pearce, Mr. Sexton, Sir Albert Stanley, Mr. James Henry Thomas, and Mr. Wilson-Fox; and had added to the Committee, for the consideration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill: Major Cohen, Mr. Donnelly, Captain Rupert Guinness, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Marriott, Colonel Pinkham, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Marshall Stevens, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. John W. Taylor, Mr. Vickers, Mr. Waterson, Colonel Penry Williams, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee D the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Sir Henry Cowan, Mr. Devlin, Mr. Donnelly, Major Oscar Guest, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Guinness, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. MacVeagh, Lieutenant-Colonel Malone, Sir George Croydon Marks, Dr. Donald Murray, Major Newman, Sir William Whitla, and Sir Robert Woods.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D at the conclusion of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill: Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Hodge, Sir Donald Maclean, Major Watts Morgan, Mr. Morrison. Mr. Munro, Sir Robert

  1039
  Newman, Lieutenant-Colonel Parry, Mr. Pretyman, Mr. Raffan, Mr. Alexander Sham, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Walter Smith, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Spencer, Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall, Major Wheler, Mr. John Williams, Colonel Murrough Wilson, Sir Richard Winfrey, Major Earl Winterton, and Sir Frederick Young; and had added the following Members to the Committee for the consideration of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill: Lieutenant-Colonel Allen, Mr. Thomas Brown, Mr. William Coote, Captain Dixon, Mr. Harbison, Mr. Lynn, Mr. M'Guffin, Mr. Moles, Mr. John Murray, Mr. Neal, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Rae, Mr. Raffan, Captain Redmond, Mr. Reid, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Colonel Stephenson, Mr. Swan, and Mr. Daniel Wilson.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill be exempted at this day's Sittings from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVEKNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LOCAL GOVEKNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    New Clause.—(Register for Wards to be Continued.)
    Where the members of a local body other than the local authority are by law elected for wards or electoral divisions which are not coincident with the electoral areas formed under this Act the registration officer shall so frame the separate parts of the register for the several registration units in his registration area that they shall distinguish such wards or electoral divisions and be suitable for use at elections of members of such a local body as well as for such electoral areas.—[Mr. McGuffin.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. McGUFFIN: I beg to move,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I am glad to think that there is no suggestion of political bias about this Clause. There is unanimity so far as the Members for Belfast are concerned. The new Bill has introduced drastic alterations in connection with the electoral Divisions of Belfast. At present the city is divided into fifteen wards for municipal purposes. These wards are also the electoral areas for what are called the Water Commissioners of Belfast. The Belfast Water Commissioners have no connection with the City of Belfast Corporation. They are a very important body. They have already expended in connection with the water supply of the city £2,225.000, and they contemplate a further expenditure of £750,000 in further improving the water supply of the city. Under Clause 1 of this Bill, Section 3, Sub-section (d), that it will be necessary that at least six members shall be elected in connection with each electoral Division. As there are at present sixty members of the Corporation, it will be evident that the city is to be divided into ten electoral areas, and these ten electoral areas cannot possibly be coincident with the fifteen. This will necessitate the preparation of a register for the municipality in one case and the Water Commissioners in the other. We contend that that would be necessary in view of the fact that the Commissioners themselves have no power to make any
    1064
    register, and up to the present moment it has been obligatory on the City Clerk to provide the register that has been used by the Water Commissioners. We see at the moment no way out of this matter unless this Clause be introduced into the Bill, which will provide that the Registrar of the City, that will be the Town Clerk, shall provide for both cases. That is to say, that he shall construct two registers, one for the purpose of the ten electoral Divisions and the other for the existing fifteen wards.
    It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuels), that there is ample provision in the Bill at the moment to satisfy the needs of the Water Commissioners, but we have taken the evidence of eminent counsel upon this matter, and he advises that as the Bill stands the needs of the Water Commissioners are not provided for. Accordingly, we have approached the right hon. Gentleman with a view of finding an accommodation upon the matter, but he still insists upon the opinion that it is provided for in the Bill and that there is no difficulty in that respect. I am not speaking from the standpoint of a lawyer, but as an ordinary layman, in saying that, on reading through the Bill, I cannot detect any provision that would safeguard the Water Commissioners against the exigency of confusion at the time of an election. The Water Commissioners cannot run the risk of confusion at the time of the coming election. For the last six years there has been no election of Water Commissioners in Belfast, by reason of the War. It is time that elections should take place, and, as they occur triennially, they will occur next March. It would be very embarrassing for the Water Commissioners if they found when the time for election came round that there was no properly prepared register for the purpose. The Water Commissioners want to make all necessary preparations for the holding of the elections next March. Speaking on behalf of the Members for Belfast, we are not satisfied with the Clause which has been introduced by the Attorney-General, and we think that there is nothing better to meet the need of the moment than the Clause now submitted. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter and to accommodate the Commissioners by adopting the Clause which we have submitted to the House.
    Mr. LYNN: I beg to second the Motion.
    4.0 P.M.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): I have very carefully considered the proposed Amendment, and I feel that I cannot accept it. I am anxious, as far as possible, to meet the apprehensions, which I think are entirely groundless, of my hon. Friends, and I am suggesting an Amendment lower down to insert, after the word "Division," the words "or wards," which would cover the apprehensions that are felt, even if there was any foundation whatever for them. This Clause is framed in general terms to cover the case of the Belfast Water Commissioners. My information from the Local Government Board is that there are a very large number of local bodies in Ireland who have private Acts for dealing with elections of such bodies. This Clause might produce a considerable amount of confusion. But I will deal with it on the line in which it is argued—that the Belfast Water Commissioners are injuriously affected by the Bill as it now stands. The Belfast Water Commissioners have a private Act of their own. The Commissioners are elected, one for each ward of the city, and there are certain Commissioners elected for rural districts. The register for the appointment of the Belfast Water Commissioners is kept under their own authority. They have their own revising officer, who deals with their register, and it is on a particular register that they are elected. Under the private Act, the returning officer for the City of Belfast must hand over to the revising officer for the Belfast Water Commissioners the register of the City of Belfast. The apprehension of my hon. Friend and, I presume, of those whom he represents, is that a new register will be formed without showing wards. That is quite a misapprehension. If he takes the Representation of the People Act (1918) he will see that under Rule 44 the register for Belfast must continue to be made up in wards. Whatever wards may exist in Belfast must appear in the register for the City of Belfast, and no difficulty whatever will occur, when the Water Commissioners come to make up their register, in ascertaining in the future, as they have ascertained in the past, who are the persons who are the electors in the particular wards.
    Mr. McGUFFIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there will be two
    1066
    registers, one for the wards and one for the electoral divisions? That is the point of contention at the moment.
    Mr. SAMUELS: Supposing the wards are altered, the register in the future will have to be made up showing who are the local government electors in these wards, just as in the past. However the register is made up, the wards will have to appear in it, just as in the past. But I suggest to my hon. Friend that the Amendment I have put down will be satisfactory.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Proportional Representation at Local Elections.)
    (3) The number of members to be elected for each local electoral area shall be such as may be assigned thereto by Order of the Local Government Board, and in constituting the local electoral areas and assigning members thereto the Board shall, as far as practicable, secure—

    (a) that the total number of members of any local authority other than a rural district council or board of guardians shall not be altered;

    (b) that the number of members of a rural district council or board of guardians be reduced by one half at least;

    (c) that the number of members assigned to the local electoral areas shall in each case be such as to give equal representation upon the basis of population;

    (d) that the number of members assigned to any local electoral area shall not be less than six in the case of any borough electoral area and three in the case of any other local electoral area;

    Provided that if the council of any borough within the prescribed time submit to the Local Government Hoard a scheme for the division of the borough into borough electoral areas, and the assignment of members thereto, the Board shall adopt the scheme except where and so far as they see good reason to the contrary.
    (5) Except so far as is necessary for the purpose of forming local electoral areas, nothing in this Section shall affect any existing district electoral divisions, or the powers of the Local Government Board with respect thereto.
    Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "Provided that if the council of any borough within the prescribed time submit to the Local Government Board a scheme for the division of the borough into borough electoral areas, and the assignment of members thereto, the Board shall adopt the scheme except where and so far as they see good reason to the contrary."
    My objection to this proviso is, in the first place, that it was not in the Bill as originally drafted by the Government, but was subsequently inserted under political pressure from some of the Ulster Unionists, and inserted wilfully, as a political job. It amounts to this, that, although this is a Bill to establish Proportional Representa-

    1067
    tion in the election of local authorities in Ireland, the Bill will, if this proviso be agreed to, practically be set at naught, or certainly to this extent—that the authority which this Bill says stands in need of reformation is to be asked to carry out its own reformation. That seems a most inconsistent attitude for the Attorney-General to adopt. I know of no reason why the Corporation of Belfast or Derry should be trusted to map out its own electoral area. I object to these two corporations being entrusted with the carving out of the electoral area. They have proved themselves great adepts of gerrymandering in years past; they have succeeded in excluding the minority of those two cities from their fair share of representation. The Attorney-General's proposal is that they should be empowered to carry out further gerrymandering operations. I object to this process, because it was not in the Bill originally and because it is introduced in the interests of political jobbery. I beg to move that the proviso be omitted.
    Mr. HARBISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot accept this Amendment. The matter was very fully discussed in Committee, and the Amendment which I undertook to bring in was, I think, arrived at as a compromise by the Committee. The hon. Member's account of its genesis is rather imaginative. The real reason is this. In all previous Local Government Acts the Local Government Board never interfered with the arrangements of wards in the boroughs. Representations were made to us from different quarters and, among others, from Cork City, protesting against anything being done to interfere with their ancient chartered right to deal with their own borough wards as they thought proper. Accordingly it was thought right to still leave to the boroughs the right to map out their own wards, and lest there might be anything to excite jealousy, it was suggested that the Local Government Board should adopt the scheme except they saw good reason to the contrary. That gives the Local Government Board an ultimate control. The Amendment would certainly excite opposition in the City of Belfast, which seems to be the storm centre in the imagination of the hon. Member. It would cause a good deal of trouble, and I am afraid we should get into greater difficulties than we are in at present.
    Sir E. CARSON: I am glad that this Amendment has given the hon. Gentleman opposite an opportunity of firing off a few more squibs against the Corporation of Belfast. I do not think he would be able to contain himself if he had not a weekly opportunity of letting himself go on that important Imperial topic. But I put it to him, is it really worth while bothering about? As far as I understand the matter, the provision was put in partly at the request of the Cork Corporation, and it was put in in such a way that the last part of the Section nullifies the first part, or, at all events, gives the Local Government Board the opportunity of nullifying it. I really regard the whole of this Bill with the greatest contempt. It is the most wretched, miserable Bill, and nobody wants it. That is the reason probably why we get it, but why we should trouble now to prolong this discussion for this production I do not really know. If the Local Government Board are pressed to act they probably will. If they are not pressed to act I suppose it is because the particular borough will put no further pressure on them. So, either way, I imagine the council of the borough would get very much what they want. The hon. Member instanced two corporations. I say let the poor Protestants alone for a few hours and direct your attention to Cork; direct your policy a little on Cork. Forget for a moment dealing with the North of Ireland.
    Mr. DEVLIN: There is no one in this House who sits and listens with such delight to the right hon. Gentleman than I do when he is in his present mood. He has denounced this Bill as a contemptible and hopeless manifestation of Government incapacity, and he says, and he is quite right, that we only get it because it is contemptible. I agree. I think the present Government is incapable of anything that is not contemptible.
    Sir E. CARSON: I did not go so far as that.
    Mr. DEVLIN: That is because the right hon. Gentleman, although very fair and outspoken when he has anything to discuss, is more moderate in his language than I am. But I am really saying what the right hon. Gentleman thinks, that the only sort of a Bill that this Government would introduce into this Parliament and the only Bill that they would carry into operation is a Bill that is contemptible. I think that that is a magnificent statement

    1069
    of the Irish case. We have now been meeting in this House for the past four months. We have, I think, had several measures introduced touching many branches of life and administration, and the only Bill that has materialised this Session is this contemptible little thing that we are now discussing. There is the whole Irish question in a nutshell. I do not want to attack the Protestants of Belfast any more than I want to defend the rich capitalists of Cork. That is a matter that does not concern me; I do not care whether it is the Protestants of Belfast or the Catholics of Cork. What does concern me is that a Proportional Representation Bill has been introduced in order to reform the electoral system and the method of voting in the country, and if you proceed by inserting this Clause you allow the culprits to determine what sentence will be passed on the person in the dock. That is precisely what it means. You allow the local corporation so to arrange these wards and so to gerrymander the districts as practically to defeat the object that this Bill has in view. [An HON. MEMEBER: "Self-determination!"] Are you in favour of self-determination? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Very well, we are getting very near it now. If my hon. Friend accepts that principle for Ireland, I will accept it for the purposes of the other districts. But it will be seen that if the schemes that have been drafted by Belfast, or Derry, or Cork, or any other local authority, are not satisfactory, then the Local Government Board still has the right to interfere. That is where the rub comes in. You in Belfast can draft any scheme you like, and the Local Government Board will sanction it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because you are masters of the situation; you boss the Government. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, you do; you are their masters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do we not get them to withdraw this Bill, then?"] Because it is a contemptible and dirty Bill. Hon. Members must have this Bill, if they should die in the attempt; they must show how paternally and kindly and profoundly interested they are in the affairs of Ireland; they must have something to show for their existence when the Session comes to an end. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as representing Belfast, have drafted a very well concocted and gerrymandered scheme to suit their own ends. I am not blaming them for that. They will send it up to the Local Government Board, and, of course. the Local Government Board
    1070
    will sanction it. If the Local Government Board say, "Oh, we will not sanction it," then the hon. Gentlemen will say, "Here we are, twenty-five of us; we threaten the Government. We will give them trouble, and we will start another rebellion." Then you would have two conflicting revolutionary forces in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBERS: "Three!"] Who are the others? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yours!"] Not at all; we are Constitutionalists; we are the only Constitutionalists in this House. The greatest rebels in Europe are on that Bench, when they are there, but they are not there now. The Government would say to the Local Government Board, "For Heaven's sake, give them their scheme. Let them gerrymander as they choose. Let them draft the wards as they like, and do not have a national crisis or another hour of Imperial emergency and difficulty for a matter of this sort." Then you will get your scheme. But let Dublin, or Cork, or Waterford draft a scheme, and let the Local Government Board then come forward and sanction or refuse to sanction the scheme.
    There is another reason for opposition to this Amendment. When the Franchise Act was passed the Local Government Board, in the determination of the various electoral areas, came down to Belfast and the cities and held inquiries and took evidence. Upon that evidence the Local Government Board inspectors formed their judgment, But there is not any of that in this case. The Belfast or the Dublin Corporation may draft its scheme, send it to the Local Government Board, and nobody may know anything about it; and so the scheme may pass through. I say that if this was a good thing it should have been put into the Bill at the beginning.
    Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: I think the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment very much exaggerated the importance of this proviso. It is quite true that when originally the Attorney-General brought it forward in Committee in the interests of what he considered would be harmony and concord, some of us objected to it because it gave too wide powers to the local authorities, who might not be experienced in Proportional Representation, to set up suitable areas. The Attorney-General consented, after a very long wrangle in the Committee, to limit the powers of the local authorities to electoral areas returning not less than six members in the case of urban constituencies, and as the Clause now stands it is

    1071
    merely a harmless little sop to the vanity of local authorities. At the same time, the speeches which we have heard from the opposite side of the House are very interesting evidence of their appreciation of the respective merits of government by this House and by Irish local authorities, and it is very remarkable that they should exhibit this great confidence in the Irish Local Government Board in preference to giving these powers to the great Irish boroughs. I hope they will continue to exercise this trust in the Imperial Parliament, and that in any future Amendment they will show the same spirit.
    Mr. LYNN: I cannot claim any knowledge on the subject of the gerrymandering referred to, but I am surprised to find an hon. Member opposite calling upon the Local Government Board, "that organised tyranny," as he used to call it, to decide this question rather than the local authorities themselves. He is a great advocate of self-determination in this House. Why should ho not allow the local authorities to determine their own wards rather than some official down from Dublin, who would not know one ward or district from another. I think it is much more suitable that these wards should he allocated by the boroughs themselves. A great many of these, boroughs have very old charters. They have been fixing their wards, I suppose, from the time that local government came into operation. I think it would be a great mistake to take that power away from them, because my hon. Friend opposite is afraid that there will be what is called gerrymandering. If there was a prospect of gerrymandering in Belfast—a thing we do not know anything about—for every chance we would have there, my hon. Friend would have at least ten chances elsewhere. Therefore I strongly oppose the Amendment.
    Captain REDMOND: Before we depart from this Amendment I would like to correct an impression that may have been created in the minds of a few of the non-Irish Members who are in the House. We on these Benches never demanded that the Local Government Board in Ireland should have the final sanction and power which this paragraph as it stands seems to confer upon them. Neither did we object to the local authorities having the power to determine for themselves the various wards that should
    1072
    return members under this scheme. What we said was this: We said that if this Bill is to go through, let it go through automatically; let there be no interference from local bodies on the one side or the Local Government Board on the other. I think that was a very fair, equitable and reasonable attitude to adopt. The reason why we support this Amendment now is the same as the reason which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn advanced when he declared this paragraph to be practically valueless, because the final line of the paragraph practically cancels the opening portion of it, and certainly cancels it as far as those boroughs outside the north of Ireland are concerned. I do not really know what is meant by "except and so far as they see good to the contrary." What exactly is the meaning of that phrase? What is meant by the Local Government Board seeing "good reason to the contrary"? Would the Attorney-General kindly give an example to the House? Is it because the Local Government Board does not favour a certain political party in a certain portion of Ireland that therefore they should come along and say, "We will not allow the wards to be portioned out in this way," or can he give any explanation whatsoever of this extraordinarily loose and wide terminology? I am not now saying that the Local Government Board will go one way or the other. I am almost inclined from past experience to adhere to and endorse the statement of my colleague that the Local Government Board will go in one direction. But whether that may be so or not, why should we leave it in the hands of the Local Government Board to have such a wide and open discretion as that paragraph will give them? I presume it is intended to divide on this question. Before we divide, I would ask the Attorney-General if he would kindly explain to the House what he moans and what the Government mean by the phrase I have quoted?
    Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I should like, as an Englishman, to ask the Attorney-General to stick by this particular Section of the Bill. I do not think it is very clear, or particularly good sense as far as the wording goes. Indeed, the whole Bill, as far as I can see, is rather a mild form of mental lunacy which the Attorney-General is throwing at the Irish people. I do not know what they have done, but I suppose he knows something

    1073
    about it. I should like to ask him to stick to this Clause as it stands, simply because it does make them do something for themselves, and I think that in that particular way we may be able to shift a little of the onus of the badness of the Bill on to their shoulders.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'shall,' ["the Board shall adopt the scheme"], stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 36.]

    AYES.

    [4.32 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

    Knights, Capt. H.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ainsworth, Capt. C.

    Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Archdale, Edward M.

    Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Armitage, Robert

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

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

    Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

    Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

    Austin, Sir H.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Donald, T.

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lorden, John William

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Eyres-Monsell, Com.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Stratford)

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Lyon, L.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

    Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (G'nwich)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescus

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Bennett, T. J.

    Foreman, H.

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Betterton, H. B.

    Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Galbraith, Samuel

    McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

    Bird, Alfred

    Gange, E. S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Blades, Sir George R.

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Gardiner, J. (Perth)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.

    Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)

    Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Boscawen. Sir Arthur Griffith

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Mason, Robert

    Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

    Gould, J. C.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Grant, James Augustos

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Gray, Major E.

    Moles, Thomas

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Morrison, K. (Salisbury)

    Briggs, Harold

    Greig, Col. James William

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Gretton, Col. John

    Mount, William Arthur

    Britton, G. B.

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic, Loughbore')

    Murchison, C. K.

    Brown, Captain D. C, (Hexham)

    Guinness, Capt, Hon. R. (Southend)

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

    Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Neal, Arthur

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Nelson, R F. W. R.

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hilder, Lieutenant-Colonel F.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Casey, T. W.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hood, Joseph

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Horne, Edgar (Guildford)

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Hudson, R. M.

    Parker, James

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Parry, Major Thomas Henry

    Clough, R.

    Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis

    Pearce, Sir William

    Clyde, James Avon

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Perring, William George

    Cohen, Major J. B. B.

    Inskip, T. W. H.

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Collins, Col. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Colvin, Brig.-Gen. R. B.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton

    Coote, William (Tyrone, S.)

    Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

    Kidd, James

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

    Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

    King, Com. Douglas

    Pulley, Charles Thornton

    Purchase, H. G.

    Smith, Capt. A, (Nelson and colne)

    Warren, Sir Alfred H.

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Sprot, Cot. Sir Alexander

    Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrab

    Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Prated)

    Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Raper, A. Baldwin

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Whitla, Sir William

    Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

    Stephenson, Col. H. K.

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Reid, D. D.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson

    Stewart, Gershom

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Randall, Athelstan

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Sugden, Lieut. W. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Rodger, A. K.

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Wilton, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Wilson, col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Rowlands, James

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

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Woods, Sir Robert

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Stager, Sir William

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Younger, Sir George

    Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wardle, George J.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh)

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Arnold, Sydney

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Shaw, Tom (Preston)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Harbison, T. J. S.

    Sitch, C. H.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, V.

    Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

    Briant, F.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Swan, J. E. C,

    Cairns, John

    Jones, J. (Silvertown)

    Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

    Capt, Tom

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Lunn, William

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Newbould, A. E.

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    O'Grady, James

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Dawes, J. A

    Onions, Alfred

    Wignall, James

    Donnelly, P.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Redmond, Captain William A.

    Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Devlin and Mr. MacVeagh.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

    Rose, Frank H.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. SAMUELS: I beg to move, in Subsection. (3), after the word "Board'' ["the Board shall adopt the- scheme"], to insert the words
    "on being satisfied that the scheme has been published by the local authority in the prescribed manner."
    This Amendment was suggested by my hon. Friends upstairs.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I do not think this Amendment, which has been moved by the Attorney-General, exactly meets the point, nor does it exactly fulfil the promise which he gave to us in Committee. He promised that the advertisement in the local newspaper should be done in such a way as to secure that the cost would be borne by the Local Government Board. I should prefer the Amendment to be made in the form I have put down, which would place the responsibility for the advertising upon the Local Government Board, and leave them to pay the cost. Moreover, I do not see any wording in the Amendment of the
    1076
    Attorney-General with reference to the local inquiry. I think that if, in consequence of representations made by any local authority, any particular combination of wards is effected, it is extremely reasonable that any political party which desires to make representations against that scheme should have an opportunity of doing so, and I think it would not be reasonable to require them to travel to Dublin to do so, but that facilities ought to be given for the holding of the inquiry on the spot, as has always been done in the case of redistribution arrangements under previous schemes. I am very much afraid that the scheme put forward by the Attorney-General now will lead to hole-and-corner inquiries and to things being done behind backs which ought to be above-board. It is entirely in the interests of publicity that I have put down the Amendment which stands in my name, and, therefore, I am not satisfied with that of the Attorney-General. I know that the Government in office to-day is not very

    1077
    fond of publicity. It has never shown any overweening anxiety to take the public into its confidence. But I think that in this particular case the Attorney-General might strain a point and give as much publicity as possible to any schemes put forward, and that he might be generous enough to let the Local Government Board pay the cost, instead of adroitly putting it on to the shoulders of the local authority.
    Sir E. CARSON: As I understand this Amendment it means that the Local Government Board must be satisfied that there has been publication of the scheme, and thereupon they adopt the scheme except where they think there is good. reason to the contrary. Where they do see good reason to the contrary have they any local inquiry, or is that merely a matter for the Local Government Board?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Entirely.
    Mr. SAMUELS: These words as to advertising follow the usual practice, and such advertisements are always paid for by the local authorities. Any person who wishes to make representations can do so, and then the Local Government Board consider the matter and give a decision. It has not been the habit to send down inspectors and have local public inquiries and have all the paraphernalia of a trial. That has never been done under the Local Government Acts in dealing with such schemes.
    Major O'NEILL: In the early stages of this Bill in Committee I moved an Amendment to some part of Clause 1, the object of which was to provide for local inquiries in all the different local government areas before the Local Government Board started on constituencies. And there was also a provision in that Amendment for an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant-in-Council. We considered that that was a reasonable Amendment. What happened? When that suggestion was put forward my right hon. Friend poured scorn upon it and was seconded in the most emphatic and able manner by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) who, with his accustomed eloquence, said that never before had a scheme of such an absurd nature been presented. I did not agree with him. But now on another matter, when it suits hon. Gentlemen opposite to have a local inquiry, they come forward and ask the House to support a principle which in the earlier stages they most emphatically objected to.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: No, no!
    Major O'NEILL: That is the history of this question of local inquiries.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I want to know when the scheme is published what opportunity will be given for objections to the scheme being lodged, and will the award of the Local Government Board also be published?
    Captain REDMOND: When this publication is made, will the good reason to the contrary be given or will it not?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the proposal that the cost of the advertising must be borne by the local authorities?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Yes.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is imposing a charge upon the local authority which is being coerced to adopt this scheme.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the word "shall" ['"the Board shall"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
    I think it was the Attorney-General who told us in Committee that "may" always means "shall." I do not know whether that is so or not, but I would rather in this case leave out "shall" and leave some exercise of discretion to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so on the ground that "may" and "shall" are not the same.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: If this Amendment were adopted the provision would read
    "the Board may adopt the scheme except where and so far as they see good reason to the contrary."
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (5), after the word "divisions," insert the words "or wards." — [Mr. Samuels.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Date of Triennial Election and Ordinary Day of Retirement in Boroughs, Other Urban Districts, and Towns.)
    The first triennial elections after the passing of this Act of aldermen and councillors of boroughs, councillors of urban districts, and commissioners of towns shall be held on the ordinary day of election of councillors and commissioners in the year nineteen hundred and twenty, and the subsequent triennial elections shall be held on the ordinary day of election in each third subsequent year, and all the aldermen, councillors and commissioners who hold office on any such day shall retire to-

    1079
    gether on the next following day which shall be the ordinary day of retirement of aldermen, councillors, and commissioners, and the newly elected aldermen, councillors and commissioners shall (save as is otherwise provided in this Act) come into office on the ordinary day of retirement.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "on the ordinary day election"
    and to insert instead thereof
    "in the first week of June."
    The effect of this Amendment would be that at the first triennial election after those to be held next year rural and urban elections would be held in the first week in June. When I made a similar proposal with regard to the forthcoming elections it was pointed out that in urban districts it was the custom to budget in the early part of the year, and that therefore the holding of the elections for urban districts in June would give rise to difficulty. My present proposal will give the urban authorities three years' notice to effect a change in their budgeting arrangements. It will be a matter of great public convenience to have all these elections held at the one period of the year, and at present it is a great inconvenience to have the urban elections held in the depth of winter. The feeling in Ireland is that the elections should be held at a time of the year when the least public inconvenience is caused.
    Captain REDMOND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I regret that the Attorney-General did not see his way to provide that the forthcoming election, urban and rural, should be held in June. I think he will admit that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. MacVeagh) has gone a long way in allowing three years to elapse before the change from the present system takes place. I cannot for the life of me see why there should be a difference in this respect as between rural and urban areas. It is certainly inconvenient to hold the urban elections in the winter period of the year.
    Mr. SAMUELS: I do not see my way to accept this Amendment. In Committee it was originally proposed that the rural elections should be held in December, but it was pointed out that that would be a very inconvenient month, and so would any winter month, for rural elections. We ascertained from many local authorities that the month of June would certainly be the proper month for a rural
    1080
    election. The urban elections always take place in January, and there is no reason why they should be changed. The present representatives of county councils and borough councils have been in office for a very long time, and in Ireland as soon as possible there should be an election. As to the urban elections, there was no representation whatsoever from any urban body in favour of the suggestion of the Amendment, and I am informed by the Local Government Board that these bodies would not like the present system altered, whereby they budget at the commencement of the year and begin from the 31st March. The areas in the towns are small, and no inconvenience results. I would ask my hon. Friend to stick to the compromise we came to upstairs.
    Mr. LYNN: Might I suggest the Attorney-General to fix the 1st April for all the elections. I think it would be a very suitable date.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I would suggest the 12th July.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Make it the 12th July.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Alteration of Date of Elections of County Councillors, Rural District Coun cillors, and Guardians, and Postponement of Next Elections.)
    (1) The next triennial elections of county councillors, rural district councillors, and guardians in urban districts, instead of being held on the ordinary day of election in the year nineteen hundred and nineteen, shall be further postponed until the ordinary day of election in the year nineteen hundred and twenty, and the term of office of each existing councillor and guardian shall accordingly be further extended so as to expire on the day next after such day of election.
    (2) In this Section the expression "existing councillor and guardian" means a councillor or guardian holding office on the ordinary day of election in the year nineteen hundred and nineteen.
    (3) Any provisions of any Act, Order, or Regulations relating to county councillors, rural district councillors, or guardians, or to chair men, vice-chairmen, deputy vice-chairmen, or committees of those bodies shall be construed as if they were modified in such manner as to give full effect to the provisions of this Section.
    Mr. SAMUELS: I beg to move, at the end, to add the following new Sub-section:
    (4)This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the fifteenth day of April, nine teen hundred and nineteen, and accordingly any act, matter, or thing done or omitted by any county council, rural district council, or board of guardians, or by any member or officer thereof (including a returning officer), after that day

    1081
    and before the passing of this Act which would have been lawfully done or omitted if this Section had then been in actual operation, shall be deemed to have been lawfully done or omitted, and any election of councillors or guardians held within the period aforesaid shall be deemed to be void, and each existing councillor and guardian shall be deemed to have continued in office notwithstanding that the ordinary day of election or retirement occurred within the said period.
    This is practically in the nature of a new Clause which has become necessary on account of the delay in passing this measure. In certain districts they have already made arrangements for elections, although they have been warned by the Local Government Board to make no arrangements or to incur no expense in connection with elections. One local body has elected or purported to elect certain representatives.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is that where you are going to be sued for contempt of Court?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I understand so. This Clause is to invalidate any proceedings which have taken place hitherto.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Instead of invalidating the proceedings which have already taken place, would it not be more correct to say that this is a Clause to validate the illegal acts already committed by the Attorney-General?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Why was this Clause not inserted in the original Bill? I do not know anything about the legal proceedings to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I think it is a highly reprehensible proceeding to leave the public under the impression that they can go on with the elections, and then, when they do go on with the elections, that the Attorney-General should come along with an Amendment and insert it in the Bill on Report. I think that is very unfair and very inconvenient to the public. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should be brought before the Courts for a simple matter of this sort, when they break every law, human and divine, in the government of the country. He ought to apologise to the representatives from Ireland for all the inconvenience of this bad draftsmanship. It is no use him saying it is only in one district, because in several districts elections are to take place to-morrow. I know that in the City of Belfast, where nothing goes wrong and everything is perfect, there is an election to-morrow for the Poor Law Board, and men of all parties
    1082
    are put to the expense and inconvenience of holding this election. Circulars have been issued by the Local Government Board, I believe, but the proper way to have done this was to incorporate a Clause of this character in this Bill, in order to give due warning to the public. As a matter of fact, in Belfast, speaking alone for my own friends, I am told they are at a tremendous expense and inconvenience, and that the elections are actually going on to-morrow. This slipshod and irresponsible method of going on is most unfair, not only to the public, but to the ratepayers, who will be put to a considerable expense.
    Mr. LYNN: Help us to kill the Bill.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It is not worth killing over this point.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7.—(Amalgamation of Small Rural Districts.)
    Where the population of any rural district is less than four thousand and its rateable value is less than twenty thousand pounds the Local Government Board shall, if it is conveniently possible, amalgamate the district with an adjoining rural district in the same county, and for that purpose Sub-section (5) of Section sixty-eight of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall apply whether the Board have or have not amalgamated the unions comprised in the rural districts.
    Mr. HARBISON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "four thousand and its rateable value is less than twenty thousand pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "three thousand nine hundred."
    I did not interfere very much during the Committee stage, because I did not wish to defeat the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I agree with the principle involved in it, namely, that all parties in the State should get due representation on the local councils, and I hope later on in the councils of the nation. The Clause that I wish to amend is a Clause that was not introduced by the Government into the Bill. It was introduced by my hon. Friends on the other side of the House, and I have a suspicion, a suspicion amounting to a certainty, that that Clause is for the purpose of extinguishing certain small rural councils in Ireland. I believe it affects eighteen or nineteen such councils, and it is rather peculiar that my Ulster Friends are so anxious about the small rural councils in the other three provinces of Ireland. I believe nearly all these small councils are in

    1083
    the other provinces, and there is one particular council in my county which has been a bone of contention in Ulster for some time. I believe it got the length of Buckingham Palace at one time, in regard to the county of Tyrone, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) has reason to remember. My object in moving this Amendment is to reduce the minimum placed in the Clause of 4,000. It is a remarkable fact that this little rural council in Tyrone is to be abolished and that its population is exactly 3,915. That is a rather suspicious circumstance, and another circumstance is that the hon. Members who proposed this Clause originally have openly declared their intention in Committee and in this House to kill this Bill. I do not know whether this Clause will kill it. in all Ireland, but certainly in the county of Tyrone it will destroy the effect of Proportional Representation in that county. If there ever was a constituency in which Proportional Representation is necessary, it is in that constituency to which I have referred.
    Figures are more eloquent than even the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division, or my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). Our county council consists of twenty-nine members; twenty of them are elected, seven are co-opted or ex officio members—the chairmen of the seven district councils in the county are ex officio members—and two others are co-opted. Of the twenty elected county councillors of that county, the party that I represent return eleven, and if there were no other elements in the composition of that council its complexion would be totally different from what it is to-day. I do not wish to deprive any men of their right to election, but I say that those who have a right of control of a council should not be deprived of it by fictitious means or by means such as this Clause is being used for. Of these seven district councils, at the present moment one of them is this little division of under 4,000, and it is represented by a Nationalist chairman, and one other, the largest rural district in the county, which is three times larger than some of the others, and twice as large as any particular one of the others, is also represented by a Nationalist. The other five have Unionist chairmen elected on a much smaller area. That is pretty bad under this Bill, because I think the essence
    1084
    of Proportional Representation is that in order to give the system a proper chance, the electoral areas should be equal, and the population, as nearly as possible, in each area or group should be equal. What are the figures in the seven electoral areas that return these chairmen? There is the district of Castlederg, which returns one-Unionist member, with a population of 11,161, according to the census for 1911; Clogher, with a population of 13,744, one Unionist; Cookstown, 18,831, also Unionist; Dungannon, which is the second largest, 26,420, Unionist; Omagh, 31,604,. one Nationalist; Strabane, 19,534, Unionist; and Trillick, 3,915, one Nationalist. There are seven district councils, and there are 68,804 Nationalists and 56,405 Unionists; that is, 68,000 Nationalists with only two chairmen, and 56,000 Unionists with five chairmen. In other words, at the present moment, there is one chairman per 34,000 Nationalists, and one chairman per 11,000 Unionists. If this Amendment be not accepted, or if the one immediately following be not accepted, which would specially exempt this one council of Trillick, the position of Tyrone would be, one chairman for 68,000 Nationalists, and five chairmen for 56,000 Unionists.
    I am sorry the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams) is not here. He understands all about this question of Proportional Representation, and I would like to give him a word of appreciation for the services he rendered to us on the Committee by explaining this system to us. If he were here I would like him to explain how to get over the anomaly under this Bill. If you take off this one council you make-the anomaly still greater. There are only two courses: either to allow all the district councils to stand in the county or to abolish the chairmen representatives from the whole of them. In my humble judgment that would be the solution, but there is an Amendment to that effect later on. That is our case, and I would ask the Attorney-General at the last moment if ho will not accept my Amendment, or the one following it in my name, which is to exempt this one district council. It can hurt nobody. It looks a trivial matter to hon. Members here, but it is a very living matter to us. It means the representation of an entire county, and it means more than that throughout the province of Ulster. I know the argument was used in another place in regard to this county of Tyrone, and it was tried to be proved

    1085
    that because the county council was of one political complexion the whole county was of that political complexion. As a matter of fact, when these statistics were put on the Table the argument fell to the ground, because in the county there is a Nationalist majority of something like 15,000 or 16,000, and I would like to know how we are to avoid the principle embodied in this Bill being vitiated and frustrated if we are to allow this attempt at gerrymandering in the face of the House of Commons. If this little scheme is allowed to go on, I would ask the Attorney-General to avoid the idea of any such suspicion attaching to him. It is not his Clause; he has merely accepted the Clause moved by a political party which is seeking an advantage, and in order to remove that suspicion from our minds, and from the minds of the people we represent in the north of Ireland, I hope he will accept this Amendment or the one following.
    Captain REDMOND: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. W. COOTE: I wish to put the other side of this case. I have just as strong a hatred of this Bill at this stage as I had at the beginning, and at every stage from its inception. I do not believe in the Bill. I do not believe it is going to make the work of local government easier in the country, and I believe, of all things, it ought never to have been applied to local government, especially in rural districts. But if this Bill is going to be at all effective, we must remove every anomaly under it. I submit that the hon. Member who has just sat down has made a very excellent case for wiping out all these little districts that are unworkable, that can hardly ever have a quorum, and are a nuisance, I am sure, to the officials of the Local Government Board, as they are a nuisance in every county in which they exist. There are about eighteen in Ireland. Many are in the north. There is one in South Antrim, I know, and one in North Armagh, and we cannot have a quorum on these little districts to do the work of the county to which they belong. Take this rural village of Trillick. Trillick will only have four members under this Bill. one being the chairman, and they will require a secretary and all the other officials. The road inspector will have to travel from Armagh, a distance of something like fifteen miles, to meet this rural district council, and probably not find a quorum there, as happens on many occasions. Therefore, from the business point
    1086
    of view, these small rural districts should be swept away under this Bill. But, apart from this, I can quite understand the reason why my hon. Friend on the. other side takes such a strong view as he does on this Trillick case. Ho tells us it is a Nationalist rural district, having a Nationalist chairman, and he tells us there are 16,000 more Nationalist electors in Tyrone than Unionists, but he does not tell us that, for the purposes of this Bill, if Proportional Representation is to do anything, if it is to realise all that is intended by it, and that is, to give equal representation to every shade of opinion in every area, then I want to put before the House this fact— that every district council in Tyrone has a Nationalist majority to-day, and when this Bill is applied, will be returning a Nationalist chairman all along the line. Castlederg has 175 Nationalists more than Unionists, Strabane 1,640, Trillick 689, Omagh 7,500, Clogher 220, Dungannon 1,076, and Cootestown 1,101. So that when you come to apply Proportional Representation, all the grievances the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will disappear, and, according to the hypothesis of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, each of these councils will be returning a Nationalist chairman; that is, if they do not have a split and fight amongst themselves. Is this House going to tolerate a little pocket borough like Trillick— this little unworkable district—to remain for the purpose of ensuring that a Nationalist chairman shall go to the county council 1 This, I submit, is an unfair and unworkable position, and this is the time to get rid of it.
    Captain REDMOND: Get rid of what?
    Mr. COOTE: The anomaly.
    Captain REDMOND: You are not getting rid of the anomaly.
    Mr. COOTE: I submit that the figure here is much too small, and if our Friends are only out for mere politics in this matter, we, at any rate, want to see some efficient system brought in that is more workable than the present one. With this opportunity, these small areas, we submit, should disappear, and while I oppose the Bill, and propose to vote against it in the last resort, yet, if the House will pass this. Bill, I am anxious that it should pass in such a condition as will be workable, or, at least, more workable than if you allow these anomalies to exist. I submit that, instead of the figure of 4,000, which is much too small, we should have stuck to the 5,000.
    Lieut.-Commander C. WILLIAMS: Will the Attorney-General inform the House why he chose 4,000 in place of any other particular figure? There are two more questions I would like to put. How many districts is this going to affect; and what are they? If the Attorney-General will kindly enlighten the English Members of the House on this we might be in a position to support him or otherwise when the time arrives.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Where are the English Members in the House? They will be flocking into the Lobby when the Division comes. I was one of the Tellers on the last occasion, and was nearly crushed to death by these people. I move that the bell be rung, and that they be sent for.
    Mr. SAMUELS: This matter was discussed for nearly two hours in Committee, and I gave details of all the small communities affected by this—I think nine teen of them. The hon. Member asks why we did not insert 5,000. I may tell him that this matter was under the consideration of the Local Government Board, and they came to the conclusion that it was desirable to get rid of about nineteen small areas——
    Mr. HARBISON: Why was it not originally in the Bill, if they thought so?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I am saying this matter was under the consideration of the Local Government Board. We were going to bring in a proposal about it, but the Local Government Board had to deal with the case of nineteen small areas which, at the time of the Local Government Act, 1898, had to be carved out like snippets when dividing up the areas, because every Poor Law union had to be within the borders of a county. The result was that where unions were within two or three counties, they had to divide these small rural areas for Local Government Board purposes into little separate areas. It has been most inconvenient in working, and the proposal of the Government is that, where the population is under 4,000, and where the valuation is under £20,000, these areas may be combined if the Local Government Board think it proper. It has been impossible in these small areas to get efficiency. The roads get out of order, because there is not sufficient valuation or a sufficient number of ratepayers on whom to impose the charges for keeping up the roads which have to be managed by the district councils. That is a very serious inconvenience to the public. Also
    1088
    they have to deal with certain sanitary and other arrangements, and the frequent absence of a quorum results in a very great amount of inconvenience.
    Mr. HARBISON: Will the Attorney-General say how many of these eighteen or nineteen councils would be affected by a reduction of the limit by 100?
    Mr. SAMUELS: I cannot really legislate for one particular community. We take the round number. I am acting upon the instruction of the Local Government Board with regard to it, and they find that, for the purposes of administration, it is necessary to combine. The whole matter was discussed in Committee at very great length, and they came to the conclusion that the method proposed by the Government should be adopted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendments on Clause 8, I am afraid they will involve a charge on the rates.
    Mr. SAMUELS: To bring in the Amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Tyrone (Mr. Harbison), the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Lynn), and in my own name, I understand that the Bill will have to be re-committed after the Report stage. We are accepting those Amendments, but I understand it is merely a matter of form.
    Sir E. CARSON: Then I may take it you will not take the Third Reading to-day?
    Mr. SAMUELS: Oh, yes.
    Sir E. CARSON: Can the Third Reading be taken before the Report stage?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill can be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in order that these proposed Amendments may be inserted. It would then be possible to have a further Report stage, and then proceed to the Third Reading.
    Sir E. CARSON: To-day?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Re-committed to a twentieth part of the House!

    CLAUSE 12.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "transferable vote" means a vote—

    1089

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

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

    The expression "members of a local authority" includes aldermen, councillors, guardians, and town commissioners.
    The expression "town" means any town as defined in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, other than an urban district.
    Amendment made: At end of Clause insert the words
    "the expression 'population' means population according to the last published census for the time being." — [Mr. Samuels.]

    SCHEDULE.

    Session and Chapter.

    Title or Short Title.

    Extent of Repeal.

    3 & 4 Viet. c. 108

    The Municipal Corporations (Ire-land) Act, 1840

    Sections sixty-one and sixty-two.

    17 & 18 Viet. c. 103

    The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854

    Section twenty-three; Section twenty-four, so far as respects the rotation of the Commissioners.

    61 & 62 Viet. c. 37

    The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898

    In Sub-section (3) of Section two the words from "Provided that" to the end of the Sub-section; in Sub-section (4) of Section two the words from "may give" to "that division and"; in paragraph (a) of Subsection (2) of Section twenty-one the words from "Provided that" to the end of the paragraph; in Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-three the words from "Provided that" to the end of the Sub-section; in Subsection (3) of Section twenty-three paragraph (b) down to "division and," the words from "may give" to "division and" in paragraph (c), and in Section twenty-four, paragraphs (c) and (d).

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The proposed Amendments to the Schedule are, I think, outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I inquire why, in the case of my particular Amendment, this Bill is to give proportional representation to the whole country? In the course of that operation it is found necessary to repeal certain Clauses of Acts of Parliament passed in a previous Session. The repeal of these is necessary to make this a working Act. The effect of the ex officio system of members of the county council may be— and really is in some parts—to make the minority into the majority. This nullifies the whole object of proportional representation and dissipates the whole effect of the Bill. In order to withdraw that fatal
    1090
    defect we desire to move to omit certain Sub-sections from previous Acts. By doing so we make a complete proportional representation scheme. If we are not allowed so to do we are prevented from making the Bill one in which there is real proportional representation. Under these circumstances I submit that we are in order in this matter, and the discovery of the Attorney-General on this point that it is not in order is a very sudden discovery, because the matter was discussed for three hours in Committee upstairs.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The matter has nothing at all to do with the Attorney-General; it is for the Speaker of the House to say whether or not this is an Amendment of the law permissible in the
    Schedule. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he regards this as a consequential Amendment to what is contained in Clause 1.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Certainly.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Arising out of Clause 1 of the Bill.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Certainly; that is my point.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That alters my view. In that case the hon. Member may move it.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Thank you.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move, after the word "and" ["that division and"], in paragraph (a), insert the words, "Section 3, Sub-section (1)."

    1091
    I had intended to move to omit Subsections (2) and (3), but I think my Amendment, as I have moved it, will meet the case. The Amendment refers to Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Local Government Act of 1898. The Act reads:
    "3— (1) The chairman of every rural district council (established under this Act) within the county shall, by virtue of his office, be an additional member of the county council, but if such chairman is otherwise a member, or is disqualified for election at a member, of the county council, the district council may assign one of their number who is not so disqualified to take during the term of office of that chairman the place of the chairman as additional member of the county council."
    What is the effect of that? The Attorney-General's point is that it is a great public convenience that the chairman of the district council should be an ex-officio member of the county council. In the Section I have quoted it states that if the chairman is already a member that some other member of the district council may be elected a member in his place. This, I think, is carrying the ex-officio principle to a very considerable extent; because if it is carried out and every district council chairman is a member of the county council directly for his district, the district is certainly fully represented on the county council! I do not want to occupy the time of the House explaining this, for I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the careful consideration you have given to the point I raised, and the proper decision you gave. The position is this: In the county of Tyrone, to which my hon. Friend has already referred, you have had for years a system under which the minority of the population had the majority on the county council. In order not to rouse the feelings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson) I will not say how they used that power, but most people know all the circumstances. What I do complain of is that the minority of the population and the minority of the electors should have the majority on the county councils. How did they get it? The district councils are so divided in that county; as I understand it, so gerrymandered, that in a large majority of the district councils the Unionists hold the chairmanship. The chairman is ex officio a member of the county council, and that is just sufficient to turn the scale in the county council. As a matter of fact by one vote in the county of Tyrone you make certain minorities the majorities. The
    1092
    majority so constituted co-opts two further members, each of the same political opinion. If you, therefore, allow this to go on you cannot have proportional representation. There is nobody who knows that better than the Attorney-General, or than the Vice-President of the Local Government Board of Ireland, and all the local departmental officials. The retention of this Clause will make a mockery of the whole principle of proportional representation. Therefore, I move my Amendment with the object of simplifying the situation.
    Mr. HARBISON: I beg to second the Amendment, and in doing so, I use much the same arguments as before. I know a good deal about the district councils of Tyrone, the composition of the register, and how the electorate are divided into districts. I would like to explain to the House how it is that although the Nationalists have some of the majorities in some of these rural district council areas it is quite easy to group the constituencies together so as to prevent the majority of the population having the majority of the representation. Perhaps the House is not very conversant with Irish history. We are suffering from the results of past misdeeds in Ireland. Some two or three hundred years ago the ancestors of the present Nationalist population were driven out of the fertile lands in the valleys. They took refuge in the mountains and the bogs. They crowded together in compounds and their descendants are still there—thousands and thousands of them. It is very easy to group these congested districts into one or two groups; put the great bulk of Nationalists into each district council area, and group the county council so as to sub serve the objects suggested. There is no county or district in the United Kingdom where gerrymandering is so easy. We have had displayed the ability of our Unionist Friends assisted by the friends in Dublin in this gerrymandering. That is why, if the figures I quote are looked up, you will find in one of the rural districts of Omagh there is greater Nationalist strength than in some three of the other districts, and the Unionists are more in one of the districts than in three unions. It shows that the county can be divided so as to dissipate the Nationalist strength and leave a Unionist majority, notwithstanding the majority is the other way. For this reason I second the Amendment

    1093
    to the effect that this ex officio principle should be abolished; otherwise the principle and object of the Bill will be lost.
    Mr. SAMUELS; I cannot accept this Amendment, which really centres round this: Under the Local Government Act of 1898 it is a fundamental principle of the constitution of the county councils that the chairmen of the district councils should also be members of the county councils. That, I think, is the same thing that prevails in England. This is a proposal that for the future county councils are to be deprived of the advantage of the presence of the chairmen of district councils as members of their larger body. These councils, we must recollect, are going to foe elected by proportional representation, just as hither-to they have been elected by direct vote. It certainly would be a great constitutional change, and one, as I said in Committee, which would cause consternation in Ireland if it was found that the chairmen of these district councils, whose principal duty it is on the county council to present actively the needs of the district which they represent and of which they are chairmen, were prevented from being so appointed. If they, I say, were swept away from the county councils, the result would be that the county councils would be deprived of the services of the district council's chairmen merely because the present method may in some way affect this particular district in the county of Tyrone. What may be the effect of proportional representation on the county of Tyrone or upon the county council they elect nobody in the world can tell.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: There are more electors than in Trinity College that sent you here.
    Mr. SAMUELS: This is a very violent change indeed. It is proposed, not as a substantive Amendment to the Bill, but brought forward as an Amendment to the Schedule. The Committee upstairs fully discussed the proposal and rejected it. I would ask the House also to reject it.
    Captain REDMOND: This was supposed to be a Bill for the establishment of Proportional Representation in Ireland. Of course, we know now, from the introduction of this, that its title is only a mockery and a sham. Proportional Representation is supposed to give—I am not vouching for its sponsors—but supposed to give representation to majorities and minorities. Fair representation indeed! What
    1094
    takes place under this Bill? If it goes forward in its present form it will not only not do away with the existing anomalies which my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone is so anxious to get rid of, but it will perpetuate it for all time. We have heard sufficient of existing anomalies. There is no one in this House, Members from Unionist Ulster included, who will deny that the minority of the population in the county should not have the majority upon the county council. Such is the case to-day, uncontroverted as the statement is, in county Tyrone. How does that situation come about? Simply and solely owing to the existence of ex-officio members on the county councils and the principle of co-option. In the first place, I would like to say that I am opposed to the principle of ex-officio members and co-option on the county council root and branch, because it is, in the first place, undemocratic in the extreme, and, in the second place, if there is anything in Proportional Representation this proposal does away with it for ever. Under this Bill the ex-officio officers and co-opted officers remain, with the result that we know this anomaly of the minority possessing a majority of the county council will be perpetuated. These seven rural district councils in the county Tyrone will continue to have their chairmen as ex-officio members of the county council. Will they be elected upon the principle of Proportional Representation? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes,"] Nothing of the kind. They will not be elected even for the county councils, whether by Proportional Representation or in any other way. They are elected, not to the county councils, but to a district council, and it is only by the fact of being chairman of a district council that they become members of the county council at all.
    If we are to have ex-officio members, then the only fair and proper basis upon which you can have them is that the district council should be as equal or as approximate as possible in area and in population. What is the case? You have the chairman of the district council in one part of the county representing only 10,000, and you have a chairman of another district council in another part of the county representing, say, 40,000 people. The Attorney-General comes forward with his splendid military maxim, "As you were," because the Local Government Act said it was proper that there should be ex-officio members, therefore it would be a most unholy thing for

    1095
    us to disturb that grand sacrosanct system of local government which we are proposing to undermine by the very Bill he is fostering in the House of Commons now. Because it was a fundamental principle in the Local Government Act of 1898, I cannot see why that is any reason that it should be a fundamental principal in a proportional representation Bill of 1918. We are told that this would be an anomaly. On the contrary, the anomaly will be carried on if this system of ex-officio membership and co-option is not swept away altogether. Take the case of county Armagh which is only next door to county Tyrone. County Armagh has a minority of Nationalists, strange as it may appear to some English members, which is larger than the Unionist minority in county Tyrone.
    Mr. MOLES: The minority is precisely the same in both cases.
    Captain REDMOND: I will concede that to the hon. Member. That being so, what are the facts with regard to the county council? In county Armagh the majority very properly of the people have a majority of the representatives on the county council, and they will have under proportional representation ex-officio or no ex-officio. [An HON. MEMBER: "So will you in turn."] In county Tyrone the minority of the population have now a majority on the county council owing to this system of ex-officio members and co-option, and under this Bill they will continue to have a majority when under the principle of the Bill they are only entitled to a minority. Is that right or acting in accordance with the principle which this Bill is supposed to carry out? The Attorney-General has not denied it. and he cannot deny that under this system the minority in county Tyrone may still have and probably will have a majority of the representation upon the county council. If there is any doubt in his mind whatsoever then he is not an honest sponsor of proportional representation if he does not wipe away these ex-officio members of county councils, or if he does not carve out the district council approximate in size and population, and thereby enable proper representation upon the county councils of equal or nearly equal numbers of people in the various districts.
    Mr. W. COOTE: One would imagine from what hon. Members opposite
    1096
    had been saying that a special system had been set up for Tyrone different to the rest of the country. We are not dealing with Tyrone now, but with the whole country. I can quite believe that the Nationalists in Ireland will not be grateful to their representatives opposite for this attempt to destroy local administration in Ireland. If I desired to persist in trying to render this Bill unworkable I should support my hon. Friends opposite in the line they are taking up. If you bring what they are suggesting into practice you are going to destroy the whole work of local administration in each county in Ireland. Some of my hon. Friends opposite may not understand, and I cannot understand, how the hon. Member for North-East Tyrone can suggest that you cannot have effective administration in county and district council work in Ireland if you eliminate the district chairmen from the county council. I want the House to understand that the county council strike the whole of the local rate. The district council has nothing to do with it, but they have the control of the expenditure, or at any rate, a setting on foot the machinery for the expenditure, which has to be confirmed by the county council, and so the chairman of each rural district council receives and carries out the presentment in their district for the construction and maintenance of roads. The chairman must be before a county council to see that his district is properly represented, and if there is any trouble between the officials of the county and the county inspector, and his officials and contractors and the ratepayers concerned, the only one that can explain the situation is the chairman of the district council.
    When provision was made in the original Act it was the necessary provision that the chairman of the district council should be ex officio a member of the county council. It has been suggested that the average county councillor can represent the needs of the district council, but he knows nothing about them, and he may not even be a member of the district council. It is the chairman of the district council who is responsible for seeing that the interests of his district are properly brought before the county council. I could hardly conceive that any practical Member of this House, merely for political purposes, could launch out on a line of argument which would destroy the effective working of county administration in Ireland. There is nothing in the idea that the chairmen

    1097
    of the district councils in Tyrone may be Unionist. If they are Unionist to-day proportional representation will make such a tremendous change, that being predominantly Nationalist, if their party sticks to it they will become Nationalist, and the chairmen they send will be of the same colour in politics. It works out automatically, and there is nothing in the argument, but it is a most pernicious suggestion that you should eliminate the right of the chairmen of the district councils to sit on the county council.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I have not spoken before in this discussion, but I should like to point out that the effect of introducing ex-officio members into a body elected under proportional representation will be to vitiate the true proportion of the elements that are in that council. It is quite certain that some of the rural district councils are smaller than others, but the small ones will be able to send their chairmen just as much as the large ones, and that is the first vitiation of proportional representation. The result may very well be to change a majority representing the majority of the electors into a minority in the greater body. If all the district councils were of equal size you would still have a very great risk of vitiating proportional representation, because the different interests are not spread equally over the whole of a county. You have one party concentrated in a given district, and perhaps the other party divided more or less equally over all the county. The result is that the one party concentrated in a given district only gets one out of five co-opted members, although it may be a majority in the county as a whole. The result of introducing ex-officio members into the county council of Tyrone—and I went into the figures the other day—may very likely be that you will have a majority of elected members of one party, and then by the introduction of ex-officio members from the districts you may convert that majority into a minority. You may give a majority to the other people who only represent a minority of the votes.
    6.0 P.M.
    I am not going to say anything about the administrative side of the question. I only wished to speak on the particular aspect of it to which I have given some attention. I do feel the greatest regret that the Attorney-General, in bringing in a Bill which is so well designed otherwise to give fair and equitable representation to all
    1098
    classes of opinion in Ireland on their local governing bodies, should adhere to a proposal, the effect of which must be in many cases to vitiate that equality of representation, and to give minorities a predominant voice which they do not rightfully enjoy—I care not to what party they belong.
    Sir E. CARSON: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has been good enough to come in at this late hour to address us. I know he is a great authority on proportional representation. I have often thought he is the only man in this House who understood the question, and one of the reasons why I opposed this Bill on the Second Reading was that I do not know anybody from Ireland who does understand it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I could tell you a good many.
    Sir E. CARSON: It is quite plain, accepting the hon. Member's own statement, that this Bill is utterly worthless, and I put it to my right hon. Friend whether even now, at the eleventh or twelvth hour, he will not withdraw it. The hon. Member says, that so far from it doing what is righteous and just it will perpetuate something most unrighteous and unjust. Is that the object of my right hon. Friend in going on with this Bill? The truth of the matter is the further we go, and the more we get to know of this Bill, the clearer it becomes that you cannot tamper with local government in this piecemeal sort of way, trying your schemes on one part of the United Kingdom alone. The whole reason of having the chairman of the district council as a member of the county council, as I always understood it. was to create a link between the two. I cannot see how the county council can possibly carry out its business satisfactorily unless you have that link.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: They do in England.
    Sir E. CARSON: Not satisfactorily. At any rate I accept from the hon. Member his point of view that proportional representation cannot be had under this Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman really misrepresents me. I did not say you could not have it. I said there was a danger of the proportionality being vitiated.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is that not the same thing? But I will take the hon. Member on his own footing. You can only have vitiated proportional representation.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not say that. I said it involves danger. Three times out of four it might not vitiate the proportionality, but in the fourth it might be so.
    Sir E. CARSON: Well, this Bill to his mind vitiates proportional representation, and yet the hon. Member is supporting it in the interests of proportional representation—in order, I suppose, that it may break down. Every argument used in the course of this Debate shows that this Bill is no good. Nobody wants it. Who is the author of it I have yet to discover. If we are to have a reconsideration of local government in Ireland, we ought to have it as a whole. We should take it as far as possible as a whole for the United Kingdom, but to try in this way to carry out the experiment on the vile body of Ireland is a thing to which I greatly object.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not altogether surprised at my right hon. Friend who last spoke, being mystified by the misleading speeches made in support of this Amendment. The hon. Member for Walthamstow spoke of the introduction of the co-optive and ex-officio Members in Irish local government. But that is not an old principle. There is no new co-optive or ex-officio element introduced by this Bill. It only professes to apply proportional representation in the place of the block vote. But it is not efficient proportional representation if you have this element brought in. I am certain that when the original Irish local government system was first formed, there was no question of the electoral system being vitiated by these other elements. It would be extremely inconvenient to sweep away these forms of representation in Irish local government. In the case of ex-officio members it is only a form of second election. These members have been chosen for the smaller local bodies, and they will have been chosen by proportional representation, and if you are going arbitrarily to vary that by suddenly striking out the number who now sit on the local bodies I am quite certain, from the small experience I have had on British local bodies, you would have very great difficulty in finding sufficient suit-
    1100
    able men to man your committees and to carry on your business. It may not be democratic in the strictest definition of the term to have co-opted members at all, but it is most convenient. You sometimes find in local elections that on these very small bodies you have only a majority of one or two, and, unless you can give a bigger momentum to that party which by the accident of election has only got a small majority you waste an enormous amount of time from week to week reversing the decisions arrived at at previous meetings. Therefore, whether you have the block vote or proportional representation, I am certain that in the interest of efficient and expeditious government you must have ex-officio and co-opted members in addition to direct representatives.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It really seems to me we have here a further splendid manifestation how English Members will confuse Irish questions. We have had two speeches delivered, one from each side of the House, by representatives of British constituencies upon a matter which is purely Irish. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who has been most constant in his attendance during this Debate, is, we all know, extraordinarily receptive of the information, and yet he is as ignorant as ever he was in regard to proportional representation. Although I am not so receptive as the right hon. Gentleman, I am in precisely the same position, and the reason that proportional representation is not understandable is that our educators, or our masters, are British. If I could get an Irishman with an Irish intellect and an Irishman's power of expression, to give me the principles and show me the value of proportional representation, I would become almost as learned as he himself in this matter. But I object to English Members bringing us here against our will to discuss Irish problems. I hope they will be good enough not to confuse our minds with this muddy English intellectualism of which we have had manifestations this afternoon.
    I rose to speak in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I believe that co-option or ex-officio representation is absolutely hostile to the spirit of proportional representation. You cannot have proportional representation if you have an electorate determined to give precisely that representation to which each element is entitled, and then, after having got the

    1101
    judgment of the electors on the spirit of proportionalism, you proceed to bring outsiders in, to place them on these public bodies, and to give them just as much say on the ultimate determination of municipal and local questions as the elected representatives. Another point is that I think the most contemptible person on any public body is the ex-officio member. He represents the man who is incapable of being elected by the voice of the people. He is only put on the board by the intrigue of a political party. He is a perfectly irresponsible person. I am not referring to any particular party, but I know very often a partisan is put up as a political candidate, and when he is defeated one of the first things his party proceeds to do—if it is victorious—is to make him an ex-officio member, either in order to satiate his vanity or to secure his partisanship to assist in their deliberations. We are making a new departure, but it is not at our request. We did not ask for this Bill. The foster-father of this Bill was the illuminating hon. Member who addressed the House a moment ago. We did not ask for it. People who, like myself, are in favour of proportional representation were satisfied with it because under it the minority gets that adequate representation to which its numbers and character entitle it. But that will not be the effect of this Bill. This measure will simply vitiate the principle of proportional representation. So far as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn is concerned, I will conclude as he concluded, when he said that this is the sole contribution of this mighty Coalition Government to the solution of the Irish problem. They have sat here for four months, while Ireland has been writhing in the agony of a great national conflict of suffering and persecution. The solitary presentment they bring to the reservoir of wisdom which is to bring happiness to the people is this Bill for which no one in this House has a good word to say. Every speech delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman convinces me more and more there is only one course for Irishmen to adopt, and that is to get out of this House as soon as possible and apply ourselves to the business of our own country in our own land.
    Mr. MOLES: The hon. Member who last spoke concluded his speech as he frequently does, with a reductio ad absurdum. But I did not rise for the purpose of deal-
    1102
    ing with his remarks. I intruded in this Debate in order to reply to a speech made by an hon. Member opposite earlier in the Debate, a speech which in my opinion was based on a complete misapprehension. The hon. Member assumed that there were various kinds of areas in the county of Tyrone, in several of which it is possible that the minority might somehow defeat the majority, despite proportional representation. I notice that the hon. Member demurs to that. May I in passing join my hon. Friend in the expression of the view that really it would be desirable if hon. Members who propose to enlighten the House on Irish questions—some of whom have never been in Ireland—would consult somebody who does know the facts? There is not a single division in the entire rural and town areas in the county of Tyrone in which the Nationalists are not in a majority. And yet the hon. Member says there is a danger in such circumstances of the principle of proportional representation being vitiated. To return to the other side, the attempt to get rid of a number of very useful public servants amounts to an attempt to disfranchise the direct representation of rural councils. I have had as much experience of their working in twenty-five years as most hon. Members, and I have frequently seen a rural council in direct conflict with a county council upon a matter vital to the rural council, and the sole spokesman on the rural council has been its chairman or elected representative. In the event of misunderstanding or conflict of that kind, the suggestion is that the rural council should be entirely disfranchised, though it is the body best informed as to the point at issue. Local knowledge is vital to the whole question, and the county council, if misinformed, with the best intentions in the world, may do the wrong thing. They frequently look to the chairman of the rural council to keep them right respecting the facts, and thus prevent public injustice. I frequently find that hon. Members argue sometimes that black is black, and when it suits their purpose better, that black is white. We have had an illustration to-day. The hon. Member (Mr. Harbison) began by arguing that you ought to have set up equal areas and have equal populations, or as nearly so as possible, and he proceeded to ask the House to endorse a proposal which would confer upon 3,000 electors precisely the same right to send a representative to the

    1103
    county council as 30,000 neighbouring constituents. I call that arguing that black is white.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What you call white is black?
    Mr. MOLES: I am not a very good authority on black and white in any sense of the word. Either proportional representation does what is claimed for it by those who have supported the Bill, but joined in the denunciation of it, or it does not. If it does what they say it does, it means that in the case of every one of these rural councils the majority will be Nationalist, and it will elect a Nationalist chairman, and the whole of the case to the contrary is so much humbug.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SAMUELS: I beg to move,
    "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 8."
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 8.—(Protection of Existing Local Officers.)
    (1) If any officer of a local authority who holds on the passing of this Act a pension able office is removed from his office for any cause other than misconduct or incapacity, or resigns his office with the sanction of the Local Government Board, he shall, without prejudice to any other right, be entitled to receive from the local authority an allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the salary, fees and emoluments which he was in receipt of at the time of the removal or resignation, and not less than an allowance calculated according to the scale provided by the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1892, and the rules there under, if at that time he has served as an officer of the local authority for not less than ten years, or a gratuity according to the scale in Part I. of the Seventh Schedule to the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, if he has so served for less than ten years, and the right to and amount of any such allowance or gratuity shall. in case of dispute. be determined by the Local Government Board.
    (2) The Local Government Board shall not give their sanction to the resignation of an officer for the purposes of this Section unless they are satisfied that owing to changes made without reasonable cause in the conditions of his employment after the passing of this Act his position has been materially altered to his detriment.
    (3) This Section shall apply to a whole-time officer of a committee of a local authority or of a joint committee of several local authorities in like manner as if he were an officer of the local authority or authorities holding a pensionable office, and in the case of an officer of a joint committee the amount of the superannuation
    1104
    allowance or gratuity shall be payable by the local authorities in such proportions as may be agreed upon, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by the Local Government Board.
    (4) In this Section "local authority" means-the council of any county, county borough, or county district, the commissioners of any town, and the guardians of any poor law union.
    Mr. HARBISON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
    "For the purposes of this Section any person duly appointed standing solicitor of a local authority before the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be a pensionable officer of the local authority notwithstanding that his whole-time is not devoted to the duties of his office."
    Mr. SAMUELS: I accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LYNN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
    "(a) or that he has become incapable of discharging the duties of his office with efficiency by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body; or (b) that he is not less than sixty years of age and has served as an officer of the local authority for not less than twenty years."
    Mr. SAMUELS: I accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: At end of Sub-section (3), add the words
    "Provided that in the application of this Section to an officer of a committee or joint committee appointed for the purposes of the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899. the sanction of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland shall be substituted for the sanction of the Local Government Board." — [Mr. Samuels.]
    After the words last inserted add
    "(4) The holding by an officer of a local authority whether before or after the passing of this Act of the office of clerk to an old age pensions committee or to a national insurance committee or of registration officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Section to deprive him of the status of a holder of a pensionable office."
    Bill reported; as amended on re-committal, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir E. CARSON: On the Second Heading I entered a protest against the attempt of the Government to bring in this discrimination in legislation as regards Ireland. The Second Heading was carried, against our protest, and in the Division Lobby only two Irish Members voted in favour of it. That was not certainly a very large amount of agreement amongst Irish Members in favour of the Bill. But

    1105
    notwithstanding that and notwithstanding our protest, the Government thought it right to go on with this Bill. I greatly regret their decision. I think we should have been far better engaged to-day and on the other days on which we have been occupied with the Bill, in considering the question of the 20,000 children in Belfast who have nowhere to go to school, and when I am told the intention of the Government was, by the provisions of this Bill, in some way or other to decrease the power of Sinn Fein, I think they will do it much better by trying to improve the system of education than by trying to gerrymander the constituencies in local government under this Bill. The more one examines the situation in Ireland, and the more we understand the way Ireland is being and has been left behind, the more we realise that it arises from the fact that we have not insisted upon being treated as part of the United Kingdom in the advantages which are conferred upon Great Britain and in having legislation of a similar character applied to Ireland. I shall make my protest upon every occasion. On any Bills which are brought forward discriminating Ireland I shall try to prevent that discrimination. On any Bills which confer benefits upon the people of England and Scotland which are refused to us, I shall try to thwart that until you include Ireland. I deem it to be my duty, and I here and now, on the last opportunity I have, enter an emphatic protest that even after proportional representation of the people in Parliament was rejected you should try to impose that method of election upon the Irish people who, I suppose, are the least suited in the world to try the experiment upon. I feel it my duty to divide the House on the Third Reading so as to make the most emphatic protest I can against the Government going on with the Bill.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think I ought to lose any opportunity of crossing the t's and dotting the i's of the right hon. Gentleman when the opportunity is afforded me. He has made the remarkable statement that this Government, which he supports, and which he largely controls in its Irish policy, the Government the Irish people are asked to trust, the Government that imposes its will upon the Irish people, has actually only now been responsible for one legislative measure, and that a measure that only received the support of two Irish Members in the Division Lobby. Was there ever such a commentary upon a
    1106
    Government in any country in the world? But the only measure this British Government, that takes away from the Irish people the right to manage their own affairs and tells them their affairs will be better looked after by them, has, according to the right hon. Gentleman who is their chief supporter and their master, have introduced is one that has the support of only two Irish Members. I could ask for no greater indictment of the whole system of government in Ireland than that simple declaration. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he stands for equality in legislation for Ireland with this country. I am afraid, though he may be offered it in appearance, he has never got it in reality. We have had to have a special Housing Bill for Ireland. We have heard nothing about it since it was introduced. We have had to get a special Health Bill for Ireland, but we have heard nothing about it since it was introduced. Housing and health, two of the most vital and important considerations in the life of a people, are cast on one side, and a Proportional Representation Bill is introduced which has only the support of two Irish Members and has been carried through the House with a speed unparalleled in the history of legislation in these Islands. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he tries to find a panacea for the Irish question, and if he tries to solve the Irish problem, he will not find that it lies in that direction.
    I sat here to-day and watched what was, to my mind, a consummate scandal in constitutional affairs. Here were twenty or twenty-five Irish Members trying in an absolutely fair and friendly spirit to discuss matters of local interest to our own country. Amendments were proposed, new proposals were submitted, the Division bell rang, and I never in my experience in this House saw such a rush as there was. Members were squeezing each other until they nearly broke the glass doors, and indulging in loud exclamations as to what it was all about. Was it another scene in the House of Commons? Had the discharged and demobilised soldiers appeared outside to wreck this model institution? What was the terrific danger that had arisen to bring these almost countless English Members, Tories and Liberals, rushing into the House? The poor old Liberals! I saw one Liberal nearly trip over three Tories in trying to get into the Lobby to vote down half a dozen Irish Nationalists. [An HON. MEMBER: "What

    1107
    about the Labour party?"] You can ask them that question. You are a Labour Member. Here were the good old Liberals, who used to stand for the sanctity of personal liberty and who owe their position in the public life of this country to their rectitude in standing up for unpopular causes, and they were tripping up the Tories to get into the Division Lobby to vote against half a dozen Members of Parliament from Ireland upon a question which they did not understand and which they did not try to understand. One Liberal said to me, "Why did you press for a Division when I was at my tea? "I said," If you are a Tory, it is not tea you are drinking. "Tories from the bar and Liberals from the tea room coining heré with their unenlightened ignorance to vote down Irish Members upon a matter which they do not understand and do not care to understand. Then the right hon. Gentleman will ask mo to shake incense before the glory of the British connection which offers' us the luxury of English Members breaking their necks to come and vote down Irish Members upon a purely Irish question. I believe the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) day by day is becoming a Home Ruler.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He began as a Home Ruler.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I believe the right hon. Gentleman began well, and will end well.
    I am quite certain now that he comes hero and gives his undivided attention to Parliamentary work and sees the travesty and scandal of the whole system, for it is nothing else, that he is too honest a man not to realise the absurdity and grotesqueness of the whole thing, and that he will say to his twenty-five supporters, ''Follow me, and come over to College Green." I have no doubt that what he is saying in his inmost heart is this: "Circumstances compel me to come to this Parliament, but my intellect revolts against Irish questions being submitted to these people." You have only to look at them to see why it is that an Irishman finds it almost impossible to speak with patience when he addresses an assembly of this character. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I have nothing whatever to do with this transaction. This Bill, the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and our own is an Irish comedy, trying to be made tragic by the appearance of these illuminating Gentlemen who come from England. I will have nothing to do with it. You can pass your measure, carry its Third Reading, put it into operation, and go back to Ireland and tell the people that this is the contribution you have got for supporting a British Government in the pursuit of its policy.
    Question pat, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 37.]

    AYES.

    [6.36 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Elliot, Capt. W. E. (Lanark)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Butcher, Sir J. G.

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cairns, John

    Eyres-Monsell, Com.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Campion, Col. W. R.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Atkey, A. R.

    Cape, Tom

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Austin, Sir H.

    Cayzer, Major H. R,

    Foreman, H.

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)

    Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Gange, E. S.

    Barnett, Captain Richard W.

    Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clough, R.

    Glyn, Major R.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Gould, J. C.

    Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Cockerill, Brig.-Gen. G. K.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh

    Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish-

    Colfox, Major W. P.

    Gray, Major E.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Collins, Col. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Colvin, Brig. Gen. R. B.

    Gretton, Col. John

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

    Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Courthope, Major George Loyd

    Grundy, T. W.

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')

    Bramsdon, Sir T.

    Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.

    Guinness. Lt.-Col. Hon. WE. (B. St. E.)

    Breese, Major C. E.

    Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)

    Hallas, E,

    Briant, F.

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Britton, G. B.

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

    Hartshorn, V.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.

    Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Seager, Sir William

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Murchison, C. K.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Hood, Joseph

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)

    Sitch, C. H.

    Home, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

    Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hudson, R. M.

    Neal, Arthur

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nelson, R. F. W. R.

    Stephenson, Col. H. K.

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Newbould, A. E.

    Stevens, Marshall

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Hurd, P. A.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

    Sugden, Lieut, W. H,

    Hurst, Major G. B.

    Newton, Major Harry Kottingham

    Surtees, Brig.-Gen. H. C.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward

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

    Jameson, Major J. G.

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Taylor, J. W. (Chester-le-Street)

    Jesson, C.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)

    Johnstone, J.

    Onions, Alfred

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander

    Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Kidd, James

    Parker, James

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Knights, Capt. H.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

    Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Wallace. J.

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Ward-Jackson, Major C.L.

    Law, RL Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wardle, George J.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

    Perring, William George

    Warren-, Sir Alfred H.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

    Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

    Pilditch, Sir Philip

    Weston, Col. John W.

    Lorden, John William

    Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson

    Lunn, William

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Wignall, James

    Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

    Pulley, C. T.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)

    Haddocks, Henry

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

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

    Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)

    Marriott, John Arthur R.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

    Mason, Robert

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)

    Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Cot. E. C,

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Woods, Sir Robert

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Rodger, A. K.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

    Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)

    Mitchell, William Lane-

    Rowlands, James

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J,

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth,
    Putney)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Morris, Richard

    Samuels, Rt. Hon. A. W. (Dublin Univ.)

    Talbot and Mr. Pratt.

    Morrison, H. (Salisbury)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)

    Archdale, Edward M,

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Moles, Thomas

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S.

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.

    Bowles, Col. H. F.

    Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Reid, D. D.

    Briggs, Harold

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

    Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

    Brittain, Sir Harry E.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Bromfield, W.

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

    Whitla, Sir William

    Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

    Henderson, Major V. L.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Craig, Capt. C. (Antrim)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Donald, T.

    Lonsdale, James R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    M'Guffin, Samuel

    Mr. Coote and Mr. Lynn.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Powers of Dealing with Land Acquired).
  (1) Where a local authority have acquired or appropriated any land for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act, then, without prejudice to any of their other powers under that Act, the authority may—

  (a) lay out and construct public streets or roads and open spaces on the land;

  (b)with the consent of the Local Government Board sell or lease the land or part thereof

  1111
  to any person for the purpose and under the condition that that person will erect and maintain thereon such number of houses suitable for the working classes as may be fixed by the local authority in accordance with plans approved by them, and when necessary will lay out and construct public streets or roads and open spaces on the land, or will use the land for purposes which, in the opinion of the local authority, are necessary or desirable for or incidental to the development of the land as a building estate in accordance with plans approved by the local authority;

  (c) with the consent of the Local Government Board, sell the land or exchange it for land better adapted for those purposes, either with or without paying or receiving any money for equality of exchange;

  (d) with the consent of the Local Government Board sell or lease any houses on the land or erected by them on the land, subject to such covenants and conditions as they may think fit to impose either in regard to the maintenance of the houses as houses for the working classes or otherwise in regard to the use of the houses.

  Provided that it shall be a condition of such sale or lease that the houses shall not be sold or leased to an employer for the purpose of housing persons in his employment.
  (3) Land sold or leased under the provisions of this Section shall be sold or leased at the best price or for the best rent that can reasonably be obtained, and any capital money received in respect of any transaction under this Section shall be applied in or towards the purchase of other land for the purposes of Part III. of the principal Act, or with the consent of the Local Government Board to any purpose, including the repayment of borrowed money, to which capital money may be properly applied.
  The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, a), to add the words
  "including the provision, maintenance, and im- of houses and gardens, and other works or buildings for, or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working classes and other persons."
  These words are desirable for purposes which, in the opinion of the local authority are necessary, incidentally to the development of the land as a building estate. It was felt in the Committee that there might be uncertainty as to whether these matters were included, and, therefore, I promised to bring up a form of words which would make the matter quite clear.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fulham has handed in an Amendment providing that the schedules to Clause 12 (3) of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903, shall not apply to this Act. I am
  1112
  afraid that this is not relevant here. This Amendment covers not only working class, but other houses.
  Colonel Sir H. NORRIS: My difficulty is as to the insertion of this Amendment as a new Clause. There was an Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, and when it could not be dealt with in connection with that, I desired to introduce this Amendment as a new Clause. I do not care particularly about having it in this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will give me a promise that he will put it in in some other way.
  Mr. SPEAKER: My endeavour is to keep it out, and for this reason. By extending the benefits of the Bill to other classes you are increasing the charge, and. that cannot be done on Report. It must be done on the Committee stage.
  Sir H. NORRIS: That is not my fault. The matter was raised in the Committee, and it was in deference to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the matter was deferred to the Report stage. The Amendment down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green was withdrawn on the suggestion that on the Report stage some form of words would be introduced.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry to differ in my recollection from my hon. Friend, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wood Green and an Amendment raising the same subject, was the topic of Debate in Committee, and I think that finally the majority of the Committee took the view that we could not with advantage attempt to define working classes in this Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment includes not only working classes but other persons. Therefore, no object is served by attempting to define the words "working classes" in this part of the Bill, at all events.
  Sir H. NORRIS: I am not attempting to define the words "working classes" I am trying to prevent a definition which has been applied in another Act being applied in this Act, because it limits the wages of the working classes to 30s. a week, which is absurd.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This particular form contains the words, "working classes and other persons." This is not a suitable Clause in which to attempt a general de-

  1113
  finition of the term "working classes," even if such a definition could be inserted in this Bill.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would it be in order if my right hon. Friend were prepared to tell us what he includes in the term "working classes"? That would be very useful, because at present there are three definitions of the words "working classes." We have got the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882 and——
  Mr. SPEAKER: This does not arise on the Amendment. This Amendment says, "working classes and other persons," and it would be perfectly immaterial what the definition of "working classes" was. I assume that the hon. Member and myself would come within the definition of that class.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, d), to add the words
  "and upon any such sale they may, if they think fit, agree to the price being paid by instalments or to payment of part thereof being secured by a mortgage of the premises."
  This Amendment was drafted at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and is for the purpose of allowing any such sale by the local authority to be paid for by instalments. If there is any intention to sell a house to members of the working classes it is very desirable to have words of this kind inserted in the Clause.
  Mr. NEAL: T beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: It is quite a useful Amendment, and I shall be glad to accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move to leave out the words
  "sold or leased to an employer"
  and insert instead thereof the words
  "used by any person for the time being having any interest therein."
  This Amendment is one which I undertook to bring forward. The general intention is that the local authorities shall not sell houses for the purpose of their becoming tied houses. This was the intention of the Committee, and I said that the words to be put in required very careful consideration. It may be that a person would purchase houses and sell them to some-
  1114
  body else for the purpose of using them as tied houses, and these words are introduced to prevent that being done. They would cover the first or second stage of these sales.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "land," to insert the words "and houses."
  We had a discussion in Committee as to the conditions in which a number of houses might be sold. Sub-section (3) relates only to land, and it was felt that there was no sufficient reason for not including houses, but we could not include them on the same terms as those applying to land, that they shall be sold or leased at the; best price or for the best rent that can reasonably be obtained. It might be possible that the best price to be obtained for a house provided for the working classes was a price to be realised by selling it for a week-end cottage. That would not be in accordance with the intention of the Act, and therefore we propose to insert the words which are included in the Amendment which follows, so that the houses should be used by persons of the working classes or in a certain condition which would regulate the price which they would give.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "obtained" insert the words,
  "having regard to any condition imposed." — [Dr. Addison.]

  CLAUSE 19.—(Power of Contributing to Costs Incurred by Public Utility Societies and Housing Trusts.)
  (1) Where a public utility society or a housing trust as defined by this Act has submitted to the Local Government Board a scheme for the provision of houses for the working classes and the scheme is approved by the Board, then, if the scheme is carried out within such period as may be specified by the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, the Board may pay or undertake to pay out of moneys provided by Parliament such contributions towards the cost of carrying out the scheme as may be determined to be pay able under regulations made by the Board, with the approval of the Treasury, subject to such conditions (including conditions as to audit of accounts by district auditors) as may be pre scribed by those regulations.
  (2) Such regulations shall provide that the amount of any annual payment to be made under this Section shall be equivalent to thirty per centum of the annual loan charges which would have been payable in accordance with the regulations on the total capital expenditure incurred by the public utility society or housing trust for the purposes of the scheme if the amount of that expenditure had been borowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
  Provided that the regulations shall include provision for the reduction of the amount of the annual payment in the event of the Local Government Board being satisfied that the capital expenditure incurred by the public utility society or housing trust has been excessive.
  Every regulation so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented by either House within twenty-one days from the date on which that House has sat next after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under.
  Major LLOYD-GREAME: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 19.
  My object in seeking to have this Clause deleted is not in any sense hostile, but quite the contrary. I put down the Amendment in that form because I thought the Amendment to the Clause standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for the Ladywood Division (Mr. N. Chamberlain) would probably be out of order on Report. I want to draw from the right hon. Gentleman a statement on the position and, if possible, an undertaking that he will reconsider the terms which have been inserted in the Bill. My right hon. Friend will remember that the negotiations on the subject of public utility societies go back a long way before his present tenure of office to that of the predecessor of his predecessor. On the 4th October, 1918, a deputation representing employers and a number of trade unions waited on Lord Downham, the then President of the Local Government Board, and he stated that the terms given to the public utility societies in the Bill when introduced would not be less favourable than those given to the local authorities. At that time the basis under discussion was a contribution of 75 per cent., and the penny rate was not discussed. Some days later, on the 8th of October, he made a statement, which he had written out beforehand, and submitted to the deputation which he had seen. He first referred to the Grant to the local authority, and then he proceeded to refer to the public utility societies, and said:
  "The deficit in their case will be calculated in the balance sheet in exactly the same way as the deficit of the local authority, subject to two exceptions, namely, that the period for the loan will be taken at an equated term of fifty years instead of varying terms and that the Government will advance 75 per cent. of the cost of the scheme, leaving 25 percent. of the cost to
  1116
  be raised by shares or otherwise. If the estimated deficit in the case of the public utility societies is in fact realised it will mean—as far as we can calculate from figures which can only be hypothetical—that with interest payable at 5½ percent., the public utility societies should see something like 3 percent., possibly more, on the 25 percent. of the capital which they have to find."
  7.0 P.M
  He went on to say that he thought it was reasonable to expect them to work on these terms, as they would not be looking for a commercial return on their money. I have made. some calculations on the scheme, taking the Grant which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give to the public utility societies, which is 30 percent. of the loan charges, assuming that the whole of the cost in worked out on the loan charge basis. I have taken the cost of the land and the house at £600, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will regard as excessive. I very much doubt if, in many places, we should be able to do it at that price. I have taken a rent of 10s. It would be interesting to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that is too low a rent for a house for the working classes, because one would like to get from the President some indication of what ho thinks is a reasonable rent which should be paid by the working classes in this kind of industrial area. Deducting repairs, £4 6s. 8d., rates at 12s. in the £ on the rateable value of £15, which is actually the rate in the Birmingham area; water rate, £l; management and insurance, £1; we get net receipts for that house of £10 13s. 4d. a year. The Government Grant of 30 percent. would be £10 12s. 6d., and that would give a total) net receipt of £21 5s. l0d. On the amount borrowed from the Government, which would be 75 percent., or £450, the actual loan charges would be £26 11s. 4d. The result would be that not only would' nothing be earned on the ordinary 25 percent. loan stock, but the society would; be £5 5s. 6d. out of pocket on each house,, and have to find that amount per house to pay back to the Government in respect of loan charges. Taking the same figures if you raise the Grant to 40 percent., there would still be a deficit of £l 14s. 7d., and if you put it at 50 percent., which is the figure I have inserted in a later Amendment, instead of 30 percent., you would then only get on each house for the 25 percent. loan, a surplus over of £l 16s. 3d. £l 16s. 3d. on £150 is nothing like the 3 percent. which Lord Downham thought

  1117
  would be a reasonable thing for these charges. There is a typical case of a £600 house with a 10s rent.
  Now, either the right hon. Gentleman wants to work through the public utility societies or he does not. Apart altogether from the pledge which his predecessor gave that the terms would be equal, or not less favourable, I think he would be well advised to make use of every source of supply in getting houses built, because we want to mobilise and use every source of building that we possibly can, and get them to work successfully. There are many utility societies anxious to get to work, and they do not look for a commercial return. But if you do not give equivalent terms to the societies they will be in a position to say, "The local authorities are getting better terms, and are able to let their houses at cheaper rates than we can afford to let them at. Therefore, it will be best for us to hand over our land to the local authorities, and to let them build." Unless the terms are the same, the local authorities will be able to let these houses more cheaply than the public utility societies, and the latter will not be able to get on with the work.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will face the position. A good deal of talk has gone on, and we have been told that great opportunities will be given to public utility societies. I understand that in exalted circles that rather generous estimate is called "painting with a broad brush," and in other circles it is sometimes known by a somewhat similar metaphor, as "eye-wash." But we do want to know where we stand with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. He is always a very attractive suitor when he comes, and I am sure that the public utility societies wish to take advantage of his proposals, provided they are satisfied that his intentions are strictly honourable. I think, as in some other cases, in assessing the character of the right hon. Gentleman and his intentions, they will look to see what are the settlements he proposes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to go, at any rate, a little further than he has up to the present.
  Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so for the same reason as the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. Upon the terms of this Clause is going to depend the question
  1118
  whether houses are going to be built by public utility societies or not. In pleading for a revision of the terms I am not pleading for better terms for public utility societies on their account, but I am pleading for more houses. There is this great difference between the terms offered to local authorities and to public utility societies. In the, case of the local authority liability is limited, but in the case of the public utility society it is unlimited. I listened yesterday afternoon to a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Brightside (Sir T Walters), in which he laid down certain principles for the guidance of the Local Government Board in attempting to fix what should be charged for new houses. He said you must first of all make up your minds that the loan stock or the share capital in a public utility society is not, for a considerable time, going to earn any interest whatsoever: He then went on to say that you must write off one-third of the capital cost as a wasting asset. He criticised the rate of interest which the Government are going to ask for their 75 percent. loan, and he thought that until it came down to 4 percent. it could not be expected to arrive at anything like economic conditions. In addition to that, he said you ought to get rid of the idea of charging a sinking fund. He said that if you are going to put upon a tenant, in addition to the rent, the extra charge of paying the sinking fund upon his house, then at the end of fifty years, when the loan is paid off, the tenant will have paid three-quarters of the cost of his house and land, and he will not hold a stick of the property. I must say that that point had occurred to me also, and it seems to me to be a just one. I can imagine what will happen the moment this becomes clear to the tenant. He will say that it is not reasonable to ask him to pay the cost of the house and land in addition to his rent.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has followed what has been happening in Coventry in recent months, but from time to time the tenants of the municipal houses there hold a meeting, and they consider the rents they are asked to pay for their houses by the municipality. If they consider that these rents are unreasonable—and they generally do come to that conclusion—then they put up a notice in the window to the rent collectors: "Don't call here. Rent strike on." I do not know what the local authorities

  1119
  think of their proceedings. At any rate, they have the rates behind them. But what is going to happen to public utility societies if they are faced with a proclamation of that kind. If they do not get their rents, and if they are made to go for months at a time, as has happened in Coventry, without any rent at all for their houses, what will happen to their finances at the end of the year? If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brightside were adopted, you could get rid of this charge or sinking fund so far as the tenant is concerned. Still, somebody has got to find the sinking fund, and who is going to find it? Certainly the public utility society cannot, and if you are going to go back to the employers, who are expected to find some considerable portion of the capital, and to ask them to find the sinking fund, then you will be bringing about exactly the condition of things which it is generally agreed you do not desire to have, namely, that the employer will be the landlord of his own worker. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Lloyd-Greame) has given an illustration of what would happen under the terms as they are at present in the Bill. He started with the assumption that the cost of the house and the land was going to be £600. I have this advantage over my hon. and gallant Friend, that I have got actual figures, because I have had before mo the case of a large firm who were anxious that houses should be provided for the people employed in their factories and who are or were prepared to form a public utility society upon the lines laid down in the pamphlet issued by the Local Government Board. They have actually bought the land; they have had plans prepared and quantities taken out, and they have asked for, and received, tenders from eight of the most eminent, reputable, and experienced builders in the neighbourhood. They have had various types of houses on this estate, but for the house which they propose to put up in the largest quantity— containing three bedrooms, a parlour, a living room, and a scullery downstairs, with a bathroom, and such conveniences as, I think, we all desire to see in the artisan's dwelling of the future—the lowest tender which they received, and which came from the man who has put up more workmen's dwellings in that district than anyone else, was £896 per house. If you add to that the cost of the land—and the cost of the land in this case, being
  1120
  apportioned out between the various houses, comes to £58 a year—add that to the £896 and you get a total of £954, which is the total you have to provide for as cost of the land and the house, as against my hon. and gallant Friend's total of £600. In forming a public utility society this firm, naturally, began to make calculations as to how the finances of the society would work out, and making out the necessary calculations, allowing nothing whatever for interest upon the loan stock, which the firm provided, it was found that, including rates, it would be necessary, in order merely to cover the charges, to ask a rent of 16s. l½d. per week for each house. What is going to happen in a case of that kind? Does anybody suppose that the rent of these houses is going to be governed by their cost? It is going to be governed by nothing of the kind. It is inevitably going to be governed by the rent charged by the local authority for a similar class of house in the same district. Perhaps my right hon. Friend may. think that the figures I have given are excessive, and that the local authority may be able to get houses built very much cheaper. But as a matter of fact, I know that that local authority has also got a scheme, and has also had plans prepared and tenders received, and that the cost of a somewhat similar but, perhaps, not quite so good a house as the one I have spoken of has been over £800. It does not very much matter to the local authority what rent they get for these houses, because their liability is limited. They have to spend a 1d. rate, and as soon as that is done any further loss will fall entirely on the State. They are only subject to such pressure as may be put upon them by my right hon. Friend to get rents as soon as possible to an economic level. I take it, then, that they will charge as high a rent as my right hon. Friend thinks it is safe to ask, and, subject to the procedure that I have already prescribed in the case of Coventry, no doubt that is what they are going to do. But I am quite sure that that rent will be less than 16s.l½d. per week. If so, it is quite impossible for the public utility society to charge any more. What, then, is going to happen to the society? Not only would there not be sufficient income to pay the interest on the loan stock or the share capital, but they will not be able to make both ends meet. Where is the deficit to come from? Unless those who are thinking of forming those societies can see with a fairly reasonable amount of certainty

  1121
  that they are going to make both ends meet, they cannot run the risk. The result in the particular case I have mentioned is that the whole scheme is held up in order to see what is going to happen here. I do most seriously warn my right hon. Friend that unless these terms are drastically amended we will not get any considerable number of houses built by public utility societies.
  To my mind the whole system is wrong. The whole theory upon which public utility societies are invited to build houses is wrong. If the 50 percent. contribution which formed the subject of an Amendment standing in my own name, but which was out of order—if it had been adopted I do not think it would have been really a satisfactory plan, although I admit it would have been very much better than the 30 percent. now in the Bill. I do not know whether this is the occasion for putting it forward, but, to my mind, there is only one satisfactory plan of dealing with this question, and that is to bring in a tenant who is willing to purchase his own house. In order to do that and on a fairly large scale, there are several things necessary. First of all, you have to make up your mind that you cannot expect a tenant to buy at present-day cost. That principle has already been recognised, even in the course of our discussions here, because, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brightside, the terms of the Government are really equivalent to a present of one-third of the capital cost. You have, therefore, to offer the house at a price below its cost, whether it be one-third or some larger sum. The second thing necessary is to offer easy terms of payment. You have to allow the intending purchaser to put down only a small proportion of the ultimate capital he has to find. You have to lend him the rest and allow him to pay it off by instalments, and if one may trust the practically universal experience of this country, the capital will be paid off in far less time than is laid down in the conditions. Then there is another thing necessary, and that is that when a man has purchased his house, he should not be allowed to sell it again to any comer. His sale must be subject to the approval of the managing committee of a public utility society. Lastly, it is necessary to give some security to a, working-man purchaser that he will not be prejudiced by having locked up so large an amount of capital. He may want to move from the district. He may
  1122
  even die, and whoever succeeds to his property may find it inconvenient to live in so large a house. It is therefore necessary that there should be some provision under which a purchaser of his own house may be able at any time to sell it back again to the original owner—the public utility society or local authority—at a valuation. If that were done I think you might see a very considerable extension of the system of tenants owning their own houses, which has prevailed already in some towns in the North, and it would get the right hon. Gentleman out of many of the difficulties which are ahead of him even if he succeeds in getting the House to agree to his Bill. There is, for instance, the very difficult question as to who is to have the houses which are to be built. You will have a number of houses, the rents of which are subsidised at the expense of the rest of the community. Everyone cannot have them. Who is to decide who is to have this favour? Here the simple test which could be applied readily is that whoever wanted to purchase his house could have the first chance. It would get rid of any question of rent strikes, it would result in enormous reduction in repairs to houses—an economy which is desirable at any time, and particularly desirable now, when all of us must realise that we are a poor and not a rich country, and that we have to save and not to waste anything.
  I need not dwell upon the advantage to the community at large of having large numbers of the working classes owning their own dwellings and becoming thereby automatically advocates of law and order and against anything which upsets the balance and equilibrium of the community. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-commit the Bill in respect of this particular Clause, in order that he may be able to offer more generous terms than those which have come from the Committee. I am quite certain that as the Clause stands now it will not give the right hon. Gentleman the result he desires. I confess I am not altogether sanguine, even when the terms are improved, that it will do all that we hope for from it. But I do think it will put the matter on a new footing, and that we should have a much better chance of obtaining a supply of houses from this source.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I have an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar to that we are now discussing, and I had better speak now instead of waiting till

  1123
  later on, when I may not have the opportunity. I entirely agree with what has been said that the terms offered to public utility societies in this Bill are not such as will enable them as a rule to build. You may, occasionally, get an old society which has a lot of houses, and it may be able to get higher rent for those houses after the War, and out of the funds so created it may be able to pay the rents of new houses it builds. In exceptional cases that would be the subsidising of new houses out of old houses. But if you take the new houses on their own merits and assume a public utility society which has no houses to begin with, it cannot possibly, in the districts with which I am acquainted, put up houses and pay its way. It does not want to make a profit, it does not want to make more than a most moderate interest on the money, the mere wages of capital. In these societies the members of the committees of management usually give their services gratuitously. In spite of all that it will not be able to pay its way on the terms offered in the Bill. I know of one case in the North of London. I inquired there and was told that the terms offered to the local authority were such that the local authority could let houses at from 2s. to 3s. cheaper than the public utility society could let them. That calculation was made by a man who has an unsurpassed experience in the working of these societies. In the South, in a little town near which I live, we have a public utility society of which I happen to be president. We went the other day into the question of whether we could build, and we came to the conclusion that unless we could get 13s. 6d. or 14s. a week rent for a workman's cottage with three bedrooms and a small parlour, we could not possibly pay our way. Some people will say that it is a good thing that public utility societies should not be able to pay. They do not want such societies to do anything in this matter. I think that is a great mistake, because the societies go quicker than the local authorities and they set a standard which educates the public, and when the society has built the public begin to wake up and to say, "Why should not this be done on a larger scale?"
  Building by societies does not in the least interfere with the work of the local authorities. On the contrary, it sets the standard and example up to which the authorities have to live. In one of the places with which I am most intimately
  1124
  acquainted, there was a great dearth of houses, the local authority had not the slightest intention of building, but made every possible objection. The little society which we started put up forty cottages, with the result that the whole place was buzzing with a demand that the local authority should do something. At the last election a local authority was elected pledged to do something, and they have done something—they have written to us to ask us what we will do. Possibly they will by-and-by go on to do more than that. I venture to say that if the terms offered to public utility societies were adequate, you would get two very great advantages, and get them at once. When I speak of adequate terms, I think the very first condition is that the free grant, in whatever form it is given, should represent the real difference between the present cost of building and the probable post-war value of the cottages. It cannot be said that the 30 percent., which is now given as a remission on the yearly payments really does represent the difference between the present cost of building and the probable post-war value of the buildings. Therefore, you begin by saying to a public utility society, "We want you to build, but we insist that you should make a heavy loss on the transaction. "I do not consider that those are adequate terms, and it seems to me that, if those are to be the best terms put forward, it is quite useless to put in a Clause asking public utility societies to build. Perhaps I should not say quite useless, because I admit that there may be exceptional cases in which something can be done, but in most cases it is useless.
  One great advantage that you get by offering terms which will enable public utility societies to go ahead is that in many places building will be started at once. You may be able to compel local authorities, but you cannot compel them to act at once or to act quickly, and there are many places where the local authority certainly will not act quickly. If you offer adequate terms to a public utility society in those cases, you will very often have a few of the most public-spirited inhabitants coming forward and showing an example of what can be done in the way of providing houses quickly. That is one great advantage, and it also will give employment quickly to those men who need employment. That is another great advantage. I will give another, and I hope equally practical, ground for wishing

  1125
  that the Government had made their terms, and will even now make their terms, to public utility societies such as really will enable them to build. That is, that if you give. adequate terms to the public utility society, it may become a genuine working class organisation. Hitherto, the Government has lent so small a part of the cost of building that a large sum of money has had to be found from other sources. Before the War, in the case of a fairly good artisan's cottage, costing then, say, £300, the Government were prepared to lend £200. That meant that someone had to find £100 A society of working men desiring to build houses, one for each member, could not possibly find £100 per member for putting up the houses, and, therefore, they had to rely upon middleclass capital. The same thing will happen with the present offer of the Government. The Government are offering, it is true 75 percent. of the cost of putting up houses at the present time. The cost of putting up a very ordinary workman's cottage at the present time cannot be less than about £600 or £630.Therefore the Government are prepared to lend about £450 or £460 upon it. Where is the remainder coming from? The working man cannot find £150 for building, and, therefore, these public utility societies, until the grant is made considerably larger, must necessarily rely upon middleclass people for a large share of their capital If the Government would lend up to 90 percent. of the value of the house, I venture to say that these public utility societies might become genuine working class organisations. It would not he necessary for them to rely upon middleclass capita], because in the case of a £600 house, if 90 percent. or £540, were advanced by the Government, the society would only have to find £60 for each house, which is a much more manageable proposition. I believe that in that way you would have a large number of really working-class societies starting in various parts of the country and putting up houses on a collective ownership basis. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will see their way to increase the loan from 75 percent. to 90 percent. The margin of 10 percent. is, I am sure, ample. Cottage property, if properly looked after, is the most admirable security for money, and I do not believe the Government would suffer the least risk by advancing up to 90 percent. We have to remember that the 90 percent. only lasts as long as the
  1126
  cottage is absolutely new. Every year there is so much paid off by way of redemption, so that as the cottage becomes older the margin of security to the Government becomes greater and greater.
  For these reasons I greatly regret that the Government have put in such very poor terms to public utility societies, and I hope they will reconsider the matter in order that these societies may be encouraged and enabled to become purely working-class organisations, and that they may, moreover, at the present crisis, be encouraged to begin building at once, and supply the houses which are needed, and give that employment which is so urgently needed at this moment. I am certain that, if the public utility societies are encouraged, they will get to work much more quickly than the. local authorities can, and infinitely more quickly than those local authorities whom you are obliged to compel.
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: My experience is altogether opposed to what I have just listened to. I do not believe that, if this Clause is retained in the Bill, there will be built a single house more than if it is left out altogether. I do not agree that houses will be built any more quickly by these public utility societies than by public authorities. In fact, I believe that the opposite will be the case. Public authorities have been asked, for a considerable time now, to prepare their plans, get their sites ready, and so on, and I know that much of this work has been done, and more than one local authority that I am well acquainted with has already everything in hand and is simply waiting for the money to start building. I am opposed to handing over public money to private persons. I am opposed to this Clause on principle. I have heard some rather queer things here to-day. Hon. Members oppose a certain thing, and yet by their speeches they support it. I think it is a pernicious principle to hand over public money to private individuals. I have had some experience of housing by public authorities. I was a member of a small urban authority for a good many years, which put up nearly 300 houses, and they have now plans for some few hundreds more. Those houses were let at cheaper rents than other houses in the district—I suppose because a public authority does not put up houses to make profits out of them, but for people to

  1127
  live in. Another thing that popularised those houses, perhaps even more than the question of rent, was the security of tenure to the people who lived in them. That is a very important point, and it is not guaranteed at all by the public utility societies.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It is guaranteed by the regulations of the Local Government Board recently put forward.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I have not seen those regulations, but anyway, I am putting the public utility societies in the same place as the clubs that we have known so well, and so many of which have existed in different parts of the country. Working men and others would form themselves into clubs to build houses. They did not always live in the (houses themselves, but rented them to other people. Sometimes one of their children got married, and wanted a house, or some friend came along, and the result was that houses of that sort were never so well looked after. People never took the same pride in those houses as in the houses built by public authorities. People living in houses built by the public authority I have spoken of, would decorate those houses and treat them as if they were their own, knowing that as long as they paid the rent, and looked after them, they were safe. Another point against the public utility society, to my mind, is this. A company of employers, if you like, could turn themselves into a society. It might, for instance, be a colliery company, and I know something about colliery-owned houses. Sometimes a man disagrees with the officials and leaves his employment, and, although there might be employment within a reasonable distance, he has to clear out of his house. My opinion is that the proper people to build houses are the local authorities, and I think that this Clause will give some of the backward authorities an excuse for getting out of building, and for not taking up their responsibilities in regard to providing houses for the people. They will try and encourage here and there the formation of public utility societies, in order to save themselves the trouble of building. I do not know the regulations that my hon. Friend speaks of, but I do know the security of tenure that a person has who lives in a house that has been built by a local authority.
  Major LLOYD-GREAME: If the hon. Member will read the Report, he will see
  1128
  the precise terms under which public utility societies assisted by the Local Government Board will work, and that security of tenure is a vital consideration throughout.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I have not read that, and was not aware of it, but I hope there is something in it, because I know the position of people when they settle down in their houses, knowing that they will be able to enjoy security of tenure. It makes better citizens, and that, I think, is what we are all after. Therefore, I am still in favour of the local authorities doing the work. The public has some control over them, whereas you have no control, or very little, over a public utility society. The Labour party as a whole stands against this, and during the time of my election, only a short time ago, this was one of the points that was talked about at most of the meetings. Cases have been experienced of people being, for different reasons, turned out of houses owned by clubs, and I have mentioned the case of colliery-owned houses. My instructions, and I agree with them entirely, were to favour council or municipal housing as against privately-built houses, whether built by public utility societies or anybody else
  Mr. J. A. PARKINSON: l am very much surprised to hear hon. and right hon. Gentlemen deplore the inability of the public utility societies to make profits, for that is really what it amounts to. If that is the case, I think it is the best argument that could be brought forward on behalf of municipal housing. I do not see why the Government should help public utility societies any more than anybody else. I think everybody in the House will agree that houses municipally owned will become a national asset, 'and will be there for all time. We are on the verge of great steps towards nationalisation. Why should we not take steps now to make it possible, and even easy, for the local authorities to build houses'! Some of my hon. Friends state that public utility societies would build much more quickly than local authorities.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: In some cases.
  Mr. PARKINSON: We only have a certain amount of material and a certain amount of labour at the present moment. Why should not the local authorities get on with their plans, and have them endorsed by the Local Government Board,

  1129
  and use up the whole of the material and labour in their particular districts, in order to get on with building schemes? I take it that private builders would tender according to the plans and specifications of the local authorities, and they would have the whole of the labour available and of the material at their disposal. If all the material and labour available can be used in that way by the local authorities I think they ought to be the persons to build the houses. I do not see why we need trouble so much about the public utility people, because, after all, they are not out to house the people, but to make profits on the capital invested. An hon. Member says "Nonsense," but I say if the local authority can build houses, and let them at a cheaper rate than the public utility society. then the local authority ought to build the houses to house working people as cheaply as possible. The local authority could also sell the property if necessary to the tenant, and give him the opportunity of purchasing his house. I do think, whatever step we take, we should take a step towards making the municipalisation of houses a national question. We ought not to put any special privileges in the way of public utility societies, but I think if we can put any special privileges in the way of local authorities we ought to do so. The local authorities are the persons who ought to house the people. The tenants of such houses are free to remain, in them as long as they behave themselves. That cannot be said of privately-owned houses or those owned by any society. They will use their authority to clear out the tenants under certain conditions whatever the Government may say or the local authority. The local authorities will not do that, because they have no axe to grind. They are there to make the best citizens possible out of the material at hand. I contend that unless we do all we possibly can to help forward municipalisation of the houses, we are not doing all we can to build up the best citizens. The housing conditions of the past have been very, very bad, and very often much worse than they ought to have been. I am not blaming any one section more than another for that, but still now that the opportunity has come to have better houses and to make better citizens, and to give the tenant security of tenure and make him feel he has a right to live in his house so long as he uses it well, we should go the right way about building up
  1130
  better citizens, and if we can we should stretch a point on behalf of the local authorities.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: My two hon. Friends who have just spoken have displayed a touching faith in what public authorities can do. I have great hopes that public authorities will improve very much in their grasp of urgent problems. In this matter we are face to face with the question of the most urgent and pressing character, and we have to be practical. If we look at the record of public authorities in dealing with housing, or indeed any other question, I ask hon. Members, no matter to what party they belong, will they say that expedition of any kind is a marked feature of the efforts of those bodies?
  Mr. EDWARDS: I would say so.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know whether I speak from longer acquaintance with the operations of public authorities than my hon. Friend does. In the end I dare say their work is more solid and more enduring, but for getting a job through quickly you cannot look to a public authority for expedition at any rate. That is my point. This is a most pressing matter, and in the view of the majority of those who know public authorities you cannot get speed out of them. This thing has got to be done now. It is not a thing to wait. You have got to deal with it in a practical manner, and we know what public authorities can do from our experience of them in the past. We have to use every agency now that can be trusted to move with a substantial measure of public spirit. I know of co-operative societies which supply districts. Such societies have to be registered under the Provident Societies Act, and they are specifically limited to paying a dividend of not more than 6 percent. What is 6 percent. to-day? It is just worth 4 percent. or 3½ percent. four years ago. The experience of the past shows that such bodies as those registered under the Act and under the careful supervision of the Local Government Board instead of being discouraged to deal with this problem ought to receive every possible encouragement we can give them. We shall have the revolution with regard to housing on us unless the thing is grappled with immediately. Let us bring everybody in who can build houses. The hon. Members who moved go further, I think, than the

  1131
  Government can go, because if you are to give additional grants there will: be an almost overwhelming amount of Government control, and if you have that you lose that very initiative and freedom through Which alone public utility societies can get their best work done. Honestly I do not see how much further the Government could go at the present time than they have gone. I believe that the public spirit of the men who operate in these housing societies will give them the courage to undertake these experiments even with what I may call the rather limited encouragement given to them. I do pray my hon. Friends, if they possibly can, to get rid of the idea that the way to grapple with this pressing problem is to smash individual civic spirit. It really seems almost hopeless when one feels that you are trying not to encourage these bodies, to whom you cannot deny public spirit, and by doing so you are asking for trouble and breaking down a real chance of grappling at once with this problem.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I am talking about a district I know where the work has been done so well by the local authorities, so that there is no mistake in my mind in the view that they are the right people to deal with and grapple with this problem, which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman is an urgent matter.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. Friend speaks from experience of a district of which he has a good deal of knowledge and where I happen to know his own personal efforts have been of a nature which redound to his credit. I know in a general sense what those who belong to co-partnership have done and are doing. The mere 5 percent. or 6 percent. they get is not the driving force at all, but it is the public spirit of men and women who have undertaken these things and worked this organisation, and I think we ought to support them to deal with this problem. If the day comes when we can all resign ourselves to being more or less inactive members of the community and that the State will do everything for us that is all right, but what are we going to do now? In my opinion unless you take the opportunity of giving every encouragement you reasonably can to public utility societies, this problem this day twelve months will be in an unsolved condition.
  8.0 P.M.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The Mover and Seconder were obviously fully acquainted with the facts and had gone very carefully into the financial proposals and what is involved in these proposals. The hon. Member opposite also spoke with great knowledge, and I know the amount of time he has given in the past with regard to, the development of garden cities. I frankly admit that the financial assistance which the Government has felt bound to give to housing, has been one of the most difficult things which the Government have had to decide in connection with the housing proposals. The framing and drafting of a, Housing Bill has required careful thought, and the Bill before us shows how progressive Parliament is now compared with the spirit in which this problem was. approached the last time a Housing Bill was before us, when revolutionary proposals were put forward by young Tories and turned down, while the same proposals are now brought forward by the Government and accepted with acclamation and without opposition by the House. The difficulty has been to frame a Housing Bill that would really meet the needs of the situation and arrive at a fair basis of financial assistance to meet this very difficult emergency. That has been due to the fact, that we really must guess when we try and estimate what the value of, the houses will be or the cost will be or the economic rent will be in five, or six, or seven years' time. Therefore I want to emphasise when the Mover and Seconder told us that the terms offered are not sufficiently generous, my answer to that is that the reasonable fairness of these terms cannot be estimated now, when we do not know what rents are going to be charged in five, or six, or seven years' time. The Government's offer is not limited to the emergency period. The financial terms that the Government are offering will extend to the whole period of fifty years, and it may be, if the cost of building goes in a certain, direction, that the terms in ten, fifteen, or twenty years' time will be very generous. There is an element of uncertainty about it, and it is because of that element of uncertainty that the Local Government Board, working in close co-operation with the Treasury and consulting the representatives of public utility societies and local authorities, have found it exceedingly difficult to put forward proposals which would be sufficient to assist the societies or

  1133
  local authorities on the one hand, which would not be extravagant or expensive, so far as the Treasury or the taxpayers are concerned, on the other hand, and which would be fair and reasonable terms when the emergency period is over. That is why I say, quite frankly, that it is not easy to deal with the point that the terms offered to the public utility societies are less favourable than those offered to the local authorities. I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to admit that it depends largely on the state of the building market in six or seven years' time. We have tried to make that as comparable as possible, and in 1927 we may be able to make a final estimate and a stereotyped subsidy for the remainder of the loan period. In our opinion, the 30 percent. assistance which is being given by the Government will very probably, as far as we can ascertain, be the right figure—that is the conclusion we arrived at when we were trying to fix these terms—and, in our opinion, we thought we might reasonably look forward to a reduction of 30 percent. at the end of the emergency period. The President of the Local Government Board gave this figure on a previous occasion, so that as far as we can estimate at the end of the emergency period the terms which we were offering respectively to the local authorities and the public utility societies might be similar and comparable. I quite admit that there are difficulties. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) put the position of the public utility society when it has to fix a rent next year or the year after, and as he very rightly says, if a local authority is not able to recoup itself in the rent it has got the rates to fall back upon, whereas a public utility society has not.
  Mr CHAMBERLAIN: What funds have the public utility society to provide against any loss?
  Major LLOYD-GREAME: Will he advance us further capital?
  Major ASTOR: The hon. Member for Ladywood wants to know what happens if there is a loss in the case of a public utility society. It is quite possible that the other side of the body or the business, if there is a loss, might bear it, and I quite realise that in the beginning there might be a loss, but later on the rents of local authorities will presumably be going up, so that we all look forward to increasing rents, which are now kept abnormally low by the Rent Restriction Act. We all realise, in fact we
  1134
  are aiming at getting away from anything approaching charity rents, and we are aiming at getting back to an economic or commercial rent in 1927, and although I quite admit that a public utility society might ab initio find itself in a very difficult position and either have to charge a higher rent than a local authority, or if it charges the same rent as is being charged in the neighbourhood it may for a time lose money. We do not know the way in which building is going to work out, and it is quite possible that the same public utility society which has lost money at the beginning may be doing the very reverse later on; but, at all events, we do know very well that a large number of these businesses do not look at this merely from the point of view of profit or loss. They know that it is in the interests of their businesses, and they are public spirited enough to know that their workmen or employés should be well housed. Some of them know perfectly well that they have to put up houses even without any assistance whatever, and, therefore, any help which the Government is able to give them is to the good. It might not be as much as they would have liked——
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman seems to imply that public utility societies are branches of some employer's business. I hope he will not give the public that impression, because it is entirely incorrect, and public utility societies in many cases have no connection with any business whatever.
  Major ASTOR: I was only trying to deal with the particular point which had been raised by the Mover and Seconder, who had given figures which I know were derived from a business concern which wishes to house its own people and is prepared to put aside money to do so.
  Major LLOYD-GREAME: My figures were simply figures which apply however the money is found, whether by borrowing from Members of this House or otherwise. It does not make the faintest difference where the money comes from; it is simply a question of whether there is a dead loss or whether there is not.
  Major ASTOR: One of the difficulties in making any estimates is the great difficulty in finding out what the cost of building houses is going to be. I went into it with the Seconder of the Amendment, who showed me some of his figures, and we gave him other estimates, which, I am sure he

  1135
  will agree, were entirely different from his figures. It is extraordinarily difficult at the present moment, with the uncertainty which exists and which is responsible for much of the delay, to know exactly what the cost of building a house is going to be, and all estimates of profit or loss must, of course, depend upon the cost of building a house. The Seconder of the Amendment raised another point, as to whether the rent would include sinking fund. If he reads the regulations, he will find that that is the case, and there is there a precedent. Whenever in the past loans have been made to local authorities there has been in the regulations a stipulation that the loan should be repaid through a sinking fund. I have been into that recently, and I think the amount involved is very small. My right hon. Friend the President has tried, in carrying out negotiations with the public utility societies and the Treasury, to do as much as he could. He was as anxious as anybody in this House to get the assistance of every individual or every group of members of the community in order to get houses. He did not want to stereotype either the type of house or the body that was going to build houses, and I am glad to say that in Committee the Bill has been modified in order to make it easier to assist public utility societies. Not only is there a cash grant, but Amendments were moved and agreed to which will enable more assistance to be given to public utility societies in the future than has been done in the past, irrespective of the actual financial assistance which we are giving at the present. That must be taken into consideration when we are discussing whether or not the particular financial assistance is adequate. I have been into this again very carefully with my right hon. Friend, and I am afraid I cannot announce to the House that we are able to alter the financial assistance we are going to give.
  We hope that the terms which we offer, with the Amendments which have been included in the Bill will really enable a large number of societies to go ahead and assist us. We want their assistance. We do know that as a matter of fact houses are actually being built, although it takes rather longer probably for a public utility society to get going. Schemes are being submitted, and houses are being built, and schemes for covering a considerable acreage have been submitted to the Board.
  1136
  We hope very much that public utility societies will develop. It is an experiment which we are all watching with great care. I regret that the hon. Member who spoke just before me had not read the Regulations, because I feel certain he would not have criticised the proposals of the Government if he had had an opportunity of studying our Regulations carefully. One of the conditions that we make is that the tenants of these houses shall have a share in the management; another condition is that they shall have security of tenure, and another condition is that if there is more than the 6 percent. profit that additional profit shall be used for the benefit of the tenant. There is great scope for experiment and for initiative, and that is one of the reasons why, when we have secured due economy in the erection of houses, we do not want to have too much Government control of the way in which these schemes are ran. We want to encourage initiative, and we want these committees of management representing the tenants to strike out and try new experiments. We believe we may find considerable development which may materially assist us in dealing with this problem in the future. I will see that the hon. Member gets a copy of the Regulations, and I can assure him that the point which he feared, that the tenants would not have security of tenure, is amply safeguarded by the Regulations. The Seconder of the Amendment carried out a principle, which I wish other hon. Members would follow, of not criticising unless they offer an alternative suggestion. He suggested that occupiers of houses should be given facilities for acquiring ownership of houses over and above the co-operative ownership which they get as shareholders and members of the societies. Our Regulations are so framed that that is possible. We have not been able to set that out in detail, because we wanted to know what the views of the Committee were upstairs, and the House, were on the principle of ownership. My hon. Friend opposite has followed the discussion upstairs, and knows that the Committee has framed a principle of ownership by the individual occupier, giving him facilities for his acquiring the house. There is a very general sentiment on the part of individuals to have security of tenure. One way of getting security of tenure is by owning the house in which you live. Another way is by taking it from the local authority—not so secure, perhaps—but

  1137
  the principle having been accepted by the Committee upstairs, being agreed to by the House here, and being within the four corners of the Bill, we are going to see the extent to which we can carry out that principle. We approve of the principle. We believe it is a sound principle, and we believe, as my hon. Friend does, that it will enable us to surmount some of the difficulties he otherwise anticipates. I regret I cannot meet the Mover to a greater extent, but, at all events, I assure him we will do all we can, so far as public utility societies are concerned, to embody the principles accepted by the Committee upstairs, and agreed to here.
  Sir P. GRIGGS: May I say that the reason for some of the high prices is the specifications that are sent out? I was told by a Member of this House that he had been asked to tender for a number of houses, and he had specifications binding him down to every item. That has made the high prices. I can take you to a garden city that has been formed where houses have been sold quite recently for about £700—semi-detached houses, with tiled roofs and everything you want, and with roads taken over by the local authority. Some of these houses have been sold for as low a sum as £535 within the last few months, with a. ground rent of £6 15s., and a lease of 999 years, with saving covenants. With a 999 years' lease, which is just as good as a freehold, only it enables the purchaser to find less money, you have an instance of what be uses can be built for.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major ASTOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "period" ["within such period as may be specified "], to insert the words
  "after the passing of this Act."
  This Amendment merely brings the Clause into line with the other financial Clauses.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 23.—(Relaxation of By-laws.)
  (1) Where in pursuance of a housing scheme to which this Section applies new buildings are constructed or public streets and roads are laid out and constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Local Government Board, the provisions of any building by-laws shall not apply to the new buildings and new streets carried out in pursuance of the scheme so far as those provisions ore inconsistent with the plans and specification approved by the Local Government Board, and notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act
  1138
  any street laid out and constructed in accordance with such plans and specifications may be taken over and thereafter maintained by the local authority.
  (2)Where the Local Government Board have approved plans and specifications which in certain respects are inconsistent with the pro visions of any building by-laws which are in force in the district in which the Works are to be executed, any proposals for the erection therein of houses and the laying out and construction of new streets which do not form part of a housing scheme to which this Section applies may, notwithstanding those provisions, be carried out if the local authority are satisfied that they will involve departures from such pro visions only to the like extent as in the case of the plans and specifications so approved.
  (3)The housing schemes to which this Section applies are schemes made by a local authority or county council under the Housing Acts, or by a public utility society or housing trust, and approved by the Local Government Board.
  Major GRAY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words
  "Provided that as regards the administrative county of London the Board shall not approve any plans and specifications inconsistent with the provisions of any building by-laws in force in the county, except after consultation with the London County Council, either on the general question of the relaxation of such provisions in connection with housing schemes or a relaxation with respect to any particular scheme"
  The Amendment is a very simple one, but it is one to which the London County Council attach considerable importance. The Clause under consideration provides that the Local Government Board may set aside by-laws framed under the Building Acts in respect of housing schemes submitted by a local authority, a county council, a public utility society, or a housing trust. Anyone of those four bodies may submit a scheme, and the Local Government Board may in regard to the scheme waive the local by-laws which have been framed by the local authority for the protection of life and property within that area. Now, in the great majority of cases outside this great city, the local authorities submitting the scheme would be the authority which has framed the by-laws, and would therefore be cognisant at once with the fact that the Local Government Board thought it desirable that certain of those by-laws should be modified. But the London position is a very peculiar one, so peculiar and so important that I think it justifies trespassing upon the patience of the House for a moment. In London we shall have no less than thirty local authorities empowered to submit schemes—the county council, the Corporation of the City of London and twenty-eight borough

  1139
  councils. Two of the borough councils have already submitted schemes, and probably others will be forthcoming. Now the borough council submits the scheme to the Local Government Board, but it is not the borough council which framed the bylaws under the Building Acts, nor is it the borough council which is responsible for the administration of those by-laws, but the county council has to frame and must administer them under powers conferred by Act of Parliament.
  The Clause as it stands would enable the Local Government Board, on the consideration of a scheme submitted by one of the borough councils, to waive the bylaws, framed and administered by the county council, and there is no provision whatever in the Bill for even intimating to the county council that it is proposed to waive those by-laws and no provision for consultation with the county council. The by-laws may be waived, and, so far as the Bill is concerned, the county council may be in total ignorance of the fact that these by-law s have been amended. We have had the greatest difficulty—and I speak now as an old member of the London County Council, a body with which I have worked for the last twelve years—we have at times the greatest difficulty in maintaining the integrity of these by-laws in districts where it is very essential that drastic bylaws should be administered. I know we have sometimes felt that we should like to modify them when building ourselves, but we have realised that such a modification would open the door to applications from all sorts and conditions of people for a like breach of the by-laws. And may I remark—and I do it with all respect to the President of the Local Government Board —that I am inclined to think we know the needs of London in this matter quite as well as the Local Government Board is ever likely to know them, and indeed, in regard to some of the by-laws, it is undesirable that we should publicly proclaim the reason why we desire to maintain their integrity.
  They are framed in some cases to prevent evils, and in some cases they have been administered in order to protect the public without allowing the public to know the reason for that protection. I must not go too fully, perhaps, into these details and weary the House, but during the last two or three years some of our experts on these building by-laws have been
  1140
  called into consultation with the Government in regard to certain matters, which have had to be done in public, and it has been most undesirable that the public should know anything whatever about it, seeing it has been in the interest of life and property. Difficulties of this kind may recur. At all events, it seems to us only reasonable that we should ask that where the Government propose to modify our by-laws they should first ascertain from us whether there is any real objection to such modification, or at least intimate that they propose to modify them.
  There is another reason. In the second Sub-section of this Clause the difficulty is accentuated because the Local Government Board, having modified by-laws in connection with a housing scheme, it is there provided that the local authority may perpetuate such modification in regard to other houses and streets in that district which do not form part of a housing scheme. One of the London boroughs, having submitted a scheme and having secured on that scheme a modification of our building by-laws, may then proceed either to build other houses or construct other streets outside the housing scheme. with a like modification—and the whole of it, without any consultation with the London County Council, which is responsible to the people of London for their administration and for the protection of life and property in this great city. At the very least the county council ought to be consulted. In regard to Sub-section (2) of this Clause it seems to me that if there is to be a modification of the by-laws to enable houses and streets which do not come within a housing scheme, such modification should be made by the county council and not by the local borough council.
  I trust that the Local Government Board will not adopt an unreasonable attitude. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken on this subject in the House. I desire to say that the London County Council is most anxious to co-operate with the Local Government Board in securing the very utmost benefit that can be derived from this Bill. But it does feel—what shall I say—a little hurt at what it regards as a neglect of, or disregard of, the peculiar position which London occupies. It is very jealous of the administration of its by-laws in the interest of the London public. It does not desire to see them set aside without good reason, and it suggests—as I do now on

  1141
  their behalf—that in such Bills the county council itself should be consulted by the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am unable to accept this Amendment. There are other Amendments which raise similar considerations, which want some of these matters based on statutory injunctions, consultations, references, advertisements, and all the rest of it, until the whole process becomes so cumbrous and complicated that you cannot get on. Therefore I am disposed to resist statutory injunctions of this kind if I can. But I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am just as anxious to co-operate with the London County Council as they say they are to co-operate with us. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the London County Council knows the needs of London. I am glad to hear it. I therefore assume that when this Bill is passed they will co-operate with the almost cordiality with us in trying to do these things, because that is what we are out for. I do not myself, though I express no opinion about these particular by-laws, much reverence the "integrity," as my hon. and gallant Friend expresses it, of by-laws with any special degree of reverence. I think sometimes by-laws—and that is why this Clause is here—have prevented houses being built. They are sometimes arbitrary and unfair in their incidence. But he may be perfectly sure that we shall not go in for sanctioning the wholesale scrapping of by-laws or behave otherwise than like sensible people in discussing them with the London County Council, who have the administration of them. Of course, we shall do that. That, however, is quite a different thing from having a discussion on the issue and these various consultations and correspondence which consume time with all sorts of formalities. All this is what I cannot agree to. They are not really consonant with the needs of the time. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman may take it from us that if the London County Council is good enough to meet us and discuss general principles, we shall consider allowing relaxation in connection with by-laws. I hope he will find that in any matter where properly we should bring them into conference— and it is very easy to do it, day by day, over the telephone, as we do now, in fact— that we shall be accessible people. But I cannot accept the proposal that we
  1142
  should be under a statutory obligation to do this kind of thing in every case., however trivial.
  Mr. LORDEN: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I have very great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has proposed it, as he was from the first in difficulties in regard to his proposal. The curious part of the matter in respect to building in London is that wherever the London County Council have housing schemes they have gone outside the Building Act; therefore it is obvious that it is necessary, in the interests of housing, that there should be some relaxation. The Building Act, no doubt, has been a large source of the difficulty there is in the housing question at the present time. The London County Council's view of the Building Act was such that they have made it difficult in every case where any small relaxation has-been required in the interests of housing—in the beautifying of the houses very often. Therefore I am very delighted to think, that there the President has stuck to his, guns and will not accept the Amendment, of the London County Council, which undoubtedly would greatly restrict and greatly retard the building of houses.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. A. WILLTAMS: I beg to move, in. Sub-section (2), after the word "extent" [" to the like extent as in the ease of the plans "], to insert the words
  "and subject to the like conditions and compensations"
  The purpose is this: If the Local Government Board have approved of a scheme in a certain area for the building of. Houses in garden city order, then it is well know a that in such schemes you do not need back streets nor wide roads. You have gardens, and you have their houses built in pairs or fours, and you can get round them easily. As this Clause stands, after a scheme of that sort had been approved, the local authority could say, "We will exempt all building in our area to the same extent, and say you do not need back streets," and, instead of the wide front street, you would have a narrow one which would only be suitable with gardens in front. My suggestion is that the local authority should have power to do without the back street and the broad front street on the same terms and conditions as apply to the garden

  1143
  city scheme which has been approved, that is, they must put the same amount of open space and build in pairs or fours, and have gardens behind and in front of the houses. The by-laws should only affect houses built under the same conditions, and with the same compensations, promoting the health of the inhabitants which existed in the scheme approved by the Local Government Board.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend proposes that private owners in an area should be able to lake advantage of the relaxation of the by-laws under certain conditions, and I think that is a fair proposition. I have had his words investigated, and especially the word "compensations," which is not quite appropriate, and may be taken, to mean other things. I think it would be better if he accepted the addition of these words at the end of the Clause, "And that where such plans and specifications had been approved, subject to any modifications, like conditions shall be applied where this Sub-section applies." I think those words come in properly at the end of paragraph (3), and I suggest that they achieve the hon. Member's object, and are more suitable than those he has put on the Paper.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks the word" compensations "unnecessary," but it seems to me very important, because in some cases you allow houses to be built in a certain way on the condition that an open space is dedicated to the public, and with such compensation as that you may do certain things without injury to the public health, whereas without that compensation you cannot do it. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman's words will cover that point.
  Dr. ADDISON: The word "conditions" would cover it, and the word "compensation" would be held to cover a good deal more.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add
  "(3) The power of making by-laws under Section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the enactments amending the same, shall extend to the making and enforcing of by-laws for limiting in the case of houses which do not form part of the housing scheme the number of houses per acre,
  1144
  provided that in making such by-laws the local authority shall have regard to any limitation prescribed by any housing scheme for the district approved by the Local Government Board."
  I hope this proposal will receive the assent of the right hon. Gentleman. The houses to be built under these schemes will be limited to not more than twelve houses to the acre under the local authorities and eight houses to the acre in rural districts. That is the general principle laid down in the White Paper issued in connection with these schemes. So far as other houses are concerned, built by private owners and speculative builders, they are not limited to the same conditions. The local authority has power under the by-laws to fix the width of the street, the height of the rooms, and the space for the back yard, but it has no power to say that there shall only be a certain number of houses to the acre. I submit that in order to protect the local authorities and the health and amenity of the district it is essential that the local authorities shall have the power to say that houses built by private enterprise shall be limited as to the number they may put to the acre, otherwise you will find the houses built by local authorities and those built by public utility societies will be limited to twelve houses to the acre, while a private owner can build adjoining houses twenty, thirty, or even forty to the acre.
  This Amendment is the result of bitter experience in most of our urban areas. In my own district we have had houses put up in recent years, perfectly fit and complying in every respect with existing bylaws, but so far as the congestion is concerned they are at variance with our modern conditions for suitable houses. I hope the President will see his way to give this protection to local authorities, so that they can provide for the amenities of their district with houses built by private enterprise as well as those built by the local authorities. The President may say that under the Town Planning Act of 1909 local authorities may make town-planning schemes and fix the number to the acre, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House how many town-planning schemes have been passed during the last ten years; and I am sure he will have to agree that it has been a slow and cumbrous process, and I believe the number of schemes approved could be counted on the fingers of both hands. In this Act we are simplifying the means that have to be taken for promoting housing and town-planning schemes, but even under the

  1145
  simplified procedure I think local authorities, to avoid delay and save trouble, would find it simpler during the transition period if they had power to make by-laws which would limit private enterprise as to the number of houses they could put per acre to the same terms as public utility societies.
  Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend who has taken a great interest in the framing of this Bill, has asked me to consider this proposal in a friendly spirit, and I have done so. Subsequently to the discussion in the Committee we inserted Clauses 39 to 41 in the Bill with regard to, first, compulsory town-planning by the year 1923, and also giving the Local Government Board liberty to call upon anybody to prepare a scheme on certain provisional lines. I still feel the difficulty which I expressed in Committee as to which leg we should stand upon. Should we require a simplified scheme of town-planning to be prepared, which would of course indicate the number of houses per acre? If that is the policy we are to adopt let us pursue it. I came to the conclusion that if we are going to accept the policy which was taken up in Committee we should pursue that and that alone. What will happen will be that we shall get hundreds of applications with respect to the by-laws, and in most eases the result will be that the authorities will rest content with this very simplified elementary arrangement, and not get on with the town-planning scheme in its proper form. I am afraid if you are going to proceed by a method of by-laws you must stick to that method, but if you are going to have town-planning, as is proposed in the later Clauses of the Bill, then you ought to adhere to that. One policy will conflict with the other. We must choose one or the other. The Committee has clearly chosen the town-planning policy, and I shall deal with that when we come to the Clause, but I do suggest it would really be destructive of procedure on the lines indicated in the later Clause if we adopt the policy embodied in this Amendment.
  Mr. THOMSON: The town-planning schemes will not come into force until 1926, and my Amendment is intended to cover the transitional period.
  Dr. ADDISON: But we have power to insist on town-planning schemes under the policy which we propose to adopt, and it
  1146
  will be possible, therefore, to avoid this. particular danger in the transitional period.
  Sir P. GRIGGS: I agree with the Minister in charge of this Bill and I want to point to the position as it may affect some rural districts, just outside, for instance, a junction station, where land is not cheap, but should be obtained for its handiness and suitability. If you there-insist on only eight houses to the acre, you will certainly retard building. You want some liberty of action, as the Minister has-said, so as to prevent such retardation, for we are all anxious to get the housing accommodation increased as soon as possible.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: At end of Sub-section, insert the words
  "and that where such plans and specifications have been approved subject to any modification, like conditions shall be applied where this Subsection applies"
  Major GRAY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
  "Provided that in the application of this-Sub-section to the administrative county of London the expression 'local authority' mean the London County Council with respect to the matters within their jurisdiction and the common council of the City of London or the council of a Metropolitan borough (as the case may be) with respect to other matters."
  This merely removes doubt as to the. interpretation of the words "local authority" in this Clause. A similar doubt arose on the following Clause in Committee, and the Government accepted words similar the those which I now move. I am advised it is essential that they should be placed in this Clause as well as in the next Clause, in order that both the county council and the borough council may know which of them is the proper authority under this Act to discharge certain duties.
  Mr. LORDEN: I beg to second the Amendment, which, I think, will make the Clause much clearer. There is no doubt that the local authority for this purpose-in London is the London County Council, and the Amendment will remove any doubt that may have existed.
  Dr. ADDISON: I agree with the explanation given by my hon. and gallant Friend, and am prepared to accept his Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 24.—(Consent of Local Authority to Erection and Use of Buildings.)
  (1)Notwithstanding the provisions of any building by-laws a local authority may, during a. period of two years from the passing of this Act, consent to the erection and use for human habitation of any buildings erected or proposed to be erected in accordance with plans approved by the Local Government Board.
  (2)The local authority may attach to their consent any conditions which they may deem proper with regard to the situation, sanitary arrangements, and protection against fire of such buildings, and may fix and from time to time extend the period during which such buildings shall be allowed to be used for human habitation.
  (3)If any person feels aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of the local authority to give such consent or by the conditions on which such consent is given, or as to the period allowed for the use of such buildings for human habitation, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final, and shall have effect as if it were the decision of the local authority, provided that the Board may, before considering any such appeal, require the appellant to deposit such sum, not exceeding ten pounds, to cover the costs of appeal, as may be fixed by rules to be made by them.
  (4)Section twenty-seven of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, shall not apply to any buildings to which this Section applies.
  (5)In the application of this Section to the administrative county of London, the expression "local authority" means the London County Council with respect to matters within their jurisdiction, and the common council of the City of London or the council of a Metropolitan borough (as the case may be) with respect to other matters.
  Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words
  "during a period of two years from the passing of this Act."
  I am moving this at the request of the hon. and gallant Member in whose name it stands (Captain Ormsby-Gore). I cannot understand why these words were put in. There can be no objection, surely, to removing them, because the local authority would still have full power if the words did not exist. Why should we limit it to a period of two years when, probably, a large number of housing schemes must go on for a much longer period? I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will agree to accept this Amendment.
  Sir P. GRIGGS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands. The effect would be to make the position permanent. The limitation of time put in this Clause with regard to the erection of buildings was designed to meet the case
  1148
  of the utilisation of Army huts used for various emergency purposes as dwellings, the erection of which, though desirable and necessary, would nevertheless be contrary to by-laws. I feel that during the transitional period this kind of thing may be necessary, but it does not therefore follow that we are to adopt this kind of expedient for all time. If the hon. Member will be in any way satisfied, I am quite willing to give him "three" instead of "two," but I cannot go further than that.
  Mr. LORDEN: I think "three" is almost as bad as "two" Will not the right hon. Gentleman make it "four years"? When the suggestion with regard to adapting Army huts was made it was held they would be quite suitable for seven years.
  Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member misinterprets the words of the Clause. This is the time during which the buildings may be erected, and not the time they may last or be used as habitations.
  Mr. LORDEN: I will not labour the matter. I shall be pleased to accept three years.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: Leave out the word "two" ["during a period of two years"], and insert instead thereof the word "three," —[Mr. Lorden]

  Clause 25.—(By-laws Respecting House Divided into Separate Tenements.)
  (1) The power of making and enforcing bylaws under Section ninety of the public Health Act, 1875, and Section ninety-four of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, shall in the case of houses intended or used for occupation by the working classes be deemed to include the making and enforcing of by-laws—

  (a)for fixing and from time to time varying the number of persons who may occupy a house, or part of a house which is let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, and for separation of the sexes therein;

  (b)for the registration and inspection of such houses;

  (c)for enforcing drainage and promoting cleanliness and ventilation of such houses;

  (d)for requiring provision adequate for the use of and readily accessible to each family of—

  (i) closet accommodation;

  (ii)water supply and washing accommodation;

  (iii)accommodation for the storage, preparation, and cooking of food; and where necessary for securing separate accommodation as aforesaid for every part of such house which is occupied as a separate dwelling;

  1149

  (e) for the keeping in repair and adequate lighting of any common staircase in such house;

  (f) for securing stability, and the prevention of and safety from fire;

  (g) for the cleansing and redecoration. of the premises at stated times, and for the paving of the courts and courtyards;

  (h) for the provision of handrails where necessary for all staircases of such houses;

  9.0 P.M
  Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to move, after paragraph (h), to add the words
  (i)for prohibiting the building of underground rooms in semi-urban districts; (j) for requiring the provision of adequate garden ground attached to Hats where this form of building is adopted; (k) for requiring proper lighting and ventilation for every room in each house."
  On the first of these paragraphs I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has omitted this prohibition of building underground rooms in semi-urban districts for the reason of the need of the proper use or of the creation of rooms of this type in this sort of building, or because he considers the by-laws now obtaining are sufficient for their elimination; but whichever way it be, bearing in mind the tremendous ill-effects on health, as we have had acknowledged during the recruiting time, of the folks who come from these localities and who have resided in those places, many of us feel that they should be eliminated. I therefore suggest that if he does not admit the necessity of it he should refer to the statistics and ascertain the results on the physique of the people. If, on the other hand, he considers the by-laws are sufficient and suitable, I should like to refer him to very many cases where even at this moment building is progressing, and I suggest that the by-laws should be tightened. On paragraph (j) there is at present no sufficient and adequate arrangement whereby suitable garden grounds should be given to flats requiring them. I suggest that the by-laws should contain something in this nature. On paragraph (k) I do not think there is any science which has been so neglected as that of ventilation. Throughout the whole of this Bill I have noticed no provision for the separate ventilation of the rooms in the different houses, and while possibly in many houses the ventilation as a whole may be apparently sufficient, I suggest that the separate ventilation of the rooms is not adequate.
  Captain BAGLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: I think my hon. Friend with respect to the first two parts of his proposal is under some misapprehension as to the scope of the Clause. Paragraph (i) begins "for prohibiting the building of," and (j) begins "for requiring the provision of." But the Clause relates to buildings in existence used or intended to be used as dwellings for the occupation of the working classes. It is, therefore, clear that in the case of buildings or schemes not yet brought into being, the Clause would not appropriately apply. The aims he rightly has in (i) and (j) will, of course, have to be met in the passing of plans which will have to be submitted for future buildings. They will not apply to existing buildings, to which these by laws are intended to apply. Also with respect to the first portion of his proposal, Sections 71 and 75 of the Public Health Act, restrict these rooms to "a, room habitually used as a sleeping place, the floor of which is more than three feet below the surface of the street," which shall be deemed to be a dwelling house dangerous or injurious to health and be unfit for human habitation and therefore subject to a closing order. When he tells me a good many have not been closed he is telling me something with which I am only too familiar. The reason we have not had closing orders is that very often there is nowhere else for the people to go. In Committee, in the Second Schedule, we inserted the words, "or more than three feet below the surface of any ground within nine feet of the room." We put those words in to meet the case of houses in colliery villages where the back door may be higher than the front door. At all events, apart from the fact that we have strengthened the Bill in another place for this purpose and that his proposal would apply to buildings to be erected, whilst this applies to existing buildings, they are really two separate matters and the same remarks apply to his provision in the next item. The third, however, does apply, and there I am prepared to meet him as far as I can. In paragraph (c) ventilation is specifically mentioned.
  Mr. SUGDEN: Not for every room.
  Dr. ADDISON: That is true. I take it that the expression "ventilation" will be properly held to include all the parts of a house where people live or sleep. Otherwise I should say the house would not be properly ventilated. With regard to lighting, that is not mentioned in the Clause, and if the hon. Member will be good

  1151
  enough to help me to supply that deficiency, I should be grateful to him. Whilst the first two are quite inappropriate in this Clause, and the third is met I think the other might well be added, and it would come very properly as paragraph (i) "for securing the adequate lighting of every room in such house." If the hon. Member will move it in that way I will accept it.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment and to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after paragraph (h), insert the words
  (7) "This Section shall be deemed to be part every room in such house."—[Mr. Sugden].

  Clause 27—(Repair of Houses.)
  (1) If the owner of any house suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes fails to keep such house in all respects reasonably lit for human habitation then, without prejudice to any other powers, the local authority may serve a notice upon the owner of such house requiring him within a reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days specified in the notice, to execute such works as may be necessary to make the house in. all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
  (3) Any expense incurred by the local authority under this Section may be recovered in a court of summary jurisdiction, together with interest at a rate not exceeding live pounds per centum per annum from the date of service of a demand for the same till payment thereof from the owner, and until recovery of such expenses and interest the same shall be a charge on the premises. In all summary proceedings by the local authority for the recovery of any such expenses, the time within such proceedings may be taken shall be reckoned from the date of the service of notice of demand.
  Mr. THOMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), alter the word "to" ["fails to keep"] to insert the words "make and."
  This is very largely a drafting Amendment carrying out and following upon the discussion which took place in Committee, and I am hopeful, though I failed the last time, that the right hon. Gentleman may be willing to accept the Amendment now. This to enlarge the scope of the Clause. The suggestion was made upstairs that the word "keep" might merely refer to the responsibility or the obligation of the landlord to keep in repair the existing structure, whereas by putting in the words
  1152
  "make and keep" you could add to the fabric something which was not originally there, and thereby enable improvements to be made in a house which might not come under the Clause as it now stands.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: I will accept these words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "within" ["time within"], to insert the word "which." I think this is only a printers error.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add
  (7) "This Section shall be deemed to be part of Part II. of the principal Act."
  This makes it quite clear to which part of the Housing Act this question of the repair of property relates, and also it is necessary in order that the powers which may be exercised under Part II. of the Act may be properly exercised in respect of the words here indicated. It is also necessary in the case of any neglect to carry out work under Part II. as prescribed in previous parts of this Bill, in the event of which someone else may be called upon to undertake it, or the Board itself may undertake it. This work would be included within the purpose of Part II., otherwise there might be a mistake as to the general scope of the operations. This Amendment is only to make the scheme more watertight.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 29.—(Penalty on Re-letting House Ordered to be Closed.)
  If any owner of a house in respect of which a closing order is in force lets or attempts to let or occupies or permits to be occupied that house or any part thereof as a dwelling-house, he shall on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after the word "force," to insert the words
  "or any other person."
  This Amendment is necessary because it may be observed that in certain Metropolitan boroughs, particularly in the borough of Kensington, in respect to these closing orders, re-letting may be undertaken by some person other than the owner, and the house may be farmed out

  1153
  by such person. Those persons ought properly to be included in this penalty for re-letting a house which is under a closing order. Therefore, it is necessary that the words "or any other person" should be inserted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
  "for each day or part of a, day that the House or part thereof continues to be occupied by any person, after a closing order has been made."
  The object is to make more drastic the penalty for re-letting a house that has been ordered to be closed. The Clause as. it stands is not sufficiently drastic.
  Captain BAYLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: I find myself here, as I was in Committee, having to resist greater powers being thrust upon us. It should be observed that under the Clause which makes it a penal offence for anyone to re-let a house subject to a closing order, the fine is one of £20. Many of these people are quite unsubstantial and impecunious people, and that would be a very substantial penalty. I undertake to say that if we do not find that this penalty is enough, I shall not hesitate to come to this House and ask for a higher penalty. I think the penalty which the hon. Member proposes would be a bit too stiff.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that point. It does not say that it is to be a fine of £20 for each day. It says it is to be a fine not exceeding £20 for each day. Therefore it is within the discretion of the Court to say that it may be a penny per day, £1 per day, or anything up to £20 for each day. There are cases in which a fine of £20 is totally inadequate, and it ought to be within the power of the Court to inflict a much more serious fine. This Clause would give power to the Court to do so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter as, apparently, he misunderstood the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words
  "Nothing in this Section shall prevent an owner letting or leasing for the purpose of putting such house in habitable condition or pulling down or rebuilding."
  I know that there are many cases where a, house that has been closed can be let
  1154
  or put into habitable condition, but in this Clause you prevent this being let for the purpose of pulling down. Many people enter into a contract for pulling down, and it seems to me that you are putting upon them a Clause which is undesirable. It may be a great advantage for the purpose of housing, and for the purpose of getting a house put into a better condition if there is some such proviso as I suggest. It would even prevent an owner letting his house for a term or any long period. A leasing is a letting. I mentioned this in Committee; I did not move anything, but just indicated that there should be some proviso, so that a house that was in bad condition and had been closed might be repaired. The Clause does not say that the owner may not sell, but the leasing of that house is a letting, even if it is to be pulled down, and there should be something to enable houses that are closed to be let for the purpose of being put into habitable condition. It may be said that it would give a loophole, but I do not think that is so, because the proviso is so definite. You may have a row of houses which were condemned, not because the sanitation was bad, but because the roof or floors are bad, and it may be quite possible to make those houses habitable, and at the present time you want all the facilities you can get, even when you have closed houses, to put them into habitable sanitary condition. I have got in my mind at present some cottages which had been closed because the roofs had become defective, and the rain pours into those places, because the owner has not been able to repair them during the War, and they have been closed. Those houses happen to belong to a poor person who cannot do anything to them, but if those houses were let, and they were put into habitable condition, they would give housing for four or five families.
  Sir P. GRIGGS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I have in mind some houses which had been empty for fully thirty years. They were quite good houses, and only want something done to them to make them habitable in every way, and this Amendment would enable such cases to be dealt with, which sometimes happens through the owner not being known or being a bit old-fashioned.
  Dr. ADDISON: I sympathise entirely with the object of my two hon. Friends, but by reference to Clause 22 they will see

  1155
  that a local authority has power to give financial assistance to anyone desiring to reconstruct houses, which goes a long way to meet the very cases that have been mentioned, and all the things that have been mentioned by both my hon. Friends are perfectly possible. If the houses are worth repairing, assistance can be received in two or three ways under this Bill Those operations are in no way prevented by this Clause, because both my hon. Friends have omitted the governing, important words, "Attempts to let … as a dwelling house." Those are the governing words. If you let the house to somebody to pull down or to make it habitable you are not letting it as a dwelling-house; you are letting it simply to be repaired, and you can sell it or do anything you like with it in that respect, so that the words suggested are quite unnecessary.
  Mr. LORDEN: The point is that as the lease may be for the purposes of a dwelling-house, but as the right hon. Gentleman says that this Clause will not prohibit such a course as I have indicated I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 33.—(Procedure and Minor Amend ments of Housing Acts)
  (1)The Amendments specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act (which relate to procedure under Part I. and Part II. of the principal Act and to minor de tails) shall be made in the provisions of the principal Act and the Housing. Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, specified in the first column of that Schedule.
  (2)Sections fourteen and fifteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, shall be deemed to be part of Part II. of the principal Act.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  My object is to call attention to the Schedule which is referred to and the changes which it makes. I should not be in order in going into it in detail until we come to the Schedule itself, but if we pass this Clause—I refer specially to the first Sub-clause—we introduce into the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, quite an enormous number of Amendments as set out on pages 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, and I wish to elicit from the Minister some statement as to what is going to be done to make the Housing Acts workable. Anybody referring to the Housing Acts would
  1156
  have to refer every minute to this Schedule to know what the law is. There are almost hundreds of small alterations made in the Housing Act. Is the Housing Act going to be reprinted with these alterations, or is the whole going to be codified? That is. my point. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to have, all the Amendments on this matter codified when, the Bill is once passed into law.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: As the hon. Member was not a member of the Committee the papers may possibly have escaped his notice, but I did circulate to Members of the House a statement of what it is that these particular proposals accomplished in the modification of procedure under the existing Acts. I set out a comparison of the present position and the future position in two parallel columns in a White Paper a short time ago to make it as clear as I could. I quite agree that it is a very complicated business, but the whole of these alterations are designed to simplify the procedure. I agree that it will be necessary in the near future to have some codifying measure, and I hope that before long I shall be able to introduce one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 34.—(Construction.)
  In this Part of this Act—
  The expression "houses for the working classes" has the same meaning as the expression "lodging-houses for the work-classes" has in the principal Act.
  The expression "public utility society" means a -society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, or any Amendment thereof, the rules whereof prohibit the payment of any interest or dividend at a rate exceeding six per cent. per annum.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after the word "Act" ["has in the Principal Act"], to insert the words
  "The expression' sell' includes the power to sell in consideration of an annual rent charge, and the expression 'sale' has the corresponding meaning."
  This, I understand, should really be inserted in this Bill, to make it quite clear what is intended.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: With regard to the next two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams), I am not quite clear whether they are merely definitions or whether they are bringing in new bodies to

  1157
  receive the 30 percent., and in that way imposing a charge. Perhaps the hon. Member will make it plain.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, after the word "thereof" ["Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, or any Amendment thereof"], to insert the words
  ''or a company registered under the Companies Acts."
  These words are intended to allow the bodies which will receive this help to be registered either under the Companies Acts or under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. I suggest that it would not necessarily increase the number of societies receiving help, but would simply give them the option of registering themselves under the one or under the other. The position at present is that to be a public utility society you must be registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. I believe that was put in under the impression that a company registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act must necessarily be of a democratic and semi-philanthropic colour. But it is not so at all. You can register under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act almost any kind of business enterprise, and you can register the same thing under the Companies Acts, with a slightly different wording. If the Government and the country are under the impression that, by Having societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, rather than under the Companies Acts, they are getting any security whatever for high motives or philanthropic purposes, I am quite sure they are very much mistaken. The Act does not make any difference at all. I have been told, "Oh, the Industrial and Provident Societies Act requires certain auditing on conditions laid down." Elsewhere this Bill now before us enables the Local "Government Board to insist upon any auditing that they like. The fact of limiting the registration to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act works out quite absurdly in some cases. A well-known company was not allowed to borrow a penny of its funds for housing because it was registered under the Companies Acts, yet I guarantee that the constitution of that company was as public-spirited as any society that was ever registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. I hope that this really absurd distinction,-which is supposed to represent some security to the public, and which
  1158
  gives the public no security whatever, will be done away with, and that these bodies, being bodies corporate, will be allowed to be registered either under the one Act or the other, according as the circumstances make it most suitable. It is well known that with a small capital it is better to register under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and that the same business with larger capital would be better registered under the Companies Acts. But, from the point of view of public spirit, it makes no difference whatever.
  Sir P. GRIGGS: I beg to second the Amendment,
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the Amendment is a definition.
  Sir T. WALTERS: I am afraid I cannot adopt the view of the Mover of this Amendment. I think there are very vital differences between a public utility society and a limited company. In the first place, there is the matter of expense. With a public utility society the whole business can be done for five shillings net, whereas with a limited company you have the solicitor's costs, a not inconsiderable item. I do not want this measure to become an architect's or a solicitor's endowment Bill, but to remain a Housing Bill. A limited company has many difficulties in increasing or diminishing its share capital, but in a public utility society, on the same principle as the co-operative society, the share capital can be called up at any time by a resolution of the members, and paid off or extended at any time by a resolution of the members without any application to the Courts or the expenses incidental thereto. Under the Friendly Societies Act, the whole scheme of management is entirely different. Instead of a board of directors you have a committee of management.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: It is the same thing.
  Sir T. WALTERS: Oh no, the whole thing is entirely different. There would be no kind of protection that the State would not be asked to lend money for purely commercial and speculative limited companies. I know perfectly well that many companies are registered under a memorandum of articles, and with a purpose and ideals that are of the highest and loftiest type — the first Garden City, for example. But many

  1159
  other companies not actuated by any such motives, and when you have the Friendly Societies Act, under which you can register in an inexpensive, simple, clear and understandable procedure, surely it is very foolish to adopt, instead of that procedure some carefully prepared and ingenious interpretation of the ordinary Companies Act which may or may not be designed to meet the purposes that are clearly met by the Friendly Societies Act. To suggest to people who are registering, under the Friendly Societies Act, a public utility society for housing, and where the procedure is so clear and simple, that they should resort to solicitors and professional advisers to show them how to embody under the Companies Act a really altruistic company, is an absurd and unnecessary proceeding. It may be there are companies already registered which ought to receive some special consideration. But in beginning de novo, as we do under this Bill, with rules and regulations clearly set out, with the Registrar of Friendly Societies in close co-operation with the Housing Department of the Local Government Board, so that any ordinary set of persons can, with the least possible difficulty frame a society designed to meet the requirements of the Act, and with a procedure so simple that any-one can work it, to abandon that procedure and to embark on a selection of different methods of forming companies with different articles under the Companies Act would be a dangerous and foolish procedure. I want to keep this Housing Bill, when it is an Act, as clear as possible from any kind of money-making practice or profiteering exploit. I want to safeguard it against all those ingenious people who take an Act of Parliament and turn it into a money-making method for themselves. Although there are many high-minded people, like my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Williams), who could and would form a company and make it perfectly safe within the limits of this Act, yet there are hundreds of ingenious people who would be only too glad to form a company under the measure and make it a money-making concern.
  Major ASTOR: The Government do not see any advantage in accepting the Amendment. In our opinion, nobody would be prejudiced if the Bill remained as drafted. It is quite easy for such an association as the Mover had in mind
  1160
  to come within the four corners of the Bill as it is. Our regulations make that quite easy. Some supervision is necessary, and it is easier to exercise that supervision if the body is registered as proposed in the Bill, and not as proposed by the hon. Member.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 35.—(Application to London of Certain Provisions of the Housing Acts.)
  (2)Any loss which may be incurred by the council of a Metropolitan borough in carrying out a scheme to which Section six of this Act applies shall be repaid to them by the London County Council, and any payments so made by the London County Council shall be deemed to have been made as part of the expenses incurred by them in carrying out a scheme under that Section.
  (3)The London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London may at any time enter into an agreement for carrying out any scheme for the purposes of part I. or Part III. of the principal Act, and for the apportionment of the expenses incurred in carrying out such scheme, and if the, scheme is a scheme to which Section six of this Act applies, any payments made under such apportionment by the County Council and the Common Council shall be- deemed to have been made as part of the expenses incurred in carrying out a scheme under that Section.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2) leave out "six" ["to which Section six of this Act applies"] and insert instead thereof the word "seven."
  In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "six" [" to which Section six of this Act applies"] and insert instead thereof the word "seven."—[Dr. Addison.]

  Clause 37.—(Extension of Power to make Regu lations as to Procedure.)
  The power of the Local Government Board of making regulations under Section fifty-six of the Act of 1909 shall include power to make regulations as to the procedure consequent on the passing of a resolution by a local authority to prepare or adopt a town planning scheme, and provision shall be made by those regulations for securing that a local authority after passing such a resolution shall proceed with all reasonable speed with the preparation or adoption of the town planning scheme, and shall comply with any regulations as to steps to be taken for that purpose, including provisions enabling the Local Government Board in the case of default or dilatoriness on the part of the local authority to act in the place and at the expense of the local authority.
  Mr. NEAL: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Everton Division, I beg; to move the Amendment standing in his name—after the word "authority" ["the local authority to act"], to insert the words
  "and after holding a local inquiry."

  1161
  The object of Clause 37 is to empower the Local Government Board to make certain regulations as to procedure with regard to town planning, and the later part of the Clause empowers the Local Government Board, in cases of difficulty or dilatoriness on the part of the local authority, to act in the place and at the expense of the local authority. The object of the Amendment is to secure that no local authority shall be found to be in default or dilatory so that their powers may be superseded until there has been a local inquiry. The Amendment is put down at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so more especially in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of expressing his views in regard to it. I understand that representations have 'been made to him. I hope he may agree with them, and that if not he will explain why.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to explain why upstairs I resisted Amendments of this kind, and why I must continue to do so to the end. It would mean that, where, for some reason or another, dilatoriness had occurred and the local authority had been superseded, a statutory local inquiry must be held. It is quite obvious, where anything of this kind will come to pass, you must have a good many communications with the local authority in the ordinary way. The local authority would know all about it; you would not do this kind of thing as a surprise, to anybody. I have said already this evening, and I had this Amendment in mind at the time, that if housing Bills are beset with statutory inquiry, time would be taken and delay caused, and they would lead to endless correspondence. This would apply in every case, however simple and obvious. I think I must ask the House, in giving us the responsibility for dealing with this business, to expect us to deal with it like sensible people. Statutory inquiries at every point would make for endless delay and place a weapon in the hands of every dilatory authority. No authority wishful to do its part under this scheme will ever come within the ambit of this Clause at all. As to the others, they do not deserve the protection.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 40.—(Duty of Local Authorities to Prepare Town Planning Scheme.)
  The council of every borough or other urban district, the population of which exceeds twenty thousand, and any other local authority which the Local Government Board may require, shall, within three years after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, prepare and submit to the Board a town planning scheme in accordance with provisions to be determined by the Board with reference to any land within the area of the local authority.
  Major GRAY: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
  I admit that after the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board earlier in the evening, I am not over sanguine of success for this Amendment. I observe that he is now attaching far more importance to the question of town-planning than apparently he did when the Bill was introduced, for Clauses 40 and 41 were, I understand, introduced in the last days when the Bill was in Committee. Apparently when the Bill was drafted the right hon. Gentleman did not think that these powers were necessary. He was at that stage satisfied with the existing Acts dealing with this subject, plus the provisions in the earlier Clauses of this Bill. I would call the attention of the House for one moment to the very considerable power which the right hon. Gentleman is taking under Clauses 40 and 41. Here within a certain period a local authority, a borough council with a population expressed, or any other local authority, which would include a county council, and would include the London County Council, may be called upon by the Local Government Board to prepare a town-planning scheme for any land within that area—not for land which has been dealt with for rehousing purposes, but for any land. If I succeed in nothing else I should like, if I can, to draw from the President of the Local Government Board an interpretation of these words. Let me put a concrete case. A district which he knows and I know very well would under this Clause 40 have power to call upon the London County Council to present within a certain date, under conditions which would be prescribed, a town-planning scheme for, say, Hoxton. I am quite prepared to admit that a town-planning scheme for Hoxton would be a very desirable thing, but it is impracticable at the present time, and it seems to me that the main object of this Bill is to secure housing accommodation over as wide an area as possible. Is it then

  1163
  desirable, while local authorities are concentrating their attention on housing and rehousing, to call upon them to frame town-planning schemes for areas which are not at the moment being affected by the question of rehousing? I am not an expert in these matters, but I am told by those who are, and I think it was admitted in Committee upstairs, that this question of town-planning is still in its infancy, that authorities are not agreed upon the lines which should be followed, and that among the difficulties in the way has been that of reconciling conflicting interests, there being no general consensus of opinion as to the lines upon which town-planning should proceed.
  Are local authorities to be diverted from the primary object of this Bill to a consideration of town-planning so wide as that expressed in Clause 40? If it were town-planning in connection with building, operations which may be now or in the near future in progress, or in connection with re-housing schemes, I could understand it. But these words are very wide indeed, and would enable the Local Government Board, should they think fit, to call upon the council for the administrative county of London to submit town-planning schemes for nearly every one of the boroughs within the London area. I feel quite sure that that is not what is intended or contemplated, but certainly it is possible, and I have been requested by the responsible committee of the London County Council to draw attention to this subject during this stage of the Bill, and on behalf of the council to say that they would very much regret that the Local Government Board should consider it desirable to take such extreme measures in connection with a subject which is not of primary, although it is of great, importance. They would have preferred that their energies should be concentrated during the next seven years on the very important question of acquiring sites, building houses thereon, removing slum areas, and rebuilding habitations which may be made suitable for human habitation, and that they should not have their attention compulsorily diverted to such a large question as that of town-planning, particularly in areas where the housing problem would not be in course of solution. In order, therefore, that I may ascertain whether these words do apply to land associated with the re-housing scheme, I venture to move that Clause 40
  1164
  be deleted, for the purpose of securing an interpretation, and, if I may, of entering, a respectful protest against the conferring of these large and drastic powers upon a. State Department utterly regardless of any expression of local opinion. A well-known worker in municipal life remarked to me the other day that, if these powers are to be given to a State Department then we may just as well scrap our municipalities and transfer the whole control of public life throughout the country to a State Department, with Ministers, as I will say, of recognised great capacity, and a large army of officials, and abolish local government altogether. May I just remind the House that in the course of a few days the Local Government Board, as such, will have ceased to exist, and there will be a Ministry of Health with the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, as its Chief. It will then be administering the health of the country and will be in charge of the whole of this housing problem, dealing with concrete and adenoids, tuberculosis and the supply of bricks, and will also have within its purview the provision of town-planning schemes in any area throughout the whole country wherever the Local Government Board considers that such schemes are necessary. It seems to me that this is a very large attraction of power from the municipal life of this country to a State Department, and one which needs watching very closely. It has been my privilege to witness the passing of many Bills through this House in years gone by, and an equal privilege to take part for nearly twenty years in municipal life in London in one form or another, and I regard this constant transfer of municipal government to State Departments with some degree of apprehension, because I feel sure that the more we can rely on local effort for the direction of local affairs the better it will be for all concerned.
  Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to have read the Clause. It does not confer any new powers on a Government Department which it takes away from a local authority. On the contrary, it authorises the Government Department to call upon a local authority to exercise certain powers. The local authority is going to do the work. If I mistake not, the apprehensions which the hon. Gentleman entertained seems to be a horror lest the position should arise of the Local Government Board calling upon the London County Council to do something. I quite agree that that is what may happen.

  1165
  under this Clause, and I do not mind saying that I think it is very likely that it will happen, either under this or some other Clause. And I do not see any reason why I should be ashamed of it. I am delighted to hear that those for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks are going to devote their energies to the clearing away of slums and the acquisition of new sites on wall-planned lines during the next seven years. If that is so, nothing will please me better, or will be a better carrying out of the wishes of this House. If that is the case, I am quite sure that those for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks will have no more enthusiastic friend and helper than myself. But it is quite inappropriate to this Clause. With respect to his later remarks, the Ministry of Health, with the functions which are shortly to be thrust upon it, will have more than enough to do apart from calling upon some authority or other to prepare a town planning scheme—six years hence, be it remembered. There is nothing rash or precipitate about it, anyhow. Has it not occurred to my hon. and gallant Friend that adenoids and tubercule come from slums very often? The very reason they are there, in a large number of cases, is because you have not had proper planning; because you have not had fresh air all round; because you have had some miserable underground dwelling allowed to be inhabited for years and years. That is the reason why these things are there, and that is the reason why they ought to be under the Ministry of Health. I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment or any other like it.
  Amendment negatived.

  Clause 43.—(Amendment of 62 and 63 Vict, c. 44.)
  The following Amendments shall be made in the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899:

  (a)In Sub-section(1) of Section one "seven hundred pounds" shall be substituted for "four hundred pounds" as the limit on the market value of houses in respect of which advances may be made.

  (b)In paragraph (a) Sub-section (1) of Section one "eighty-five percent." shall be substituted for "four-fifths" with respect to the limitation on the amount which may be advanced.

  Mr. NEAL: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "seven hundred pounds," and insert instead thereof the words
  1166
  "eight hundred pounds or such higher value as the Local Government Board may in any case prescribe."
  Mr. SPEAKER: Would not that increase the charge on the Exchequer?
  Mr. NEAL: I respectfully submit not. Clause 43 is to enable persons to purchase their own houses under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act of 1899. The limit of the value of the house which a person is entitled to purchase under that Statute at present is £400. The Clause as it stands now in the Bill increases that to £700.
  With great respect it is not a question of a charge on the public fund at all. I think the House will be unanimous about the desirability of housing as many of the working classes as possible under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. The limit of purchase under that Act was £400, and a house of that value cannot be built for much less than about £800 to-day.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment. I understand representations on behalf of the local authorities have been made to the right hon. Gentleman in favour of this Amendment, and I trust they will be more successful than in the former case.
  Dr. ADDISON: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said, but he has not mentioned that the value here is the market value, and it may easily be that you will have a house which costs about £800 or £900 to erect now at the present high prices, and the market value of which, at a future date, may not be more than £700. On the other hand, the price may not fall. I do not like the possibility of putting on the Local Government Board the duty of prescribing other figures, if other figures are necessary, and, therefore, if my hon. Friend will stop at the word "seven," and instead of that, move to insert the word "eight," I will accept.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (a), leave out the word "seven" and insert instead thereof the word "eight."—[Mr. Neal]
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the word "eighty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "ninety."
  One of the difficulties hitherto has been that a purchaser under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, has had to provide

  1167
  20 percent. of the purchase price. With the limit of £400 before the War that meant £80, and with the limit of £800 now, and having to provide 15 percent. it would mean a sum of £120, and it would be very difficult for any working man or clerk or person in a small way, to find such a sum. I suggest he should only be, required to find 10 percent., and that, I submit, would be a quite adequate margin for security of the Government. We are not dealing with the cost of erection in this case, but with market value, which may be very much less, and that gives the Government additional security. My object is to facilitate the working of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does not this really impose a charge?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I submit it is only a question of a loan and not of a grant in any form whatever.
  Mr. SPEAKER: But suppose the loan be not paid?
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: There is always, of course, a chance that the loan might not be repaid, but I submit, with all respect, that it is pressing the rule against a further charge to a very extreme limit to say that it applies to a loan because there is the chance of the loan not being repaid. In that case I take it that on all loans this House would Be powerless in any case to increase the amount of a loan set out in a Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: My experience of loans i? that very often they are not repaid.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I submit that does not apply to loans by the Government.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I will hear what the Minister in Charge has to say.
  Sir P. GRIGGS: In Belgium in pre-war times any workman, a mechanic or a labourer, could buy his own house by paying £30 to commissioners appointed for the purpose, or have one built if they wished it on agreed sites, the balance of the cost was allowed to stand at a very low rate of interest, but repayable by instalments spread over a number of years. In the past, many people in this country have been able to secure and own houses by paying £30 or £25 down. Many occupiers will desire to purchase their houses under the new Act, and if they are to be
  1168
  called upon, to pay £100 or more, that will debar very many of them from achieving that desire. A sum of 10 percent. on an £800 total will mean providing £80. If you go beyond that amount many will be shut out from buying their own houses. I speak with some knowledge, because I moved the adoption of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in a town some twenty years ago or more, and that town has lent £100,000 out to borrowers who have bought their houses, and many of them have paid off all the money, and the town has not lost one penny piece. They have some thousands of pounds in hand from the ¼ percent. they are allowed to charge for working expenses, and not one has defaulted. We want pleasant garden suburbs and if one only saw the difference between a garden suburb or a town where ownership prevails and where tenancy prevails one would see what a difference in appearance there was. A man who owns his own house will take an interest in it and do his own repairs, but another man wants to move from house to house for a spring cleaning. If he occupies by way of a modified rent, a large cost will be incurred for repairs. In my view the success of this housing scheme depends on the people owning their own houses, and we ought to encourage them as they do in Belgium and in France. Every facility ought to be given them, and I hope the Government will agree to this Amendment.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am quite clear in my own mind that this increase might result in a loss to the local authorities, and I am not prepared to accept the Amendment, not for that reason alone, but for another and quite sufficient reason. We have increased the amount which may be advanced by the proposals in this Bill from 80 percent. to 85 percent., and if we have regard to the very great uncertainty that exists now with regard not only to the cost of building but of market values, and which must exist for a considerable time to come, I am afraid 85 percent. is as much as we can safely go to at the present time. I do not think it would be wise to go beyond that at present.
  Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I rise to support this Amendment. It would be obviously wasting the time of the House to move a similar Amendment of mine to increase it to 95 percent. if this were rejected. I think we are entitled to ask the sympathetic consideration of the

  1169
  House on this Amendment. To ray mind the Acquisition of Small Dwellings Act is a most important piece of social legislation, and I do not think its importance has yet been fully realised. It has not been fully availed of in the past, I think, for two reasons; in the first place, because it was not very well known, and, secondly, because it was not within the reach of the ordinary working man. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill admitted in his speech on the Second Reading that lie did not know of the existence of this Act until he came to study the whole problem of housing, and I do not think he is unique in that respect. I hope he will take steps, therefore, to remedy that deficiency, not merely amongst the people of this country but amongst the local authorities themselves. The real reason why the Act is not as successful as it ought to be is because the margin that he requires is too large. You cannot expect the ordinary working man to produce £80 or £100 when he proposes to enter into a transaction of this character with the local authority, and I think we ought to do all we possibly can to give him an incentive to own his own house, because the very essence of house ownership is the finest possible incentive to good citizenship. Since this Act has been in operation in the city of Liverpool we have had less than one hundred people avail themselves of it, but the results in those cases have been most satisfactory. We have found in most cases that they have paid off their advances long before they have matured, and only last week three people came to the Housing Committee and repaid loans which would not have matured for some time, notwithstanding the fact that they had borrowed with all the advantages of cheap rates. I would like to ask what risk the local authority runs, because I cannot see that it runs any risk. It is not

  SECOND SCHEDULE.

  AMENDMENTS AS TO PROCEDURE UNDEK PART I, AND PART II. OR THE PRINCIPAL ACT AND MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE HOUSING ACTS.

  Enactment to be amended.

  Nature of Amendment.

  Paragraph (8)

  …

  …

  The words "by causing such notice to be published or otherwise in" such manner as he thinks advisable "and the words" in disputed "cases as to the amount of compensation to be paid" shall be omitted.

  Paragraph (10)

  …

  …

  For the words from "and the local authority shall thereupon" to the end of the paragraph there shall be inserted the words "The title" in the case of a person claiming a fee simple interest in any lands "included in any such award as aforesaid shall commence twenty

  an ordinary business transaction between a mortgagor and a mortgagee. The local authority has special rights and privileges, and it seems to me to be far better to have a ratepayer who is a potential owner than to have a ratepayer who is merely a tenant, and who may leave his house at any moment. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, and to give this Amendment more favourable consideration.
  Amendment negatived.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    RULES FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF REDUCTION OF COMPENSATION.
    (b) The value of the whole of the said land shall next be ascertained on the basis of its value as a cleared site subject to the requirements of the scheme as to the provision to be made for the rehousing of persons of the working-classes on the land or any part thereof.
    (d) The amount by which the compensation payable for the respective interests in the land to which Section eight of this Act applies, as ascertained in accordance with the principle laid down in that Section is to be reduced, shall be a fraction thereof equal to the amount arrived at under paragraph (c) when divided by the amount arrived at under paragraph (a)."
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the words "working-classes," to insert the words
    "or the laying out of open spaces."
    This is to bring the Schedule into accord with the provisions of the Bill as amended in the Clause dealing with the acquisition of land in slum areas.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (d), leave out the word "eight" and insert instead thereof the word "nine."— [Dr. Addison.]

    Enactment to be amended.

    Nature of Amendment.

    "years previous to the date of the claim except there has been an" absolute conveyance on sale within twenty years and more than "ten years previous to the claim when the title shall commence with" such conveyance. Provided that the local authority shall not be "prevented if they think fit from requiring at their own expense "any further abstract or evidence of title respecting any lands" included in any such award as aforesaid in addition to the title "hereinbefore mentioned."

    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after "paragraph (8)," to insert:

    "Paragraph (9)

    …

    …

    The words '(subject to the provisions concerning an appeal hereinafter contained)' shall be omitted."

    These arc Amendments in the Schedule consequent on alterations in the Clauses.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made, after "Paragraph (10)," insert:

    "Paragraph (12)

    …

    …

    The words from 'The local authority, or any person interested' to the end of the paragraph shall be omitted.

    Paragraph (14)

    …

    …

    For the words 'such statement and abstract as aforesaid' there shall be substituted the words a statement in writing by any person claiming any right to, or interest in, the lands and an abstract of title on which the same is founded." —[Dr. Addison.]

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir D. MACLEAN: At such a stage as this, on many Bills of less importance, which have not been of a particularly controversial character, it is the custom to tender some words of congratulation to the Minister in charge. On this occasion, I am quite certain that not only for the hon. Members who are now present, but for the whole House, we can offer to the Minister in charge words of heartfelt congratulation on the success which he has achieved in piloting this very intricate and, in some senses, controversial Bill to so successful a conclusion as this. His long and honourable medical career, combined with his genuine sentiments of social interest, linked up with that particular personal knowledge of how the poor live, and his Parliamentary gifts, have peculiarly qualified him for taking charge of such a measure as this. I will only just deal, as briefly as possible, with two or three points of the measure. First of all, I am delighted to find that the town-planning side of the Bill has been very considerably strengthened. In the second place, it is matter of satisfaction to see that a Clause dealing with the power to acquire water rights is in the Bill. I do not know whether that will strengthen the Bill or not, but, at all events, it is perfectly clear that, outside the areas of the great water supplies,
    1172
    there are large tracts of the country which need additional housing as sorely as the most crowded areas of our great cities, and, unless you have an adequate water-supply, your housing, however well the houses may be built, however splendid the plan, will fall short of meeting the real requirements of the case, and I sincerely trust that, in other matters which are before the Committees upstairs at the present moment, the model which has been adopted here of power to take water for this very necessary purpose will not only be followed but, if possible, bettered to some extent.
    I am sorry to touch upon a point which is rather controversial, and that is the question of how you are going to get the land, and at what price you are going to get it. I hope, Mr. Speaker, I may have your indulgence if I go for one moment beyond the limits, strictly, of this discussion. There are, at the very moment, at least two great measures which are based upon land acquisition before Committees at the same time, and the Land Acquisition Bill is, of course the basis of these measures. Very few Members can find time to attend those Committees. I tried to attend three Committees upstairs to-day. I looked in, but it is a hopeless business. Really it has become very painful to us. I am sure we all want to legislate swiftly, but I am sure we want to legislate carefully. I do hope that we shall find some method of bettering that position as soon as possible, because it is really getting very

    1173
    serious. On this question of the acquisition of land, let me say once again—I am tired of saying it, but I am going on saying it—the price at which you can buy the land is the basis of how these measures are going to work, and the country will not stand the burden, which the present measure seeks to impose on communities and on public utility societies, of buying land at a market price which largely represents the blood value of the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"]That is my opinion—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not mine!"]—and, if possible, we can get some measure of agreement even in our differences.
    There is one other point I would urge upon my right hon. Friend, and it is this: We all agree that of all citizens of this country who most deserve the benefits of this measure, it is the men who have fought for us on land, in the air, and on the sea.
    I do not think anybody realises the unfortunate position in which a very large proportion of these are at present placed. I have here a return sent a few days ago by a body calling itself the War Rents Relief. They made investigations inside the London area. The secretary asked for information from discharged and demobilised soldiers. He analysed the replies. I have seen this official. He is a responsible man accustomed to deal with public matters very carefully. The analysis reveals this of the first 990 letters: Persons who have their furniture stored, and are forced now to live in furnished rooms, 196; where the furniture is stored and they are compelled to live with parents or relatives, 208; where the home was given up when the husband enlisted and has now returned and more accommodation is required, 241; where the wife and children are living in the country and the husband is compelled to lodge in town, as he cannot get a house, 101; where the parties have just been married, or desire to, and cannot get a house, 47. The Report give instances of empty rooms and houses, some of which are in Government occupancy, or houses out of repair, or houses or rooms simply used for storage —226. Cases where bonuses are demanded, or exorbitant sums asked for furniture or fixtures number thirty-five. And so on through the list. That is the state of affairs with regard to demobilised and discharged soldiers. Really, as I said earlier,
    1174
    we have not, even the best-informed of us anything like an adequate grasp of the urgency of the housing problem.
    I do hope most sincerely that the necessary drive which is essential in getting things done will not be left only to the Local Government Board, the Minister, and the officials. There are those who think that the State can do all these things, and that all has been done when you create a Department and appoint officials. They think things are then going to be done. But the whole thing is not done. Nothing is accomplished without a profound sense of individual responsibility. I hope that in every effort that is being made, I do not care what it is, whether through the public utility societies or any others, that there will be a real sense of civic responsibility, for every assistance that can be given is required to deal with this urgent problem. I hope the public will not get it into their minds that simply because we have got the Third Reading of this Bill that the thing is done. It is scarcely begun! The duty lies not only upon the Local Government Board, and those appointed throughout the country. Every individual man and woman who has any power or influence should exert it, no-matter how small it is. If that sense of unity is apparent in our minds then this great matter—I do not hesitate to use the word "great," for it is so—will bring forth much fruit in the immediate future. We may then perhaps in some very small way be able to realise the duty we owe to those who have fought, bled, and died for us, so that in some slight measure this debt may be repaid.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to add my congratulations to those of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) at the passing of this great measure through the House of Commons. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman has he made up his mind as to exactly what he means by the working classes who are going to come under this Bill. In the title there occurs the words "Housing of the working classes." My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fulham put down an Amendment on this point, but it was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker on the ground that if you limited the existing definition of working classes you would be putting a charge upon the Exchequer. That seems to me to be a very important ruling, because surely it carries with it that the local authorities will have to obey the existing definition of the working

    1175
    classes, and if they go outside those definitions they will be placing a charge upon the Treasury which has not been sanctioned by this House. The difficulty I am in is that there are three definitions of working classes in existing Acts of Parliament. There is one in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. In that it says:
    "That the term working men's dwellings 'means buildings suitable for the habitation of persons employed in manual labour and their families."
    If the local authorities go on that definition, anyone not engaged in manual labour will be cut out of the benefits of this Act. The second definition is given in the Settled Land Act of 1890, and it says:
    "The expression 'working classes' includes all classes of persons who earn their livelihood by wages or salaries."
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: That refers only to the powers under the Settled Lands Act.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am aware of that. The third definition occurs in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1903, and there it says:
    "The expression 'working class' includes mechanics, artisans, labourers, and others working for wages, but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others, except members of their own family, and persons other than domestic servants whose income in any case does not exceed an average of 30s. a week."
    If the local authorities chose the last definition, any person who employs anyone outside his own family will be cut out Take a local shoemaker. He might employ someone outside his own family, and he might not be earning £6 per week, but it seems to me he would be cut out of this Act. A man in charge of a laundry employing two or three girls for washing would not come under the benefits of this Act. I merely mention this point in order that when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to reply he may tell us what he has in his mind in regard to what he wants the local authorities to consider as the working classes, because, after all, I look upon a man who is earning a living with a moderate income, whether engaged in manual labour or not, as just as much a member of the working classes as a miner or an artisan. A bank clerk is just as much a member of the working classes, and I might go through several categories of employment in the same way; in fact, I think a Member of Parliament, who only has
    1176
    £400 a year, with Income Tax deducted, is just as much a member of the working classes as an artisan getting from £6 to £7 per week. Quite seriously, I hope my right hon. Friend will give some indication to the local authorities as to what is the proper definition of the working classes. We do not want vast sections of working people to be cut out by the definition, and thus to be deprived of the benefits of this legislation.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RICHARDSON: I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having reached the last stage of this Bill in this House. But I would remind him it is absolutely necessary that the Act should become a living force, and to achieve that two or three things are necessary. I agree with the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that, in the first place, it ought to be made perfectly clear that the land should be had for the building of workmen's houses on reasonable terms. I voted last night in favour of that Amendment because I felt that the attitude of the Government in the two or three Bills now before this House is not quite satisfactory. We want to have a clear indication from the Government that in the acquisition of land there shall be a distinct understanding that while the price paid is fair to the landowner, it is also necessary, for the sake of the people, that that price at which the land is purchased shall be most reasonable. In the second place, I wish to impress upon the President of the Local Government Board the enormous importance of occupiers owning their own houses. No sacrifice of money on the part of the State will go unrewarded if we can get every man and every woman in this land to own the house in which he or she lives. It is not only good for the State that they should acquire an interest in affairs far removed from the ordinary legislative enactment, but it instils in them a psychological condition which it is most desirable to develop. I can remember my father instituting a building society of working men many years ago, and now in my native town there is a larger proportion of occupying owners than in practically any other town in this Kingdom. The result is not only an independence on the part of the working men, but a loyalty to all that is good for the State, and if we can achieve that result in every other town in this country all will be well. It is not enough to consider pounds, shillings, and pence. We

    1177
    have to consider the moral, physical, and mental advancement of the people. If we can increase the number of tenant-owners we have gone a long way to achieve that which we all desire to achieve—a real interest in the State.
    Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: I was in very general agreement with almost everything the Leader of the Opposition said, except on the subject of land. I was particularly interested in what he said about water, because, especially in our country villages, it is the lack of proper water supply that accounts for the short supply of houses. The Bill does not go nearly as far as I should like to see it go, because it only applies to houses which are provided under the scheme of the Bill, and does not apply to existing houses nor to any houses which may be built in the future by private enterprise, and all those houses will be short of water in future, as they are now, wherever there is a shortage of water, as at present, and I hope some further measure will be introduced which will remedy that, because, whether it is the private agency, public utility society, or the local bodies, they all ought to be enlisted in this housing scheme, and they cannot all be enlisted if the water supply is limited to houses erected by local authorities.
    But I really think the Leader of the Opposition seemed to lead the House to suppose that the price of land was one of the greatest difficulties in the solution of the housing problem. Nothing of the sort is the case. I do not think anyone studied the housing problem more closely than Mr. Burns. In the very last Report he issued he said that the land question had little or nothing to do with the difficulties of the housing problem, and he further said if all the land in rural districts had been given instead of sold for housing purposes the rents would only have been diminished by ½d. a week. It is really misleading to say land stands in the way. It has not stood in the way; it never does, and certainly in the future it will not, because there is the Land Acquisition Bill under which land can be taken compulsorily and entered upon at fourteen days' notice and the price fixed by a panel of valuers appointed and paid by the Government and the price they fix is final. What can be more satisfactory? Everyone wants the owner of land to have its value and no more and no less. That is exactly what these two Bills give. That is all that anyone asks. Certainly I do not,
    1178
    and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants any owner of land to have sixpence less than what it is worth. The owners of the class of land which you are taking for this purpose is very largely owned by small people. It lies round towns and villages. It is a great mistake to think that it is the large owners who-own this land that you are taking for housing purposes. The bulk of these owners are small people. I am pleading, for the small people, and I am pleading for fairness for all. I think that the big owner and the small owner should be treated on exactly the same basis. We-have no right to take away any man's. property, and say that because the land is acquired for housing purposes and urgently needed, and because our men have fought for the land it ought to be acquired at less than its value. Many of the men who own the land have been fighting for us, just as much as the men who want the land. The only thing that we can possibly do is to appoint an impartial tribunal, which should give that land to those who want it, and those who want it should be entitled to take it at the price impartially fixed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having got this Bill so successfully through Committee and the House, and I sincerely hope that it will be a means of providing not only houses but real homes for the people of this country.
    Dr. ADDISON: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite and others who have spoken so warmly of us in regard to the measure. The test of the measure is to come. The possibilities within it are enormous. The powers are very drastic. They may be exercised rapidly and by unusual efforts, and the times certainly demand it. One feature of my right hon. Friend's speech which I would ask the House to remember was the statement that the Local Government Board will not by this measure, or by any other, provide a house. What is wanted is the drive and influence of every citizen, who knows the importance of this subject, from one end of the country to the other, to be exerted in favour of the rapid progress of action under the Act. I can see, from the cases which have come before us, that it is a fact, notwithstanding all that has been said, that for various reasons, on account of the price, nervousness, hesitation to proceed, and a sort of paralysis which I am afraid has smitten many

    1179
    people just now, there is in connection with the acquisition of sites great delay in many parts of the country. I believe that this points to the great importance of some of the provisions of this Bill, which, when sites have been approved, enable us to authorise the local authority, after fourteen days notice, to go in and take possession and begin to lay out streets and dig holes for concrete, and get on with the work, leaving the details of valuation and compensation to be determined afterwards. The figures which my right hon. Friend gave were dreadful enough, but I know of many others which amply confirm them, and represent what has happened in many parts of the country.
    I would like, if I may, to take advantage of what my right hon. Friend has said, to draw attention to a part of work in which no body of men has a greater opportunity of helping us than those who are Members of Parliament. We are circulating to Members lists of local authorities and others within their area who have submitted schemes, and those who have not also appear in the list, and I am sure that from every quarter of the House we can, regardless of party, look for the help of all Members in seeing, so far as they can at least, that the local authorities in their area make as rapid progress as possible. There is no doubt that this Bill casts a great duty upon the local authorities of this country in connection with making provision for a great national emergency which will provide a test of our system of local government such as we have never had before, and in view of the fact that we have at present more than 1,800 housing authorities in this country the question whether our system of local government is well and wisely planned or not will largely be tested by the operations of this Act.
    We have in this Bill some very unique and unusual provisions which authorise the Ministry to act the part of and in place of the authority At the same time it is coupled with provisions which give an altogether unprecedented measure of aid to local authorities in carrying out the duties which the Acts casts upon them. It is right that it should, and I think the House will expect me, if I am a Minister, to exercise that right and discharge that duty, and in the case of those who are neglecting this urgent national duty not to hesitate to call upon others to operate, if necessary, on their behalf.
    1180
    The time has come for rapidity of action above all things, of course sane and sensible action. At the same time the figures which my right hon. Friend gave, the figures which come to anyone of us, show that one of the most fruitful causes of social uneasiness and discontent at the present time is the miserable housing conditions in which so many of our people live. This measure provides quite new methods for dealing with slum areas, and for reconstructing and assisting other people to reconstruct unsatisfactory houses with the idea of making the best of what houses there are that are worth reconstructing. While we have to recognise that in existing factory conditions, existing conditions of work and the existing lamentable shortage of transit, it will be necessary for many years to come for large numbers of people to live near their work in great centres of population, we must recognise that those Clauses of the Bill which deal with that aspect of the question, strong as they are, are all needed for dealing with the different parts of the problem.
    The House will not expect me to deal with any detailed points of criticism, but I would like to take the opportunity of replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) who, with so many others whom I see near him, helped us so much in Committee. It was, I believe, an unusual experience for Ministers in Committee, for this was a Bill wherein the Minister sought to take powers which were described by a critic outside—quite inappropriately, with regard to me, as the House all recognises— as those of an Oriental potentate. In the Committee the difficulty was to restrain Members from forcing more powers on me rather than there being suspicion of those we sought to take—rather an unusual experience in Committee ! The reason I did not put a definition of the working classes into the Bill was because I found myself unable satisfactorily to provide one, and that is the plain truth of it. The definition of the working classes in the Acts to which my hon. Friend referred were there included for the purposes of those Acts. They were not general definitions. In one case, for instance, in the last he quoted, it related to persons who were displaced in the demolition of condemned houses. It did not go outside that, and they were that class of persons for whom new or other houses had to be provided. But even there—the House will recollect the words—

    1181
    it was persons who worked for weekly wages, amongst others, who were included in the definition. That is a very wide definition. It would certainly include a bank clerk, I should think, as well as a large number of clerks. The definition in the other Act was wider still, and included salaries. That would include the hon. Gentleman and myself amongst the working classes, and I certainly think it ought to. But the reason why we did not put in a definition in this Bill was simply because I did not find it possible to frame a definition that was good enough. I think that was sound policy. We had a number of people, very eminent people, amongst them Mr. Hobhouse, who tried their best to frame it and gave it up.
    This is the policy I propose to adopt. What is the type of house which we are going to encourage and assist under this scheme? The type, of course, under the scheme is fairly general, and such a type of house as you would expect to include in the scheme. Having provided this type of house, we must expect the public authorities and public utility societies to secure that they are let to the persons for whom they are intended. The persons for whom they are intended are the persons whose housing needs emerge in that locality. Because the first principle of the Bill proceeds from this, that the local authority is called upon to provide a scheme, which scheme must be designed to meet the housing needs of their locality. It all arises out of that, and begins from that scheme. When we approve the scheme, then it becomes binding on the authority. So the House will sec that the whole scheme is related, from the first Clause of the Bill to the needs of the locality, that is, the people who live there, and not people who may want to take a country cottage or anything like that. We must expect local authorities and others to see to it, or else assure ourselves, in framing a scheme, that the scheme is designed to meet the needs of the locality for people who want to or can in habit this type of house generally. Then, after the scheme is sanctioned, we proceed from that beginning. I think a practical working application, relating to the type of house you are going to provide, rather than trying to frame some arbitrary definition of the working classes, which will break down within a month—I am perfectly certain of that, whatever the definition is, once you try to work it—is the right line of proceeding.
    1182
    I came to this decision because after having tried to frame a definition, and having employed a number of people to try to frame one for me, I found it impossible to get a definition that would form a working basis for this act.
    In conclusion, may I thank again my right hon. Friend and others who have been so kind in their expressions to myself and to others connected with this Bill. I believe that potentially it is a. great measure of social reform. Worked in the spirit of the Bill, there is no doubt about it, it will transform the face of our country from one end of it to the other.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX [EXPENSES.]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to control the importation of goods infected or likely to be infected with anthrax, and to provide for the disinfection of any such goods."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not wish to cause any delay in the passage of this measure. I wish to express our appreciation of the memorandum drawn up showing particulars of the probable expenses. It is an excellent memorandum, and must have taken considerable time and trouble.

  PREVENTION OF ANTHRAX BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

  CAPTAIN FRYATT.
  CAPTAIN FRYATT.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  MEAT AND MILK (INFECTION).
  MEAT AND MILK (INFECTION).
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOB RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOB RELEASE.
  TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS (DEFINITION).
  COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS (DEFINITION).
  TROOPS IN SALONIKA.
  TROOPS IN SALONIKA.
  BLANDFORD CAMP.
  BLANDFORD CAMP.
  INNS OF COURT OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  INNS OF COURT OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (UNIFORM).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (UNIFORM).
  UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TRANSFERS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (TRANSFERS).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES (MEMORIALS).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES (MEMORIALS).
  DISPOSALS BOARD (SALE OF ANIMALS).
  DISPOSALS BOARD (SALE OF ANIMALS).
  BARRACK WARDENS.
  BARRACK WARDENS.
  DISCHARGED LABOURERS, LYNDHURST.
  DISCHARGED LABOURERS, LYNDHURST.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  HALTON CAMP, BUCKS (WAGES).
  HALTON CAMP, BUCKS (WAGES).
  ARMY BOOTS.
  ARMY BOOTS.
  LANDING OF TROOPS, SMYRNA.
  LANDING OF TROOPS, SMYRNA.
  EGYPTIAN ASSOCIATION (CIRCULAR).
  EGYPTIAN ASSOCIATION (CIRCULAR).
  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
  ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL.
  POOR LAW WORKERS.
  POOR LAW WORKERS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  CHILDREN (POOR LAW MAINTENANCE).
  CHILDREN (POOR LAW MAINTENANCE).
  HOSPITAL SITES (LONDON).
  HOSPITAL SITES (LONDON).
  LYMPH.
  LYMPH.
RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.
  COST OF RUNNING.
  COST OF RUNNING.
  COAL PRICES.
  COAL PRICES.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  GRATUITY BOOKS LOST.
  GRATUITY BOOKS LOST.
  TUBERCULAR DISCHARGED MEN.
  TUBERCULAR DISCHARGED MEN.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS.
  TRANSPORTATION PROPOSALS.
HOUSING SCHEMES.
  ARCHITECTS.
  ARCHITECTS.
  POLLING FACILITIES, SUTHERLAND.
  POLLING FACILITIES, SUTHERLAND.
  FARMERS' BANK.
  FARMERS' BANK.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  BOLSHEVIK LEADERS (SHOOTING).
  BOLSHEVIK LEADERS (SHOOTING).
  POLAND (ANTI-JEWISH OUTRAGES).
  POLAND (ANTI-JEWISH OUTRAGES).
  POISONS AND PHARMACY ACT (BY-LAW).
  POISONS AND PHARMACY ACT (BY-LAW).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

DOVER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL BANK BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
SHERINGHAM GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NURSES REGISTRATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill for the registration and training of nurses I do not think I need say much with regard to the general principle of registration, because that was accepted by your Lordships in this House on the passing of the Registration Bill brought forward by Lord Ampthill, and passed without a Division. There is also a Bill before another place which has passed its Second Reading and has gone to a Standing Committee.
Among the great schemes of reconstruction at the present moment there is none, I suppose, more important than that dealing with the health of the people, a Bill for which has lately been passed by your Lordships' House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board in another place said that the success of the new Ministry of Health set up under that Bill would depend very largely upon the instruments by which it was carried out. One of the instruments for carrying out that Bill is the nursing profession. In recent years a great deal of new work has been entrusted to the nursing profession by the Board of Education and by the Local Government Board, and nurses have had new opportunities of teaching hygiene and
818
the laws of health, and I am quite sure that anything which enhances the status and efficiency of nurses must be good for the public at large and for the nation. I venture to think that the fact that they are doing so much public work is another argument in favour of their registration, but such a step, I think, ought to be part of the big scheme which is being set up by the Government at the present moment to deal with the health of the country.
The registration of nurses—that is to say, the setting up of a Register upon which only nurses who have gone through a certain training and reached a certain standard of efficiency can be placed—must be a protection not only to the public but also to the nurses themselves; for the public, if it employs a registered nurse, would know that it is employing a nurse who has reached a standard of efficiency and has certain qualifications; and the nurses themselves will be protected as regards their name, pay, and uniform—a thing which is very important at the present moment—and will achieve a status which the devoted services that nurses have always given thoroughly deserve.
There is one misunderstanding with regard to a system of registration which I should like to dispel. Registration would not prevent any one from nursing, but only those can claim to be put upon the Register who have reached that standard of efficiency and have got those qualifications which the Bill sets up. I may point out that the system of registration has already been put into force in many of our Colonies, and it is, of course, in force with regard to the medical profession and dentists. There are two methods by which a system of registration can be set up. Firstly, there is the method by which sanction for registration can be asked for and an assurance given that when once registration is promoted the work will be carried on. There is a second method, which is, in the first place, to consider the problem of registration, to have some experience of the difficulties, to carry on some experimental work with regard to registration, and then to obtain the sanction of Parliament for a Registration Bill. It is in accordance with the second of those methods that this Bill is introduced.
The College of Nursing, which is promoting this Bill, has already compiled a Register of some 14,000 fully-trained nurses,

819
drawn from practically every training school in the country and registered in accordance with a definite plan, providing in nearly every instance a three years training, and it has during its three years of existence had some experience of the setting up of a Provisional Council, and also of a Council which is at the present; moment being elected by the nurses themselves. Therefore it has to-day some experience of the problem incidental to registration.
Let me make quite clear to your Lordships the position of the College of Nursing under the Bill. The College started as a purely voluntary body which endeavoured to secure the co-operation of the nurses training schools in the country, and it has obtained from them a very large measure of support, and also a large measure of support from the nurses themselves, as can be shown from the number who have joined its Register. But, besides registration, the College of Nursing has other objects in view, such as to make provision for scholarships, for studentships and for a professional journal, the aim of all this being to promote the efficiency of the nurses and to see that that efficiency is maintained after they are registered, and to give them an opportunity of keeping up a knowledge of their work.
In 1916 the College was incorporated under the Companies Act as a company limited by a guarantee and without share capital. Under this Bill it is now asking to drop the word "Limited," because if it comes under the Bill that would no longer he necessary. Besides, it is already precluded from declaring a dividend or distributing any profits. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 says that the College of Nursing shall be administered by the General Nursing Council—that is, that the College with its Register of nurses, and with its funds which amount to somewhere about £40,000, shall be handed over to the General Nursing Council to be administered by them; but the College is kept in existence under subsection (3) of Clause 5. The reason for this provision is that the other objects of the college, to which I have called your Lordships' attention and which are so valuable to the nursing profession, may be kept alive. That is, if I may so call it, the basis of the Bill. The College of Nursing is to be handed over to the General Nursing Council, but so far as its educational side is concerned it is to be kept alive.
820
As to the general scheme of the Bill, a General Nursing Council is to be set up to carry out the provisions of the Bill, the exact composition of which Council is to be decided upon by the Privy Council after receiving a scheme from the Provisional Council, but the Bill lays down as essential that there should be proportional representation of various bodies who are interested in the training of nurses and proportional representation of the nurses themselves.
An endeavour has been made in this Bill to secure two objects: one is elasticity, and the other democratic representation. The first object is secured under Clause 4 and Clause 5, subsection (2). The object of Clause 4 is that if it is desired to institute Supplementary Registers of Nurses—that is to say, registers of nurses who are nursing in a children's hospital, or in a fever hospital, or a municipal hospital—that can be done by the sanction of the Privy Council, and it will not be necessary to introduce an amending Act. In Clause 5, subsection (2), it is stated that the rules under this Bill must be approved by the Privy Council—thus, I may point out, giving Parliamentary control—and also that a modification may be made in such rules by the Privy Council. Thus, I think, any rigidity is done away with, and fresh situations can be dealt with under the Bill as they arise.
The second object of the Bill is democratic representation, and this, I think, is secured by Clause 5, subsection (1), paragraph (a), which lays down that two-thirds of the Council shall be elected by the nurses on the General Register. My postbag during the last two days has rather suggested to me that by some occult means I am attempting under this Bill to disfranchise the nurses. I cannot possibly see how this is being done, for under this clause the nurses are free to vote for any one—for a man or a woman, for a doctor, for a matron, for a nurse, or for anybody interested in hospital work. Two-thirds of the Council are to be elected by them. They are free to put upon the Council, as regards these two-thirds, any person whom they think can best serve them and their interest. And this does seem to me to secure to them adequate control and to give them freedom of choice in the selection of their representatives.
Having thus dealt briefly with the basis of the Bill and the general scheme,

821
may I show how this scheme is to be carried out? For the purpose of compiling the first Register of Nurses a Provisional Nursing Council is set up under Clause 7, consisting of thirty-six members, representing the nursing profession, the Poor Law unions, the hospital training schools, twelve representatives of the Central Committee for the State Registration of Nurses, which is the Committee that promoted a Bill in another place; and twelve of the Council of the College of Nursing, who are responsible for this Bill. So that it will be seen that under this clause both parties have an equal representation.
This Provisional Council will start with a Register of 14,000 nurses, which is handed over to it by the College of Nursing. Directly it is appointed it has two duties to carry out. The first is to form a scheme regulating the constitution of the General Nursing Council, winch it will submit to the Privy Council; and the second is to originate a Register of nurses in training at the moment when the Bill is passed, according to Clause 5, subsection (1) (d). It has been thought abvisable not to maintain the Provisional Council in existence for a longer time than necessary, but to expedite the establishment of the General Council of Nursing in order to secure at the earliest moment the direct representation of the nurses themselves. It is therefore laid down in the Bill that when the number of nurses on the Register comes to 30,000 an election for the General Council shall take place. There is no magic in the number of 30,000, but as 14,000 nurses are to be handed over on the register of the College of Nursing it seemed only fair to wait until that number had been more than equalled before an election should take place for the General Council. Directly the General Council is appointed it will proceed to carry out all the rules set out under Clause 5, which put in detail the principles contained in other clauses.
There are various clauses dealing with the registration of nurses. Clause 3 sets up the Register and admits the registered nurses from the College of Nursing without any fee, for they have paid for 14,000, to be included in the number handed over. Clause 9 provides for the existing nurses who claim to be registered within three years of the passing of the Act, and who are to be admitted to the Register subject to certain provisions prescribed under the
822
rule. Clause 9 defines the qualifications of the nurses who will be put on the Register after the three years of grace have expired. Clause 13 limits the fee to a guinea; and Clauses 14 and 17 define the penalties for pretending to be registered and for obtaining a certificate by false representation. Clause 19 provides an appeal to the High Court for any nurse who is aggrieved at a decision of the General Council to remove her name from the Register.
I am afraid that the details of the Bill are somewhat technical, but I have endeavoured to deal with them as briefly as possible. If I may sum up, I would ask your Lordships to support the Bill because it is wide in its scope, in that it has, beyond a scheme of registration, a system for the educational advancement and social betterment of the nurses. As I have said, it has democratic representation, because it is the object of the Bill to substitute a General Council of Nurses, elected as to two-thirds by the nurses themselves as soon as possible and without fixing a definite period for the Provisional Council. and it has this elected Council which will have to make the rules under which the nursing profession will have to live.
There is a Bill for the registration of nurses introduced in another place. I should like to assure your Lordships that neither I nor any of those associated with me have introduced this Bill in any spirit, of aggression. The subject is much too important to the country and to the nurses, and. it has been much too long delayed that any undue rivalry of parties who are interested in it and who are, after all, aiming at the same goal, although by somewhat different roads, should in any way impede or check its progress. What I hope is that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day, and that an opportunity may be found for referring both Bills to a joint consideration, either to a Select Committee or by some other means, in order that from such joint consideration there may emerge an agreed Bill which will set up an efficient system of registration that will be satisfactory to the public and to the nurses themselves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Goschen.)
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading, to

823
move that the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a matter of great regret to me that in moving the rejection of this Bill I should find myself in opposition to the objects and wishes of many good friends of mine, and in conflict with their opinions. It is only a strong sense of duty which obliges me to take up this position. It was twelve years ago that I took up this question of State registration of nurses, because I had satisfied myself that such a measure was necessary as a protection to the public, as an act of justice to women in general and to nurses in particular, and one which was required for the advancement of a noble profession. I cannot abandon those whose cause I have espoused; and, having once put my hand to the plough, I am naturally going to resist the endeavours of those who wish to turn that plough aside from the straight furrow which it has been pursuing for the past twelve years. That is why I have had to turn a deaf ear to those friends who say "Leave it alone," and who warn me that I am running some risk of incurring displeasure, but I trust not any animosity, among my friends.
Let me assure your Lordships that I have no personal or particular interests to serve. For some time past I have ceased to be the manager of a hospital, and the only thing with which I am concerned is that nurses should secure State registration. So far as I am personally concerned, after four and a-half years in the Army, I feel that it is "anything for a quiet life"; and I can assure your Lordships that it is not for my own amusement that I am here opposing this Motion to-night. My noble friend has spared me the necessity of reminding your Lordships of the need for State registration of nurses. He has spoken very strongly in favour of that principle, and some of your Lordships who have not had time to consider the matter may wonder why I, who have been for so long an advocate of State registration, should be opposing this Bill, which calls itself "a Bill for the registration of nurses." It is just because this Bill is not a registration Bill proper that I am opposing it.
The primary object of this Bill is not the State registration of nurses. If your Lordships will look at it you will see that the object which is set out in the very forefront of the Bill, and which runs through every one of its clauses, is to secure the incorporation of a private
824
company known as The College of Nursing, Limited, and, of course, to secure for that company financial support under the agis of State authority. I hold that this is not the right thing to do, and, even if it were, this is not the right way to do it. If you wish to give these privileges to this company, if you wish to give them what is in effect a monopoly in the organisation and the union of all trained nurses so that they may control them for their own purposes, let that be clearly declared on any Bill which you accept; let it appear in the Title of the Bill and in the objects and reasons which are given to the public at large.
Many of the promoters of this Bill were a short time ago most determined opponents of State registration of nurses. If you doubt my word on that point, ask my noble friend Lord Knutsford. I hear that he has been going about saving to the advocates of State registration, "You would never have got your Bill unless someone had bribed away my matrons." What does he mean by that? He means that those people who were formerly against registration and who are now professing to be in favour of it must have been offered some consideration; that there is some ulterior motive which has appealed to them; that they are not advocating registration now simply and solely for the sake of registration. But if the promoters of this College Bill had as their only object the registration of nurses, surely they would have contented themselves with taking the Bill which is now before the House of Commons, which was before your Lordships' House eleven years ago, which passed through this House without a Division, which later was accepted in principle by the House of Commons—which, in short, is the Bill that holds the field, and has been generally approved in principle. They would have taken that Bill and would have contented themselves with moving Amendments in the House of Commons and later, if necessary, also in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend the mover of this Bill suggests that if your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will be possible to refer it to some Joint Committee, so that both Bills may be considered together. I may tell your Lordships that there have been many conferences between the supporters of this Bill and the supporters of the Bill which is before the House of Commons.

825
Concessions have been made to the supporters of the College of Nursing Bill, and they have lost a splendid opportunity—firstly, by asking too much; and, secondly, by failing on many occasions to stick to agreements which they have made. My noble friend skated very skilfully over thin ice by drawing an entirely fanciful distinction between the two methods by which registration might be established, and he declared that the principle of his Bill was that of the "experimental method." You will see that this "experimental method "—if you have had the time to study the literature which has been liberally showered upon you—consists of methods which cannot be regarded as entirely fair. The College of Nursing gave a promise to nurses which they had no right to give, because it was a pros vise which they had no power to fulfil. They said. "If you will join our College and pay us one guinea you shall be registered without any further fee." That is what my noble friend calls making an experimental Register. In the first place, I may say that there is no need whatever to make an experimental Register. Once you grant State registration there will be no difficulty whatever about carrying it out, nor will there be any reluctance on the part of any trained nurse to get her name registered. Experiment, therefore, is entirely unnecessary and beside the point.
The supporters of the College of Nursing Bill have been exceedingly busy. I understand that they have been advocating their Bill not only inside this House but outside, and that their method has been one of confident assertion. I know as a fact that some members of your Lordships' House, who admit that they have not read either Bill, have gone away in consequence of this "lobbying" with the notion that Lord Goschen's Bill is the better. Others, again, with equally imperfect knowledge of the subject, have been seized with the notion that this is a democratic Bill, whereas the Bill before the House of Commons is not democratic. Both of those claims are utterly unfounded, as I shall presently proceed to show your Lordships. But to me this is yet another striking illustration of the fact that one of the best ways of getting on in the political world is by sheer effrontery. I have had no time for doing any of this "lobbying," and I have neither the talent nor the inclination for that kind of work. I have conic here relying entirely on the strength of my case,
826
and I rely upon it even though it is not in my power to put it before you as strongly as it ought to be put.
I am going to try to justify my Motion for the rejection of this Bill first of all on grounds of expediency; secondly, on grounds of principle; and, thirdly, because the Bill itself is a thoroughly bad Bill. In the matter of expediency, the original Bill for the State registration of nurses—the Bill which I had the honour of piloting through this House eleven years ago, which your Lordships accepted without a division, and which, several years later, was approved in principle by the House of Commons—has now made good progress in the House of Commons. It passed Second Reading with general approval of Members of all Parties, and it has been through the Standing Committee. Why complicate the issue by introducing a totally different scheme at this stage? Why go out of your way to be at cross-purposes with the other House, especially at a time like this when it is all-essential that both Houses should be in agreement and when there is such an enormous number of important political measures which you have to discuss and bring into law?
Why delay registration? With the exception of my noble friend on the right, Lord Knutsford, everybody is agreed that we have to have registration. Why delay when it is not necessary to do so? The only effect of giving a Second Reading to this Bill is that there will be an indefinite amount of delay. You are not going to get the House of Commons to agree to this Bill. They have already approved of the other, and yon cannot reconcile these two Bills because they are totally and fundamentally different in principle. It may possibly be a better plan to give this power to the College of Nursing, but the other plan holds the field. Your Lordships are committed to it. You have accepted it in principle. The other House of Parliament is committed to it. Therefore, it is short-sighted, a waste of time, and utterly futile to go back and start afresh on a new scheme in regard to which it would certainly take years to secure the agreement of all the parties concerned. Another reason of expediency is that, if your Lordships accept this Bill or if you delay registration, you will force nurses into trade unions. This is not an idle threat. It is what is already happening.

827
You have seen it in the case of the Asylum Workers' Association, and if you force nurses to form trade unions in order to secure that which they regard, and rightly regard, as a measure of justice and a right to them, you will simply throw them into the arms of the Labour Party. Is that a desirable thing to do at the present time?
This is a question which your Lordships can settle by agreement with that which the other House has already done. This House stands high in the estimation of the associations of nurses, and you can get the credit for granting them that for which they have struggled so long, so bravely, and so persistently. Why throw that away? I think it would be the greatest possible mistake. Why, in these days when you have not too much credit in the eyes of the general public, forfeit the good opinion which you hold and which you have the power to retain? Another reason of expediency is that your Lordships would be simply wasting your time if you give this Bill a Second. Reading and refer it to a Committee. Nothing will result from that except delay; so why do it? The two Bills, as I have said already, are absolutely irreconcilable, as your Lordships can see for yourselves if you only compare them. On the grounds of expediency alone you are justified in saying to the promoters of the Bill, "No, this may be a very good plan, but it is not the plan which is before us, which has been before us for a great many years. This is not the plan which we have decided to adopt in principle. It is not the plan in discussing which we have already in Parliament spent a good deal of time, and therefore we are very sorry, but we cannot switch off and take tip another plan at the present time." So much for the reason of expediency.
Now let me turn to that which is far more important, and that is the matter of principle. But let me premise that registration is, in its essence, a very simple matter, and on that ground, and on that ground alone, it is a very grave mistake to complicate it with a totally different issue. The College of Nursing, which is promoting the Bill that is now before your Lordships, cares only about incorporation. That is the one main, primary object of their Bill. They want to get rid of the word "Limited" after their title. For some reason or another it is extremely irksome to them. They can do that without your assistance.
828
They can do it through the Board of Trade under the Companies Act, 1867. They do not want an Act of Parliament for it, and there is no need whatever for them to take up the; time of your Lordships about it.
It is just as well to be guided by precedent when you undertake legislation of this kind, and for the registration of nurses we have well-defined precedents in the Medical Acts and the Midwives Act. It. is desirable to follow these precedents in order that the legislation on State registration may be harmonised with the other great measure which is before Parliament—namely, the Ministry of Health Bill. The normal functions of a statutory governing body are examination, registration, and discipline; and. as my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill has said—he made it rather a boast, though I cannot think why—the College of Nursing does not confine itself to these three ordinary and accepted functions. It goes far outside of them into all kinds of philanthropic enterprises. Again I ask, why should you tack philanthropic enterprises on to a perfectly simple and necessary measure for the registration of trained nurses? This College of Nursing aims at all kinds of things like homes, clubs, and provincial centres. I say it is most unwise to tack such enterprises, which, after all, are private enterprises, on to a Bill of this kind.
Now let me remind your Lordships what the precedents are. You have, first of all, the great body of Medical Acts, and the medical profession has as its statutory governing body the General Medical Council. Then you have the Midwives Act, and because midwives are already registered they have their body similar to that which the advocates of State registration wish to set up under the Central Midwives Board. Those two bodies define the standards of education; they do not educate. Their function is to supervise and inspect, and it is obviously wrong and inconvenient that those who supervise and inspect should actually be the teachers. This is one of the fundamental differences of principle between us. The College of Nursing wish to educate and have control of the education, whereas our principle is to stick to the established precedent of the Medical Acts and the Midwives Act, and confine the functions of the statutory governing body to examination, registration, and discipline.
I am not in the confidence of the Govern

829
ment and have no notion as to what line they will take about. this Bill, but so far as I am able to judge I believe, if your Lordships accept the Bill which is now before the House of Commons, you will find you are passing into law a measure which will harmonise and conform to the general scheme of the Ministry of Health Bill, and you will be doing that which will be convenient; to the President of the Local Government Board in that great and important measure which he is now bringing through Parliament.
The next question of principle is the claim put forward by the advocates of this Bill, that it is more democratic than ours. I am sure your Lordships will not be misled by a question-begging use of this term, which of all political terms is most frequently misused and abused. No doubt that kind of thing is good enough for a very large section of the public, but in Parliament and in connection with a measure of this kind it is veritable clap-trap to talk of democratic principle. To talk of democratic principle in connection with the State registration of nurses is just as much out of place as to talk of it in connection with the Army, the Navy, with Universities, schools, or colleges. It is just as much out of place as it would be to talk of it in connection with the nursery.
The point on which the whole controversy hinges is this. The College of Nursing s cured a good deal of support for their Bill by loudly advertising the democratic principle which they said resided in a. certain clause embodied in the seventh draft of their Bill. The Bill before your Lordships is the eighth draft, and it shows how many hesitations and doubts they have had about this measure. The clause in question, Clause 5, subsection (1) (a), was as follows—
"Of the persons elected by nurses on the General Register to represent England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, five sixths shall be nurses on the General Register."
You will hardly believe it, but that clause, on which they base their whole claim of democratic concession, has actually been deleted from the Bill, and the Bill now lays down that the direct representatives of the nurses on the General Council shall not be "nurses" but "persons." Persons may be anybody. They may be women, or they may be men; they may be nurses, or they may be doctors. They may be the lay managers of hospitals, and it
830
therefore by no means secures that the representatives of the nurses should be elected from the body of trained nurses. As it is, not one single seat is absolutely secured to nurses on their own governing body. The promise which was embodied in that clause in the former draft of the Bill, on which a large support was secured and which has brought about this flood of literature that has been showered upon us, has been broken, and all this pretence of democratic principle fails to the ground.
The Bill of the Central Committee, before the House of Coma ions, provides that nursing opinion shall be directly represented on the governing body by the nurses themselves, and not by "persons"—not by persons, male or female, some of whom might just he those persons from whose autocratic tyranny the nurses wish to escape. If you wart democratic principle, do not give preferential treatment to any one society, either to the College of Nursing, Limited, or any other society, as you would do by this Bill; and do not grant to any particular class of nurses any abatement or exemption from those fees which are necessary for conducting examinations and compiling and maintaining a Register. Charge all of them the same fee; charge them what it is necessary in order to carry out that work. They can afford and are willing to pay it. A guinea will not do it, but the nurses are perfectly ready and capable of paying three guineas, which is the charge in the other Bill.
I saw in The Times the other day an article which I thought most unfair. In this article the following statement appeared—
"…a new spirit which animates nurses, and demands expression in democratic institutions."
Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with hospitals and with trained nurses and other nurses, for whom we have the most profound admiration and towards whom at the present time every one has reason to feel the greatest gratitude, will certainly agree with me when I say that one sees no sign of any such new spirit. There is no doubt whatever who wrote the article in The Times. There can be no doubt that it is the principal promoter of this College of Nursing BM. which provides for a monopoly for the College of Nursing and for special privileges for the members of the College of Nursing. And to put forward

831
a claim that this Bill is to meet, this "new spirit which demands democratic institutions" is, if I may use a slang expression, "about the limit." I ask your Lordships, Is the present the right time or a prudent occasion to set up any kind of monopoly or create any new vested interests?
I can give you the broad distinction between the principle of these two Bills. The object of the State Registration Bill now in the House of Commons is to raise the vocation of nursing to the standard of a profession—to make it a self-supporting and self-reliant profession, of which every one of its members will be proud, and which will have the same rights and the same powers as other professions, some of which cannot be regarded as so high in the scale as that of trained nurses. I refer to midwives, whose training is far less serious than that of general nurses. On the other hand, you have the advocates of this Bill, who wish to keep nursing as a philanthropic concern, a charity, an institution to be supported by flag days, fêtes, bazaars, and by all those adventitious aids by which charities are supported. Nurses do not want that, and it is exactly from that state of things that they wish to liberate themselves.
Trained nurses want to be registered in order that their qualifications may have due public recognition, and they do not want to be compelled to become members of the College of Nursing. Under this Bill the College of Nursing says they are entitled to become members. Any one who hat any knowledge of the world at all, and who can read between the lines, can see that "entitled." in this case means that very strong pressure will be put upon them to belong to the College, and the College will thus have the power to exact from them any fee or subscription that they decide to charge, and thus yon will destroy all existing societies and associations of nurses. If you want to nationalise all these associations—it is possible that you do, as nationalisation is the craze at the present time—do it in the right way. Set up a Royal Commission and make the advocates of the College of Nursing Bill the judges in their own cause. Give them every opportunity of bullying and browbeating the supporters of State registration. That is the right way. But do not do it by a side wind in a Bill which wrongly purports to be a Registration Bill.
The finance of this College Bill is utterly unsound. I hope your Lordships will take it from me that, in the opinion of those who have made a. very careful estimate, a guinea fee will not pay for registration and examination. The fees to be charged should be defined in the Act, as they are in the Bill before the House of Commons and should not be left to the discretion of those people who later on will draw up the rules. So much for the question of principle.
I come finally to my assertion that this is a bad Bill. I should like to take your Lordships through the clauses of the Bill, but I have occupied so much time already, and I do not think this is the occasion. I hope that there will not be any future occasion on which it will be necessary to do so, and that this will be the last we shall hear of this Bill, because I am quite certain that if your Lordships should carry it any further you will inevitably recognise later that you have made a. had mistake. Just look at the Bill. It professes to be a Bill for the registration of nurses, but it starts straight off with a clause saying that the College of Nursing, Limited, is to be entitled to bear the title of "the College of Nursing," and then it goes on to say that this shall be administered by the General Nursing Council. You are not told what the General Nursing Council is. Here you are suddenly referred to a body which is not in existence and for which no provision has been made.
I speak subject to correction, but believe the usual course is first to state in a Bill that there shall be such and such a body, next to state how it is to be constituted, and then to lay down its duties and functions. This Bill goes the other way about, and speaks of a. General Nursing Council, which does not exist and for which you look in vain throughout the Bill in order to find out how it is to be constituted and what it is to be like when constituted. My noble friend did give you an explanation. It is not Parliament that is to settle how it is to be constituted, but it is to be done in this way: A Provisional Nursing Council is to prepare the scheme and that scheme is to be approved by the Privy Council, and not by Parliament. What a roundabout way of doing things! The Provisional Council is to form the scheme, and then it goes to the Privy Council. Why not do it in the Bill, as you intended to do in the Bill which your Lord

833
ships passed ten or eleven years ago? I will, not trouble your Lordships at this stage with the actual clauses of the Bill. I hope that I have said enough to show you how totally different this Bill is in principle from the Bill which only purports to be for the registration of nurses.
There is, however, one point which was made by my noble friend to which I must refer before concluding. He said that he was at a loss to understand the statement that his Bill would result in the disfranchisement of nurses. I should like to explain that to him. This Bill provides that as soon as 30,000 nurses are registered the rules are to be made and the council is to be formed. Do your Lordships not see what will happen? There are between 70,000 and 80,000 trained nurses in this country. The College of Nursing have 14,000 already. Within a few weeks they can get another 16.000 and make up the 30,000, and then, having got the electorate entirely under their control, they will be able to settle everything. The other 40,000 or 50,000 nurses will not have a say; the mere exigencies of time and distance would prevent them. These other nurses, scattered far and wide, are very busy people, and in the ordinary course would not hear of this thing until long low after the college had got 30,000 nurses. The effect would be that you would have a gerrymandered constituency which would carry out exactly those things which the College of Nursing, Limited, wish to have.
Is it worth while to confuse and complicate the issue in this manner and to put ourselves at cross purposes with the House of Commons, who have already made good progress with the proper Nurses Registration Bill? Is it right to delay the registration of nurses at the present time, when it has been before Parliament for so many years? Nurses have deserved well of the State and have rendered services during the past five years for which every heart in this country is full of gratitude. They stand higher in public estimation as a class and a profession than ever before. They are asking you for this thing, and is it justifiable, for any reason whatever, to delay the grant of 4.5? Surely there is enough unrest and discontent among all classes of workers without adding to it gratuitously by passing the measure which is before your Lordships. Nurses for a long time have been grossly and scandalously underpaid, and have been subject
834
to a great deal of tyranny and oppression. Now is the time to remedy that. Here is a thing which you can remedy at once, and the means of remedying it is the Bill before the house of Commons.
The Bill now before your Lordships is a Bill to aggravate those evils of which I have just spoken; simply for this reason, that you will put nurses more into the hands of the lay managers of hospitals than they are now. The Bill before the Howe of Commons holds the field, and I beg your Lordships to give it a fair field and no favour. Let it come as it is to this House, and if the College of Nursing, Limited, so desire let them introduce Amendments, so that your Lordships can test them in the regular way. Do not put the thing into other hands by handing it over to a Committee. It is a matter which you should settle in the whole House, and not relegate to any Committee. It is a thing which your Lordships should be proud to settle in the whole House; and in legislation of this kind it is wise and safe to adhere to established precedents, and make your laws uniform and in conformity with Acts of a kindred nature. You have those Acts in the Medical Acts and the Midwives Act. I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships that the right and fair course is to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Ampthill.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, both the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill and the noble Lord who moved its rejection said that registration of nurses was useful to protect the public and to protect nurses. If your Lordships will listen to me for ten minutes I will show you why registration of nurses will not protect the public and will not protect nurses. In the first place, what sort of nurses do the public want protection against? They do not want protection against nurses who are working in the hospitals. They do not want protection against nurses whose skill and character are guaranteed by the hospitals who send them out. They do not want protection against nurses sent out by institutions. They do not want protection against district nurses, against village nurses, against cottage nurses who are known to and

835
who are working under a Committee responsible for them. Then whom do we want protection against? I suppose the answer would he, "We want protection against nurses who are working on their own." But even of that limited number you do not want protection against any nurse who is engaged by a doctor.
Therefore we come down to this, that the only people we want protection against are nurses who are working on their own and are not engaged by a doctor. The doctor almost always engages the nurse who attends to his patient. Hardly any of us, I should imagine, would be so silly as to engage a nurse to look after ourselves or after anyone we loved, simply because her name was on a Register. Why, we should not engage a cook simply because her name was on a Register. Therefore then, for that limited class, registration is not wanted as a protection for the public. Even if you do take one of those trained nurses not engaged by a doctor, what do you get? What security do you get from the fact that a nurse is on a Register? "I shall get a good nurse," is what the advocates of registration say; "if I engage a nurse from a Register I shall get a fit and proper person to nurse me." Is that so? What does registration mean? It means that perhaps ten years, or five or twenty years, ago a nurse passed a certain necessarily easy examination, and that then she was a woman of good character. But, my Lords, character may and does change, and certainly nursing changes.
Not long ago, if I may allude to myself for a moment, I had to revise the manual for. Army male nurses, and every page of that book had to have some alteration made to it. Nursing changes, I will not say every day, but certainly every two years. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had an operation, but if you have you would know that the preparations for an operation have completely changed. We used to have to put people for twenty-four hours under a wet compress. Such a thing is unknown now. The treatment of bi-antiseptics is changed. The treatment of septic wounds is entirely changed. Appendicitis was not invented till within the memory of many of your Lordships, and even now the method of nursing it is altering. Therefore, when you get a registered nurse you are not certain that you get a technically fit woman to nurse you.
836
All hospitals know quite well that the passing of an examination—and that is the only test yon can get from registration—does not give you the guarantee that you require. You cannot by examination test what is a far more important part of a nurse—her character. You can only test that she has passed this wretchedly easy examination. But all hospitals know that the passing of an examination is not the test. All hospital matrons will tell you that it is not at all certain that women who have passed the best examinations make the best nurses, nor will the passing of an examination be a reason for any hospital _riving a woman a responsible post in that hospital. You may not believe me, but here are the words of one who is dead. Hear what Florence Nightingale said upon this matter. I have a letter from her in my hands. She wrote—
"That woman's work must be the sum of individual effort is, I am sure, tremendously true. We can no more stamp a nurse by a general register or a certificate than we can a sculptor or painter or an architect; indeed much less. For these have to do with dead clay, or canvass, or brick and stone, while the nurse has to do with the living body and even mind of the patient. The idea of the newfangled people seems to be to put nurses on the level of dictionaries-a dictionary can answer questions.… Hospitals do not take their own nurses from among those who are known chiefly as having well passed a theoretical examination."
She went on to say—
"When we consider the teaching of our great Master—how perpetually He dwells upon this, that it is not knowing doctrine but bearing fruit that he desires of us, and that the former is nothing in his eyes compared with the latter, which is so eminently true with regard to our nursing profession—we may well be surprised at the confusion that should have arisen between real training and theoretical examination."
Therefore what we get by the registration of nurses, which is simply the knowledge that a woman has passed an examination, is no protection to the public at all.
Nor, my Lords, will it protect the nurses. The experience of this country is that registration is perfectly useless unless there is combined with it a penal enactment that nobody is to nurse or is to practice unless registered. I happen to be on a Government Committee inquiring into the Dentists Act. There is here a good example. The dentists had voluntary registration, but because there was nothing to prevent men who were not registered dentists from practising as dentists the whole country to-day is flooded with men with no dental qualifica-

837
tions at all, and they are practising, and practising more successfully than the registered dentists, because they are not bound by the same rules. They are not allowed to call themselves "dentists" any more than these unregistered nurses will be allowed to call themselves "registered curses," but they are able to put on their doors "Dental surgery" or "Dental surgeon," just as these women who are not registered nurses will be able to put over their doors "Nurse."
Therefore this registration of nurses is no protection at all to the nurses themselves. You cannot make it penal; you cannot say that every woman who is not a registered nurse shall not be allowed to nurse, because if you did that you would stamp out some of Vie very best work that is being done in the whole country You would stamp out every district nurse, because they happen not to have had the full hospital training, though they are able to do God's own work in every village they live in. You would stamp out cottage nurses, you would stamp out village nurses, you would prevent the V.A.D.'s—and, if I may say so with gratitude, we must all recognise the work that Lady Ampthill has done in connection with the V.A.D.'s—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: If you made it penal to nurse unless a woman is a registered nurse, then no V.A.D. could ever do any bit of nursing that she felt inclined to do. They do not claim to be nurses, but within a limited sphere these women who have not had full hospital training—and I plead for those women too—-are all able to do immensely useful work. And therefore you cannot pass a law which prevents people nursing unless they are registered nurses; and unless you do that you make all registration perfectly useless.
Lord Ampthill has wondered why he finds himself going to vote against a Bill for the registration of nurses. After what I have said, it is perhaps a greater wonder that I find myself an advocate for a Bill which is going to pass registration of nurses, because I am certainly going to vote for the Bill introduced by Lord Goschen. I will tell you why. I feel that I am now a voice crying in the wilderness, though I believe the voice was right; that I have no longer the support for my
838
views (which I know are right), and therefore I feel that I must take the best course that I can, and, without admitting that was wrong, I must do my best to rectify what you may think my mistake.
But I am quite certain of one thing, and I speak with some knowledge. I am quite certain that Lord Goschen's Bill is by far the better of the two; I am quite certain that it carries behind it the opinions of all the best workers in the hospital world. Only the other day there was a very large meeting of matrons representing all the hospitals in London except one, and provincial matrons too, and it was unanimous in favour of this Bill and against the other one lately there has been a meeting of all the hospitals, again unanimously in favour of this Bill. I think we are under a very great disadvamage here, because we are obviously unable to discuss the clauses of a Bill which is not before us. But I am really not so frightened as Lord Ampthill is (if I may apply the word "fear" to him who has never shown it in any other way). I am not so terrified of differing from the House of Commons. They have had their Bill; may not this House have its own Bill too? Why should not we have a better Bill than the House of Commons Bill? And certainly if you could take the votes of the nurses you would find that this Bill was supported by them, and not the other.
There has never been an organisation to which so many nurses have belonged as the College of Nursing, and is it to be thrown in the face of the College of Nursing that it is helping nurses in many alter ways than registration? Lord Ampthill said something about the tyranny over nurses. Why, the Bill in the House of Commons will not alter that tyranny. His other boast, almost in the same breath, was that all that the other Bill did was to go in for the Register of Nurses and nothing else. How can it touch the tyranny of nurses? Whereas this Bill does do something; it does set up this College of Nursing, which has high and better ideals for nurses.
I am quite convinced—and that is what makes me vote for this Bill against all the principles I have held so long—that this Bill will be for the benefit of nursing. I do hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading, and when it is given a Second Reading—it may cause delay (I do not doubt that, bat we cannot help it)—do let us try and get from the re

839
presentative of the Local Government Board, whom I see here, some assurance that, whatever differences there are between the two Bills, whatever councils are set up, shall be made the subject of an inquiry or a Committee. You will never agree; do not think there will ever be an agreement. I know enough of the nursing world to know that, after twenty-three years. It is as much as one's life is worth to go through the Lobby now. You cannot get an agreement. But you may get a Council forced upon them which will carry the confidence of nurses after the first sore feelings have passed off. For what my opinion is worth, I beg you to give this Bill a Second Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I should not have taken any part in this debate merely because I happen to sit on this Bench, but it so happens that this subject is one with which some years ago I was closely concerned. At the time mentioned by my noble friend below the gangway, Lord Ampthill, eleven or twelve years ago, when this was a matter of discussion, I filled the office of President of the Council and was consequently the Minister concerned with this subject. I am only sorry that the noble Earl who leads the House is not able to be here (although I am certain that his place will be well filled by whatever Minister deals with this question) became it is one of the comparatively few matters on which he would have been able to enlighten us as a departmental Minister, apart from the great public work in other Offices which he now undertakes.
I very well remember how high feeling ran at that time, and we have full evidence that it runs equally high now. There are marked divergences of opinion even between those who would welcome the establishment of a Register of Nurses. My noble friend who has just sat down has declared himself a very reluctant convert to the necessity of such a Register, though he has not changed his opinion that it will be in effect a useless addition to our political apparatus. I well remember in the former discussion that the arguments which were used by Lord Knutsford were freely advanced, and I do not know that there is any complete answer to them. It is quite true, as it appears to me, that the mere fact that a nurse has passed an examination some time ago and that her name is on
840
the Register is not in itself a guarantee either of her character or her efficiency.
It is sometimes said, "You are content to place confidence in a Medical Register; why not therefore be content to do the same with a Register of Nurses?" But, as your Lordships will at once see, there is no real analogy between the two professions. A doctor has to work perpetually in the light of day. The mere fact of his being on the Medical Register will not save him or cause his practice to extend if people see that, he is inefficient, if funerals are almost the invariable sequel to his series of visits, or if he displays signs of some kind of physical incapacity, conceivably the result of intemperance. But in the case of a nurse there is no such safeguard. She is sent for from her home or from some institution, and it is entirely on the character of the institution from which she comes that you rely, because her work is not done in public in the sense which that of a doctor is. Therefore I well remember that it was always hoped that when a Register was instituted it might be possible to supplement it by some kind of continuous renewal of a certificate at stated intervals. Whether such a plan would be in fact feasible I do not pretend to say, but if your Register is designed to be a real guarantee of efficiency, and of the newly acquired efficiency which Lord Knutsford points out is so requisite in nursing, it will be necessary to devise something of the kind.
One point of view has always been that the nursing profession cannot be regarded as a quite independent profession in itself, but that the nurse must be always regarded as a kind of aide de camp, as it were, to the doctor, and that therefore the medical profession ought to exercise, if not a predominant influence, at any rate a very great influence in any body framed to conduct the affairs of the nursing profession. On the other hand, there are many in the nursing profession who themselves claim the most absolute and complete independence for their profession—so honourable and distinguished as we all know it is—and resent the idea that outsiders, even such closely allied and distinguished outsiders as the medical profession, should take much part, or indeed some would say any part at all, in the management of the profession. Those differences of opinion have not disappeared. But now there is a certain novelty in the situation—a

841
definite novelty since my time—by the establishment of the Royal College of Nursing. Those who, like myself, have not been able to keep up any continuous knowledge of this question have very little acquaintance with the work, with the standing and with the hopes of the Royal College of Nursing. When, therefore, we are told—as Lord Ampthill has told us—that this body is claiming by its Bill a paramount place in deciding the future of the whole College of Nursing, I confess that without more knowledge I am not able either to support or to dispute that plea.
We are in this further difficulty, that we have not got before us yet the other Bill, which I suppose ought to reach us soon after Whitsuntide, and to pronounce an opinion either for or against this Bill without having seen the other appears to me an almost impossible course to take. On the whole, therefore, it appears to me that the wisest plan for us to take is that which has been favoured by my noble friend who has just sat down—namely, that this Bill should receive a Second Reading, but a Second Reading which does not imply any recognition of its superiority (if it is superior) to the other measure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, appears to have been almost accused of what is known as "jumping a claim" in having introduced this measure before the other Bill has reached us. I think we ought to regard this one altogether without prejudice until we have seen the other. When the other comes, if your Lordships are so impressed by its superiority over this measure it could be proceeded with; or if we are not able, after it has been read a second time, to decide that. it is definitely superior to this, then I trust that His Majesty's Government will recommend the course of sending both to a Select Committee. I do not think that any serious waste of time need be involved in that course—that is to say, not such waste of time as will prevent the chosen Bill, the ultimate Bill, from becoming law this year. That we all hope some such measure will do. We know very well—and my noble friend here (Lord Knutsford) recognises the fact—that the establishment of a Register is strongly demanded by the vast majority of the nurses themselves. I think that is quite enough for us. That being so, we ought not to delay any longer than can possibly be helped. But it
842
clearly will be idle to proceed with this Bill in any way until we have seen the other; therefore I hope that His Majesty's Government will adopt the course I venture to support.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, after the speech to which we have just listened front the noble Marquess it is quite a "toss up" now which Bill the House will accept. It is not for Me, however, to make any further remarks about that. Referring to the speech of Lord Knutsford I feel very diffident indeed in the face of his experience of nursing and hospitals about saying anything, but I understood from that speech that the noble Viscount does not want any registration at. all. I also understand, however, that the nurses throughout the United Kingdom want registration; and I must point cut that the midwives, who are really most important nurses (as I know Lord Knutsford will admit) are already registered. I believe the noble Lord (Viscount Knutsford) is going to vote for Lord Goschen's Bill. It is a sort of "Hobson's choice," and he thinks that on the whole it is the better Bill.
Lord Goschen said that the whole matter had been much too long delayed. I agree. I think I spoke in 1908 when there was a Bill introduced—which I must remind your Lordships passed its Second Reading without a Division in this House—with regard to the registration of nurses. The matter has been too long delayed, yet the noble Viscount, introduces a Bill on the top of the Bill that has passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons, and gone through the Committee stage; and the effect of the introduction of this Bill will be to delay the matter very much. The noble Viscount says his measure has the spirit of democracy in it. I must point out that what nurses want on the Council are not persons to represent them; they want personal representation themselves. That is the point which they make above all things, and I think that that matter should be considered by this House, and very seriously considered. After all, nurses are a body for whom we have the greatest respect. During this war many have sacrificed their lives and we owe a great deal to the nurses.
With regard to the Nursing Council, which is mentioned in Viscount Goschen's Bill, it is quite true that those who govern the nurses on the Council might be the

843
employers of the nurses. That is a thing to be avoided very much indeed, but this is not the time to criticise the different clauses in the Bill. I should like to support Lord Ampthill on these grounds—that there is a Bill before the House of Commons now and that Bill is likely to come up to us, as the noble Marquess said, after Whitsuntide. Why should the whole issue be confused by another Bill? I think it is much better that the House should consider the House of Commons Bill and not vote for that of the noble Viscount. A very good remark was made with regard to the College of Nursing, Limited, as I think it is called, at a meeting held to protest against Lord Goschen's Bill. It tickled my fancy very much. It was a remark made by Dr. Crouch who said he compared the College of Nursing to Rostand's "Chantecler" which, when it crowed, was under the impression that it made the sun rise.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I do not propose to occupy your attention for long, and, in any case, I have great diffidence in speaking on this very thorny and difficult question which really almost requires the experience of a life time thoroughly to understand. Your Lordships have already been reminded how, in 1908, we passed the other Bill, and it seems to me that, if you support the Second Reading of the Bill now before the House, you will be forsaking the old love for a new one, and, if I may say so, the old love is far and away the more attractive. We, who oppose the Bill of the College of Nursing, do so on several grounds, but I think one which may commend itself to your Lordships is—if what I maintain is true—that the Bill before your Lordships at present is a hospital governors' and matrons' Bill whereas our Bill is a Bill of the rank and file. Among those who composed the Bill there was not, I believe, one single working nurse. The Council is composed of matrons, hospital governors, and medical practitioners.
The College of Nursing has made great capital out of the fact that it has 14,000 members. I do not think this is the least surprising if you see an extract from a circular, widely distributed all over the United Kingdom, in which the nurses were told that that if they joined the College of Nursing they would at once get on the register without further expense and
844
without examination. So, of course, naturally they all joined the College of Nursing, and I do not think this matter of numbers should weigh with your Lordships at all. Why so many nurses distrust this College of Nursing Bill is because the College is so obviously working for its own hand. It is composed of people who for years have strenuously opposed the registration of nurses, and I think it is not unfair to suggest that what was in their minds was that they should produce their own Bill with clauses which still kept the nurses under their domination. The chief reason why hospital governors and matrons were always opposed to registration was that the standardisation by the State of the qualifications of nurses would tend to make nurses independent of the Hospital School by reducing the great amount of competition from unskilled nursing workers, which would tend to raise the salaries not only outside the hospitals but in the hospitals themselves. Registration really meant the abolition of cheap nursing labour.
Your Lordships may have noticed that the Press are rather inclined to support the Bill which is now before the House than the other Bill, but I think that you should not attach too much importance to this, because the so-called Nations Fund for Nurses, which was raised to endow the College of Nursing, spent a very considerable sum on advertising and, without throwing any doubt on the genuineness of the convictions of the Press, I think that perhaps the sentiment "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours" may have reacted a little between the Press and the College of Nursing. One very distinguished supporter of the Bill now before your Lordships' House was heard the other day to boast that he had got Lord Northcliffe. I do not know if that was an idle boast or not, but in any case I do not see that we should be unduly depressed by it, because though he may have got Lord Northcliffe to-day there is no certainty that he will have got him tomorrow. But do let us have the better Bill. Do not let anyone vote for the Second Reading of this Bill unless and until he has compared it with the other Bill. Your decision this evening affects a great number of people of whom we are all very fond and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Personally I feel so much indebted to them that I intend, in however humble a way, to do what I can to forward what I hope are their best interests.
LORD GREVILLE: My Lords, I hope that, your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill. We have listened to several speeches this afternoon, and I think every speaker has admitted that the registration of nurses is much called for and agreed upon in the nursing profession. After listening to the speeches for and against, what I am personally convinced of is that there is a very large measure of disagreement as to the method by which it should be carried out, and I think it would be extremely difficult for your Lordships' House to agree to an Bill which has been introduced in another place and which you have not seen. Therefore, I hope that you will give this Bill a Second Reading, and later on when opportunity offers, put both Bills in Committee, thereby securing an agreed Bill and the better Bill of the two. The argument used against this Bill by the noble Lord, that he was the first in the field, does not move me much. You may be first in the field, and yet not produce the best Bill. He also said this Bill ought not to be introduced because the Bill which is already in the House of Commons. I do not think that argument carries great weight. Your Lordships' House had always prided itself upon its fairness, and with these two Bills in their present state it is only fair to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then form your judgment later on when you have an opportunity of seeing both Bills.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have always been in favour of the registration of nurses on grounds which affect us all, because we recognise it raises their natural status and gives security to the public. When I saw that this House was going to be invited to read a second time a Nurses Registration Bill I was naturally pleased and gratified. I confess, when I learned that the Bill was likely to be supported by Lord Knutsford, I developed what I think is not altogether an unreasonable bias. The noble Lord has told us that he has always been opposed to the registration of nurses altogether, and when I find a reform introduced in two forms (a) and (b) and the person who has always been most bitterly opposed to that change supports one, I confess I feel it is all the more certain that the other form is the most effective, because he will support the one which it is likely will go the less way to carry out that which he does not like. That appears to be ordinary common sense.
846
Your Lordships, I think, are aware probably that the other Bill has progressed a considerable way in another place; it has in fact, passed the Standing Committee. In the Standing Committee, in some of the proceedings that I saw reported, it appeared that Amendments had been proposed and moved on behalf of the Government and incorporated in the Bill, and that certain compromise Amendments had been assented to. If that is so it is rather peculiar, when that Bill is almost on the threshold of your Lordships' House, we should find this body introducing here, with a view of confusing the issue, a Bill which proposes the registration of nurses in a totally different way.
I am a believer in the principle of self-government, and I am quite prepared to take up the noble Viscount on his statement, which certainly astonished me, that the majority of nurses are in favour of his Bill. If I was satisfied that that was so I should be prepared to support the Bill. But I confess, that neither my post bag nor the appearance of the Lobby tends altogether to support that view. If it is correct, the supporters of Lord Goschen's Bill are certainly very retiring and silent as compared with the supporters of the other measure. What evidence is there to be produced, or that has been produced, that the majority of nurses favour the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I see no signs of it; and it is an ingenious way of getting the thing up.
The position is this. Women now have the vote; they have to be considered more than they used to be. It is not so easy to say, "I do not like the registration of nurses." Women are now likely to get what they insist on having, and the noble Lord tells us that he recognises they must have registration. But, he says, "let me see how I can make it as little harmful as possible." The College of Nursing, Limited, does not attract the nurses by the force of its own virtue or its past history (which is a short one) but it attracts them by the remarkable circular to which your Lordships' attention has already been called, and of which, I think, it is worth while reading the exact words—
"Every certificated nurse should apply at once for registration by the College of Nursing. (1) Because the Council of the College of Nursing has drafted a Nurses Registration Bill which provides that the Register already formed by the College of Nursing shall be the first Register under the Act. If, therefore, you are on the

847
College Register you will automatically and without further fee be placed upon the State Register, when the Nurses Registration Bill is passed."
That sort of statement does not take in your Lordships, or any lawyer, or anybody with Parliamentary experience. But what does a nurse think when she receives a statement like that? She naturally takes it at its face value, and she probably takes it for granted that it is a proper and natural way of getting on the Register, and that if she wishes to be in her proper place she should get on the Register of this College of Nursing as soon as possible. In that way you get a large membership, and you come to this House and say "This should be the dominant body because it has the largest membership."
I am not prepared to analyse in any detail, and I think it would be out of order to do so, the exact method of election to the Council as between the two Bills. I think the Council which gives nurses direct representation—which gives them the representation for which they ask and insist—is in the Bill which is not before your Lordships' House. I think your Lordships would be unwise to confuse the issue by giving a Second Reading to this Bill. The noble Marquess said that we could give a Second Reading to the Bill without assenting to the principle of the measure; but if we went to a Division it is difficult to say we have not assented to the principle, and I think you would have prejudiced the issue in an unfortunate way. If this is the proper way to constitute the governing body of nurses it will be perfectly easy to do so by an Amendment to the other Bill when it comes before us.
Notwithstanding the statement of Lord Knutsford, that there is a majority of nursing opinion in favour of this Bill, there is not the slightest evidence of it. The opinion I have formed from all the literature I have read—and I have taken some pains to inform myself on the subject—is that the overwhelming mass of nurses are opposed tooth and nail to this Bill, and even if it were to become law—though I am convinced it would not pass the other House—you would find an unofficial Register compiled in opposition to it. I hope that your Lordships will hesitate to give a Second Reading to a Bill which is merely intended to camouflage the real issue.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot; help thinking that it is unfortunate that we are called upon to decide a matter which each one of us desires to settle for the best possible interests of the nurses (and of them alone) in a manner which prevents us from really being able to comprehend what are the issues that are involved. No doubt your Lordships, in common with myself, have received during the past fortnight a considerable quantity of literature, and I have no doubt you have done your best, as I have, by reading it, to try and comprehend what is the real matter upon which we are asked to make up our mind. I must admit I have come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to determine that issue by anything in the nature of a debate in full assembly of this House. There is to my mind only one possible way in which it can be settled, and that is by having the whole matter thrashed out before a Committee of the House. If that is right—I cannot help hoping and thinking that the speeches your Lordships have heard to-night must have impressed you with the fact that it is right—is there any reason why the Bill which has been introduced should be excluded from consideration before that Committee? I think there is not, and I will tell you why.
It seems to me that the real difference between the two Bills is to be found in this—that the Bill which Lord Goschen has introduced has associated with registration something beyond—something that will provide for the education and for the improvement of the standing of nurses; whilst the other Bill aims merely at blank registration, which, as has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, is in itself an ineffectual thing. Lord Knutsford, as I understand him, supports Lord Goschen's Bill not for the reason given by Lord Russell, that he hoped by this means to get rid of registration altogether, but because he hopes by this means to make registration a reality and something that is of value and not something which is nothing but a name. Registration by itself is nothing but the compiling of a dictionary. There are registered plumbers; there are registered auctioneers, and all kinds of people are registered, and registration by itself conveys neither authority, nor skill, nor character of any kind, nothing but the compilation of a book. If you want to make registration real you must associate with it something that will establish the

849
status and improve the position of the people who register. Whether this Bill will do that, I find myself unable to say; but this I know, that that is claimed for it and it is that which has caused Lord Knutsford, whose work in connection with hospitals we all know and respect, to support the Bill and to ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
I do not desire, alter the long debate that has taken place, to trouble your Lordships further with considerations of my own on this matter, but I think it would be a serious thing to reject the Bill which Lord Goschen has placed before your Lordships for consideration, and to say that it is not to be considered at all, when all he asks is that when it has beer read a second time your Lordships may consider the two Bills together and out of them make the best Bill that can be compiled for improving and establishing the position of the women, to whom we all owe an indebtedness which we are only too eager to express and discharge.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, as chairman of a well-known hospital in London I should like to associate myself with what has fallen from Lord Knutsford and also from Lord Buckmaster and other speakers on this side. I certainly think that the most practical course will be to read this Bill a second time and refer it to a Select Committee, and then see whether it is not possible to thresh out the whole thing before that Committee and get an agreed Bill.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, it will perhaps be convenient if I very shortly state, in the first instance, what is the view of the President of the Local Government Board; and then perhaps your Lordships, as I have had something to do with such matters, will allow me to say a word or two of my own. I share with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, the regret at the cause which keeps my leader, the Lord President of the Council, from his seat on this occasion.
My Lords, on my own behalf, and on behalf of the President of the Local Government Board, I hope that you will consent to give a Second Reading to this Bill, on the ground that it embodies the principle
850
of registration, for which the Government desires to secure legislative authority as a protection for the nursing profession itself and also for the public. Having said this, it is my duty to add that I am not in a position to commit the Government in any way to the bodies described nor to the actual College so described in the Bill. As your Lordships know, there has been a controversy over this question for very many years. I think it was going strong, as we say in another place, when I first entered the hospital field as long ago as 1883, and my right hon. friend proposes to see, by conferences and conversations with the people supporting the two Bills, how far it is possible to get some agreement, or at. any rate to see how much of what is left of each Bill can be taken in the near future, or immediately, as the basis for a really good Bill.
A suggestion for a Select Committee has been made in two different ways. I am not quite sure whether I understood the noble Marquess correctly, but. I understood him to say that he hoped we would read this Bill a. second time, and that when we had got the other Bill before us it would be a good plan, if an agreement had not been reached and one Bill could not be made out of the two by various conferences, that they should then be subjected to investigation by a Select Committee. On the other hand, I rather gathered that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster suggested that this Bill should be sent at once to a Select Committee.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My idea was that when the other Bill came up they should both go together to a Select Committee.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Then I gather that my noble and learned friend is in agreement with the noble Marquess beside him. Of course, that would give us a little time for these Conferences to which I have referred. I am not in a position, as my noble friend will understand, to give any undertaking on the subject at this moment, but I will convey to the President of the Local Government Board what is their wish and what I have heard expressed in the same direction from other members of the House, and I have not the smallest doubt that he will give it most careful consideration

851
Now I should like, having expressed what I may term the official view of this Bill, to say a word upon the general question. I do not refer to the other Bill because first of all it is not before us. I listened with the great attention which is due to Lord Knutsford, who has had a long experience of these matters, and I do not quite take the same view of the change of mind of my noble friend as was taken by the noble Earl opposite. We all change our minds sometimes on questions of importance, and it has been my experience that those who change their minds generally become more vigorous supporters of the new view than they were of the old. I can go, however, a certain way with Lord Knutsford. I agree that registration in itself is not an absolute guarantee of the value of services of this or that profession. I do not care who it may be who attempts to define the real qualities of the nurses; to my mind they are absolutely undefinable. You can have a Register which will put down the age of a nurse, the high qualifications of a nurse, having passed this examination or that, and all the rest of it, but there are certain qualifications for a nurse which you cannot ascertain until you get her into a sick room. There is that curious electric spark of sympathy which passes between the nurse and her patient—an influence which is greater than any disciplinary form of mind. The nurse is able to exercise it not only upon her patient but upon every one in the house with whom she comes in contact. Such a quality as that it is quite impossible to define in writing or in any document official or otherwise.
But I quite agree with what was said, I think by the noble Marquess and also by my noble friend, that there is no room for any doubt whatever that the nurses as a whole—I believe almost without exception—desire that there should be some form of registration. Even if one thought that registration might not be quite as efficacious or so much a protection as is claimed for it by some, the fact that the nurses themselves desire it would, in my opinion, be a sufficient reason for supporting the general principle of registration. The noble Marquess who addressed your Lordships for the first time, and whom, I observe, your Lordships all heard with pleasure, remarked that this was regarded as a Bill for matrons and lay governors. I have been a lay governor of two or three
852
hospitals since 1883, and I can assure the noble Marquess that I knew a great many lay governors and lay matrons who were in favour of registration as long ago as that; indeed, if I am not mistaken we heard endless evidence upon the subject of State registration before a Committee of which I was Chairman that enquired into the whole of metropolitan medical relief. It is quite an erroneous view that matrons and those in authority have been against registration as a whole.
It may be doubted if Parliament would agree to leave to a private body, or even to a statutory body, a dominant position as to the conditions of the first Register. That Register must necessarily include a large number of nurses of a training below the standard that will be considered satisfactory in the case of applications subsequently for admission to the Register. Look at the number of V.A.D's. who have served the country for three or four years, and who are not qualified by examination certificates, but who have done most noble and self-sacrificing work. That work deserves consideration. There should, therefore, be inserted in the Bill some guidance as to admission to the first Register. I think it is agreed that it would be desirable to secure a number of persons of special knowledge and experience in the work of nursing training schools for service both on the Provisional and the Permanent Council. There are a variety of questions which require careful study. There is, for instance, the question of Supplementary Registers which opens up a field for controversy; there is the question of the class of nurses to be admitted; and there is the question of the personnel of the Provisional as well as the Permanent Council. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill so that we may ascertain by patient enquiry and conference how best we can get a measure which will meet the wishes of almost the whole body of the nursing profession and the public. I desire to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
On Question, whether the word "now" shall stand part of the original Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Haldane, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Bath, M.

Hood, V.

Granard, L. (E. Granard)

Bristol, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Greville, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Hylton, L.

Crewe, M.

Knollys, V.

Lawrence, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Knutsford, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Salisbury, M.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Bradford, E.

Aberdare, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Denbigh, E.

Avebury, L.

Roundway, L.

Eldon, E.

Barrymore, L.

>St. Levan, L.

Onslow, E.

Blythswood, L.

Saltoun, L.

Stanhope, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Sinha, L.

Strafford, E.

Charnwood, L.

Shute. L. (V. Barrington.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Somerleyton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Southwark, L.

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Dinevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Charlemont, V.

Ebury, L.

Terrington, L.

Esher, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Wenlock, L.

Falkland, V.

Erskine, L.

Wittenham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Armaghdale, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Carnock, L.

Raglan, L.

Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

Denman, L.

Rotherham, L.

Lindsey, E.

Forester, L.

Rowallan, L.

Russell, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sandys, L.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Sydenham, L.

Morris, L.

Tenterden, L.

Ampthill, L. [Teller]

Plunket, L.

Weardale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

LAW AGENTS APPRENTICESHIP (WAR SERVICES) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this Bill is designed to supplement the provisions of the Law Agents Apprenticeship (War Service) (Scotland) Act, 1914, regarding the reckoning of war service towards apprenticeship to a law agent in Scotland. The 1914 Act enables a person who has served with the forces, and who was during such service under an indenture of apprenticeship to a law agent, to reckon one half of his service with the forces as service under his indenture. The present Bill makes similar provision for (1) cases where war service, other than service in the forces, has been undertaken; (2) cases where the indenture of apprenticeship is entered into after the termination of the war service. It has been thought right to limit both the period of war service, which may be so reckoned, and the time within which the indenture must be entered into, in order to take advantage of the provisions
854
of the Bill. Similar provisions with regard to apprenticeship to solicitors in England are contained in the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Act, 1918, and in the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill, which recently passed the House of Lords and was sent to the House of Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Women shall not be disqualified from being justices of the peace.
1. A woman shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage for being appointed or being or becoming by virtue of office a justice of the peace.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of Clause 1, to insert "provided she has attained the age of thirty years." The noble Lord said: I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill, to whom I showed my Amendment some little time ago, will be inclined to accept it, on the ground that Parliament in its wisdom thought it right that the Parliamentary vote should be conferred only upon women who had arrived at the age of thirty. It may therefore be fairly argued that if a woman is not qualified to vote in a Parliamentary election she ought not to be qualified to sit as a justice of the peace.
I would also remind your Lordships that there is a very strong feeling at the present moment in the country against following the practice of appointing a man directly he is twenty-one years of age a justice of the peace, and I believe that Lords Lieutenant and Advisory Committees are now very disinclined to appoint any young man until he has done some service, and practically until he is of the age of thirty. I think the case of the Parliamentary vote is a very strong precedent, and I find that many members of your Lordships' House rather agree that it is desirable to have some limitation of age, and that comparatively young girls should not be appointed. Your Lordships will remember that the Lord Chancellor, on the Second Reading of this Bill, said that he had no intention of being rushed into appointing a large number of women to Benches already properly manned, and I venture to think that it will assist the noble and learned Lord if there is some such limitation put in, because it will stop a number of applicants, provide a limitation, and be of assistance to Lords Lieutenant and Advisory Committees as well as to the Lord Chancellor. Upon general principles I think most of your Lordships agree that the age of thirty is one at which you may say women as well as men are mature, and when they are much more likely to bring a judicial frame of mind to bear when they are administering justice.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, at end add the words ("provided she has attained the age of thirty years").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I suggest to the House that this is a very important Amendment to move without any notice being given, and I cannot help thinking
856
that it would be better for a subject of this kind to be discussed after notice that it was coming on. There is no doubt that the question of limitation of the age to thirty in the Representation of the People Bill was the subject of very great controversy, and has been the subject of a good deal of criticism since. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will take into consideration the view I have put forward.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In reinforcement of what the noble Lord has just said, it is unquestionably the fact that much debate took place in the other House and in reference to another Bill as to the propriety or expediency of drawing distinctions between men and women. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then, and various statements have been made in the course of elections, by persons highly qualified to give pledges, in circumstances which would entitle the public to expect that they would be acted upon. If I remember rightly, one of the pledges was that there should be equality between the sexes, or such equality as can be attained having regard to physical considerations. I do not in the least wish to prejudge the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved. but I also share the view of my noble friend that many noble Lords who have left the precincts of the building—and quite a number of your Lordships were in attendance to-day—would have stayed had they known that a subject of this importance was to be considered, and I suggest to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment that he might be well advised, if he still desires to obtain a decision upon this point, to put it down on the Third Reading.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I would like to reinforce what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken. I have two objections. The first is one of form—namely, moving an Amendment to a Bill before your Lordships' House without notice, unless it is of the most trifling character. It is always very properly deprecated that Amendments should be sprung upon your Lordships' House, and that you should be asked to pass an Amendment without having had an opportunity of considering it. The noble Lord will forgive me for pointing out to him that this Bill received its Second Reading no less than a week ago, and that there

857
has been ample time for him to give notice of the Amendment. If he had done so your Lordships' House would have had an opportunity of knowing that the matter was going to be raised. As it is, I join with the Lord Chancellor in deprecating that this Amendment should be sprung upon the House without notice when so many noble Lords have already left the precincts.
I also have an objection of substance to this Amendment—namely, that it creates a further inequality between men and women. There is no disqualification of this kind in the case of men. It is perfectly true that it is very unlikely that a large number of men or women under the age of thirty will be recommended to the Lord Chancellor in the future for this office. It is very unlikely that the Advisory Committee will recommend the names of people of either sex under that age. But I should be very sorry indeed to see the Lord Chancellor and the Advisory Committee restricted in this way in regard to women when there is no such restriction in the case of men. In view of the fact that it would be creating a fresh inequality between the sexes, at a time when most of our energies are directed towards abolishing the inequalities which exist, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment but will be content to withdraw it, or to let it be negatived this afternoon.
LORD STRACHIE: I will, of course, at once agree to the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor that I should put down this Amendment upon the Third Reading. I may say in reply to his complaint, and also to that of my noble friend below the gangway, that although it is true it is a week since the Bill was read a second time, as this House does not sit between Thursday and Tuesday it is very difficult to put Amendments down. Further, I had not the opportunity in that time of asking noble Lords about the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl would be surprised to know the number of noble Lords who would have supported this Amendment, although they would much rather see the Bill rejected on the Third Reading.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As one who is very closely in touch with the machinery of the House, I should like to say that there is no difficulty in putting down Amendments on Fridays and Saturdays.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (LEATHER MEASUREMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, this is a very brief Bill; a short and simple matter which I trust will receive your Lordships' assent. During recent years light leather has been sold by superficial area instead of, as formerly, by weight or skin, and the increasing employment of various types of leather measuring instruments led to a demand from the trade that their use should be legalised by the Board of Trade, and that approved types should be governed by regulations similar to those in force with regard to weighing instruments. I should say that millions of pounds worth of leather are sold annually, and the quantity is estimated at 400,000,000 feet at an average price of 1s. 6d. per square foot. This is, therefore, a very large matter. Buyers and sellers of leather are united in the request for legislation. A renewed demand for legalisation of such instruments was made by the Federation of the Light Leather Trades of the United Kingdom, and in January, 1915, the Board received a joint deputation from the Federation of Light Leather Trades, the United Tanners Federation, and the Boot and Shoe Trades Federation. Your Lordships will therefore see that the whole trade is united in this matter.
The object of the measure is, by its moral effect, to induce the majority of those traders who use instruments for the measurement of leather by superficial area to adopt instruments of a pattern certified by the Board of Trade; and also to enact that such instruments of such pattern shall be subject to the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1904, in the same way that weighing machines are subject. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Somerleyton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CROSSLEY AND PORTER ORPHAN HOME AND SCHOOL) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a scheme certified by the Board of Education under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853. The scheme, which was prepared at the request of the governors of the charity, forms the subject of a Report of the Board recently laid before Parliament. It was published, as required by law, in the area of benefit of the charity, and every opportunity was afforded for lodging objections to the scheme. It now comes before Parliament as an unopposed measure with the agreement of all concerned. The charity was founded by the Crossley family in 1868 and, with the further endowments of later date, it is administered by governors incorporated by Royal Charter. Owing to the increasing cost of education and to the rise in the cost of living caused by the war, the charity has recently been able to pay its way only by the aid of generous contributions by my noble friend Lord Somerleyton, who is chairman, and by the governors and friends of the institution; and the main object of this scheme is to enable the schools of the charity to obtain grants from the Board of Education under their secondary school regulations and, with this assistance, to take their proper place as first-rate secondary schools. Confirmation of the scheme by Parliament is required because the Board of Education do not consider that a scheme established by their own authority can in this case legally alter the constitution of the governing body prescribed by the Charter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stanmore.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, may I say, as a governor for over forty years and as chairman for over ten years, that this scheme is approved and certified by the Board of Education and has already been passed in another place. It is rendered necessary by the application of modern conditions to a school founded in 1853 under different circumstances. Since 1853 the system of education and all its surroundings have greatly changed. The increased cost of all articles supplied to the children, of the upkeep of the buildings,
860
and, above all, of the higher salaries now so rightly required for all branches of teachers, have rendered a new scheme necessary to maintain the high standard of efficiency which has been reached. The new board of management will be found to have a majority of popularly-elected members and will comprise the best educational authorities of the district. It will also contain a large proportion of ladies whose advice and practical experience in the management of small children, many of whom are orphans, will be of great service. The scheme contains nothing, I believe, of a controversial nature, and it has the full approval of the families of the founders and of the local education authorities, as well as of the Board of Education. I therefore trust that it will receive your Lordships' assent.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed, and returned to the Commons.

OFFICIAL SOLICITOR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I wish to say one word upon this Bill, partly because I suppose that I am almost the only person in the world who knows from personal experience the substance of this Bill and the reason why it is required. I can recollect when the present Official Solicitor was appointed, and I am able to assure the House that there is ample reason for passing such a clause as Clause I of this Bill. I remember the difficulties which occurred at the time when the late Mr. Pemberton held the office; and when the present Official Solicitor, Mr. Winter-bottom, was appointed there were so many cases in which the Official Solicitor was

861
appointed as the person in charge of the estates and affairs of lunatics, wards, and so on, that in each case a fresh appointment had to be made. If that caused difficulty then, the difficulty would be very much greater upon the occasion of the retirement of the present Official Solicitor, and for this reason-that he has been a man of great ability and of quite extraordinary energy. The result has been that, during the many years he has held office as Official Solicitor, business has very largely increased, and in fact, as far as I know, the only objection to the office is that there has been some feeling in the profession that the Official Solicitor attracted to himself business which might have gone to private solicitors. In the circumstances there can be no doubt that it is a very wise and useful provision to make it unnecessary to incur the trouble or the expense of making new appointments of the Official Solicitor in all the classes of case to which I have referred.
Bill reported without amendment.

ARMY QUARTERMASTERS.
LORD AMPTHILL LORD AMPTHILL rose to call attention to certain hardships inflicted on quarter-masters now serving in the Army by the existing Regulations and the present practice; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will try to be as brief as possible and not go into any details, but perhaps I may express my regret that so few members of your Lordships' House have thought it worth while to give their attention to a question which is of considerable public importance. Those of your Lordships, and there are many, who have served in the Army know what very valuable work is performed by the quartermasters and how admirably it has been done. I think you will all recognise that, in times in which unbridled extravagance has prevailed in many Departments, quartermasters have been almost alone in their careful custody of Government stores, and in that way, by their meticulous system, have saved the taxpayer millions of money. It is on their behalf that I want to say a few words.
What I should like to ask your Lordships to remember is that all quartermasters are men who have risen from the ranks, and therefore they have a claim to special consideration. In comparing their position,
862
as is often done, with that of commissioned officers you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that, for certain purposes they must be treated exactly the same as combatant officers while, for other purposes, they are to hold a distinctive position. Quartermasters have, somehow, been missed out in the general distribution of advantages and favours which has taken place, and the reason is not far to seek. Quartermasters have no voice. They are naturally not organised. The very nature of their occupation and position would make it impossible for them to organise, even if they so desired, for the simple reason that there is only one quartermaster in each unit; but, as they belong to the most loyal class of soldier, to the non-commissioned officers who have risen by sheer merit, it follows that they are the last class which would agitate or make any complaint.
I am principally concerned with the quartermasters of the Special Reserve, because it is a branch of the Service in which I have held a command for over ten years. These quartermasters have had the heaviest burden all through the war. In most cases they have had to deal with battalions which have often been up to 3,000 strong, and they have had no relaxation at all. They have not even had the relaxation of going to France, and every one who has done both knows that it is really a holiday to go out to France after serving at home, especially in a Reserve battalion.
These quartermasters, I know, because I am personally acquainted with many of them, have two main grievances. They have not asked me lo bring them before you, but I think it is right that I should do so. The first is the difference of treatment meted out to officers who were retained in the Army when the war broke out under Article 120 of the Royal Warrant and the treatment which was given to officers who were recalled to the Army. The second is the treatment of quartermasters as compared with combatant officers. As regards the first point, the quartermaster who had earned his pension a short time before the war was naturally recalled, and he has been getting both pay and pension. The quartermaster who was nearly due for pension when war broke out was retained under this Article of the Royal Warrant, and all this time he has only been getting pay; the pension which he had earned has been delayed and

863
deferred. I could give your Lordships lots of instances of this, but I hope a mere statement of the fact is enough. I am quite aware that the answer given to this kind of complaint is that officers do not serve in the Army on a fixed engagement like the rank and file, and, therefore, there is no limit to their services. But the circumstances which have arisen have undoubtedly brought about hardship, and the sense of hardship is very keenly felt. There can be no question whatever that those who framed Article 522 of the Royal Warrant did not contemplate such a long war as we have had or such a long continued deferment of pension.
The difference between the quartermaster and the combatant officer who has been retained or recalled is this. The combatant officer has had opportunities of getting a higher rank and consequently higher pension. I could give your Lordships chapter and verse for that, but I hope the statement of fact is enough. It is not so with the quartermaster. He cannot get a higher rank than major, and he has had no opportunities of promotion. It is a matter which is felt keenly.
It is quite true that a few quartermasters have been given honorary promotion and been made honorary lieutenant-colonels, but the system on which that has been done has worked very unevenly. Where it is uneven is this. You may have—and I am quoting an actual case—in one brigade the three best quartermasters in that particular branch of the Service. To each formation a certain number of these promotions or honours is allotted. They can only give one to the brigade. One of these quartermasters gets his promotion and the other two, who are in actual merit second and third, get nothing, whilst number four who has served in the neighbouring brigade gets his promotion. I say that promotion should be given in cases of this kind by seniority for faithful and proved service.
There is one more little grievance. In 1918 the pay of officers generally was increased by 25 per cent., but quartermasters did not share in that improvement. Their pay was increased by only 3 per cent., from 18 s. to 18 s. 6d. It is quite easy for experts in the Royal Warrant to turn down any case that can be made out, and we are familiar in this House with the way these things are done and with the official answer to this kind of complaint I make no
864
complaint about that; that is the business of the permanent officials. But I maintain that this matter should be treated as one of equity, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the war and all that has taken place in the last five years, rather than be judged according to the bare letter of the Regulations.
I began by saying that quartermasters have deserved extremely well of the nation and of the Army, and if they have a sense of grievance, which I know they have, you may be perfectly certain that it is well founded and that something is wrong. One way in which it occurs to quartermasters is this, that the War Office have been getting their services on the cheap. The War Office retain a quartermaster for four years; they are saving his pension which he has earned; and the difference is £50. The. quartermaster feels that he is being "got" for £50, and that the War Office should have allowed him to take his pension and obtained another quartermaster. These men have saved you literally millions of money by their careful guardianship and custody of Government stores, and in doing so they have done as much as any other class of men for the comfort and wellbeing of the soldier, on which, after all, the efficiency of the soldier depends. In that way they have played a part in winning the war which has not been generally recognised. It can be recognised by just remedying these little grievances, and what you would have to pay would be a mere drop in the ocean as compared with what you have spent and what these men have saved you.
These quartermasters are all men who have risen from the ranks. They belong to that splendid class of the British non-commissioned officer which was absolutely the backbone of the old Army, and in spite of the enormous and incredible expansion had strength enough to support the framework of the New Army. I think my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War will allow that I have placed all my cards on the table in telling him the points I was going to raise, and I hope that he will give me an answer which will be an encouragement for those on whose behalf I have said these few words.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR(VISCOUNT PEEL): My noble friend was good enough to inform me of

865
the points that he was going to raise, but I think he will probably excuse me front giving him a detailed answer on those points, not because these benches are not particularly crowded—I should have given hint a full answer owing to the interesting and sympathetic way in which he has raised the whole question, whatever the condition of these benches was—but because the whole question of the position of quartermasters has now been referred to the particular Committee which is sitting on the subject of the pay of the after-the-war Army. The whole question affecting these quartermasters, both as regards their pay and service, has been referred to this Committee. I understand that it will be sympathetically considered. My noble friend knows that the Financial Secretary is the Chairman of this Committee, and that they are already at work dealing with the subject. I hope, therefore, that he will excuse me if I do not give him any further answer on the details as the matter is now under the consideration of t he Committee.
EARL STANHOPE: Might I suggest two small points to the noble Viscount. There are two questions on which quartermasters are keen—one is the question of rank, and the other is the question of pay. I hope that when the Committee go into it they will not entirely think of the Army as we used to know it before the days of war. We all hope that we shall not have another war in our time, or perhaps ever, though I personally a doubtful on the point, but we know what does happen with a very rapid expansion of the Army. Men are pushed up quickly from one rank to another. Quartermasters get left, and do not receive the rapid promotion which is given to combatant officers.
I suggest that if it can be done, quartermasters should get promotion to the same rank and in the same way as other officers. If, for instance, an officer who gets his commission in 1920 becomes first lieutenant in 1925 and captain in 1930, quartermasters should get their steps at the same pace, and preferably rather sooner, because they have served in the ranks. Progress in the ordinary way in time of peace is slow, but in time of war the whole thing is changed. You get men given a commission, and within the course of a few months they have already got their second step to captain, and I suggest that
866
quartermasters should also get the benefit of the rapid promotion that then takes place in the case of combatant officers, and should be put on the same basis as the combatant ranks.
There is another point. A quartermaster's pension is allotted principally on the amount of pay he receives, but his pay is low because he get certain allowances, some of them in kind, which compensate for his pay not being as high as we should like. For instance, in all barracks the quartermaster gets free quarters. It does affect the pension if these allowances are not considered and if the pension is rated purely and simply on the basis of pay and not on the basis of pay plus allowances. The sovereign now goes very much less far than it did, and I suggest that my noble friend should bring this matter before the Committee, because I know that many quartermasters feel that the allowances as well as pay should be considered in arriving at pensions.
LORD RAGLAN: There is one other point upon which quartermasters, and still more those who are not less important, quartermasters' wives, feel very much and which affects especially quartermasters in the branch of the Service which I know very well and which used to be called the Militia. The question is this, that with quartermasters appointed to a Special Reserve unit, especially and chiefly where that unit is not at a depot, the social question comes in very much. Take, for instance, a unit with which I am particularly acquainted and with which I had the honour of serving for twenty-one years. It was an Engineer unit, and of course the quartermasters came from the Royal Engineers and were sent to it usually having been quartermasters at Chatham. There there was a large society for quarter-masters and quartermasters' wives. Then the man is transferred, say, to Monmouth. To the ordinary civilian a man who is Mr. Jones, or whatever may be the name, is no more than a quartermaster-sergeant; whereas if he is Captain Jones his social position is enormously improved. Therefore if quartermasters, on being appointed to the Special Reserve, could be granted the honorary rank of captain it would cost nothing and would confer a great benefit upon these excellent officers and their wives.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The points raised by my noble friends will no doubt be carefully considered by the Committee.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of May 22.]
STOCKSBRIDGE GAS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Third Report from the Select Committee made; to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday the 29th instant.

LONDONDERRY PORT AND HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.