I beg to move

"That the Resolution of the Committee on Old Age Pensions may be considered this day us soon as it is reported from the Committee, and that the several stages of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may he proceeded with this day notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Consideration of such a Re-solution and between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance."

Those who were present at Question Time yesterday, when this subject was raised in the presence of the Prime Minister and myself, will, of course, understand the position. But for those who were not present I will try in a few sentences to point out what exactly is the position. As the House knows, there has been a good deal of interest taken both in this Parliament and the last in regard to the position of the old age pensioners, in view of the increased cost of living, with the result that a Departmental Committee was appointed which went fully into the question. It reported, and its Report was only published on the 12th of November. Immediately on receiving the Report, it was submitted to the Treasury for examination, and then, shortly afterwards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the Cabinet proposals based upon this Report. They were examined by the Cabinet, examined I may say sympathetically from the point of view of the old age pensioners, but with regard also to the state of the finances of the country. While the Cabinet came quite unhesitatingly to the decision that they could not adopt the recommendations of the Committee in full, on the other hand we came with equal decision to the view that some change must be made in the provision for these old age pensioners, and that in one way or another the scale must be increased from 5s., at which it. legally stood, or 7s. 6d., at which it stood by administrative act, to 10s. The object of this Bill is to carry out that decision. In order to have the matter thoroughly examined, and after the Cabinet had come to its decision on the general principle, a Committee was appointed to go into it, work out the details and draw up the Bill. It was only possible to produce that Bill two days ago. I think the House will realise that on a subject of this importance and in the present state of the national finances, with all the pressure that exists on Government Departments, a delay of less than five weeks was not an undue delay, and therefore it was not the fault of the Government that we were not able to lay this proposal before tile House earlier.

Two days ago we had to decide whether or not we should ask the House of Commons to carry it before the close of this Session. The Cabinet Were unanimously of opinion that if that could be done it would be very desirable. We realised, however, the objections to taking such a step, and, finally, the Cabinet left it to me, as Leader of the House and responsible for its business for the time being, to decide whether or not we should be justified in asking the House to pass a Bill at this stage of the Session. With much hesitation, I confess, I came to the conclusion that I should not he justified in asking the House to do that I am going to speak quite frankly to the House. It is not merely a case of breaking down the Rules which are provided for ensuring reasonable care in regard to our ordinary legislation. It is not even a case of breaking down Rules to which the House of Commons has always attached particular importance in regard to money expenditure with a view of making certain that no expenditure of any kind should be incurred without proper consideration by the House of Commons. It was not merely these considerations which influenced me in coming to this decision; it was another feeling. The present state of our finances made it a matter of special importance. We all know, and every Member of the House of Commons feels, that the financial position of this country is one of the most vital subjects which can be dealt with either by the Government or by the House. We have therefore felt, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a specially strong view, that in any case of increased expenditure it should never be the action of the Government alone, but we wished the co-operation of the House of Commons all through in these financial proposals. It therefore seemed to me, on the whole, that I should not be justified in asking the House of Commons to pass a Bill which we thought was going to depart from the Rules on this subject. But, as I have said, the position is slightly changed when I find, as I thought I did yesterday —so far as indications of that kind be gathered at Question Time—that there was the same feeling in the House of Commons as there was in the Government, that it was very desirable that this thing should be done, if it could be done.

That is the position. I agree that it is asking a great deal of the House of Commons. It will only be justified if the House of Commons thinks it right. We thought, in the first place, and I think we represent the view of the whole House, that this change has got to be made. It is only a question of whether it is to be made now or in the early part of next Session. If that be agreed, if that is the only question, I am sure the House will be practically unanimous. If the House of Commons takes the view of the Cabinet that since it has to be done, anyhow, however important it is to the country, and no one feels more strongly than I do that the expenditure of an additional £10,000,000 is an important matter—although I would ask my hon. Friends who are interested in it from that point of view to remember that it is more than 26,000,000 less than was recommended by the Committee—if it is so very objectionable that expenditure of that kind, not merely expenditure once for all, but permanent expenditure, Should be carried without adequate discussion, yet if the Hose of Commons takes, as I think it will, the view that we are bound to do this, then I think we are justified in considering the position of those to whom the pensions are to be given. It is a very important thing for the country, but it is almost a vital thing to many of these pensioners. If we do not carry it now there will be an inevitable delay, owing to necessary financial business next Session. The difference to these people of getting a certain amount now and waiting is so great that I do not think anyone who is in touch with his constituents does not feel that if it can be done the House of Commons would be justified in doing it.

The Bill will propose to make it begin on the 1st January, but of course it is obvious, for administrative reasons, that the pension cannot be paid so promptly as that. Anyone who is in touch with the poorer classes of his constituents knows that, first of all, the knowledge that they will definitely get it, and, secondly, the knowledge that it is going to be given at a specific time, will enable the friends of these old people to finance them during the interval. I think I am justified in saying also that it is not entirely lost money from the point of view of the State. I am told that in my own Constituency there are very many of these old age pensioners who are driven, by simple inability to live on this pension, to the poorhouse. That means a large expenditure. I ask the House to realise that it is one of the best characteristics of our people that, even though this addition will still give them less than they would get from the Poor Law, the fact that they can live on it will prevent a good many people from seeking relief from the Poor Law. On the whole, bad as the precedent is in every way, undesirable as it is that Bills of this kind should be passed without adequate discussion, and still more undesirable as it is that we should not break our Rules—which are not merely vain show, but are really the result of many centuries of work in the House of Commons, and which are very important. not only now, but for the future—in spite of all these considerations, now that it has gone so far, and taking into account the great disappointment that will be felt if the Bill does not go through. I think the House will come to the conclusion that it is justified. I am informed by the Minister of Labour, and it is reasonable to believe it, that, if we succeed in passing this Bill, it will have a quieting effect on the general unrest which exists in the country. Taking all these considerations into account, I should be glad if the House could see its way to pass the Bill into law before the Session ends. I have only one more thing to say. It is obvious that it cannot be done if there is any serious opposition. I do not think I am asking too much of the House in making this request that we should regard the decision on this Motion as final, and that if it is found that there is an overwhelming feeling in favour of doing this, those who dislike it will waive their privilege of throwing obstacles in the way of getting it done. I wish it to be done, if it is done at all, as the act of the House of Commons as a whole. We shall not put on the Government Whips. We shall leave the House, if there is a Division, free to take its own course. I hope in all the circumstances this measure will be allowed to go through.

I regret very much that the Leader of the House did not adhere to the determination which he apparently came to on Wednesday that it was such a. gross breach of the custom and procedure of this House to ask it to pass the Resolution which he has now proposed that he did not intend to do it. This is not a question as to whether or not you are in favour of increasing old age pensions. This is a question whether you should alter the Rules of Procedure. They are the outcome of the wisdom of centuries, and it is proposed to alter them at a moment when the financial position of the country is very serious, and when any question involving increased expenditure should be carefuly considered both by the country and by the House. Supposing the Resolution is not carried, and I understand it was stated yesterday at Question Time that if the opinion of the House was not unanimous—not that it should be a bare majority—

I am sure my right hon. Friend would be the last to say that the opposition of two or three people should stand against the obvious wish of the House.

That is a little different, but a bare majority—

I did not say that.

The question is whether or not we shall alter these Rules. What would be the result of the Motion not being carried? The Government has a Bill, which I believe is not yet printed.

The Bill is in the Vote Office, but by the Rules of the House we are not allowed to see it until this Resolution is carried.

No one has had an opportunity of knowing what is in the Bill. Supposing we refuse to grant this alteration in our procedure what will ensue? The next Session will begin in five or six weeks. It will then be possible to have the Bill printed and circulated after the Resolution has been agreed upon and after we know what is going to be done, and the proper procedure can be gone through and the proper stages of the Bill taken. Therefore, all that happens is that you are deferring it for five or six weeks. There may be some Members who attach so little importance to the Rules and Regulations of the House, of which they know so little, that they are prepared to sacrifice them in order to ensure spending public money five or six weeks earlier. The Leader of the House said since it has got to be done it was advisable to do this. What a Precedent! There are any quantity of things which are good which even a large section of the House may think ought to be done. Are we to consider that when a section of the House says something ought to be done, that is sufficient that ordinary discussion is to be done away with, and that the whole of the stages not only of the Bill but of the Financial Resolution, are to be taken on one day? We are now at the end of a very long Session. We are only four or five days before Christmas. This is a Friday. The Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill was passed yesterday. It was not until Question time yesterday that any Member of the House knew this proposal was going to be made. Those Members who, knowing that the Appropriation Bill was to be passed yesterday, and that the Prorogation would take place on Monday or Tuesday, have gone away, have not read what took place at Questions, and may easily have missed in the newspapers what took place about this proposal, and do not know anything whatever about it. They have not seen any Bill, they did not know that a Bill was going to be produced, and even if they read it they are such a distance from London that it is impossible for them to come back and take part in the proceedings. Under these circumstances, it would be absolutely fatal if the Government persists in pressing this measure. What is the actual position of old age pensioners at present? The Budget Estimates for this year contain these items: Old age pensions, 1918–19, £12,085,000; for 1919–20, £17,892,000. That is to say there has already this year been a 50 per cent. increase over last year, and living was just as high last year as it is this.

It is a pity a lot of them do not die, and then it would be less.

I do not see the relevance of that interruption.

You will not see anything.

If there has been that enormous increase in time old age pensions this year, and, when the Leader of the House informs us that he himself has regarded this proposal with very great suspicion, and that he has been very reluctant to do it, is it advisable that we should not wait for another five or six weeks and proceed in the ordinary way of business sooner than do what is being done now, which will be taken as a prece- dent by the next Government or any other Government which may succeed them. Such a Government may perhaps not be very careful of the public purse, and may be desirous of doing something which we might perhaps all wish to do if we had the money. Such a Government might come down at the end of the Session, when the majority of Members are away, and pass a Bill, or do something which would have a very serious and detrimental effect upon the finances of the country. They might come down on a Friday and pass such a measure through all its stages, when there are not more than 200 out of the 700 Members present. It is a very grave and serious matter. It has nothing to do with our desire to assist people who are, unfortunately, not well off. The question is this: are we going to disregard all the safeguards which our ancestors have put into the Standing Orders in order to safeguard the expenditure of money? Are we going to do that for no sufficient reason at a time when the finances of the country are in a very serious state, and in view of the fact that only two or three months ago we were told that the prime necessity was economy, and the pressure was so great that a date was actually set aside for a debate on economy? I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that to secure economy, Members should carry out economy. Nevertheless we find that old age pensions, which we were told in 1911 would cost £6,000,000, will, if this is carried, cost £28,000,000, and in order to gain five or six weeks time all our rules and safeguards are to be swept away. I only wish I was able to express my feelings more eloquently. I am quite certain that if I had the gifts of the Prime Minister and could put what I feel to be absolutely right, and what I feel the House one day will regret—and in this I include the members of the Labour party.

The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.

If this Resolution he passed I am sure the House will live to regret it, as certain as I am standing here. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will pause before he gives his sanction to anything which reverses and overturns all our old-established and considered procedure.

I agree, as I must, with a very large part of what has fallen from my right hon. Friend. The precedent is a grave one, and I am not at all disagreeing with him when he says that it may easily be a dangerous one. In a very difficult situation he has rendered a public service in drawing the attention of the House, with all his authority, to the really salient facts of the situation in regard to the procedure of the House on money questions. I am sure that I express the opinion of the House when I say that no one can doubt my right hon. Friend's kindness of heart. He has shown it on many occasions. [HON. MEMBERS: "On dogs!"] I entirely disagree with my hon. Friends, and I say that they do not know him. He has shown a great deal of courage in many ways in supporting unpopular causes. He has fought for the prevention of cruelty to animals in this House with a persistency we all admired. No one can doubt my right hon. Friend's kindness of heart. I am sure that, feeling as strongly as he does, he will feel bound to go to a Division, but, having expressed his views, I appeal to him that if it is shown that the overwhelming majority of the House are in favour of this measure, that in the later stages of the measure he will not exercise his undoubted talents, and they are very great, in stopping the progress of a measure which the House may come to the conclusion that it desires to pass.

What I said yesterday I repeat to-day. I do not want to add anything by way of discussion. I agree with every word said by the Leader of the House. But perhaps as palliative, and as relieving the tension of the situation and the question of procedure which the right hon. Baronet has so ably put before us, may I say that we are in a very abnormal situation. The winter is on us, the intensity of which will be realised later. These old people will unquestionably suffer acutely, and I ask my right hon. Friend to agree with me under the circumstances. He said that it is a matter of only five or six weeks. I do not agree with him. We shall not meet until the 10th February. It is quite certain there will be a pretty long Debate on the Address, unless the Government cut it down. That will carry us well on, and we shall not be in anything like the stride of legislation until the 20th February. If this measure comes up in the proper Parliamentary way it will be properly discussed, and, undoubtedly, the question would be very much widened by that time. So far as my knowledge of Parliamentary procedure goes, I do not see any likelihood of this coming into operation at the very earliest before the middle of March.

Financial business makes that impossible.

My right hon. Friend points out that financial business makes that impossible. Therefore, the winter will have very largely gone. I do appeal to the right hon. Baronet not to press this matter, and I assure him that this House does not deny him in full measure, kindness of heart, and sympathy with those who are suffering.

Although I do not quite agree with the whole of my right hon. Friend's views as to the merits of this question, I do wish to reinforce this protest against the action of the Government in completely breaking down our immemorial rights of procedure. The dissent of the Leader of the House seems to me extraordinarily unsatisfactory in his explanation why the Government have brought on this matter at such short notice. The Leader of the House said that this matter was of vital importance. Most of us agree. Surely that very fact ought to have prevented the Government from allowing the House to drift into its present position. We could not bring it forward. Private Members cannot put any charge on to taxation. It is a matter which could only be dealt with on the initiative of the Government. I wish to draw a contrast between the dilatoriness of the Government on this question throughout the Session and their astonishing precipitancy during the last few hours when we can have no opportunity of discussing it. Everyone knew that this matter was urgent. We all, I suppose, have had countless letters from our constituents. Everyone knew that the winter was coming, and it is entirely the mismanagement of the Government that has allowed us to get into this position. Last April they appointed a Committee to inquire into this matter. The Committee took seven months to get the necessary information for its Report. The Cabinet since then has taken a month to make up its mind. That is, there have been eight months lost in the matter. After the eight months, they have riot adopted the conclusions of the Committee in any respect. Therefore, one is forced to the conclusion that the Government might quite well have decided time matter right away for themselves without any Committee.

In that way we should have had proper Parliamentary control over the decision to throw at our heads at this stage of the Session an Estimate of this kind involving not one payment of £10,000,000, but a permanent charge of £10,000,000 on the revenue. It is nothing short of an insult to us. In the War we submitted to many revolutionary changes in our procedure, but it will be disastrous if the Government are going to take advantage of the breakdown of our immemorial safeguards, but continue them in time of peace. We have had within the last few days the new practice growing up of taking Bills through all their stages at one sitting. We pointed that out last week, arid were told, I think, without any real foundation, that there was precedent for this before the War. I am advised by hon. Friends who have looked into it that there was no precedent before the War. The Government are going quickly down the dangerous slope of destroying Parliamentary control. Though I do not agree with the right hon. Member for the City that this matter can be left over indefinitely, I do wish to protest against the Government having forced us into this position, because it is an insult to the House to ask it to abrogate its control over finance and to destroy its immemorial check on hasty legislation.

The statement of the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) that the eight months occupied by the Committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Cabinet afterwards in considering this question is wasted time is quite inconsistent with his plea that the House should give more time now for the reconsideration of this subject, which has already been dealt with by two Committees. It may assist the House if I. state the genesis of this question during the last twelve months, because there are certain points which nobody so far has stated to the House which have led up to the present position. About twelve months ago there was held in Newcastle a conference representative of the whole country on the subject of old age pensions. It was attended by an enormous number of persons of all classes of society and all shades of political opinion, including a large number of Members of this House. It came to the conclusion that it was its duty to press this matter upon Parliament and the Government. A deputation was appointed by the conference to wait upon Members of Parliament in this House, and there was a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, attended by Members of all sections of the House, over which I had the honour to preside. In the result, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was approached by a deputation selected to represent all sections of the House, asking him to deal with this matter as promptly as possible. That was in the very early stages of the present Session. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) represented the party on the Front Bench. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) represented Labour. I also was a member of the deputation, and I think that there were some six or eight others. In the result the Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed a Departmental Committee. That Committee reported unanimously in favour of the principle that underlies the measure now proposed to be put before the House. The Cabinet have considered it not merely in the ordinary way, but by appointing a Committee themselves specially for the purpose. That is the proposal which comes now before the House which is opposed by the right hon. Member for the City of London on the ground that the Rules and Regulations of this House are going to be violated, and that the violation of those Rules and Regulations is sufficient justification for leaving in semi-starvation—

No.

—thousands of old people who at present are struggling against privation due to the tremendously increased cost of living. Such an argument is not worthy of the House of Commons, and not likely to have effect. There has been recently a withdrawal, rightly as I believe—I am not sure if hon. Members behind me will agree—of the unemployment dole from the large number who were receiving it. This will go to a large extent towards compensating the old people who were assisted by the unemployment dole given to some of their relatives. It is not perhaps a strong argument because the argument on which this question will be founded is one of mere justice to the old people who have had the cost of living put up against them without any compensating advantage of any means enabling them to keep body and soul together. I believe that practically the whole House will support the action of the Government in this matter. The House will not go back to the country and say to the people on the eve of Christmas that they are to be given a stone when they have asked for bread. We shall give them what. is fair and reasonable, and, in proportion to the circumstances of the day, what was intended to be given to them when the principle of old age pensions was established. That is a reasonable measure of sufficiency to keep body and soul together in their old age.

I would say in reply to some of the observations of the hon. Baronet who spoke last, that there is not a single Rule or Regulation in the House which might not be made the subject of attack on such emotional grounds as he has advanced, and it is precisely in order to protect the House against the effect of such emotional fluctuations in the important matter of finance that these Regulations have been devised. I rise to make only two very brief observations. One is not tempted to be discursive when one is speaking in direct opposition to the strong opinion of the House. I have to advance the opinion that although there is no disagreement whatever upon the great desirability of an increase of old age pensions, yet an important point remains to be discussed, and that is whether it is desirable to do so before we can afford it. While that point remains outstanding it is most undesirable that the matter should be hurried through on a Friday, at the end of the Session, at short notice and with the derogation of aft those forms and methods of procedure which have been devised for securing adequate considerations of financial questions. My principal reason for rising is that I remember a pronouncement made in file Economy Debate at the beginning of the Session by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a pronouncement which was made with every circumstance of gravity, made ex cathedra, as it were. Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He was referring to the finance of next year, and he said:

"Additional taxation will not be necessary unless the House desires one of two things, the first of which is, unless the House embarks on new expenditure not now provided for. For instance, a Committee is sitting on old age pen- sions. I do not know what their recommendations will be, but I have made provision for the payment only of existing old age pensions, and if the House decides that they are insufficient I have not made provision for a larger sum. The House decides, and the House must decide, when they have the Report before them, whether they will impose additional taxation in order to increase the amount available for old age pension. Additional taxation is not necessary unless the House imposes additional charges on the Exchequer."

Again, later, the. right hon. Gentleman said:

"But as I have said, the House may wish to incur charges for which we have made no provision, and my object is that they should not do so without knowing what they are doing. If they will read these papers and will be good enough to mark the commentary I have made upon them, it cannot happen. Then will know what they are doing and will know the consequences which arc to follow."

1.0 P.M.

I have ventured to read that passage in order to remind the House, in regard to next year's finance, that we are deciding whether or not upon the shoulders of the taxpayer there is to be cast 1.0 P.M. a burden of fresh taxation. I have listened with care to what has been said upon this subject. It appears to me that the only reason advanced for introducing this matter with such rapidity at the close of the Session was an appeal to sentiment. It was to make the old people's Christmas happy. I refer to that certainly in no sense of derision. We are fully conversant with the anxiety and actual misery which are cast upon the old age pensioners by the inadequacy of their pensions, but venture to suggest that this House has a wider responsibility. It has to consider not only the miseries of the Christmas of the old age pensioners, but the miseries of the Christmas of the taxpayer. All over the country there arc working-class households, there are middle-class households, dependent upon fixed incomes, which are contemplating the future with grave apprehension and with positive misery, because of their inability to make both ends meet. What we are doing to-day is to cast a fresh burden on those households. If an appeal is to be made to our sentiment, let us consider the wider area of sentiment as well as that which is more narrow. If this were only a question of the abrogation of the forms and procedure of the House, valuable as those forms are and important as it is to prevent hurried action on finance, the matter might not be worth laying so much stress upon, but it is worth laying stress upon because there is a great financial issue upon the merits involved. I will put this proposition as one that is, at any rate, worth the most careful and anxious and calm consideration. Is, at any good at all, is it anything but base and idle extravagance to undertake expenditure on measures of social improvement out of borrowed money? I do not wish to argue the point; it may he so or it may not. In connection with this old age pension question it has never been considered, but it is worth considering. The argument is well known; the argument that it is not worth while is well known.

As long as you are making unproductive expenditure out of money which you have to borrow, in order to meet the cost of the expenditure, you are simply turning the wheel of rising prices in the vicious circle that never ends. I know that opinion is widely held in this House, and more widely held in the country. It is the sort of question which undoubtedly needs consideration, and I fear that on this occasion the House is being hurried to support a form of expenditure which will cast an additional heavy burden on the taxpayer and which will not in the long run achieve any true benefit for the old age pensioners themselves. In order to make my position quite clear and to avoid the opinions I have advanced being involved in any form of reproach to which they are not properly liable, let me add this: It is not because of any lack of realisation of the grave necessities of the old age pensioners that these opinions are maintained. It is because, in the first place, there are doubts as to whether this particular form of expenditure will truly benefit them, and because I believe it true that the House gains nothing, as regards the advantages of administration, by recklessly abolishing the forms it has established for its own protection.

I hope the House will forgive me if I make some remarks on this subject as I happened to be Chairman of the Departmental Committee which has been referred to. Whatever may have been the expenditure of time by that Committee the House may take it that it did its best to grapple with the very large question referred to it. It had before it week after week and month after month, by witness after witness, the evidence and the facts and the reasonings which have been brought before all of us, and the different points of view which have found such trenchant expression in this Debate. I am quite sure that all the members of that Committee, and certainly those whom I had the opportunity of consulting, are very grateful to the Government for making this proposal, unusual though it be in form and open to criticism from certain points of view. We are grateful to the Government because we were all persuaded from an early stage of our inquiry—and that persuasion became, if possible, more complete the longer it went on—that some increase in the amount of old age pensions was necessary, and necessary at the earliest possible moment if the problem of the aged poor were not to become more serious instead of less. Our proposals, which, of course, I am not going to discuss now in detail, go much further than any proposal of the Government. I hope I may be allowed to suggest, and that my right hon. Friend will treat my suggestion with sympathy, that next Session some day will be set apart for debating the whole of our Report and the whole of the problem of old age pensions with its repercussions both as to Poor Law and National Insurance. I do not think that our long and detailed inquiry is going to be of that value to the country which we would like it to be unless there is some such thorough Parliamentary discussion before the Report is adopted.

While, therefore, we ought to look forward to an early opportunity being given to Parliament to express its opinions on the scope of our Report, and it may be to incur expenditure of a kind which will not be open to economic objection, it is, I am confident, equally the desire of all that something should be done at once to meet the most pressing aspects of the matter. If that be so, then I believe the Government are well warranted in the proposal they make to-day, and I hope that the House Will, by an overwhelming majority, endorse that proposal. Do hon. and right hon. Members who have criticised the proposal to-day realise how very little from one point of view will he effected by the Government Bill. You raise old age pensions from 7s. 6d. to 10s., the purchasing power of which is less rather than more of what the original old age pension of ten years ago was. If that be the fact, and if you give them even less than you gave them after solemn debate ten years ago your precedent is not so dangerous as it is when described in general terms. If it be true, as it is, that the finances of our country are in a grave state, and if it be true that the economic side of the War is with us still, can England even now not afford that those who are too old to help her shall not suffer in proportion as the rest of us may have to do in consequence of the War. That is the sentiment of which I think none of us need feel ashamed even on the actual facts and on the application of reason to those facts. More than that, the sum which my right hon. Friend has suggested is obviously not more than enough, and I doubt whether it be enough considering the lower purchasing power of money, to bring within the purview of the old age pensions as many persons as were within the purview of them when they were originally established. In other words, the amount fixed ten years ago has been so much lowered by depreciation in money without any raising of the limit which can be contemplated within the financial scope of this Resolution, that it will not be enough to bring the old age pension within reach of all the persons within whose reach they were brought by the original Old Age Pensions Act.

As I understand the matter, and I speak after many opportunities of considering the question, the proposals of the Government are not really to extend old age pensions substantially, although I hope and trust that the House will do so before many Sessions have passed. Those recommendations are to prevent and stop automatic- restrictions on old age pensions both in scope and value which have come about through the devaluation of money. If that be so, surely the arguments against this proposal are far weaker than if there were an attempt to extend old age pensions to people who were not contemplated at all ten years ago. If the whole question were to be dealt with thoroughly now the objections of some hon. Members would be stronger than they are to a proposal which is merely to prevent the aged poor from bearing the full amount of extra suffering which the devaluation of money has brought about. Surely that is a matter in which Members of the House in all parts are free to help. I hope that the House will support the Government, bearing in mind, no doubt, the criticisms which have been urged, and knowing that the real balance of value and of public benefit is on the side of this prompt dealing with the most urgent aspect of a great question.

With a great deal of what my hon. and learned Friend has just said I certainly, and I think a great many of those who have doubts with re- gard to this proposal, will find themselves in agreement. The plea, of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was a very powerful one. He appealed to a sympathy which I think we feel on all the benches of this House for those who are concerned in the necessities of the old age pensions I am quite ready to go further, and to say that I believe there is general agreement that the old age pensions must be increased. I admit the strength of my hon. and gallant Friend's argument, and I feel it myself, but surely there has not been a word spoken in this Debate from my hon. and right hon. Friends, with the exception of the most unfortunate speech made by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Flannery), which implied any lack of sympathy with these poor people. We are discussing not that point, but a great constitutional question as to the position in which this House is placed by the proposal made by my right hon. Friend. Three tribunals sat on this question. There has been a Departmental Committee presided over by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins), and that Committee took seven months to discuss the matter. Suppose at one of the sittings of that Committee that my hon. Friend came down and said, "I am informed by the Government and it is absolutely necessary that this must be done at once and legislation would be impossible, unless you close the inquiry now. I must insist that somehow or other this Departmental Committee comes to an instant decision and inquires no further into the details." It next comes to the Cabinet. We are told a Committee of the Cabinet met, and that that Committee has taken nearly five weeks to come to a conclusion. Why? It had all the evidence and all the conclusions before it, and it had abundant time. If one member of that Cabinet Committee had come dawn and said to his colleagues, "Really, Gentlemen, it is quite impossible to put off this decision and you must at once come to a settlement; I have got one here for you," what would the Cabinet have said? But for which of the three tribunals is this summary and curt procedure demanded? For the house of Commons, on which financial responsibility presumably rests.

We are told that we must pass this Resolution hero and now and finish the decision of the question. I am quite ready to agree with my right hon. Friend that we must accept the spirit of this Resolution and that it would be wrong in any sense to continue obstruction, but I would ask the House to remember that in this single decision taken after an hour's debate we are to decide once and for all the question of allotting a sum the capital value of which is at least £200,000,000—that is to say, the whole amount of the annual revenue of this nation before the War. Is it a decree of the Medes, and Persians that this House must be Prorogued on the 23rd of this month? Are our holidays of such imperious importance that, for the sake of them, we must, set aside a. fundamental principle of finance? Why cannot the Leader of the house ask us to continue for a week longer after Christmas and finish this business? Surely what we have to do here is to devote ourselves to the work of representing our constituents, and I do not think we do so when we set aside altogether those ancient and most important and fundamentally constitutional of our functions, that is of examining carefully the enormous sums of expenditure. I am not disposed to grudge these old age pensions, but there is one peculiarity about this which makes it differ from other taxation. You are not now making a proposal to tax our fellow citizens to provide the sum necessary for public expenditure; you are really proposing by this Resolution to transfer £200,000,000 from one body of citizens to another body of citizens. I do not grudge it, and I do not say it is wrong, but I do say it requires, instead' of less, increased opportunities of due consideration, and I do not think the Government have exhausted the possibilities before coming down and proposing this most undesirable abrogation of cur financial functions.

I wish to say, speaking on behalf of the Labour party, that I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House most heartily for having at this late hour introduced this Motion. It probably was the most ho could do, having regard to all the circumstances, but there never could be a more gracious time in which to carry a Resolution such as this. As he himself said, if it had to be done, "'twere well it were done quickly," and I am quite sure it will carry a message of real hope into the homes of thousands of people who otherwise might pass a very penurious Christmas and New Year. I am glad to know that he is proposing very materially to raise the income limit. That indeed will bring a great many people into the enjoyment of old age pensions who hitherto were debarred, although they have lived very frugal lives, and although they were very largely dependent upon the charity of others. That is a very material benefit indeed, to raise the income limit by about £18, and it will bring in a great many people who were really entitled to be tile recipients of the old age pension but who could not get it. Of course, it does not meet what we believe to be the real necessities of the case. Everybody is agreed that the old people need a pension more commensurate with the increased cost of living, and upon the necessities of the old age pensions we are all agreed. Listening to the speeches that have been delivered here, I really was surprised at the change of tone which takes place when you are dealing with people who cannot press their claims, who can bring no great force to bear upon Parliament as distinct from the tone when you are dealing with vast bodies of men who have great powers of compulsion. Here, where the need is admitted, where there can be no more Christian or noble act for this House to perform, we are wasting time discussing the wisdom of our ancestors, the immemorial wisdom of our ancestors. The idea seems to be in the minds of many hon. Members that not only are these Rules and Regulations immemorial, but that they are to be eternal and unchangeable, and that some awful disaster is going to befall the House of Commons and tee country because we are taking a Resolution such as this to meet the urgent and pressing needs of the poorest of our people. On behalf of the party for which I speak, we do thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for this concession, late as it is and small in amount as it is. At the same time, it will relieve a good deal of distress, and it will bring a message of hope into thousands of homes, and for that we thank him.

I intervene for only a few moments, as this is a matter which means more to an Irish Member than to other hon. Members. Owing to healthy and quiet lives, we live in Ireland, unless we happen to offend a Sinn Fein magnate, to a much greater age than in any other part of the Kingdom. I am in entire sympathy with the Government in regard to the necessity for this proposal, and I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon bringing it forward. He did not say exactly what was to be done, ex- cept that it is proposed to raise the old age pension from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a week, but I am also in entire agreement with his reasons. I have been chairman of our local old age pensions committee since it was started, and I am certain that it will make a tremendous difference in the unrest that is going about the country. At meetings I have been at lately, men have been giving up their pensions and going into the workhouse, which costs very much more to the country. Certainly one of the best things that can be done this Christmas is to put aside hide-bound rules and give a Christmas box to the deserving old age pensioners throughout the country.

May I make an appeal to the House to come to a decision? And perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on what has been said in the Debate. Let me say, at the outset, that I do not undervalue or deprecate the criticism which has been made with regard to our proceedings. I regard it as very serious. I regard it as a great disadvantage that we should be compelled to take this course, but I should like to say a word in justification of the Blil. I do not think we could have done better. The Report was only published on the 12th November. We could not have put compulsion on the Committee to report earlier, and it had to be considered in detail by the Cabinet. I think the House will agree that there has not been any undue delay in submitting the matter to the House of Commons. I say, further, it is not a question of a few weeks' delay. With the financial business before -us, if we are to meet on the 10th February, I do not think it is possible that this Bill could have been in any circumstances carried before Easter, unless it is carried now. There was one other subject raised by my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik), who said, "Why cannot we ask the House to sit longer?" So far as the Government are concerned we would do it, but it would be a great disadvantage to the Government and the Government Departments. I can assure the House that, as they know, in no Parliament in the experience of any of us have Members been put to such a strain, and the result is that unless they do get some rest, I do not think it would be possible to begin work again with that zeal which is required. Further, there is this to be remembered, that, although the War is over, we are really dealing with war conditions, and I hope the House will keep that in view as well as the other arguments. We are breaking down rules, and this precedent is a great disadvantage, but it could not be avoided.

As to the general question, it really comes to this. If the view is correct that we ought to reconsider the whole subject and not a, it till the next Session, then we ought to do it now. The Government have only suggested this proposal because we think, not only in our own view, but in the view of the whole House of Commons, this ought to be done, and therefore it is only a question of whether we do it now, or do it later. All I say is we are leaving it. to a free vote, and let us go to a Division and judge by the voting how much opposition there is, not on the ground of principle, but to our doing this in all the circumstances of the case. That is the point, and I should like to say this in reference to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh). I have had experience in this House that Members are not frightened, as we are supposed to be, by our constituents. We found, in regard to the unemployment benefit, that they had the courage of their convictions. But I do not ask any Member to vote for this unless he thinks, on all its merits, it is the right course. If the Division shows that the house is overwhelmingly in favour of it, then I do not think it would be wise to carry it into the next Session.

Question put, and agreed to.

Probably it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I briefly outline the Bill on the Financial Resolution. It will very likely save a second speech if I give now the provisions of the Bill. Let me remind the Committee what is the present position. Persons who attain the age of seventy are entitled, under previous Acts, to a pension of 5s. per week, provided that their actual means, excluding the pension, do not exceed 12s. per week. As hon. Members know, the pension is graded according to means. I ought to add that during the War a war bonus of 2s. 6d. has been paid to the old age pensioner, making the present pension of 5s. up to is. 6d. paid in respect of those whose means limit does not go beyond 12s. per week. The proposals of the Bill are to increase the rate according to the means limit. The increase is to be practically to a pension of 10s. per week provided that the means limit do not exceed £26.5s. per year. I propose to deal not with the annual sum, but with the weekly sum. If the means do not exceed 12s. per week the pension will be 8s.; if the means do not exceed 14s. per week the pension will be 6s.; not exceeding 16s. the pension will be 4s.; not exceeding 18s. the pension will be 2s.; not exceeding 19s. the pension will be 1s., and exceeding 19s. per week there will be no pension. This, in effect, practically doubles the rate of the pension, and increases the means limit in the way I have described.

By 25 per cent.?

It is not quite 25 per cent. I have given the actual figures. The increase in the means limit, it is estimated, brings in 220,000 new pensioners who are excluded to-day. The Bill follows the advice of the Committee in altering the disqualificatons for pension. Outdoor relief is in future not to disqualify, and infirmary treatment for three months in any one year is not to disqualify. The provision in the old Acts which left the pensioner open to challenge in respect to the man who failed to work according to his ability—a provision which, I understand, was extremely difficult to put into operation, even if it ever was put into operation—is to be abolished.

There were a few cases.

Then the pension is to start immediately upon release from prison, if an old age pensioner should be so unfortunate as to find himself there. The old double punishment is abolished. The furniture is to be taken into account in calculating means. The first £25 of capital is to be excluded. The next £375 of capital is to be deemed to be earning 5 per cent. per annum, and the remaining capital in excess of £400 is to be deemed to be earning 10 per cent, per annum. On the whole, this is an extremely generous provision to old age pensioners, because the annuity value of any capital at seventy is well up to 10 per cent. In the earlier stages this capital is to be exempt altogether; in the middle stages it is to be deemed to be earning 5 per cent., and in the latter stages 10 per cent. In calculating income, sick pay on any medical certificate for three months in any one year is not to be taken into account as income. There arc several other administrative provisions which, I think, are not of sufficient importance to deal with at the present moment.

Have the Government been able to put in any provision that the pension is to date from the day of application, if it is granted, or the day on which the person becomes seventy—whichever is the earlier. A resolution was unanimously passed by the Committee to meet the case of several weeks' delay and uncertainty. I hope the Government have dealt with it

May I suggest that it would be much more convenient to have the general discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, rather than on this specific Resolution? The Bill cannot be circulated until it has been read a first time, and it is not desirable under the circumstances to have a wide discussion on this Resolution.

The discussion can take place at any time so far as I am concerned, and if we are agreed. All I desired was at the earlier moment information of what the Bill contains.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and in support of what you have just said, I have just applied to the Vote Office and have been informed that I cannot get copies of the Bill until it has been formally introduced.

I was really proposing to do what you suggest, Sir. I was taking the very broad lines of the proposed measure, and showing the Committee what were the main alterations. There are certain administrative pro- visions, one dealing with the point just raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. I will tell the Committee what the financial effect Will be, and the White Paper circulated will probably help us. The total cost of old age pensions, when these alterations have been made, is estimated to amount to £28,000,000, an increase on the present rate of expenditure of £10,350,000. Hon. Members may like to know what were the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee made recommendations which would involve a very considerably increased expenditure beyond that which is now proposed to the Committee. The Majority Report of the Committee recommended there should be universal pensions, without a wage limit, of 10s. at the age of seventy. That would cost £41,000,000, and would give an increase of £23,350,000, as against the £10,350,000 proposed irk this Bill. Having explained in broad outline the Bill, I may say if there are any administrative questions the better way will be to deal with them when the Bill has been released.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution reported, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir L. Worthington-Evans, and Mr. Baldwin.

I wish to ask whether, in calculating the means of an applicant for an old age pension, the provision which may be made by a son for the maintenance of his parents will be calculated? In my own district there are many old people debarred from an old age pension simply from the fact that the son, with a very reasonable desire to keep his parents from the Poor Law, has made sonic provision in the way of a few shillings per week, or has provided food or clothing, and that has been taken to be income, arid the old people have been debarred from a pension. I wish to know if any alteration in regard to this point is made in this Bill?

I think the hon. Member knows that the main alteration made by these proposals is to increase the means limit, and therefore it will cover automatically the vast number of cases such as he refers to. Other than that there is no alteration which affects the point he raises.

As I was a member of the Select Committee I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Government for their ready response to our request. It was manifest that it was the general consensus of opinion that this course should be immediately taken, and I am glad the Government have recognised that. We are very grateful to the Government for the procedure they have adopted on this measure. Although there have been two or three objections, think what we indicated to the Government yesterday was the manifest opinion of the whole House. I only desire to say that none of us have raised any objections in regard to the terms of the Bill, although we should like to do so. Nevertheless we agree to accept what the Government suggest but I am sure members of the Government will realise that some members of the Committee desire more than the Government are granting, and it is proposed next Session to make representations on this point, but we do not desire that this Bill shall be prejudiced by any attempts in that direction. I hope that I may be in order in saying this. Last night, towards midnight, I raised a point in regard to the payment of old age pensions. This notice was issued and was in the Post Office last night:

"Old age pensions, due for payment on Boxing Day, cannot be paid before Monday, 29th December, By Order."

That means that no single old age pensioner will receive any payment whatever during the whole course of next week.

I doubt if this matter has anything whatever to do with the Bill. It is true that we have broken almost every Rule of the House to-day, but really there must be some limit; otherwise, it is of no use my being in the Chair at all.

I am sorry, but I only referred to the matter in consequence of the promise made last night.

The hon. Member should ask that question at the proper time. It really has nothing to do with the Bill, so far as I know at present

I only want to say that it is quite clear that this could not have been done except with the consent, not merely of all parties in time House, but of almost every Member of the House. Although the Rules of the House of Commons are Rules which have been established for the protection of the liberties of the people, there are occasions of great emergency when it is necessary that they should be suspended; and I cannot help thinking that it is very creditable to the House that, with this unanimity, they should have deemed it a matter of urgency to suspend the Rules, in order to provide some cheer for poor old people who have worked hard all their lives, and who find themselves in circumstances of poverty and distress. I think, also, we can take pride that the country, with all its burdens, is prepared to accept even a little heavier burden, in order that those who over a long life have honourably discharged their duties as citizens of the State shall not in their old age suffer penury and want. I am glad myself to have been present in the House on this occasion.

Like others, the members of the Labour party are very pleased, notwithstanding that it is not in exact conformity with the Rules of the House, that the Government have seen fit to bring in a measure of this character in the closing hours of the Session. As has already been pointed out, we are not exactly in agreement with all the provisions of the Bill. We would have liked to have seen many amendments made to it if time had permitted, but we recognise the urgency of the case, and we are pleased that the Government have brought in the measure, notwithstanding the fact that it falls short of what we desire. I am certain that the passage of this Bill will bring a measure of joy to quite a number of homes, and I just want to associate the party for which I speak in thanking the Government for having brought in the Bill and for placing it upon the Statute Book, thus bringing some more hope and some more real comfort to the aged people of this land.

I should just like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he can clearly define the position of married couples who will be old age pensioners under this Bill. Would the pension payable to the husband and the pension payable to the wife be of an equal amount? I should also like to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for having brought in the Bill.

I desire, as a member of the Committee which has been sitting on old age pensions for some time, to express my thanks to the Government for passing this Bill. We accept it most gratefully as an instalment of what we think ought to be done, and I am glad that the House of Commons have seen fit in this case of extreme urgency to suspend their Rules in order to carry through this most beneficial measure.

The answer to the question of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Raw) is, Yes, is they are both over seventy years of age. I might just supplement what the Prime Minister has said, and thank the House for passing the Bill.

I beg to move, "That this House doter not insist on its disagreement with the said Lords Amendments, on which their Lordships have insisted."

The House of Lords has not seen its way to accept certain Amendments of which, after no little discussion and at least two votes, this House undoubtedly approved. The contrast between the Bill as it now comes back to the House and the Bill as it left this Rouse is perfectly obvious. As the Bill left this House, there was to be a universal rule that the alien enemy was to be deported forthwith subject to certain exceptions which were made, and unless he came within certain named categories. The form in which it comes back to the House to-day is that the burden of proof, if I may use that expression, is put the other way round. The alien is not to be deported unless—again subject to certain exceptions—complaint is made and established against him. I am very far from denying—it would be idle to deny—that is a change of very considerable gravity and importance in this Bill. It is a change introduced into this Bill after this House had quite clearly and unequivocally, on two occasions, expressed its view. But now there arises, as must always be the case in controversies of this kind, the question of expediency. I desire to put that question plainly and not to subtract in the smallest degree from the way in winch it is presented. The point I put is this: Is the alteration of Clause 9 of this Bill of so vital a character that rather than submit—I will not say accept—we are prepared to sacrifice the whole Bill? I do not know what the opinion of others may be, but I do seriously suggest to the House that this Bill, in many of its remaining Clauses, which I need not particularise, does contain valuable provisions, some of them of an urgent kind. Upon the whole I put it to the House that the proper course for us now to take is not to insist upon the Amendments which were inserted in this House but to accept, with reluctance it may be, the course which has been taken in another place. The effect will then be, if this Bin becomes an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will very shortly, the country will have the benefit of all those other provisions unimpaired, and the benefit as well of Clause 9, not, it is true, in the form we desire, but in a form in which it will certainly work with a considerable amount of success.

When this question came before this House the other day we discussed at some length the merits of the two Clauses, the one as it left the House of Commons, and the other as it left the House of Lords. I do not for one moment go back one iota from what I said on that occasion as to the great gravity of the questions which were involved. The House, I am glad to think, on that occasion affirmed their previous decision by a majority of two to one. To-day the question has entered on a totally different phase. It is no longer a question between us of the merits of the two Clauses, although upon that point, I must say, the merit lies with this House, and I shall continue to think so. But to-day the question is a much larger and much more serious one. It raises a grave constitutional issue—the issue whether the House of Lords, as at present constituted, has a right on an, occasion of this sort to flout the opinion of the House of Commons, solemnly recorded on two occasions by a free vote in the House, and in each case by a majority of nearly two to one. They tell us that we do not know our business, that our election pledges amount to nothing, and that they are entitled to decide whether what the country wishes shall be carried through. We have now to say whether we will bow to their coercion.

To my mind this is a grave serious constitutional question. Let me remind the House how the matter stands. This question came before the country at the last General Election at a very recent date—and that is a relevant consideration—and it came before it in the most definte form in which any question could be put forward. The country on that occasion demanded, speaking broadly, that all German and other enemy aliens should be sent out of the country, subject to reasonable exceptions. The candidates who stood for Parliament at that election gave solemn pledges to their constituents that they would carry out their desires in that direction. I venture to think that the spirit. of honour is not dead in the House of Commons, and that those pledges which were given, whether wisely or not I care not one jot—those solemn pledges which Members gave to their constituents, and upon which they obtained election, should be strictly and rigorously honoured. If a man choses to go back upon his pledges let him return to his constituents like an honest man and say, "I have changed my mind; I would like to know whether you have changed your minds." It he is released from his pledge, and votes in a different sense, no one in that case would have a right to complain.

But none of these things have happened. We have come here. The Bill is brought in; a Clause is introduced for the purpose of carrying out the desires of the country expressed at the General Election, and the pledges of those Members who in response to these desires, said they would do certain things. The Clause is carried after prolonged debate, on a Division, by a majority of two to one. It goes up to another place, and the House of Lords say: "We will pay no regard to the wishes of the country, no regard to those pledges on which hon. Members have recently obtained their election, but we will act upon grounds which recommend themselves to us; we shall disregard your decisions, and we shall coerce you into carrying out our wishes." Accordingly they reject the Clause which embodies the wishes of the country and the pledges of Members, and they substitute an entirely and fundamentally different Clause designed for one purpose, and one only, and that is to let all Germans and other enemy aliens who have stayed in this country remain here. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, to remain here subject to no deportation at all. That at any rate is my opinion, and it is the fact as I showed on the last. occasion.

The object of this Clause has been openly professed, and those who support it have made a great show of delight. Those who support it in this House, and in the other House make no disguise of their joy and gratification that this Act will let practically every German remain here. We have only to read their speeches. They say: "Why trouble these poor men any more, why bother them, why not let them stay here?" That has been the open profession of the advocates of the Clause, and that will be its effect, if passed. Let there be no mistake about that. Let us not be deluded with the idea that the Clause is in such a form that it will not allow every German and alien enemy still to remain in this country. Incidentally, may I say a word or two about a class with whom I have great sympathy, namely, the Austrians? It was suggested in another place that Rome consideration should be shown to Austrians on the ground that if they were sent back to Vienna and other places they would starve If any suggestion had been made either here or in another place for giving special consideration to their case, I should have been glad to give every consideration to it. As a matter of fact, it was provided in the Bill as it left this House that in any case where it could be shown that deportation would involve serious hardship on a man and his family or dependants he should not be deported. Any Committee which had to examine this matter, if informed that the sending back of these unfortunate men and women to Austria would involve their starvation, of course would exempt them. If there had been any doubt about it, I should have been only too glad to make it quite clear in the Pill that those considerations should be adhered to.

The House of Lords have passed this Clause in a form directly contrary to the sill of the people as expressed at the last election and directly contrary to the pledges that were then given. Not the Toast significant is the reason by which they try to justify their action. They say, "We are the real judges, not you, of what the wishes of the country are. We are the real arbiters, not you, of whether you should carry out your pledges or not. We in our wisdom think that the country has departed from the wishes it expressed at the last election. We think and we know much better than you that the country no longer desires that your pledges should be carried out. Therefore we will coerce you into repudiating your pledges." Apart altogether from the merits of this particular question, a great issue immediately arises. Ought the House of Lords, as a Second Chamber, constituted as it is at present, to be allowed to assert its rights in that form? Personally I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, has gone far beyond any rights existing or duties incumbent upon it in treating the House of Commons in the way it has done in respect to this Bill. I am a strong supporter of a Second Chamber. I hold that we ought to have a properly constituted Second Chamber in this country. I hold that good government demands that that Second Chamber should have wide and extensive powers. But we are unfortunately to-day dealing with a Second Chamber which is not properly constituted. Therefore, I say to hon. Members who support the action of the Lords in this matter, most of whom are opponents of the Second Chamber principle alto- gether, that when you come here and, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), thank your God that there is a House of Lords, it will be remembered against you at a future time. It will be remembered against the right hon. Gentleman, and, perhaps, will act as a rod for his own back and the backs of those who support him in this matter. He may say that he likes it. Sometimes the sinner likes the rod, but sometimes people who are not sinners do not like it. Be that as it may we have the so-called democratic party, which is opposed to the principle of the Second Chamber, saying that they desire that the House of Commons should be overruled and its wishes flouted, that the country should have its wish destroyed by this House of Lords, for which they thank their God that it exists. I am glad to take note of their wishes. I trust the country will take note of them. If ever the time should come when they happen to disagree with the House of Lords and they desire to upset that House, let their thanks to God be remembered and let it be remembered that they not only desired but insisted that the House of Lords in this matter should be allowed to overrule the wishes of the country and that they compelled the Lords to coerce us to break our pledges and to act in a manner totally irresponsible. The Debate has had one beneficial result if only it has brought out the love of the democratic party for the House of Lords.

I shall have occasion to disagree with them later this afternoon.

I had anticipated that inconsistency occurring at a later date, but I hardly anticipated such inconsistency that you should thank God for them and oppose them on the same day. In these circumstances what should be done? The issues are plain. Only one of two courses is possible. The first is to wreck the Bill, with all its valuable provisions, and the second is to submit to this almost intolerable coercion. If this Bill only consisted of Clauses about enemy aliens, I should gladly wreck the Bill for two reasons—first, because I do not want to submit to coercion, and, secondly, because the Bill so far as it deals with former enemy aliens is absolutely absurd, inconclusive and useless. Therefore, if it were wrecked so far as enemy aliens are concerned, we should get rid of a, sham and should not be doing any harm.

The Bill, however, contains many valuable provisions which even the members of another place have not ventured to challenge or dispute, and which some of them have had the candour to admit are extremely valuable. It contains provisions preventing incitement to sedition on the part of aliens. It contains a whole series of Clauses passed in this House with almost unanimous consent regarding aliens in the Mercantile Marine. It provides that no master, first officer or first engineer in the Mercantile Marine shall be an alien it puts considerable restrictions on the employment of alien seamen in the Mercantile Marine. It provides against aliens entering our Civil Service in all these matters the interest of the country is deeply affected. We know that the members of the Mercantile Marine—that splendid service to whom this country owed so much during the War and to which we desire and intend to show our gratitude—feel the strongest interest in the Clauses dealing with that service, and desire that they should be maintained. The House of Lords, apparently, are willing that all these provisions should be wrecked and that injury should be inflicted upon the Mercantile Marine and other large sections of the public which would be inflicted if the Bill were wrecked. They are willing that that should be done provided that they may have their way and allow the Germans to remain in this country. That is the issue between us. They are willing to wreck the Bill in the interest of Germans and against the interest of Britishers. I am not willing to wreck the Bill. If it inflicts great injury upon large sections of British subjects, even then the effect might be in some way to touch the Germans. In this matter I think the Britisher is more entitled to consideration than the German, and there we differ profoundly and entirely from the view taken by the House of Lords. Therefore I am prepared to accept the advice of the Attorney-General to agree to the Lords Amendment in this respect, in order to reserve the other valuable parts of the Bill But, while I agree, I desire in the strongest language I can command —and I only wish I could command something stronger—to protest indignantly against the action of the House of Lords in over-riding the opinion of the country and coercing and intimidating us into a departure from our pledges; and the only reason I assent to that course, which I regard as unconstitutional on their part and a gross dereliction of their public duty, is because I think the wider and the greater interest of the community and the Mercantile Marine and those other large classes who are interested in the Bill demand that we should set all personal feeling aside and all smaller issues, and do our best for the country as a whole.

I propose to address myself to the proposition so cogently put before us by the Attorney-General when he put the dilemma in which this House is placed. Is the Clause so vital that we are to sacrifice the whole Bill? That is the only question that is before us. That means, as I understand constitutional practice, that if we disagree with the Lords Amendment we should reinsert our own Clause. That would go to the other place, and if the other place again disagreed with us the Bill would be dead. That puts the House in this happy position with regard to the real superiority of the other place. It means that we are perfectly entitled to insist upon the Clause which has been twice freely voted upon by the House, and if we did the Bill would not be dead. It would only be dead if, when it gets back to the House of Lords, the House of Lords was so enamoured of their Clause 9 that rather than accept what the representatives of the people had said they would kill the Bill. Therefore, it would be up to them to kill the Bill. But what I understand of the constitution, I will not say of the House of Lords but of the few learned lawyers who apparently monopolise the Debates in the House of Lords, is that they would be so arrogant that they would even go to that extent, and rather than give in upon this matter they would insist -Loon their own Clause and kill the Bill. I want people to understand that if the Bill is either killed this afternoon, or goes through in this truncated form, the whole fault rests with the House of Lords and not with the House of Commons.

That being the position, if we debate at all, we shall more usefully debate the position in which we find ourselves with regard to the history of this Bill. What is it? The country was appealed to before the General Election. There was an attempt to interest, the country in the various measures which were said to be going to make the land fit for heroes to live in. The country was entirely uninterested in any of those measures. Thereupon there were certain other cries submitted to the country because the country was interested in them, and of the three cries which were issued one was with regard to the punishment of war prisoners, the other with regard to indemnities, and the third in regard to the question of the treatment of enemy aliens. There is no doubt that the great majority of us were returned upon those issues. It is unnecessary to quote, though I have here the statements of tae Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, and other leaders of the Government. The Prime Minister himself says, speaking of the Germans:

"I have repeatedly said that in my judgment these people, having abused our hospitality, shall riot get another opportunity of doing so."

The Lord Chancellor said the same thing. They all said it. Most of us said it, and most of us are here because we said it. The Government, which is not free from blame in the matter, made the initial mistake of postponing the alien legislation till just before the Easter Recess. Then they brought in the Bill, consisting of only a few Clauses, and dealing with the matter by Order in Council. Then, after the Recess, at length we got into Grand Committee, and we remoulded the Bill and insisted upon positive legislation instead of Orders in Council. That was carried. We came here and had a long Debate upon it, and the Government was defeated upon a Clause. The matter was reconsidered, but there never was any dispute of principle between the Government and ourselves except as between Orders in Council and positive legislation. I am not making any attack on the Government's desire to deal with aliens. I am only saying that the real dispute was whether we should deal with it by Order in Council or not. That is quite different from the point of view of the House of Lords. Then it was obvious that the House of Commons insisted upon this matter being dealt with by positive legislation. We debated this Clause, and, much to my surprise, the Leader of the House left it to the free vote of the House, and we carried the Clause by 226 to 116. I have had the Division analysed. There are certain great Olympians on the Front Beach who are called chief officers of State, and of these chief officers of State thirteen voted with us and only one against us. The matter went back to the House of Lords, who threw out our Clause and substituted a formless, hopeless Clause which is calculated to prevent the deportation of any enemy alien at all. It means that you have to make a complaint and you have to give particulars, like a summons or particulars in the High Court, or a formal indictment, and the person can then be called upon to answer the particulars which have been given.

As the whole thing has to be done in a month or two it simply means that, in fact, nobody would be interfered with. The hon. and learned Member for York said, and I agree with him, that if the Lords had said, or if it were possible at this stage to say, "The worst quarrel we have is with the Germans and not with the Austrians," it might have been different. I do not entirely agree with all the good things said about the Austrians. The Austrians can be just as brutal as the Germans, and they have shown it. If they had suggested a compromise and said, "We do not want Austrians interfered with," I would say, "Well, I do not know how many have Austrian governesses, but I know that sonic have Austrian friends." If they had said that, this House would have met them by limiting the Clause to Germans. That is not what they have done. They have pat in this Clause a provision which to all intents and purposes kills any real prevention of these enemy aliens being in this country. Lord Phillimore said that, "Never before has this country ceased to treat enemies as practically friends as soon as they have ceased to be enemies" The people of this country are not prepared to treat Germans as practically friends. Superior people-like some of those who have spoken, particularly the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil), who always moves in an atmosphere that is too rare for ordinary mortals, and other superior people of that sort, many of whom exist in the other House and a few, unfortunately, in this, may deplore this feeling on the part of the people. But there it is. Lord Salisbury says it is a passing impulse. Lord Salisbury only represents himself, and he always misrepresents the Unionist party. As one result of this question we hope to Heaven that he will cease to pose as, the chairman of the Reconstruction Committee. It will be my first business and those who think with me to see that that ridiculous position is stopped. He says that it is only a passing passion of the people. I do not believe it, and this House does not believe it. I would like to know how near these Noble Lords are to the people. They move either right above them or below them.

Is it in order to have this attack upon Members of the House of Lords, sometimes by name and sometimes not by name? Is it consistent with the dignity and order of our proceedings?

Is it not perefctly legitimate to consider the arguments by which this change was introduced in the other House, and to answer those arguments? Can we answer those arguments if we do not say what those arguments were?

The question before the, House is that this House does not disagree with certain of the Lords Amendments. It is desirable that the hon. and learned Member should confine his remarks to this question.

I am sorry if I was in any way led to make an attack upon the friends of my hon. Friend opposite.

I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that they are not friends of mine.

I will take your hint, Sir. I was not attacking anybody personally, but only their political views. I quite agree that it is undesirable, although a great deal has been said about us. However, it is undesirable to bring in personalities, and I will not do it again. The Bill came back to us, and then came the constitutional issue. When it came back to us the other night we debated it at some length, and again, to my surprise, the Government left it to a free vote of the House. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed, because. I thought it was the duty of the Government to support the free decision of this House. At all events, we could not complain in the result because on the free vote of the House we carried Lord Finlay's Clause by, I think, 128 votes to 66. Again I noticed, because I had the honour to be one of the Tellers, chief officers of State and Under-Secretaries one after another coming into the right lobby. After what had taken place one would have thought the Government was under some form of duty to do something in the other House, whether they succeeded or not, to let the other House know what the House of Commons thought. What happened was that Lord Onslow got up and moved our Clause, and there was no other spokesman of the Government from start to finish. One after another of the Noble Lords who had already spoken in the previous Debate, and who are known by their pro-German views—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]

I shall not retract that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Is it in order to call Members of the House of Losds "pro-Germans?"

I did not say that. I said their "pro-German views."

Is it in order to accuse Noble Lords in the other House of having pro-German views?

When we are having a discussion on matters relating to another place it is desirable, in the interests of the decorum of this House, to be respectful to Members of another place.

I will do my very best to be respectful, and can best do that by saying nothing more about them. But I am entitled to say this, that there was no Division, that there was no spokesman for the Government, except Lord Onslow, and that our views were not in any way put forward by the Government.

Move a Vote of Censure on them.

The Government has an unprecedented majority in this House, and one would suppose that it has some influence in the other House. However, here we are with this Bill hack again. I am not going to follow my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) into an attack on the House of Lords, hut we are here to consider their action, and in spite of any interruption, I am going to consider what is the constitutional principle. I am very much tempted to say that if the House of Lords chooses to take the responsibility of killing the Bill let them take it and justify their action afterwards; but I do feel the weight of what my hon. and learned Friend—who has done so much in this matter and who deserves our gratitude for his assiduity and zeal in draughtsmanship and in other ways—has said, and in spite of losing the principal Clause of the Bill in spite of losing the Clause which is the Clause we were returned to this House to support, there are many other good things in the Bill, and rather than lose what is Left in the Bill, I, with the very greatest reluctance, will not oppose the Motion.

If it seemed worth while I might pursue the hon. and learned Member in some of his arguments. He said it was within our power if we liked to reinstate our Clause and send it back to another place, and that the responsibility for killing the measure would rest with another place. That is totally in- accurate. We only have to decide now whether we will agree to the striking out of a Clause, and the responsibility for the fate of this measure rests absolutely with this House. It is constitutionally impossible for the Bill to be sent back again to another place, but we have been so accustomed to being inaccurate in the construction of the law—

I asked the learned Attorney-General his opinion on the point, and I understood him to agree with the position I have put forward.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, recently chastened by Mr. Justice Sankey—

Do not be insulting.

Withdraw!

If that is intended as a pleasantry. I will leave it to the House to say whether it is in good taste or bad; but, if it be seriously meant, protest against it in the strongest possible manner as a most improper observation with reference to a judge of the High Court who is not here and, to a case which, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, is the subject of appeal.

On a point of Order. May ask the hon. Member to say whether this is meant seriously or as a joke?

May I remind the House of the terms of the Question which we are debating, and ask that hon. Members should confine their remarks to a discussion of that quetion?

Withdraw!

If hon. Members will permit me to be heard, I need hardly assure the House that the remark I made was an ill-conceived pleasantry, which I withdraw unreservedly and immediately. I would not for a moment dream of doing anything else. I am sorry that I was misled into it, though I would not like to accept the hon. and learned Member for York as an arbiter of what is in good taste. The hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon made a roost impassioned speech about the relations between the two Chambers and the iniquity that in this ease the other place should impose upon us this coercion. I have had the honour of being a fellow Member with the hon. and learned Member for a considerable time, but I do not recollect any of these protests being made by him when we were endeavouring to put into the hands of this House an instrument for the purpose of overcoming the very coercion of which he is now complaining.

I thought that I had made it quite plain in my speech that I regarded this as practically a unique case.

If it were possible, we might chance an agreement on the lines that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have a Parliament Act for the purpose of enabling him to force through another House all the Bills which he supports, but that it would riot be available for other measures of which he disapproves, but that would lead us a long way from the point before the House I should be very sorry indeed by any pleasantry to hurt the feelings of the parents whom we see here to-day taking part in the funeral of Clause 9. Of course we must expect a certain amount of sorrow and anguish on the part of parents who find that the swaddling clothes of their infant are also its shroud. On this occasion we have a funeral which is the funeral of an election stunt. The hon. and gallant Gentleman read out a passage from the Prime Minister's speech, and I might read one from a speech of the Lord Chancellor to show that this was an election stunt produced in a hurry in a moment not of actual, but of prospective, reverse, to secure the support of the country.

Then we come to the course of events in this House itself. May I remind the House of what is the actual history of this puling, infant? The Bill was introduced without this Clause 9 at all. The Government proposed what steps they considered necessary for the safety of the Realm in a Bill which had not Clause 9 in it at all. The Bill was referred to a Standing Committee. In the Standing Committee the hon. and learned Member for York proposed this Clause, whereupon the Government opposed the Clause and announced that it was not possible to accept it. Then the Bill came down on Report, and on a preceding Clause a totally different question arose in regard to keeping faith with French pilots. On that the Government, suffered defeat. After defeat on the question of the pilots, a conference took place between certain Members of this House and the Government representatives at Downing Street No bargain was made, but as a result of the conference the Government Motion for the rejection of Clause 9 was removed from the Order Paper. This Clause was proposed on Report by the hon. and learned Gentlemen who are its sponsors. Though it is quite true that a free vote was taken, the Leader of the House spoke strongly in favour of the Clause. Now that the Clause has been rejected, or, rather, amended and put into a more reasonable shape, in another place, I think that we shall all be glad that we have seen the last of what I may be permitted to call, both as regards the Government and the promoters of this Clause, a most unfortunate, if not discreditable, episode.

I have again and again in this House heard speeches from the Front Bench above the Gangway, and notably from the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Benn), distinctly opposed to the, best interests of the country, as declared by the electors themselves. There is never anything proposed in the interests of this country but it is opposed by the hon. and gallant. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Thank you!

I desire to say what I have, to say without any passion, if I can. The hon. and learned Member for Upton (Sir E. Wild) has mentioned that this Clause has been consistently supported in three Divisions by the principal members of the Government. They have shown that in their deliberate judgment it is a proper Clause. The Clause which went back, after foil debate, to another place, was a Clause which was framed by Lord Finlay which was intended to remove the criticism that had already been passed by some of the ordinary members of the other Chamber who are imbued with a. sense of their own importance, but who are consumed with sentimentality. This Clause was designed to remove any possibility of harshness, particularly towards women. Every effort has been made to meet the other House with regard to these minor questions, while preserving the principal question, which was the affirmative policy against enemy aliens. There is no one who dare deny that the Clause which has been put in in another place and insisted upon last night is the very negation of any action at all; it is never intended that any alien should leave the country in future unless after being dealt with under the criminal law. I turn to the Debate in the other Chamber, and I notice that Lord New ton said:

"We on our side—I am speaking of those who support the Amendment—the Labour party, and, as far as I know, the whole of the Bishops. We have every member of the tribunals that were set up to consider this question, with the exception of one individual, and last night I had the astonishing experience of hearing the official Leader of the Literal party in the House of Commons deliberately and ostentatiously thanking God for the presence of the House of Lords, a thing which I never expected to live to hear."

I hope the Noble Lord will not be disappointed in future. Whatever happens, never a finger shall be raised to save him from his friends, and I would say, with regard to the Noble Lord and the Labour party, that he forgets, if he ever took the trouble to try to analyse the feeling of the Labour party in this House, that the Labour party represents what is called the International—they want a kind of brotherhood all over the world's surface, which they know they will never get, and they are out of touch with the bond-fide workers in industry. If the Noble Lord thinks he has arty encouragement by citing the Labour party as supporting him, I wish him joy of it- in future, when the time comes for him to test its friendship. He spoke also about the Liberal party, avid its official head. I am not going to descant on the domestic trembles which attach to the Front Bench above the Gangway.

There are none.

The hon. Member says there are none, but the wish is father to the thought. He knows the troubles and how easily they show themselves, but I am not going to pursue that. I do say, and say deliberately, that the Noble Lord allies himself with a party whose tradition has always been that they are the friends of every country but their own. That is the company which is cited with approval by the Noble Lord. I would say that, although as a matter of constitutional practice it would be a vote to wreck this Bill, we are not quite so dense in these days riot to know what is the right thing to do, and that the real responsibility rests with those sentimentalists who are determined to prevent any enemy alien leaving these shores, although the country has unmistakably declared that it wants to be quit of them. What is the evidence? This week I have had letters of protest from different parts of the country against the way in which aliens are creeping back, and are apparently getting preference. They are getting houses where a Britisher cannot; they are opening businesses where a Britisher cannot do so, and particularly a returned soldier. The Noble Lords have deliberately wrecked the important parts of this Bill, arid if I had my way they should wreck the whole Bill, because I think that that is the consistent position. We are not too blind, nor is the populace too blind or too uneducated, not to understand perfectly well that it is the action of that little coterie in another place, saturated with sentimentalism, who care nothing about the true interests of the workers of this country, and those Noble Lords will know in time to come that they have done a very grave disservice to their country by their action.

I would not have risen to take part in this Debate but for the charges of pro-Germanism and of being the enemy of your own country and all that kind of thing, which have been thrown about in so foolish a manner. I am not going to attempt to reply to those charges; they are not worth replying to. I am simply going to say that I vote on this Amendment because I believe that the form in which the Clause comes back to this. House is much more in the interests and to the honour of tins country than the form in which it was sent up from this House. I maintain strongly that this country is entitled to protect itself against dangerous aliens and dangerous people of all sorts. It is entitled to expel dangerous aliens. It is bound to do so where there is proved cause for doing so. The Clause as it went to the I louse of Lords, in my opinion and in the opinion of many patriotic people, went fat beyond what was necessary, and inflicted a great deal of hardship and cruelty and a great deal of unnecessary expense, upon this country in reconsidering the eases of thousands of people against whom there was not even the shadow of a prima facie case for expulsion. We believe that the Clause as it comes back from the Lords does avoid that unnecessary expense to the country, and does avoid that cruelty to many quite innocent people, and at the same time it will give the country all the protection that it needs and will afford efficient machinery by which any dangerous person in this country can he singled out by the police or by any other responsible person so that that dangerous person may be expelled.

This Bill was passed by the unanimous vote of the House of Commons, or what might practically be called the unanimous vote of the House of Commons, and it was sent to another place. I think it is outrageous to have it thrown back into the face of this House after the long discussion that took place here, all sides being represented. When we were discussing the Lords Amendments two nights ago I heard the Member for Mid-Antrim (Major O'Neill) refer to British fair play. There is no greater upholder of British fair play than I am, but first of all I claim British fair play for the British people. Anyone who knows the Germans as well as I do, anyone who realises the amount of harm done to this country not only before the War but during the War by those Germans who were here receiving our hospitality, anyone who knows what those men did by their espionage and their knowledge of the daily relations of British life, knows that they did more to prolong this War than anyone. To my knowledge the Germans were here living at our seaport towns, and all the time they were collecting evidence which would be of great value to the military party in Berlin. They knew what was going on here and how far we were prepared to fight them when "the day" arrived. We people alto have the interests of our own country at heart wish to make it impossible in future that that sort of thing can occur again. We have learned our lesson, and some of us in this House have learned a more bitter lesson than many; we have paid the penalty, the best that we had to give, and so we do not lightly forget. I have been in Germany, and I have known for many years past what was going on. I have, on public platforms, ever since I entered the political arena, foretold that this German war was as certain to come as the night follows the day, and every word that I have said has conic true. I, firmly and honestly believe that German preparation for this War was greatly assisted by the knowledge that they got through their spies in this country. Personally I should like to go into the Lobby and reject the Lords Amendment, but I do not blind myself to the fact that by so doing we should wreck the Bill altogether and for that reason I mean to consider it. It is heartbreaking to those with whom I am associated, to feel that after all the work we have done, and the trouble we have taken to try and get on to the Statute Book a measure that would prevent the undesirable German living in this country, that the Lords in another place have entirely turned clown our proposal. I shall consult with my Friends as to what is the best course to take. I can only say that I feel convinced if we do not get the Bill, the whole Bill as we sent it to the Lords, that this country in the future will very seriously suffer.

May I at this hour make an appeal to the good sense of the House? It is quite clear there are some who approve of the course which was taken in another place, and that there are many who do not. The merits of the controversy have been entered into, not for the first time in this House, and I suggest that the moment has now come when the House might reach a conclusion on the Amendment.

The simple point at issue is this. After very mature consideration in this House we came to certain conclusions as to what is good arid necessary for the future welfare of the country. We sent all our proposals to another place, and they have been returned, and we are being forced by the Upper Chamber to take a decision which is contrary to the considered judgment of the people's elected representatives in this House. For my part that is a course to which I will never submit.

As on each former occasion on this matter, the Government have removed their Whips,

Hitherto when a vote has been taken, the question has been with regard to a particular proposal in the Bill. The question today is not that. The question to-day is whether the view taken by this House is that the questions involved in Clause 9 are so important that rather than give way upon them we are to sacrifice the whole of the Bill. In those circumstances it is not possible for the Government to take the course which is recommended and take off the Whips. In substance the life of the Bill is involved, and it would be necessary for the Government, which desires the Bill, to put on their Whips.

I wish to dissociate myself entirely, as a member of the Constitutional pasty, from the attacks that have been made by members of that 'Arty upon another place. I hope that this House will record their votes and support the action the House of Lords has taken.

I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I may, perhaps, be allowed to explain that this Amendment affects only Part I. of the Bill. The position is that a similar Clause for the protection of home farms, parks, woodlands, and so on, was inserted in the corresponding English measure. Further, a Clause even more drastic in its terms than this particular proposal is already in the 1911 Scottish Act, and, therefore, a Clause which, as I say, is stronger in its terms than this, regulates the procedure under Part II. of the Bill. It is now proposed to bring Part I. into line with Part II. in this matter, and the case for agreeing with the Lords in this matter is even stronger when I find a corresponding provision, not only in the Scottish Act of 1911, in the English Act of last year, but also in nearly every corresponding Statute dealing with the acquisition of land, such as even the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916. I have consulted the Board of Agriculture specifically with regard to this question, and I am informed that it is not anticipated that this provision, if it is inserted in the Bill, will be unduly hampering in effect. It only comes into operation, as the House will see, with regard to compulsory purchase, and one hopes that in most of these cases under Part I the purchase may be arranged by agreement rather than by compulsion, hut on the various grounds which I have mentioned I venture to recommend the House to agree to this Amendment.

This Amendment of the Lords practically excludes the home farms from the possibility of small holdings being carved out. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend was quite right an saying that nearly all of us who have been interested in the question of small holdings in Scotland have taken the view that, as far as possible, the home farm should be excluded, and as I myself was the father of the Bill in which that was recognised, I do not feel that one could oppose this Amendment from the Lords right out. At the same time, I want to bring a case before my right hon. Friend which, I hope will receive his sympathetic consideration. It is very material to one part of Scotland where the question of small holdings is vital. There is one fact which has emerged since we discussed the Scottish Land Bills in the House of Commons, and that is the effect of the War. Indeed, this Bill is in the nature largely of emergency legislation. If the home farm is excluded in all cases, then I submit that the possibility of settling men on the land in the Islands and Highlands is somewhat remote. That is the ease I wish to make against this Amendment.

This morning I got a letter from a man in the islands who gives one or two apposite examples of the kind of thing to which I am referring. For instance, he gives a case in North Uist which is in the Outer Hebrides, where an estate of the name of Bellrannel was confiscated from the adjoining crofters prior to the passing of the Crofters Act. This estate is of 2,000 acres, and is surrounded entirely by crofting townships. One of these townships, says my correspondent, is comprised of nineteen crofters, there being no other land except this estate from which to get enlargements, and he goes on to point out that those crofters have actually said, as many crofters have been saying in the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, that they are going to take possession of the other land unless it can be obtained for them. He also gives me two examples in Sutherland. I know there are other Members of the House who represent the Islands and Highlands who have probably a number of examples in their mind. This correspondent gives an example in Sutherlandshire, where there is a certain community of nearly 1,000 souls, some with miserable patches of land, and where, like other places, the young men fought for their country in the recent War. He points out that if the home farm in those cases is not available, then the success of the Act may he jeopardised. After all, the home farm is going to be bought and compensation is going to be paid, and what I would like to suggest to my right hon. Friend is whether the words suggested by the Lords could not modified in some way. I thought of tie words "exceptional circumstances," but I know that if I suggested Hose words ray right hon. Friend would say that there would be a difficulty in defining them. What I want to achieve is that particularly in the islands and Highlands the question of the home farm should occupy a different position from that in the rest of Scotland. I would suggest that we should compromise on this Amendment, and that in the case of the islands and Highland counties the home farm should be looked upon in a different category from the other counties in Scotland. I am sure, then, there would be sonic hope in those districts of the men, and partieuiarly the ex-Service men, getting a piece of land. I hope, my right hon. Friend will hold out some hope that we shall conic to terms with the House of Lords on that point. I think it is a fair compromise, and I know perfectly well that hon. Members who represent, those counties would approve of it.

I should hardly have thought in a case of this kind purchase should be made at all unless by agreement. It would involve compensation if purchase were made against the owner of the home farm.

I should like to say a word in support of the remarks of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Rogge). I would be quite willing, and I believe the landlords might. have been quite willing, to leave the matter to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, who, after all, are sensible men, but there are exceptional cases such as my hon. Friend referred to with which I am acquainted and connected with which I have had correspondence, where it might be hard, and would be a disabling enactment from the point of view of providing small holdings or extending existing holdings. If some loophole could be devised by the ingenuity of my right hon. Friend so that cases of that kind could be provided for, it would be an advantage. No one wants to disturb unnecessarily home farms or the demesne of the mansion house, but something must be done, seeing that the discretion of the Board of Agriculture is not approved by the House of Lords, taking up the cue of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). I think some modification might be made.

By leave of the House, may I say that I think my hon. Friend has exaggerated the importance of the point of view that he has put forward, although I think I quite understand it. He will find that the class of cases with which this Amendment deals is an extremely narrow one. In the first place, it only comes into operation where compulsory acquisition of land takes place. The second limitation is this: He is quite wrong when he says that the home farm is excluded in all cases. If he would be good enough to look at the Amendment, he will see that it only deals with a particular class of home farm. It is not every home farm, but only those in which the land is required for the amenity or convenience of Lire mansion house. That is the only kind of home farm which is excluded by this Amendment. Any proposal to take compulsorily, under the powers of the Board of Agriculture, a home farm of that description, which is necessary for the amenity of the mansion house, would involve a ruinous compensation and would be most undesirable from that point of view alone. When my hon. Friend further remembers that it is only the 1911 Act in which this Clause appears, I put it to the House and to my hon. Friend with some confidence, that, looking at the particular limitations with which this Clause is fenced that the prospect he indicates is really not likely to arise. If I thought it would, I would take ways and means to meet my lion. Friend. But honestly I do not think so.

I do not want to press this matter unduly, but we must remember what is going on in the Outer Hebrides practically every month. My right hon. Friend will remember, for instance, that from the island of Lewis alone 7,000 men joined the Colours, and there are some thousands of ex-Service men in that one island alone. There is the difficulty. I am not pleading for the rest of Scotland in putting forward my suggestions for extreme care in this matter.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment, I venture to suggest should also be agreed to subject to the consequential Amendment to which I shall indicate in a moment. The original form in which the Amendment came before the Committee was that the right of preemption should be given to the owner of the land. We arc here dealing with land which is not required for the purposes for which it is bought by the Board of Agriculture. There may be certain portions of an estate purchased which the Board find arc not needed for their purposes. The proposal made in Committee was that the landlord should have the right of preemption in these cases. I pointed out that was inconsistent with another provision in the Bill which gave the right to the Fores- Try Commissioners of pre-emption in regard to this land. This Amendment has, by agreement so far as the Government is concerned in another place, been re-modelled and the effect of it will be, if the House agrees, that when you have some land which the Board of Agriculture does not require, it must first of all be offered to the Forestry Commissioners in case they should desire it for the purpose of their work. Failing the forestry Commissioners not wishing tins unneeded land, it will be offered to the landlord in case he should like to have it. The provision is that that shall be the operation before the Board goes into the open market to sell this land. This is quite a reasonable proposal. We thought so in another place. I suggest, therefore, that this Amendment should be accepted subject to the purely drafting consequential Amendment which I propose to move. The net result of this Amendment, if accepted, will be that the Board gets rid of land which it does not require, first offering it to the Forestry Commissioners, then to the landlord, and then in the open market

I beg to move, in Subsection (5), after the word "shall" ["the Board shall consult "], to insert the words "in the first instance"

I do not quite follow my right hon. Friend. He appears to be reading a different line to the one in the copy I have.

I am afraid there has been some difficulty in regard to getting an appropriate copy of the Bill. But perhaps I may read this Clause as it will run if the Amendment I propose be also inserted. It will read as follows:

"Before selling any land which in the opinion of the Board is not required for the purposes of this Act the Board shall, subject as hereinafter provided, offer the land to the person from whom it was purchased, or his successor in title, at a price to be determined, failing agreement, by the Scottish Land Court provided that in the opinion of the Board the land is suitable for afforestation the Board shall in the first instance consult the Forestry Commission, and shall give the Forestry Commissioners an opportunity of acquiring such land."

I beg to move, "That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The history of this Amendment is very familiar to my hon. Friends from Scotland. It was inserted in Committee. On the Report stage of the Bill I suggested that, as it seemed to me an immaterial Amendment, that it might disappear. The first reason why I suggested its discontinuance was that the Board of Agriculture would be bound to consider the relative suitability of land, whether the directions which the Amendment contains were inserted or not. The second reason is that in no part of the Bill is there any direction given to the Board to consider any particular factor in the situation. They are bound to consider all the relevant factors, and to take out this one might lead to the possible exclusion or to the slighter consideration of other matters which it might be important to bear in mind. I have not altered my views which I expressed on the Report stage, but, looking to the attitude which I felt bound to take up previously, I think it will be consistent that this Amendment should disappear, and I suggest that we should disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is really of a drafting character, and no importance to the substance of the Bill.

The next five Amendments, which go together, are all privilege Amendments dealing with the compensation provided by the Bill, but it is open to the house to waive their privilege.

The original measure granted compensation to the landlord for any capital losses realised by the establishment of small holdings on his property. These Amendments deal with the Agriculture Fund, which provides £235,000 a year. Surely it is only right that the whole House should have something to say on this point?

It has always been open to this House to waive its right, and hon. Members can take such a line as they desire.

I suggest that that would be the proper course to adopt. My suggestion is that privilege should be waived, and that we should discuss all these matters upon their merits. It would be much more satisfactory, rather than taking refuge on a technical objection. I am willing to do so, and I suggest that it would be the most satisfactory method. I hope the House will agree to that course.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is an occasion upon which we should not agree to waive our privilege. These Amendments directly affect the fund which this House, after very careful consideration upstairs and on the floor of the House, has settled, and I am quite sure that the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate will admit that this Bill receives very careful consideration. There was no obstruction and no slurring over of material parts, but the whole measure was considered, and especially these Financial Clauses.

They were not actually agreed to.

If there was any charge against the way in which the Bill was rushed through, or if it had not received full discussion, perhaps that would have been a reason for waiving privilege, but as no such charge was made, I object to waiving our rights.

I make a serious appeal to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) to reconsider his action. I am sure he would be the last person to imperil the fate of this Bill, and if this measure is to be decided upon a matter of privilege I am afraid of its fate, at the stage of the Session we now find ourselves. I have had the honour of making this Motion on more than one occasion on previous Bills. In regard to the Education Bill, I remember I earnestly appealed to my right hon Friend to adhere to this attitude, and it is really not in the interests of this Bill and the ex-Service men we hope to settle on the land to risk its fate. I cannot do more than make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, and I think he may trust me to do the fair thing on the merits with regard to all the ensuing Amendments. I do not think he need have any fear on that matter. If he insists, of course I cannot stop him, but I make one last appeal to him not to persist.

We have not yet waived our objection.

That is a question for the House to decide.

I propose to invite the House to disagree with the first of these Amendments.

This is a question of privilege and the House of Lords has nothing whatever to do with it. I would like to know if it is in order for us to discuss it at all in this way, and can a Minister get up and propose that we should accept it? I gathered that the Secretary for Scotland wishes to discuss certain Amendments in order that we may agree with certain things and disagree with others; but the position I take up is that we do not waive our privilege.

My duty is to point out that certain Amendments are privilege Amendments, and it is open to the House to take whatever course it may think fit in regard to them. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to disagree with the first privilege Amendment, and on that I suppose there will be unanimity.

But we do not desire to waive our privilege at all. We regard this as a. question of privilege, and we do not want to discuss these Amendments at all, because the House of Lords has nothing to do with them. The House of Commons has already decided these matters.

I am afraid we are obliged to discuss them. What action the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) will take is for him to decide. I do not think we can decide that we cannot discuss them, and the House must either decide to agree or disagree with them.

That is the point. It is a question of privilege we are being asked to discuss one way or the other, and I am asking for information.

I understand the Secretary for Scotland proposes to move in certain cases that this House waives its privilege, and we must conic to some conclusion. I cannot say when an Amendment comes down from the other place that I decline to submit it to the House on the ground that it is a question of privilege. My function is simply to warn the House that these are Amendments which violate the ordinary privilege of the House, and then it is for the House to decide whether they will accept them or whether, on the ground of privilege, they will reject them.

Lords Amendment: In substituted Subsection (11, b), leave out paragraph (ii.).

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

4.0 P.M.

We are so familiar, those Members who sat in the Scottish Grand Committee, with it that I do not think I need trouble the House with the whole history of the matter. Under the former Act there were payments made in respect of depreciation of capital value. That was found to be subject to grave objections in the working of the Act, and, according y, a proposal was inserted in this Bill that, except in so far as the injury arose from depreciation in tile letting value, no compensation should he paid. In another place it was proposed to omit this paragraph, and it has, accordingly, disappeared. I suggesting that the Lords Amendment should be disagreed with, and I will state the reasons for that advice. In another place my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor indicated that, in the view of the Government, it would be a fatal Amendment to the Hill. It has also to be remembered that this Amendment to leave out this paragraph was not proposed at any stage of the Bill by any representative of any party in this house, and to reintroduce this system of payment for loss of capital value would be to reintroduce the system which wellnigh wrecked the Bill of 1911, with the possible and even the probable result that this Bill in operation would also prove to be unworkable. The compensation which was payable under the old Clause was so prohibitive that the machinery of that Act was brought to a standstill. If it were reintroduced into this Bill, therefore, it would tend to abridge the operation of the Bill and hamper the Board in acquiring land for settling ex-Service taco upon it. The purchase price would be so excessive that land in many cases could not be obtained, and to that extent interests of ex-Service men would suffer. I venture to suggest that this Amendment should not be agreed with, but at the same time I suggest, for the consideration of the House, that a consequential Amendment, winch I shall move on Clause 9, might be inserted in these terms:

"Provided that. where any such landlord represents to the Secretary of Scotland that the Scheme ought not to be confirmed, the Secretary may, if he thinks lit, before giving his consent refer the scheme to the Land Court for inquiry and report."

That may be regarded as a certain protection by those who are interested in the matter. If it be so regarded, then, speaking for the Government, I am quite willing that they should have it. Therefore, the advice which I give to the House very respectfully is to differ with the Amendment now under discussion arid to insert that proviso in Clause 9.

I am very glad to hear the Secretary for Scotland move to disagree with the Lords Amendment. The position to-day in Scotland is this: There was a great influx of soldiers after the War for settlement on the land, and, in the second place, bound up with the problem of laud settlement, is the much larger problem of sweeping away the abuses of the existing Act of 1911. All who have been for years past in touch with the Scottish land problem will realise the damage which was done through the Act of 1911 by the attempts at compromise in the later stages of the passage of that measure, and they will also realise the great difficulty which would ensue if the Amendment made to the present Bill in another place is allowed by this House. I go so far as to say that the effect of the Amendment made in another place is to sweep away more than one-half of the useful character of this measure. The House will remember the essence of the abuses which exist under the Act of 1911. This measure, as it left this House, was intended to sweep away the abuse of fancy compensation for injurious affection and other matters. There were in the Act of 1911 provisions for compensation wide and sweeping and purely fancy in their character, which rendered the operation of the Act of 1911 largely a farce. Scottish Members will remember that the result, as instanced in the Lindean case, in which the letting value of land had been increased by the constitution of small holdings upon it, and there was payable to the landlord a very large sum in fancy compensation. The effect of that provision was that it acted as a barrier to land settlement.

It was quite truly said by the Lord Chancellor in another place that if similar principles to those which the House of Lords seeks to enshrine in this Act had been applied in the case of the railways or of any other great public undertakings in this country in the past, then this country., instead of leading the world in industrial enterprise, would have been far behind. We should all have been worse off, even the landlords, and therefore, it seems to me an extremely short-sighted view for the other place to take that they themselves, or those whose interests they represent, will be better off by reason of the course of action which they have proposed. There is another point which arises in this connection. I do not suppose that those who were present in the Scottish Standing Committee are under any illusion as to the effect this Amendment will have on the useful character of the Act. The Government at the last election gave certain pledges to the Scottish people, and on those pledges the Scottish people repose their trust in the Government. The proposal to carry out these pledges was, very properly, introduced by the Government into this Bill, which was considered with great care and in great detail by the Scottish Grand Committee. It represents great unanimity of opinion among all parties in Scotland, and this is illustrated by the fact that on the Report stage my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) did not propose an Amendment of this nature or press it to a Division.

I certainly never moved an Amendment of this kind, and I did not interfere in the Debate, except to propose seine small modification in one or two cases.

Even the most reactionary elements in this House never ventured to go half so far as the other House has done, and I again repeat that, in view of the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee did consider this matter with care and in much detail, and arrive at its decisions with such unanimity, I hold that under the circumstances it would be not only a breach of faith to the Scottish people, but would be clearly lacking in dignity, if this House took up this reactionary attitude at the present time. The Government, on this matter, have really shown sincerity as a Coalition Government, for progressive legislation, and this Bill is one which is calculated to do enormous good to the Scottish population, while, from the point of view of political strategy, which, of course, my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench never consider, it is calculated to do enormous good to the Coalition Government. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, who is perhaps the leading exponent in this House of the views embodied in this Amendment from the other place, will use his influence with his colleagues and induce them to back up the Government in assuming the dignified and the only proper attitude of supporting those who totally object to this reactionary Amendment.

I should like to ask whether, assuming that we disagree with this Amendment from another place, such disagreement will have the effect of ruling out a discussion on the subsequent proposal to insert another proviso in place of this Clause?

I take it that if the House disagree with this Amendment, it will as a consequence agree to the one proposed to he substituted by the Government.

May I be allowed to say that when we reach the Amendment to which my hon. Friend referred, I propose to move that the House disagree with the terms of that Amendment?

Could we not with the leave of the House consider the two Amendments together?

I think the two matters do hang together, and, as I understand it, the Government propose to ask the House to disagree with both.

We shall have to be careful what action we take, because in dealing with this Clause, we may deprive the Bill of its very centre. I do not follow the argument of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Shaw), who has suggested that I represent a reactionary element in this House. I think the same view was expressed by his own father in the other House. It is all very amusing and interesting, but it is not correct. We are here up against what might be a serious difficulty between the two Houses. The Government has asked for an enormous concession in this Bill. They are alto gether changing the basis of compensation. It is true that no one in this House moved that the principle of capital value should be imposed in its entirety, but I did move an Amendment—to which the Lord Chancellor gave some consideration in the other House and was kind enough to say that it was a reasonable Annindment—mitigating to some extent what I thought to be the hardship of this change in the case of small proprietors. The Scottish Grand Committee and my right hon. Friend did not see their way to accept that, because, I suppose, it was thought that it offended some principle. I thought it fair and just, and another reactionary in the form of the Lord Chancellor apparently thought so, too, because he said that if it were introduced into the House of Lords he would consider it. It was not however, put forward.

I take it that the excision of this Clause is not intended so much to defeat the main principle of the Bill as to give the Government an opportunity of suggesting in what nay they propose to mitigate the hardship. When we are in the difficulty of a possible conflict between the two Houses, what is the best thing to do? One House tries to draw the other. Sometimes it succeeds and sometimes fails. In this case the other Rouse has not altogether failed, because my right hon. Friend has suggested a very moderate Amendment which would, at all events, give some kind of guarantee against grave mistakes or blunders being committed by the Board of Agriculture. The Board of Agriculture is a standing difficulty between my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and myself. He likes people who have been proved to have made mistakes. I do not. That is why I distrust the people to whom the whole of this arrangement is going to be handed over. I am quite sure the Amendment suggested by the Secretary for Scotland will be an improvement. The very moderate provision that in certain cases the Secretary for Scotland may submit a scheme to the Land Court for its approval before it is carried out, does not in any way infringe the principle of the Bill, but it gives a certain measure of protection against mistakes which is desirable in view of our past experience. The whole difficulty has arisen because of the blunder of the Board of Agriculture in putting small holdings in unsuitable places and refusing offers of land which wins suitable for small holdings. We do not want to see these mistakes occur again. I hope the present Amendment will be disagreed with, and that the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend will be accepted.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) apparently has splendid opportunities of diagnosing the meaning of Amendments that come from the House of Lords. He told us that this Amendment was not meant seriously, but is a mere instrument for bargaining with the Secretary for Scotland as to what concession he will make. Therefore, I will not deal with it seriously, except to say that I agree with the Motion made by time Secretary for Scotland. I am seriously disturbed, however, about the concessions that the Secretary for Scotland seems disposed to make. It seriously affects one of the chief virtues of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to short-circuit the process of getting men settled on the land. Under the old Acts, after the Board of Agriculture had devised a scheme they had to submit it to the Land Court. In this Bill the Land Court is eliminated, and on that account especially we welcomed it. I do not object to the Land Court. I have much more faith in the Land Court and in the Board of Agriculture than the bon. Member for Ayr Burghs. It did, however, make for delay, with the consequence that before come of these schemes were approved the men who had applied for the land got so tired that they gave up the idea altogether. I am afraid that this is a retrograde step on the part of the Secretary for Scotland. It is a concession to influences brought to bear upon him in the House of Lords. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet; the Member for Ayr Burghs had anything to do with that or not. I admit that it is in the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland to decide whether a scheme shall be submitted to the Land Court. The hon. Baronet says he tracts the Land Court but not the Board of Agriculture. I believe he trusts the present Land Court but not all Land Courts. Similar Land Courts may come again.

I will take my chance.

This House has already decided against taking chances, Premium Bonds and things of that sort. If the hon. Baronet is going to trust one Court he should trust another. The Board of Agriculture is just as likely to do the right thing in this matter to all concerned as is the Land Court. I object to this roundabout process, because resort will always be had to it. The landlords will always apply to the Secretary for Scotland against the Board of Agriculture, and the Secretary for Scotland will practically be forced to refer a scheme to the Land Court. That makes for delay in settling upon the land ex-soldiers and sailors who require small holdings. For that reason I strongly object to the modifications suggested by the Secretary for Scotland.

May I say a few words in reply to what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite (Dr. Murray). Let us make no mistake about it if the concession is granted whereby capital value disappears, and it is replaced by letting value, it is a very large and important concession There can be no about that. If we can get rid of that drawback, which was the chief drawback to the Act of 1911, we get rid of a great deal. I am sure my hon. Friend will not differ from that. What is offered in exchange? This simple Amendment I am going to move at the end of this Clause. May I read to the House its terms, so, that its limitations may be appreciated' I have slightly altered it, and it will come in at a later point in the Bill instead of an earlier point. The Amendment is at the end of Clause 9 to add a new paragraph:

"(g) Where any landlord interested represents to the Secretary for Scotland that a proposed scheme ought not to tie confirmed, the Secretary for Scotland may, before giving his consent to the scheme, refer the same to the Land Con t for inquiry and report."

The House will be kind enough to observe, the limitations contained in that proposal. In the first place there must be a report. My hon. Friend says there always will be. I do not agree with him, though there will be in certain cases. When it is made there is no binding obligation on the Secretary for Scotland to refer the matter to the Land Court. He is responsible to this House for his conduct.. If he thinks it is a proper case to refer, no doubt it will be referred. If on the other hand, in his judgment, it need not be referred the scheme will be forthwith confirmed. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend should almost suggest distrust of the Land Court.

On account of its delay.

I think my hone Friend is making, too much of that. This is quite am exceptional case which will not often occur, and, so far as delay is concerned, I am not aware that the Land Court, with its new duties and functions as defined by this Act, will be open to the charge of delay as it might have been in the past with very different and much inure various, and numerous ditties. I do riot think that is a sound argument. I, therefore, put it to the House that a concession such as this, so carefully framed as to deal with exceptional cases, is one which they would be well advised to accept, and the concession gained in exchange for it is one of very great importance indeed.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the next two Amendments relate to the same matter. They all deal with what is known as the sporting values Clause, and I propose to advise the House to agree with all three. I will read the terms of the Clause as it will run if these Amendments be accepted:

"Any compensation for injury done to the value of the sporting rights over such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the lands or estates were put to the full reasonable use for which it could be let under ordinary lease to ordinary agricultural or pastoral tenants."

The alterations are really immaterial. In the preparation of the Clause as we intended to propose it, the words to be used varied from time to time. At one time the word "reasonable" was in the Clause instead of "possible." I think it is a very fair Amendment which does not unduly weaken the Clause.

I very much hope we are not going to agree to this suggestion. I have moved more than once in Committee the very words which my right hon. Friend proposes to accept in regard to other definitions, and I have been continually met with the argument that no one can define what "reasonable" means. What we put in as the Bill left this House was "the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants." This is a very old story. No one now wants to engage in the old controversy about deer forests, unless perhaps the Prime Minister does, having dealt with it many years ago. The difficulty that suggests itself to me is that it is surely much more easy to say what should be the full possible use of the land for agricultural purposes than it is to say what should be the reasonable use, and I would suggest that my right hon. Friend should adhere to the word we adopted in the Scottish Grand Committee. The difficulty will arise again further on with regard to compensation. If this is accepted it will surely interfere with the basis of compensation which is determined in another part of the Bill. It is perfectly easy to fix a maximum datum line of "full possible use." It is very difficult to express the connotation of the word "reasonable." What may be reasonable to the Board of Agriculture, for instance, might be quite unreasonable to the owner from whom the forest is being taken and there may be a very great difference between the two words "agricultural" and "pastoral," which is again modified by the insertion of the words "ordinary lease." I appeal to my right hon. Friend to leave the words as they stand as being much more comprehensible than the words which are proposed to be inserted. Someone will have to discuss this. It could be argued one way and the other as to what was reasonable and what was unreason able, and I can conceive easily the arguments which might be used on the one side and on the other to prove what might be reasonable and what might be unreasonable, say in one part of the Highlands of Scotland and in another part. Who is to decide it?

The decision of the matter will rest with the Land Court. I think my hon. Friend trusts the Land Court.

There have been certain Land Courts which I have trusted. I have trusted them all but a great many Members have not, and have had extraordinary difficulty as the result. In any case, it would be much easier for the Land Court, having decided what should be the fall possible use, to adhere to that than to waste their time by having discussed in front of them what is the reasonable use to which a certain tract of land should be put. Take one of the Highland counties, and assume that you are going to take land away from a number of deer forests. Before it could be done it has to he argued before the Land Court what is the reasonable use of that particular patch of land.

It is limited to agricultural land.

It is covered; it is not limited. The only two objects for which we desire the land are for agricultural or pastoral tenants. My point is that we have had the Land Courts crowded over and over again with discussions of cases, and here you are going to add to the work of the Land Court. Supposing my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) was the owner of land and I was the person who was wishing to secure it for agricultural and pastoral use. We should go before the Land Court and bring arguments, by counsel or otherwise, as to whether the object for which it was being acquired was a reasonable use. We ought to have a Plimsoll line, and that line ought to be the full possible, which is a standard that can be defined and laid down by the Land Court. We ought to get rid of all these discussions. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is creating trouble by agreeing to these words.

I cannot understand the word "ordinary." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain it.

The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) chiefly objects because the word "reasonable" is substituted for the word "possible." He says the word "reasonable" is difficult of interpretation. It may be in some circumstances, but he knows as well as I do that that test is applied under countless Statutes and without the least difficulty in practically every single case that comes before the law. The word "possible" would be as difficult of interpretation under the varying circumstances as the word "reasonable." If anyone suffers by the insertion of the word "reasonable," I should think it would be the landlord. The Land Court is to decide, and the landlord, apparently, is willing to take his risk of the decision of the Land Court. Does my hon. Friend decline to do so? If so, I should be surprised.

I think it is a waste of time.

I do not think it would waste a single moment longer than would be the ease it the word "possible" were, inserted. The history of this matter in another place was that the whole Clause restricting sporting land disappeared at the Committee stage. It was restored substantially by agreement with the Government in the present form on Report stage, and I should be sorry at this stage to disturb what was really a compromise arrived at after consultation. That would lead to a great deal of trouble which we can will afford at this stage of the Session. The attitude taken up by those who moved to delete the Clause on the Committee stage was that they would be satisfied if we put in the language now proposed. I do not see that there is any material difference between the Clause as drafted and the Clause as amended in another place. The hon. Member says that these words admit of a sinister interpretation. So far as my opinion goes, there is no material difference between the Clause as originally drafted and the Clause now proposed. An agreement was arrived at between the Lord Chancellor and those interested in the matter, and I should be most unwilling to disturb that compromise. It is a good arrangement for the benefit of the Bill, and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend to withdraw any farther opposition.

I supported my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) in Committee in regard to the sporting Clause, and I appeal to him, under the circumstances related by the right hon. Gentleman, to give way. I agree with him that the word "possible" is better than the word "reasonable," but in view of the compromise—and I presume there was some difficulty in obtaining that compromise—I think he might accept it.

I do not want to be unreasonable. What troubles me is this: that if my right hon. Friend thinks there is no difference between the words supplied by the Lords and our own words, and if he finds that those who supported him on the Bill prefer our own Clause, personally I prefer infinitely to accept my right hon. Friend's words and phraseology rather than the phraseology of the Lords. Take the proposed insertion of the word "ordinary" before the words "agricultural or pastoral tenants." I may be stupid, but what is the object of introducing the word "ordinary" This Bill is to deal with the cases of ex-Service men and others. Supposing you have in some parts of the highlands a division of land for agricultural purposes. You may have a discharged soldier who is doing something else and who requires land, not for ordinary agricultural or pastoral purposes, but to enable him to make his livelihood. Will the word "ordinary" exclude that man? That is a fair point to put. "Ordinary," I presume, means tenants who at present are engaged in ordinary agricultural or pastoral pursuits. What is an extraordinary agricultural or pastoral tenant? Who is he? The discharged man for whom this Bill has been drafted is not an ordinary pastoral and agricultural tenant. He is in a different position.

It would exclude the market gardener.

If so, I strongly oppose it, because in very many parts of Scotland it is just the little bit of market gardening that the discharged soldier can do in addition to other work, that makes it likely that he can maintain himself on the land. All those things have been the cause of litigation in Scottish Courts for many years and we have got no "forrader" with land legislation. The Smallholders Act is one instance. May I put it, as to whether tins new Clause is water-tight so as to allow ex-Service men to engage on any work on the land which will enable them to live? I do not like the word "ordinary" being inserted. I might agree to the others if my right hon. Friend would agree in this case to leave out the word "ordinary "before agricultural or pastoral. If my right hon. Friend agreed to that we might come to a decision.

I was in doubt as to what these additional words mean. We have been told by the Prime Minister more than once to suspect even words coining from the House of Lords sometimes. I did think that there was some meaning in it and we have found one other interpretation from an hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) who says, for instance, that an extraordinary use of the land would be for market gardening. That is to say if it could be proved that the land was capable for being used for market gardening purposes, the compensation should be three times higher.

Sporting rights and those sort of things. You could not have a market garden in a deer forest.

I am sorry that I did not appreciate my right hon. Friend's joke. I thought he was in earnest when he said market garden. Even sporting rights arc not confined to deer forests. Sporting rights might apply to land quite suitable for market gardening, so that there is some significance in the word "ordinary" after all, and I am sorry that the Secretary for Scotland is inclined to accept this Amendment.

Is it not a fact that putting in the word "ordinary" before agricultural will exclude the tenant with a subsidiary occupation I In my opinion that is the only meaning that can he given to it. Whether it is the intention or not, it seems clearly to be the

My hon. Friends both persistently ignore the compromise which I have narrated to the House. This is really the only objection, which I have to some of the proposals which have been made ft I accept one of these proposals to omit the word "reasonable" or "ordinary," the result is that the Bill will go back to another place and may have to come back here. This is Friday afternoon and Prorogation is to be on Tuesday, and a great deal of work still has to be done.

We can sit on Wednesday.

My hon. Friend, as usual, is quite heroic. That is my only objection to accepting some of the suggestions made. The word "ordinary" does not matter one way or another You are to deal with a person bona bond fide engaged in agricultural or pastoral pursuits as distinguished from a person engaged in freak agricultural or pastoral pursuits, if there be such a person. With regard to the objection of my hon. and gallant Friend, that persons engaged in subsidiary occupations or persons holding a tenancy from year to year would be excluded, if that is his objection it is founded. The matter has been fully discussed. Seeing the stage of the Session in which we are, and the peril in which this Bill might be placed by further journeys between the two Houses, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"

The House divided Ayes, 120, Noes, 14.