Commons Sitting of 18 April 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock.
The CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).—Mr. Deputy-Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been comlied with namely:—
Colonial Bank[Lords.]
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
London Corn Exchange Company Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
"To regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION.) ACT, 1908.
Copy presented, of Account, showing the Receipts and Expenditure on account of Proceedings in connection with the winding up of Companies under the Act I during the year ending 31st March, 191V [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1914 (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented, of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure on account of Bankruptcy Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Account presented, up to 31st March, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account presented, up to 31st March, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

GOVERNMENT INSURANGES AND ANNUITIES.
Account presented, of all Moneys received on account of Contracts for the grant of Deferred Life Annuities and for Payments on Death and of the disposal thereof and of the Contracts made during the year 1916 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 66.]
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

TEMPORARY LAWS.
Register of Temporary Laws for the Seventh Session, Thirtieth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [pursuant to the Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866]; to be printed. [No. 67.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ARRIVALS AND SAILINGS.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, without injury to public interests, he can state what proportion of the outward sailings and entrances into port, as given in the weekly

    1653
    statements, are cross-Channel sailings, sailings to and from other European countries, and trans-Atlantic sailings?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No useful purpose, so far as can be seen, would be served by the sub-division of the return as suggested.

    AIR SERVICES (CASUALTIES).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what are the air casualties in killed, wounded, and missing in each of the last six months in the Royal Naval Air Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We, do not think it altogether desirable to give the particulars asked for. In the event, however, of a Secret Session being held, I imagine my hon. Friend would wish to take the opportunity of raising the matter.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House why it is undesirable to give the figures?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council has arrived at any decision to alter their predecessor's policy of giving particulars of air casualties; if so, what are the reasons; and, if not, whether he will give a list for each of the last six months stating the air casualties in killed, wounded, and missing on the Western front?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise. With regard to the third part, I think that the question might be raised in the event of a Secret Session being held.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does my hon. Friend realise that the last Army Council did not object to the publication of these figures; if there has not been any change why should not the request be granted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: So far as I know the last Army Council took the same view of the question as we do now.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the importance of this matter to those of us who take part in the Secret Session Debate would it not be possible to provide
    1654
    some of this information earlier in order that we may be able to look over it before the Debate?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot give any assurance as to that; but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if any individual Member of the House cares to go to the War Office he will be shown the figures.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Thank you; I will.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present casualties on the front are the gravest reflection on the administration of the Air Service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I am not at all aware of that.

    UNITED STATES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information about the position of the United States in the War; whether the United States Government has accepted the statement of the Allied policy made in the Allies' reply of 20th January, 1917, as being also the United States' policy; and whether the United States has given formal adhesion to the Pact of London?
    The MINISTER Of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): The position of the United States in the War is clearly explained in President Wilson's various declarations which have been published. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Will the Noble Lord inform the House whether the statement on the Order Paper that America has entered the Alliance is correct or incorrect?

    ROUMANIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state at what date, if any, Roumania gave her adhesion to the Pact of London?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member on the 21st of February last.

  MUNITIONS.

    DEBADGED MEN (SKILLED AND UNSKILLED).
    Mr. DICKINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware of an Order issued on or about the 18th December, 1918, that certain men employed in munition works should be debadged; what was the number of men debadged in consequence of that Order; how many of these men have been called up for military service; whether the military authorities intend to call up discharged soldiers working in these factories before they have called up the men so debadged; and (2) the Minister of Munitions, whether his attention has been called to the fact that on or about 18th December, 1916, an Order was issued to munitions factories to debadge certain men employed therein; how many of these men were unskilled or semiskilled; how many men were debadged under this Order; how many of the men so debadged have been called up for military service; and what is the reason why those now remaining in the factories have not yet been called up?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer to the first part of each question is in the affirmative. The direction given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions on the 18th December, 1916, as to the withdrawal of war service badges and certificates applied to about 420,000 men of all ages, classified on firm's registers as semi-skilled or unskilled, engaged on Admiralty, War Office, Munitions, and other war work. The badges and badge certificates of all these men ceased to be valid on that date.
    Approximately 17,000 of these have now been called up for service. They have not yet all reported nor are they all fit for general service. By order of the War Cabinet the military authorities do not select the individuals to be called up. This is done by the officers of the Ministry of Munitions, who select those who can best be spared without endangering the output of essential munitions of war.
    The release of men affected by the order was only to take place if they were found fit for general service and if efficient substitutes were provided where substitutes were necessary.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a protest was raised in East London at a meeting last Sunday, and
    1656
    will be renewed next Sunday at a similar meeting, on the ground that these men are left in the munitions factories whilst discharged soldiers have been called up?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of that, but I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say that no discharged soldier shall be called up under any of these arrangements before the men who have never served at all, are under military age, and are employed on munitions, are first called to the Colours?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: So far as the War Office is concerned, we are entirely dependent upon the suggestions made by the Ministry of Munitions.

    GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received Reports from Mr. Powell and Mr. Ruthen, appointed to inquire into the use made of the Government offices; whether the organisation and efficiency of the new Departments have been reported on; whether Reports will be laid before Parliament; and whether, if the whole Reports are not available, their conclusions will be issued?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The information, which is being collected by Mr. Powell and Mr. Ruthen, is for the confidential use of the Committee on Government Office Accommodation, and it is not proposed to issue it as a Parliamentary Paper.
    Mr. KING: Would it be possible to issue some of the conclusions, especially if they were reassuring?
    Sir A. MOND: The conclusions are not suitable for publication.
    Mr. KING: May we take it that the Reports are reassuring? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an opportunity will be given at an early date to discuss this question, the facts of which are becoming quite notorious, in connection with any Secret Session, or the putting down of the Office of Works Vote?
    Sir A. MOND: That is a matter for the Leader of the House and not for me.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate discussion at an early date, so that we may have the matter out?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That can only be answered by the Leader of the House.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CONSUMPTION OF NECESSARIES (ECONOMIES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Director-General of Food Economy what measures he has taken and proposes to take to secure economies in the consumption of necessaries?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): Arrangements have been made for an educational campaign to concentrate public attention on the necessity of reducing the consumption of bread and flour and of preventing the waste of foodstuffs of every description. These arrangements have been concerted with the Board of Education, the Local Government Board, the National War Savings Committee, and the local authorities. One thousand two hundred Food Campaign Committees have already been formed in England and Wales, and a plan of campaign has been placed before them. In Scotland the National War Savings Committee, in conjunction with the Patriotic Food League and, with the aid of the secondary education authorities, is formulating a campaign on the lines already adopted in England and Wales. The whole movement is under the supervision of the hon. Member for Hornsey in association with the National War Savings Committee, and no effort will be spared to bring home to every section of the community the necessity of economy in food.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many salaried appointments have been made in connection with these new features?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. The hon. Member must put down a question if he wants a reply.
    Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand from my hon. Friend that these campaign meetings will include a number of open-air meetings which would be likely to reach more people in the summer?
    Captain BATHURST: I should think that that will depend on the weather.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Member say whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Kennedy Jones) is going to take his seat on. that Front Bench to answer questions for his Department?
    Captain BATHURST: Certainly not. The hon. Member was in error in addressing this question to the hon. Member for Hornsey. I propose, to the best of my capacity, to endeavour to answer these questions.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that Mr. Butt, managing director of the Palace Theatre, is now preparing a compulsory scheme, and whether this will not be wasted?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: May I ask whether any steps are going to be taken to include Ireland in this scheme?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir; this scheme to which I have referred does not, so far, apply to Ireland.
    Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Is there any objection to its inclusion?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not in a position to make any definite reply to that question. It shall be brought to the notice of the Food Controller.

    PREVENTION OF WASTE (H.M. FORCES).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food approximately the quantity and value of human food intended for the Army or Navy, but allowed to accumulate under tarpaulins and other temporary covering at Newhaven and other points until it deteriorated and in some cases rotted; whether an independent Report will be obtained on the loss in this way since the appointment of the Food Controller; whether loss from this cause continues at any point; and whether it has been decided who shall bear the loss?
    Captain BATHURST: Supplies of food intended for His Majesty's Forces are under the responsible control of the War Office and Admiralty. The Food Controller has reason to believe that every effort is being made by these Departments to prevent waste of such supplies.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the statement is true that large quantities of food have deteriorated and some have rotted?
    Captain BATHURST: I have no reason to believe that that suggestion is well founded, but if the hon. Member will address a further question to those who represent either of the Service Departments, and lay specific facts. I have no doubt he will get a satisfactory reply.

    SUGAR.
    Sir W. ESSEXasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to secure to the poor a more equitable share of the available stock of sugar and potatoes, he intends by compulsory rationing these foodstuffs to adjust the present inequality of distribution?
    Captain BATHURST: As regards potatoes the Food Controller has already issued an appeal to those who can afford substitutes to abstain entirely from their consumption. He has also made five potatoless days per week obligatory in public eating places. The remaining supplies are now too small to justify the compulsory rationing of this commodity. As regards sugar, it is proposed, by reducing the voluntary ration to ½ lb. per head per week and by allowing to the distributers a more liberal margin over their actual requirements on this basis, to secure more equitable distribution among consumers.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Can my hon. Friend state how they are to organise the distribution of this half pound of sugar to ensure each person, however poor, getting the proper quantity?
    Captain BATHURST: The hon. Member is fully aware of the difficulties of obtaining an equitable distribution of sugar. That has been under the consideration of a Departmental Committee who have recently presented their Report, which is now under consideration.
    Mr. ANDERSON: When will we have a chance of seeing the Report and discussing in this House the recommendations of this Committee?
    Captain BATHURST: I will convey the suggestion to the Food Controller.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the effort to secure
    1660
    voluntary rationing of sugar has completely broken down. and that although there is an Order that no grocer is to stipulate that a certain quantity of other articles is to be bought to secure sugar, nevertheless that is done in practice, because people find it impossible to obtain even half a pound of sugar per head unless at the same time they give orders for other articles?
    Captain BATHURST: If conditional sales of sugar are still being made, it is contrary to the orders of the Food Controller, and if the hon. Member will give the necessary information prosecution will take place. As regards the inequality of distribution, I have already stated that the Report of the Committee who have been considering this matter is now under consideration, and steps no doubt will be taken on the lines, or some of the lines, they have advocated. [An HoN. MEMBER: "Why?" I want to make it perfectly clear to the House that compulsory rationing, either of this or any other commodity, is not ruled out of account. With all its drawbacks it may become necessary, and in that event it will be adopted.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no overt stipulation is made to purchase other articles, yet in practice people find that they are unable to obtain sugar unless they happen to purchase other articles at the same time.
    Captain BATHURST: I am not aware of it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: It is the fact.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Will the hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the difficulty that has arisen in the case of a munition area where there is an increase of population, where sugar is run on the old basis?
    Captain BATHURST: Very particular attention has been given to the problem, and in the case of at least sixty munition centres a special allotment has been made by the Sugar Commission to meet the increased requirements.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the percentage allotted this year by the Sugar Commission? Is it 50 or 60 per cent. of the amount allowed in 1915?
    Captain BATHURST: That is so.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is it 50 or 60 per cent. of the 1915 basis?
    Captain BATHURST: I decline to make any prophecy on the matter. At present we are allotting 50 per cent. of the 1915 allowance.

    SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state what his decision is as regards extending the Early Closing Order, and does he propose to vary the present hours of closing?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The Secretary of State has decided to extend the Closing Order during the summer months and to retain the existing hours of closing. It may be necessary to make some exception in respect of certain articles of food of a perishable kind, which, in the summer, cannot be kept overnight without causing waste of food.

    ENEMY ALIENS (BUCKFASTLEIGH ABBEY).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a resolution from the urban district council of Buckfastleigh, in Devon, in whose district there are forty alien enemies of military age in the Abbey, objecting to having to undertake the watching of the Abbey and asking for the internment of the enemy aliens there; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary received the resolution referred to. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a question by the junior Member for Devonport on 27th February.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my hon. Friend aware that this resolution was only-passed by the district council this month, and the answer on 27th February had no possible reference?
    Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary received the resolution before this answer was prepared.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is he going to do anything with regard to the very
    1662
    strong feeling in the locality that these people ought to be interned instead of watched by special constables?
    Mr. BRACE: If the people at. this particular centre were interned they could claim their repatriation because they were priests.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Let them go.
    Mr. BRACE: The hon. Member says, "Let them go." At this moment they are doing very serviceable work for this nation, and these are just the type of men Germany would like to have to do work of national service for them. Hence we do not think that is the proper policy to pursue.
    Colonel BURN: Does the hon. Gentleman not think they would be very probably doing work not for this nation but for our enemies?
    Mr. BRACE: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or any section of the Home Office thought for one moment that these men could not be safely left where they are, believe me they would be interned.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Tsarist Russian Government had sent to Siberian detention many conscientious objectors to military service, and that these men are now liberated, returned from Siberia, and doing work of national importance in their own country; and whether he will now follow the Russian Government and liberate the conscientious objectors in this land?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I think my hon. Friend will realise that the policy of this country and of Russia is not dissimilar. Conscientious objectors who are doing work of national importance are not imprisoned in this country.

    ENTERTAINMENTS TAX (CINEMATOGRAPH EXHIBITIONS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the tax received for the financial year from cinemas, and how much it was in excess of or short of the estimate?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It is not possible to state separately the amount of Entertainments Tax derived from cinematograph exhibitions. Figures showing the yield of the various taxes will be given in connection with my Budget statement.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise us a separate statement? Is he not aware that the tax is collected separately by separate tickets, and is the Treasury unable to distinguish?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already tried for my own purposes to make a distinction, but I have not been able to do so.
    Mr. BOOTH: When is it likely that the Budget statement will be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It must be made shortly, but I would rather not name the day.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the taxation of Ireland, found by the Financial Relations Commission to exceed by £2,750,000 a year its fair proportion. now-more than doubled as a result of the War, and the consequent anxiety in Ireland, if he will say when the House will devote a day to a discussion of this subject so vital to Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member will have the usual opportunities for raising this matter, but I must not be taken as accepting the implication in the earlier part of his question.

    AMERICAN FLAG (GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS).
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL(by Private Notice) asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the entry of America into the War, it is proposed to give instructions for the Stars and Stripes to be flown on Friday next on Government buildings?
    Sir A. MOND: In reply to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that instructions have been given, and an effort will be made to fly the Stars and Stripes alongside the Union Jack on as many Government buildings as can be arranged in the short time available.

    UNITED STATES AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appeal to the Government of the United States of America to concentrate immediately on the construction and commission of a great Air Service, and also whether this Government is prepared to supply the American Government with sample machines, engines, drawings, and specifications of our latest and most successful types, and to render them every other possible assistance to this end?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject is already under consideration with the Government of the United States.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be wise to allow the Government of the United States to decide these questions for themselves on the ground that one of the great assets is an infusion of brains, which are badly needed?

    Education (Scotland).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland the amount of the equivalent Grant to Scottish education as a consequence of the proposed Grant to English education; and how he proposes to use the same?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The Scottish Education Department are in communication with the Treasury on the subject, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state, when the Education Minister for England introduces his Estimates tomorrow, that the Scottish Members will know what Scotland is going to get?
    Mr. MUNRO: I very much doubt if the information will be available to-morrow; but if my hon. Friend will put down a question later, I will endeavour to answer it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will raise the matter to-morrow.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that Scotland will be given an equivalent Grant?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no reason to doubt that.

    Housing Commission.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the Housing Commission is expected?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am informed that the work of drafting the Report is proceeding as rapidly as possible, but I am not in a position to name a definite date for its completion.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nine months ago he said that the matter was proceeding as rapidly as possible?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am quite sure that I did not say it nine months ago. I am quite aware of the urgency of the question, and also that it is one of great magnitude. My hon. Friend will bear in mind that the work of this Commission was suspended for twelve months during the War. There will be no avoidable delay

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    James Chambers, Esquire, K.C., for Belfast Borough (South Belfast Division).
    BILL PRESENTED.
    SOCIETIES (SUSPENSION OF MEETINGS) BILL,—"to enable meetings of Approved Societies, Friendly Societies, and Trade Unions to be dispensed with during the present War; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir EDWIN CORNWALL; supported by Mr. Hodge and Mr. Baldwin; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Parliament and Local Elections Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

  ENTRY INTO ALLIANCE.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move, "That this House desires to express to the Government and people of the United States of America its profound appreciation of the action of that Government in joining the Allied Powers, and thus defending the high cause of freedom and the rights of humanity against the gravest menace by which they have ever been imperilled."
  I deeply regret that, for the reason I announced yesterday, the Prime Minister is not able himself to move the Resolution which stands in his name on the Paper—a Resolution expressing the deep appreciation of the House of Commons of the greatest event which has happened during the War, the entry of the United States of America into this struggle. Not only the Members of this House, but the whole of the people of the British Empire and of all Allied countries, welcome the adhesion of our new Ally with heartfelt sympathy, not only as the greatest event, but, as I think and believe, the turning point in this War. The New World has been brought in, or has stepped in, to redress the balance of the Old. The United States possesses resources of all kinds—resources which in the long run are decisive in war—to a greater extent probably than any other nation. The quality of her people was shown nearly sixty years ago—their courage, their steadfastness, their devotion to a high purpose was then shown in a struggle which in its essence was not dissimilar from that into which they have now entered. Since then the American people have shown their qualities of resourcefulness, of energy, of readiness to adapt new methods to new situations, which have been conspicuously successful in the arts of peace, and these same
  1670
  qualities will now be directed, in no halfhearted way, and with equal success in the art of war. The United States has been "beware of entrance to a quarrel"; but, being in it, she already shows that her enemy must beware of her, and, in spite of the fact that the path which we are now-travelling, which lies immediately in front of us, has never boon more difficult, I venture to express the hope and the belief that a change is coming, and that the long night of sorrow and anguish which has desolated the world is drawing to a close.
  But we welcome the adhesion of our new Ally for another reason, not less strong—for the moral justification which it gives us for our own cause. America, like the British Empire, is engaged in war from no desire and through no fault of her own, but because she "could do no other." I have said many times since the War began—and I profoundly believe it—that the greatest of all the issues which will be decided in this struggle is whether or not free institutions on which the progress of civilisation and the welfare of mankind depend can survive against the centralised power of a military despotism. In this connection the entrance of the great Republic is a fitting pendant to the revolution which has brought the Russian people—whose courage and endurance we have so much admired, and whose sufferings have been so terrible—into the circle of the free nations of mankind. I have read, as I am sure every Member of this House has read, with deep admiration and profound agreement, the speech—a speech worthy of Abraham Lincoln—in which the President of the United States announced the entrance of his country into this struggle. I read the other day an extract from a German newspaper—a characteristic extract—in which it was said that "America was going to war for nothing." From their point of view the statement is true. America, like the British nation—I may make that claim—is animated by no lust for conquest, by no greed of territory, by no selfish end. The aims and the ideals to which President Wilson has given in that speech such noble expression are our aims and our ideals too; and, as we found earlier, so the American people have found now, that there is no method by which these aims can be secured except by fighting for them.
  Mr. ASQUITH: It is natural and fitting that this House, the chief representative body of the British Empire, should at the

  1671
  sarliest possible opportunity give definite and emphatic expression to the feelings which throughout the length and breadth of the Empire have grown day by day in volume and in fervour since the memorable decision of the President and Congress of the United States. I doubt whether even now the world realises the full significance of the step which America has taken. I do not use the language of flattery or of exaggeration when I say that it is one of the most disinterested acts in history. An inveterate tradition of more than 100 years has made it a cardinal principle of American policy to keep clear of European entanglements. A war on such a scale as this must of necessity dislocate international commerce and finance, but on balance it was, I think, doing little appreciable harm to the material fortunes and prosperity of the American people. Nor were distinctively American interests at home or abroad, and least of all what is the greatest of all interests in a democratic community—the maintenance of domestic independence and liberty—directly imperilled by the ambitions and designs of the Central Powers. What then is it that has enabled the President, after waiting with the patience which Pitt once described as "the first virtue of statesmanship," for the right moment, to carry with him a united nation into the hazards and the horrors of the greatest war in history? It is not, as my right hon. Friend has well said, a calculation of material gain. It is not the hope of territorial aggrandisement. It is not even the pricking of one of those so-called points of honour which in days gone by have driven nations, as they used to drive individuals, into the duelling ground. No, it is none of these things; it is the constraining force of conscience and of humanity, growing in strength and in compulsive authority month by month with the gradual unfolding before the eyes of the world of the real character of German aims and German methods. It is that force and that force alone which has brought home to the judgment of the great democracy over the seas the momentous truth that they were standing at the parting of the ways, and that they had to make one of those decisions which in the lives both of men and of communities determine for good or for evil their whole future.
  What was it that our kinsmen in America realised was at issue in this unexampled
  1672
  conflict? The very things which they and we—if we are to be worthy of what is noblest in our common history—are bound to vindicate as the essential conditions of a free and honourable development of the nations of the world—justice, humanity, respect for law, consideration for the weak and the unprotected, chivalry towards their enemies, the observance of good faith. These, which we all used to regard as the commonplaces of international decency, have one after another been flouted, menaced, trodden under foot as though they were the effete superstitions of bygone days. America sees that there is here at issue something of wider import than the vicissitudes of battlefields, or even than the rearrangement of the map of Europe on the basis of nationality. The whole future of civilised government and intercourse—in particular the fortunes and the fate of democracy—are brought into peril. In such a situation aloofness is seen to be not only a blunder, but a crime. To stand aside with stopped ears, with folded arms, with an averted gaze when you have the power to intervene is to become not a mere spectator, but an accomplice. There was never in the minds of any of us any fear, from the moment the issue became apparent and unmistakable, that the voice of America would utter an uncertain note. She has now dedicated herself, without hesitation or reserve, with heart and soul and strength, to the greatest of all causes. To that cause, stimulated and fortified by her comradeship, we here renew our own fealty and devotion.
  Mr. DILLON: It would be rather strange if on this occasion the voice of Ireland were not heard. I have, therefore, been requested by the Irish Nationalist party to join most heartily in this welcome to the United States upon their entry into this great struggle. I regret that the Resolution, which expresses the sentiments of this House and of this nation, has not been drafted with a little more skill and a little move cordiality. It slightly reminds me—and I regret it—of an essay of Mr. Lowell in which he speaks of a certain condescension amongst foreigners. But the speech to which we have just listened redeems the Resolution and expresses, in the language which this great occasion deserves, what are the real sentiments of the nations which form the British Empire. The full meaning of the entry of America into this struggle it is difficult to describe. It is not like the

  1673
  entry of other Allies. It has a mighty significance to the whole civilised world. It is a breach with the unbroken tradition, as has just been said by the late Prime Minister, extending over more than 100 years since America first became a nation, during which time she has adhered, with almost vehemence and passion, to the principles laid down by Washington, that she should keep herself free from all entangling alliances and all interference in European quarrels. With the history of Europe behind her, is it any wonder that that principle should have been laid down? If we really desire to appreciate fully the significance of America's entry into this struggle, we should read and read again the addresses of President Wilson. His speech to the Senate on the occasion of the breach of relations with Germany and his first address to the Congress of America, when he asked them to authorise him to declare a state of war, are documents which, in my opinion, will go down to history as some of the noblest utterances ever spoken by a statesman. They are speeches which carry encouragement and hope to the heart and breast of every oppressed nationality and oppressed race in the world, and I trust that the people of this country will take some occasion of giving cordial expression to their acceptance of the great principles laid down in those immortal addresses.
  There is one thing I miss from the speeches made here to-day and from the Resolution, that is, a recognition of the difficulties with which President Wilson has had to contend during the last two and a half years. I must confess I have often thought that in some of the criticism which was levelled against America and President Wilson during the last two years there was much want of generosity and want of understanding. The task of President Wilson was one of unpara-lelled difficulty, based on two great facts; first, that his nation—a nation which it was vital, not only to America but to the whole civilised world, that he should keep united—is a composite nation. He had to deal with a people who numbered in its composition close upon 20,000,000 citizens of German blood and 15,000,000 citizens of Irish blood. The difficulties he had to deal with in keeping that nation united and in bringing them into the War were never fairly appreciated in this country. It is difficult for anyone who has not resided in America to thoroughly understand it.
  1674
  The second great difficulty with which President Wilson had to deal was this: He had to deal with a nation who have a deep-seated tradition and an ineradicable hatred of war, far beyond anything that is known among European nations. That nation of America was founded by men who fled from war and oppression in Europe, and it has been so regarded from generation to generation and from year to year by exiles and persecuted men from Europe, who had burned into their very souls and into their blood hatred of the wars of Europe and the oppressions which, unhappily, have so long characterised the annals of Europe. Therefore, to bring the United States of America into the War was to ask them to go against one of the deepest instincts of the soul of that race.
  In the midst of all these difficulties, I have admired beyond my power of expression the skill, the great statesmanship, the courage and the patience of President Wilson, which have put him, in my opinion, in the very forefront of the great statesmen of the last 100 years. Amidst all these difficulties, President Wilson was able to count upon one thing at least, that when the banner of the Stars and Stripes was unfurled in war, when the United States was attacked, every man of Irish blood among the 15,000,000 of Irish in America would be a loyal supporter of the President. Amidst all the humiliations and misfortunes of our people their record in connection with America is a great one. From the foundation of the American nation down to this hour, whenever America was assailed and in all her struggles, the fleets and armies of America were filled with Irishmen far in excess of their proportion to the population—filled with Irish soldiers, and commanded by Irish Generals and Irish Admirals on every occasion In the Was of the Revolution, one of the earliest aces of Washington himself, and of the first Congress, was to express their profound gratitude to the Irish of America for their invaluable aid in asserting the liberty of that country. In the Civil War, in the Spanish War, in the War of 1812, and in every other struggle in which America has been concerned, Irishmen were in the forefront of the American Army and the American Navy, and the day when the roll is called for battle the Irish will be there, and they will outnumber amongst the soldiers of the Republic the record of any other race

  1675
  in proportion to the number of its population. The coming of America has a deep significance, because of its moral effect on the cause of the Allies. It has another value which was referred to the other day by the Prime Minister, when he said he welcomed the coming of America into this War because of the fact that it would bring America to sit at the Peace Conference. That to us in a special manner, and to every race in Europe that is oppressed to-day, is a blessed thing and a sign of hope and an assurance of liberty, for we feel certain that coming, as she has done, into this struggle unselfishly in the cause of liberty—at a most critical hour and probably with the turning of the tide of battle in favour of democracy and liberty throughout the world—her voice will be a weighty voice when the settlement comes to be made, and we Irish, at least, know that at the Peace Conference we shall have a friend who will not desert us. One sentence from the great speech delivered by President Wilson to the Senate has remained in my memory and will go down for ever as an immortal principle to be accepted and endorsed, I hope, by all statesmen who believe in liberty. He was dealing with the great question of the state of the world after the War and the settlement which was to come, and the hopes which had been held out to the world of some League of Nations to maintain perpetual peace and banish the curse of war for ever from amongst civilised mankind. He said:
  "No world's peace can be permanent, or ought to be permanent, which is based on the oppression of any face or nation of the world."
  That is an immortal principle. It is true in principle, it is true in fact. Justice to all small and weak peoples, as well as to great empires, must be the basis of any attempt to bring peace to the world. Let us all pray that America may have that blessed task of basing peace upon such a foundation.
  Mr. WARDLE: I feel that it is exceedingly difficult to follow the speeches which have been delivered, but I am quite sure the House will feel with me that this occasion ought not to pass without some spokesman for labour welcoming, as one should unreservedly, the entrance of the great democracy of America into this War. One thought that has come to me with regard to this matter is that the entry of America emphasises the fact
  1676
  that the days of isolation are entirely over, and that there is an interdependence of nations in the interests of humanity which is now emphasised in a manner which has never been emphasised before. The world, after all, is one, as well as being divided into nations, and it is the jealousies of nations and attempts on the part of some one or two nations at different periods in the world's history to dominate the rest which has been the cause of so much war and bloodshed and unhappiness; and if there can be, as I hope there will be, as the final result of this War and of the entrance of America of some such League of Nations, as the hon. Member has just referred to, which will be specially charged with keeping the world's peace against ambitious Powers, whether they be Principalities or Republics, I hope we may sec it. The most significant thing about the entry of America to me is that it is a sign that the great American nation has seen the real nature of the present War. They have been slow in making up their mind because of the immense difficulties of their domestic position, but I do not think there can be any doubt that from the very beginning of the War their real conscience and heart and moral has been on the side of the Allies. It is not, with them at any rate, a question of nationality or of patriotism. This War, whatever other wars may have been, is not a question of patriotism in the ordinary sense of the term. This conflict is raised above questions of nationality. It is raised on to the high question of principle as to what is to be the future of the world and of civilisation, and, above all, of democracy. We are fighting, America is now fighting, for a real internationalism, for a real policy of good will and arrangement between the nations which has hitherto been impossible.
  Once before in the history of the world the American nation, which was then not in the same position as it is now, an Anglo-Saxon nation at that time, has joined with this great nation in the fight against slavery. It is owing to the efforts of America and to Britain that slavery has largely, if not entirely, disappeared from the face of the earth. At any rate, it is discredited. If we can stamp out together, along with our Allies, militarism and despotism, and autocracy as well, then, great as the struggle has been, horrible as this War has been, it will fulfil a purpose which, in my

  1677
  opinion, has been worth all the struggle and all the sacrifice. The great democracies, including Russia, are fighting for the right of free peoples to develop in their own way. That is the real issue of the struggle. It is the character of the methods which have been pursued by the Central Powers which is bringing the world to see what the struggle really is. It is said that manners make men, and the methods of nations prove the character of their civilisation. It is the manners of the German people in carrying on this War which have revealed what is really behind the War, and have caused not only America but the moral conscience of the world to take up arms against a Power which is absolutely unscrupulous, which has no sense of justice, honour, or fair play, and against which the only method to adopt is to fight them until we have won a complete victory.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginncll) has handed in two Amendments, which he proposes to ask leave to move. Neither of them can be taken. The first one is only an irrelevant negative, and the second one is irrelevant altogether to the subject-matter of the Motion.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. Surely that is an exceptional ruling? My first proposition is not a direct negative, and I say that with all due respect.
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I can hear the hon. Member on a point of Order, but I cannot hear him, if he tries to dispute the ruling of the Chair. He is entitled to make a submission on a point of Order, and if he does that I will hear him.
  Mr. GINNELL: It is a misdescription to describe as irrelevant a Resolution or Motion proposing in recognition of the fact that this is a time-expired, unelected and, therefore, unconstitutional Assembly—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is simply persisting in challenging my ruling.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will you allow me to make my point of Order? I think a Parliament like this—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. GINNELL: It is a misdescription—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: J. have given my decision. It is not open to the hon. Member to dispute my ruling in this way.
  Mr. GINNELL: I want, on a point of Order, to ask you by what authority you rule that an Amendment proposing that this matter be postponed until after a new Parliament has been elected is a direct negative?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: By the inherent right of the Chair I have given my ruling. The hon. Member has submitted to me an Amendment which is irrelevant to the Motion now before the House.
  Mr. GINNELL: How is postponement irrelevant?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in challenging my ruling after I have twice warned him, I shall be obliged to take notice of his conduct.
  Mr. GINNELL: I want on a point of Order to say—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. GINNELL: I want to do it for the dignity of the Chair on this great occasion when not only Europe, but America, is looking on at this House—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. I should like to know why you rule that a Motion to postpone is out of order?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have ruled on the ground already stated that both the Motions handed in by the hon. Member are out of order.
  Mr. GINNELL: On a point of Order. I should like to ask you how—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member, on a point of Order, is simply trying to argue with the Chair. The duty of deciding these questions is imposed on me by the House, and I shall not permit the hon. Member or any other hon. Member to go beyond properly submitting a point of Order and to argue with me on my rulings.
  Mr. GINNELL: You have not answered the simple question whether the ruling that the Motion to postpone this until a new Parliament has been elected is out of order, without reference to the second.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have ruled that both Motions handed in by the hon. Member are out of order.
  Mr. GINNELL: It is a partial ruling.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House desires to express to the Government and people of the United States of America its profound appreciation of the action of that Government in joining the Allied Powers, and thus defending the high cause of freedom and the rights of humanity against the gravest menace by which they have even been imperilled."—Mr. [Sonar Law.]

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Further Prolongation of Present Parliament.)
  Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Parliament and Registration Act, 1916, shall have effect as if six years and ten months were substituted therein for five years and eight months; and Section one of the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, is hereby repealed.
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell)—[to leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the word "Section"]— is out of order.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will you say on what ground?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is out of order because it is equivalent to a negative of the Bill.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, to leave out the words "six years and ten months," and to insert instead thereof the words "seven years."
  4.0 p.m.
  I move this Amendment for two or three reasons, some general and some particular, the nature of which I want to have an opportunity of submitting to the Committee. This is the third time during the present Parliament that Parliament has extended its life for, as events have proved, an inadequate and irregular period. In the Parliament and Registra-
  1680
  tion Act, 1916, the period which Parliament set to its own life as provided by the Parliament Act of 1911 of five years was extended to five years and eight months. In the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, that period was further extended by seven months, a month shorter than the first period of extension, to six years and three months. Now by this Clause both these provisions are altered or repealed and there is to be a further extension to a period of six years and ten months. This Parliament was originally elected for a period of seven years, and it was only by an Act passed by this Parliament that the period was limited to five years. Therefore, it seems to me that, as it is impossible to forecast within a few weeks or a few months what would be the most convenient period for the extension of the life of Parliament at the present time, the most natural course would be to extend the life of Parliament to the period for which it was originally elected, namely, seven years. There are several much more specific reasons which I want to bring before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, the late Prime Minister, based the whole of his speech yesterday on the practical impossibility—I hardly think that is putting it too strongly—or, at any rate, the inadvisability of holding an election on the present register, because it would only result in the return of a wholly unrepresentative Parliament. The Leader of the House, in replying, said in effect that the franchise difficulty of holding an election during the period of the War was only one of the difficulties. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact that at present it is impossible for any Government, however strong and however much it commands the support of the nation, to get a mandate from the nation which is in any sense representative is not a small part, but is a very substantial part of the difficulty of the present situation.
  The Speaker's Conference sat, I think, from the early days of October until late in January, extending its sittings throughout the Recess at the express request of the Prime Minister. Some of us were disappointed that the present Government did not take the opportunity of at once dealing with this question of putting the franchise and the distribution of electoral power upon a basis which would enable the people to elect a representative Parlia-

  1681
  ment. There was no mention of any question of electoral reform in the King's Speech. It was only, comparatively speaking, the other day that, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, the present Prime Minister asked the House to proceed as soon as possible to an act of legislation which would give full effect to all the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference with one doubtful exception. I am not going into any details of any of those questions of electoral reform, but had the Government dealt with this question at once in the early days of February, the period that is now proposed to extend Parliament, six years and ten months, would probably have proved adequate to enable effect to be given to legislation based on the Resolutions of the Speaker's Conference. I do not want to say that it would be impossible to carry out registration and redistribution in the period indicated, which expires on 30th November, but it is at any rate leaving a very short time, even assuming that the necessary legislation goes through in the easiest possible manner both in this House and another place. But if the Amendment which I propose, which carries it over to about 30th January next, were accepted by the Government, there is certainly a strong probability that by that time, when, by the natural efflux of time, this Parliament comes to a termination under this Bill, it will be possible to have it succeeded by a Parliament which will have the full authority of the people, not omitting those who are fighting for their country at the present time and the sailors of our merchant service.
  Yesterday I think the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) said that though a Parliament elected under the present register would be very unrepresentative, this Parliament also is extremely unrepresentative, at the present time, of the electorate as a whole. I am quite sure that there is no Member of the House who would not feel the power of Parliament enormously increased if he was satisfied that Parliament really represented the people as a whole. We are now going to extend the life of Parliament for the third time for the perfectly arbitrary period of seven months. It is worth while to take a little courage and grasp this question and admit frankly, what I believe has been at the back of the minds of everyone responsible for the proposed extension of Parliament, namely, that the period proposed may mean that it will
  1682
  outlast the period of the War. That is another consideration on which I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to extend the period of this Parliament by a couple of months beyond the period proposed in the Bill. I may also point out that, whether there is an Act passed to extend the life of Parliament by one period or another, of course it does not necessarily follow that Parliament will last for the period indicated. At any time when the Government ceases to have that support in: this House, which ex hypothesi is not fully representative of the people, which is necessary for them to carry on the War, it may be absolutely necessary for them to seek a fresh mandate from such register of the people as exists. That being so, it is not very important that we should consider whether Parliament should be extended by one period or another, and is not what appears to be the obvious period of extension, namely, the full term for which Parliament was originally elected, the one that is least open to contrary arguments.
  I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, if it is his opinion that six years and ten months is really preferable to seven years, why that strange period has been selected, unless it be on the shortest possible precedent, namely, that a few months ago we passed a similar Bill extending the life of Parliament for a similar period, namely, seven months? There is also the point, in view of the fact that onlyyesterday the Leader of the House pointed out that there is an extraordinarily heavy legislative programme before this House, that the embarrassment of the Government would be, for what it is worth, diminished if they felt they were not living on the edge of an electoral volcano, and were not merely extending their life by what appears to me to be an inadequate period. In the circumstances, suppose they adopt the further period which I propose it does not follow in the slightest degree that Parliament will last until that time. It, at any rate, puts one legislative question a couple of months further out of the programme, and may possibly save having to waste two or three days' valuable time late in the autumn in passing another Bill of this kind. There is no question that, whatever may be a profitable way of spending the time of this House, these two days, yesterday and to-day, are a dead loss, for what they are worth, in getting on with

  1683
  the necessary legislation which is directly connected with the War. The proposals which I now make gives us an additional chance of not having to spend another two or three days this year in passing a Bill exactly similar to the present one, extending the life of Parliament once more, and it would give us time to put through the necessary machinery to enable the succeeding Parliament to be representative in the fullest sense of the word. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I hope that the Government will see that there is very little to be said against it—that, at any rate, I have put forward some arguments which ought to have some weight with them, and that they will see their way to adopt the period suggested, namely, seven years.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I would like to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I desire to convey to the Committee my conviction that this would be a great improvement on this Bill. I am not criticising the Government for not having brought in an Electoral Reform Bill since February last. Those of us who realise the enormous task which the Government have in hand ought to be very slow before we condemn them or find fault with them because things which are wise and necessary cannot be done with the promptitude which in easier times we should expect. But for that very reason, because we know how very difficult it may be to do even necessary things with the swiftness that is desirable, I do impress upon the Government the desirability of accepting this Amendment. It would be a thousand pities if the Electoral Reform Bill, which we understand is now being prepared, did not have a fair and full chance of becoming law during the lifetime of this Parliament. Every one of us would be placed in the unfortunate position of having to favour the claim of indefinite extensions of this Parliament, or of having an election in circumstances which were described with such power and vigour yesterday by the late Prime Minister and other speakers. The alternative is bad for the country to have forced upon it, and is an alternative which we ought to get away from as soon as we can, and the only way in which this alternative can be avoided is to have the Electoral Reform Bill become law, if pos-
  1684
  sible, during the extension of Parliament by the Bill which is now before the House and which will become law in a few days.
  I submit to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that so far from this extension of two months embarrassing the freedom of action of the Government, it helps them. The extension of Parliament under this Bill for seven or nine months does not mean a compulsory extension. Every Government that ever ruled since the days of the Triennial Act might be glad to have a month or two in hand if forced by stress of weather to consider the desirability of dissolving Parliament. The difference between the two proposals is that the period proposed in the Bill makes the possibility of passing the Electoral Reform Bill less than if Parliament were extended for the full term of seven years. By extending it for the full term of seven years you are merely reverting to the law of the country as it was for two hundred years. You are not interfering with the freedom of action of the Government. You are giving to this House and to the other House full opportunities of carrying an Electoral Reform Bill, the principle of which this House approved of by an overwhelming display of opinion the other day. It is for those reasons, and because against it there is only the fact that nine months is a little longer than we had the last time, that I respectfully urge the Government to accept this Amendment. I do so not in the attitude of a critic, but in the attitude of a perfectly loyal supporter both of the War and of the Government, who are conducting it under circumstances of great difficulty and of stress, and I am quite sure that the sooner the Reform Bill is passed and the sooner it is possible for the Government to have an election which would be less of a farce than it would be now, the stronger the probability that it would be helpful to the progress of the War.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): If this Bill is carried in its present form, the present Parliament will expire on 30th November this year. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend is carried, this Parliament will last until the 31st January, 191S. My hon. Friend undoubtedly used very cogent arguments in favour of a further extension of the life of. Parliament for another two months. He said in the course of his observations that, after all, this Parliament was elected on

  1685
  the septennial principle, and it was only in 1911 that the septennial Parliament became subject to the new quinquennial rule. He further said that twice this House had extended the life of Parliament for what had proved' to be an inadequate time. All those arguments are quite true; but the most cogent of his arguments, in my opinion, was that in which he said that by extending the life of Parliament to the 31st January, 1918, we should give a real opportunity, not only for the Electoral Reform Bill to be carried, but for a register to be prepared on the basis of the Electoral Reform Bill. I do not deny the great difficulties which surround the whole question of registration If a register is to be prepared in consequence of the House of Commons accepting, as I hope they will, the main conclusions of the Speaker's Conference, and if it passes that Bill, then undoubtedly we shall have an entirely new system of franchise, coupled with a new system of registration created under very difficult circumstances. A new staff will have to be formed, and if women are going to be added, as I hope to see they will, to the register, and if you are going to have, for the first time, a list of absentee voters, then, in view of all those facts, to my mind you will undoubtedly require to have an almost, if not quite, complete house-to-house canvass and inquiry on the part of new registration officers. When all that is done we are necessarily faced with other difficulties, among which is that of printing, one of our greatest. Undoubtedly, so far as we can ascertain, without the making of the most searching inquiries, we think it would be almost impossible to produce a register under six months of time—that is, a register of a complete character, based on the new franchise, and on the whole new system of registration. Therefore, I recognise the cogency of my hon. Friend's arguments.
  It may be asked why the Government, after the life of Parliament has been prolonged twice, have put a shorter period into the Bill, so that the life of this Parliament will last only until 30th November, instead of 31st January, 1918; and my hon. Friend has submitted, as one of his arguments, that what has been done by a Coalition Government is clearly a precedent, because they have already extended the life of Parliament for a period of eight months, and that the acceptance of this Amendment would only mean nine months. First of all, the earliest exten-
  1686
  sion of the life of Parliament was eight months, and the second extension was seven months, and the Government, having to choose the period to put into the Bill, undoubtedly were influenced by the idea that no Government, except under the most urgent and compelling circumstances, should extend the life of Parliament and its own life for a longer period than is absolutely necessary. I am quite sure that is the view of the House of Commons, which is naturally and properly jealous of the control of the Government, and any Member of the House of Commons naturally feels objection to the idea of his going to his constituents and saying: "Prolong my own life for another six months or eight months." Therefore, taking all these things into view, we thought it better not to prolong the life of this Parliament for a longer period, at all events, than eight months. If, looking at the whole of the facts, the House of Commons very much dislikes the third period of prolonging the life of Parliament, they might also very much dislike giving further powers to the present Government.
  Bearing in mind all these circumstances and facts, the Government came to the conclusion that it would be better to follow precedent by sticking to the shorter period of seven months, instead of nine months, for which I admit the hon. Gentleman opposite advanced some really cogent arguments. After all, what will probably happen? I quite understand the interest of both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in the success of the Electoral Reform Bill, which is the outcome of those admirable deliberations and consultations of the Speaker's Conference. I quite sympathise with them, but I do not think there will be any disadvantage to that Bill merely because Parliament does not prolong its life for a longer period than is proposed. By the end of August the House of Commons will know that in order to give real effect to such a measure they must prolong the life of Parliament, because they could not get a register ready for a General Election. Supposing the House of Commons came to that conclusion, a Bill similar to this could at once be passed without much discussion, prolonging the life of the House of Commons for another two months in order that an election should take place, not on the old register, but oh a new register. I do not think we could at present take steps to begin it imme-

  1687
  diately, but once that Bill was passed through the House, we could at once begin to compile a new register in order to get it completed as soon as possible. If we could shorten the present period of prolongation to six months, we would be only too glad to do so, but I think, on the whole, my hon. Friends need have no fear about the Electoral Reform Bill suffering from the fact of the further prolongation of the life of this Parliament, and I think, while admitting the cogency of the arguments which hon. Members have put forward, it would be well to adhere to the proposal in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad my right hon. Friend has taken the line that he has. I do not want to go into the question as to whether or not it is likely that an Electoral Reform Bill will become law, beyond saying that I think the extension of the life of Parliament has always been consequent upon the exigencies of the War, and not on something which has really nothing to do with the War. I would point out to my hon. Friend below the Gangway that if his Amendment were carried, the result of it would be that we should have to sit from the 1st of December up to the 30th January, but in December we adjourn for something like three weeks, and I think that last year we adjourned for a considerably longer period than three weeks; so that of the proposed extension of two months there would be lost at least three weeks. But it would be within the power of this House, if it found at the end of November that there was a certain amount of necessary business to be done, to then extend the life of Parliament for the period necessary to do that work, instead of accepting the Amendment as now proposed. The method I suggest would, I think, be the proper way to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) is a believer in the rights of private Members. May I point out to him that the longer he extends the life of Parliament the less control he has over the Government, and by keeping the life of Parliament short he will possess greater control over the Government. He would have more power over the Government in regard to the bringing in of an Electoral Reform Bill, for he could say that he should not vote for the further prolongation of the life of Parliament without an Electoral Reform Bill being brought in. My hon. Friend has really moved an Amendment
  1688
  which defeats his own end. The hon. and learned Member on the other side (Sir Ryland Adkins) said that this Parliament was elected for seven years and on a principle which had been in existence for 200 years Who altered that practice but the hon. Gentleman himself, who was a supporter of the alteration to five years? He was the supporter of the alteration of a principle which had been in existence for 200 years. He supported the Parliament Bill, which was a revolution—
  Sir R. ADKINS: May I remind my right hon. Friend that we are at war.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see that our being at war has anything to do with the alteration of a principle which had existed for 200 years. This principle was altered years before the War broke out. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite supported the alteration of that principle when there was no war, and when he seemed to think that there could be no war.
  Sir R. ADKINS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman his authority for that statement?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The general speeches in Parliament.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment before the House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was becoming aware of that fact, and I apologise, Sir, for having been led away into this subject. However, I have nothing further to add to what I have said beyond congratulating my right hon. Friend opposite in adhering to the proposal in the Bill.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Just for once I am in accord with my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), and in that I hope I am doing nothing wrong. I am not quite-in accord, on the contrary with my hon. and learned Friend in regard to the practice under the Septennial Act of 1716 to 1911, when the Parliament Act was passed.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I did not say that Parliament sat; I said that the law of the duration of Parliament was seven years.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: My hon. and learned Friend knows that law is one thing, and practice is a very different thing. This Parliament has existed now for a longer period than any Parliament since the Septennial Act of 1716. I oppose this Amend-

  1689
  ment because it practically restores the Septennial Act. Will the House believe that the only longest Parliament in the last century was the Parliament which met in 1820, and lasted six years and a few months. Sir Henry Fowler, so far back at 1892, in the House of Commons, brought forward a Motion in favour of triennial Parliaments, or of shortening the life of Parliament. Sir Henry Fowler proved conclusively that though they were under the Septennial Act, no Parliament during the last century ever sat for a longer period than six years and a few months. In the Debate in 1892 Sir Henry Fowler said:
  "A new Parliament was called together in 1820, and that was the longest Parliament of the century, and under Lord Liverpool lasted until 1826, its actual duration being a few days over the Six years."
  That was in the sleepy days of Lord Liverpool, who was in fact a walking coercionist and corruptionist. Sir Henry-Fowler continued:
  "No Parliament after that expired by effluxion of time until the Parliament of 1841, the Parliament which put Sir Robert Peel in power. Then Parliament was dissolved in 1817 and if Sir Robert Peel is accepted on the one side of the House, surely on the other Lord John Russel will be accepted an a great constitutional authority. When Lord John Russel was called upon to construe the Septennial Act his construction corresponded with that of Mr. Pitt and Lord Liverpool, and he dissolved the Parliament of 1841 in the year 1847."
  Sir Henry Fowler went on to prove that not one of the other Parliaments existed longer than six years and a few days. In that Debate my recollection is that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) took part, and was then against the curtailment of the life of Parliament, and, if so, he has been so much consistent. I simply desire to give these references to what occurred well within my recollection and to show how far the Government, by proposing an unconstitutional Act like this, give encouragement to others like my hon. Friend below to go beyond the beyonds. If this Amendment were carried it would give an opportunity for the existence of Parliament for a longer period than a Parliament has ever existed since 1716, and that is a very strong expression.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: I quite see the difficulty the Government are in in not liking to propose a longer term of extension than has been proposed by any previous Government. But I should like to suggest to them that if they were to leave it to the decision of the House as to whether the extension should be for
  1690
  seven or eight or for nine months, that would be quite a reasonable position for them to adopt. I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), but I really do think from the point of view of Members and of the proper respect which Parliament ought to pay to its own Rule? and constitution, we should be wiser to extend the period to the full term of seven years. This Parliament was elected for seven years. I did not vote for the alteration because I was not a Member of the House at the time. If I had been here I should have objected. I have always thought it a very foolish alteration, and that our ancestors were wiser when they gave a longer period. What has just been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. S. MacNcill) bears out the wisdom which was shown by them in their Septennial Act, because it is wise to give to every Parliament a good deal of margin for emergencies. Those emergencies have occurred, and this difficulty has arisen in consequence of the alteration from seven years to five. I therefore think that we should be wise to go back to the previous arrangement. I press it also on the consideration of the House for this reason: It is not really, after all, a very serious matter for a Parliament which was elected for seven years and which altered the time of its own free will to change its mind and again make the term seven years. It will be a very grave and serious matter if we are obliged, as we may be, to go further than the distance for which our constituents elected us. I do think, and I ask the Government and the House to consider this view, that we should be wiser to make our term seven years. I think, as a matter of constitution and for our dignity, we should be quite wise in extending to the seven years. If we extend to the 30lh November we may be just in the middle of an Autumn Session, and before Christmas is not a convenient time, so that it would be clearly better to extend to the 31st January, and if anything were to happen which did not require an Autumn Session you would be able to consider a further extension in January. I do press the Government to leave it to the House to decide as to the number of months. It is not such a very serious matter, and I do not think that any of the constituencies would think we were doing anything wrong in making it nine months instead of seven.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not agree with the last speaker if he is at all claiming to voice the rights of private Members. I have some sympathy with the point, but you could only get independence of Members if, instead of permitting Parliament to last so many months, you decree that it shall last for a particular time. That would give you a fixed time, such as they have in the United States and in France. But so long as the Government can come down, and because even an Under-Secretary has been impudent to some Member at Question Time, and can say, "We make this a question of confidence, and if you touch this little office boy of ours we all got out"; as long as that can be done and Members threatened with a Dissolution, you have the position of Members undermined. I believe the question of payment of £400 per year to Members has a distinct bearing on the matter, and that Members at the present time vote for this Motion and for these Bills extending the duration of the House much more freely because they are getting the £400 per year. I do not say that that influences a great many minds, but unconsciously it operates, and if we are going into the whole question these things should be pointed out and admitted. I am sure that is one of the effects of the payment of Members, and always will be.
  The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to my mind, rather took up a position of extreme Radicalism. I would say, as one of the most conservative-minded Members, that he must not be led by the Russian example and these days of democracy to wander too far in the paths of extreme Radicalism. He practically assured the House that at the end of November they could pass another Bill extending the life of Parliament for a couple of months without any trouble. But the right hon. Gentleman must not forget, good Conservative as he used to be, that there is another House. Surely it might be the case that another place, not liking the great bulk of voters sweeping on to the register, might prefer the old lot whom they knew, rather than those on the new register whom they did not know. For my right hon. Friend to come down and say that this House can pass a further extension in a few minutes is a deplorable lack of those Conservative tendencies of which we regard him as one of the bulwarks. Every time the Government bring in a Bill of this kind they must recognise that this House is not
  1692
  the arbiter of its own destinies, but is combined with another place. I was not sent here to champion the other House in preference to this, but at the same time one cannot shut one's eyes to plain facts, and they have power co-equal with ours on such a question as this Amendment. Therefore I utter the warning that every time the Government bring in a Bill like this they are really decreeing that another place as well as this House shall say whether there shall be a General Election or not. I can quite understand, if a majority of the peers were against women's suffrage or manhood suffrage or things of that kind, they might do what an hon. Friend did here yesterday when he said he would sooner have a General Election than this Reform Bill. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that if he gets this Bill in the form in which he wishes it will not be interfered with at the other end of the corridor. Having that assurance from my right hon. Friend, I would encourage him to resist this Amendment.
  Mr. DILLON: I have already expressed my view that any extension of the life of this House should be reduced to the narrowest possible limit. There is one all important question which really overshadows and ought to dominate our Debate on this Amendment and the whole Debate, and that is the question whether the Government seriously intend to put through the Reform Bill before we have a General Election. I think it is really a very extraordinary state of things and extremely symptomatic of the conditions into which this House has been allowed to drift that, in a Bill of this character and of this enormous importance, the House should be deserted absolutely by Ministers of the Crown. We have left to take charge of the Parliament Bill an Under-Secretary who is wholly incapable of giving us the assurances for which we are entitled to ask. Surely, when we are cut down to this condition of things, that at the present time there is only one member of the Cabinet who has the right to enter this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Two!"]. At all events, we are only favoured by the presence of one member of the Cabinet, and no representative of the Government can give us such assurances as we are entitled to ask for except a member of the Cabinet. I want to know, before we go further in this discussion, what are the real intentions of the Government as to the Reform Bill. I

  1693
  must confess that my attitude towards this Bill would be very considerably modified—I still hold the view which I expressed yesterday as regards an election from the Irish point of view—if I could obtain any reasonable assurance that the Government are seriously resolved to put the Reform Bill through.
  The present Government are, or at all events have the outward form of being, a Government of great power, and they are practically in a position of putting a pistol to the heads of this House and of the other House, and any legislation which they undertake to say as a united Cabinet and Government is a war measure necessary for the successful prosecution of the War, and the maintenance of good will and union amongst the nation, the House of Lords would not dare to throw out. That is an absolute fact, and we are absolutely in the dark—I am, and I believe the whole House is—as to the real intentions of the Government on the Reform Bill. The Government cannot pass the Reform Bill by simply using pious expressions or by simply introducing it and doing what was done in the case of half a dozen other Bills whose fate we all remember, where the late Prime Minister came down and declared them to be absolutely necessary and then about three days afterwards dropped them. If that game is going to be played again on the House of Commons, it is not good enough. It has been played two or three times too often, and we ought to know, before we decide these questions, as to the length of the life of this Parliament, whether the Government mean to declare to the House of Lords and to the House of Commons that the Reform Bill is an essential war measure and must be passed. Everybody knows perfectly well that if the Government took up that attitude the Bill would go through, but at present my impression is that the Bill will not pass and that the Government have no intention of dealing with it in such a way as to enable it to pass through both Houses.
  I want now to ask you a question which is a very important question for all of us, and I should like to move an Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Swift MaeNeill) has pointed out to me that the Long Parliament—the last case in English history in which Parliament prolonged its existence, as we have been doing now, habitually—did not give the Government of that day the power to terminate their existence at their free will, but the Long
  1694
  Parliament said they would continue to exist at their own pleasure and that no Government could break them up. What I want to know is this, whether I should be in order in moving an Amendment prolonging the life of this Parliament until the Reform Bill became law. If there is no real intention to pass the Reform Bill, then this whole thing is moribund, because one of the main purposes put forward by the ex-Prime Minister yesterday was the farce of holding an election on the present register. I agree that it would be a great farce and that it would not represent the nation, and, therefore, if a prospect is held out to us that by continuing this most objectionable procedure of prolonging the life of Parliament by its own act we could get an assurance that we would by that means secure a General Election on a greatly extended franchise and with a reformed register, the Government would be in a much stronger position. I fully expected when the Leader of the House was making his speech that he would make a firm statement on this question, and would announce the determination of the Government to pass the Reform Bill. This Government can do it. There is not the smallest doubt they can do it. Does anybody contend that, if the House of Lords knew they would overthrow the Government by rejecting the Reform Bill, they would attempt to do anything of the kind in the face of the War or even seriously to embarrass the Government? Everybody knows they would not, and, therefore, this Government have it in their power to give a definite pledge that before the end of this time they will pass that Bill into law. Are they prepared to do that, because that really is a matter that we ought to know before we proceed to deal with these Amendments? I would like to ask you, Sir, whether, before I submit my Amendment, I would be in order in moving that the life of this Parliament should be prolonged until such period as the Reform Bill is passed into law and a new register prepared, and that the power to dissolve Parliament should be done away with?
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: On a point of Order. May I submit to your consideration, Sir, that in the various Statutes in reference to the Home Rule Act there is a provision that the Act should not come into operation until the time of the peace, that being a defined time? On the same analogy, of course, the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend, which would probably be a

  1695
  fresh Clause to the Bill, would be completely in order and within Parliamentary cognisance.
  The CHAIRMAN: In reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I am always very chary of giving an opinion on an Amendment which I have not yet seen. I have been doing my best to draft it for him in my head, and the only way that I can see is something like this, that, instead of six years and ten months, we should insert a period called x, x being the time at which a certain Bill not yet introduced shall have been passed by this and another House of Parliament. It seems to be a difficult matter, but I will wait until I see the hon. Member's Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I very humbly submit to you, Sir, that an Amendment of that sort would destroy the prerogative of the Crown, as it would prevent the Crown dissolving Parliament if it thought right to do so?
  Mr. DILLON: Why I was encouraged to raise this matter was that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. MacNeill) pointed out that the Long Parliament did it while the Crown was in existence and that the Crown assented. I should have taken the view of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) but for the fact that we have this precedent.
  Mr. MacNEILL: I am not presuming to inform you, Sir, but I am trying to inform the House in matters of prerogative. The consent of the Crown can be at any stage of the Bill stated to the House at the proper time. The consent of the Crown is not a condition precedent to the introduction of a Bill, but may be given at any stage of a Bill up to the Third Reading, and can be given through a Minister of the Crown stating that the Crown lays its prerogative in this respect at the service of the House, or that it withdraws any objectionable barrier that may be in the way.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is correct to say that that is the usual procedure when dealing with Royal prerogatives, and it was hardly anticipated when this measure was read a second time yesterday that so large a question would be raised, and at present I can only express my doubts whether an Amendment could be submitted to me in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not going into the argument touching the prerogative of the Crown or into the precedents derived from the Long Parliament, but if I may have the attention of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who asked just now whether the Government could give an assurance that they were in earnest about the Electoral Reform Bill, and that they will pass that Bill, perhaps he will accept a few words from me as one of those who is now busily engaged in framing it. The Government are thoroughly in earnest regarding the passage of that Reform Bill, and are busily framing that Bill, and hope, so soon as they can find time to frame the Bill, which of course is not an easy one to frame, and so soon as the House of Commons can find time to give due attention to that Bill, to present it to the House; but whether the Government will be able to pass that Bill is entirely another matter. The passage of the Bill depends on the good will of the House and must depend on the good will of the House. That is quite obvious. The Bill itself is framed upon Resolutions that are the results of something in the nature of a compromise on questions which arouse an immense amount of controversy, and unless the Government find the House in the same mood and the same kind of temper in which they found the Conference, and unless these great questions are treated in a practical, businesslike way, and in a somewhat short way, so far as discussion is concerned by the House, it would obviously be impossible, looking to all the other business that the Government must transact in connection with the War, particularly financial business, to force a Bill of that nature, which must be a very large Bill, dealing with many subjects, through the House. But I can give this assurance, on the part of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Government, that the Government are most anxious to see that Electoral Reform Bill pass into law, and that they are not putting it on the floor of the House merely because they feel bound to do so after the Debate which took place, and after the labour bestowed upon that subject both by the Conference and by Mr. Speaker. It is not that they feel bound to present the Bill, but because they are really in earnest in trying to solve the problem. They hope the House will be in earnest and will treat the Bill in a businesslike and practical way, and then they will be

  1697
  able to feel a reasonable amount of confidence that they can pass the Bill within a reasonable time and within such a period as to enable them to get to work upon the register, without which the Bill could be of no practical value, so that at all events in the beginning of next year we may be able to have an election should we desire it, not on the old register, but on the new register, containing the new electorate, which will be added to by many millions doubtless under the Bill.
  Mr. DILLON: I am afraid- I cannot accept that as an assurance at all. On the contrary, I listened most attentively to the right hon. Genleman, and I concluded that the prospects of the passing of the Bill are exceedingly bad. If I ask any further questions on the matter I think I ought to address them to the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), because it depends upon his temper and the temper of his friends whether the Bill is to get any chance at all. The declaration now made by the Government merely indicates that if that Bill is met by determined opposition the Government will make no serious attempt to pass it.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. BILLING: I should like to support this Amendment, and I should be more pleased if it went a little further. This House has prolonged its own life on two occasions. The principal excuse it gave for prolonging its own life was that it was impossible to go to the country because there was no register on which to do it. I have had personal experience in the difficulties that I encountered in conducting an election with the existing register, and I would point out that if is not only impossible but, what is more, it is most unjust for this Government or any Government to go to the country presumably to test the opinion of the people when they will only be able to ask about -25 per cent., not of the population, mark you, but of those people who were entitled to vote at the last election. I think it can reasonably be assumed that the only people who could vote if we went to an election to-morrow are the people who have been in no way affected by this War. Because, what are the actual facts. Any man who has been in any way affected by this War will not be in a position to vote, for the simple reason that he is either out at the front, or is engaged in some munition work or war work, or, as an hon. Gentleman
  1698
  suggests, is a conscientious objector. Personally I should disfranchise the lot at once; but to proceed with my argument let mo say that there is hardly a case where the work on which a man who has taken an active part in war work, where he was not interested in war work before, is engaged, has not necessitated the changing of his address. The result would be that in practically every constituency 50 per cent. of the votes would be out-voters, and many who have been moved to munition works in Scotland and all over the country would find it utterly impossible to come from those parts to vote at their own expense, while I understand it is not allowed that it should be done at the expense of the candidate, or rather at the expense of the organisation which the candidate has behind him. I understand, therefore, that if this Government does go to the country the most they will get will be a vote from about 25 per cent. of the people themselves. What would this 25 per cent. be? They would be all the old shell-back Liberals and Conservatives whose ages make it absolutely impossible for them to have any interest in the conduct of this War actively. In these circumstances, I think it is a most immoral thing, considering the opinion of the public as to party methods, the party organisation, the party machine, and its general conduct of public affairs, that we should make a direct appeal only to the supporters of such machinery.
  The Government is asking now for six months' extension. The Government knows perfectly well that at the end of six months it will have to come down here again and ask for another six months. It might just as well put its cards on the table now. We have had an admission from the Front Bench this afternoon that it is impossible to prepare the register in seven months. It will have to come down here again. It knows that whereas if it prolonged its life for nine months according to the statement from the Front Bench it would be possible in the next three months to pass the new Franchise Bill, and then six months would be left to the Government for the preparation of this register, with regard to which I personally do not see the enormous difficulties which were pointed out by the right hon Gentleman on the Front Bench this afternoon. Directly there is anything the Government does not want to do, that always

  1699
  presents enormous difficulties; but surely this Government at least appreciates that the governing of a country and an empire does present enormous difficulties. It is because this House has such great confidence in their ability to meet those enormous difficulties that presumably they sit where they do. It is the business of the Government to overcome enormous difficulties, and so far as the enormous difficulty of the register, of the house-to-house canvass, is concerned, surely the members of the Front Bench know that this house-to-house canvass is, and has been, going on all over the country for purposes of rates, and every other purpose. As for the printing of the register, the exceptional necessity for taking the temper of the people and a referendum of the nation at any given moment in the next twelve months would justify possibly exceptional methods. There is no need to print twenty or thirty registers. These registers could be prepared without printing. The machinery already employed in many offices for duplicating correspondence could be employed for procuring these registers, and I suggest to this House that there are many firms who would willingly undertake to produce the register when once the names, addresses and qualifications were available, in nearer one month than six months. Just because we have always gone through an elaborate procedure, and have set up the register in five different fonts of type, and bound it, and made it pretty to handle, in days of peace that is no reason why we should do so to-day. Provided we have sufficient copies of the names, addresses and qualifications of voters to render it possible to have an election I would suggest that is all that is necessary.
  I have heard an hon. Member on the other side of the. House say that at moments it was necessary to have a longer duration of Parliament than in the past because of exceptional incidents occurring when it might be unsafe to consult the people. Really, it is an extraordinary thing if this House is of the opinion that it is wrong to consult the people of this country. Personally, I think that when any extraordinary thing happens it is right to consult the people of the country, and what amazes me the more I see of this House is that while hon. and right hon. Members rise up and say that it is
  1700
  absolutely impossible to go to the country because we have no register with which to do it—and I have heard that said for fifteen months—yet no step has been taken to provide a register. The longer the Government put off providing this register, presumably the longer they will live. I do not suggest that there is a necessity for turning the present Government out. That is beside the question. I think every man—and if the franchise is to be extended to women, every man and every woman—has the right to say that the Government should immediately set up the machinery to consult it if and when it is necessary to consult it. It seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding that we should continue in this House to urge the utter impossibility of consulting the people, and yet take no steps whatsoever to set machinery up which we say is absolutely necessary. An hon. Member behind me made some reference to the salaries of Members, rendering them anxious not to upset the Government. I quite fail to see that. Surely the hon. Member must know that there are very few seats in this country which can be fought under a couple of thousand pounds, and if he had said that—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I do not recognise the relevance of these remarks to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. BILLING: Perhaps I had better put it in this way—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not put the same point in another way.
  Mr. BILLING: Knowing how difficult it is to keep in order. I will be very careful and consult my notes. There is one other point I wanted to raise, and that is that this present extension comes to an end in November. I think it is reasonable to assume that that particular time will be a highly critical time in the conduct and affairs of this War, if by that time an armistice or peace has not been arrived at. I think it will be a most unfortunate thing for the Government to come down, as they would, and to plead the crisis that may be then occurringwhich may not be altogether unassociated with food and famine as a reason for an extension for another six or twelve months If possible, I would like to suggest that the Government should give an

  1701
  undertaking that if their life is extended on this occasion they will press forward with the Bill for the new franchise, and that, failing that, if within three months from now they find it impossible to pass that Bill through the House, they will pre-pare a new register on the old lines. I quite fail to see why, if we cannot get the Franchise Bill through, we should continue to disfranchise the millions of men who at present, from some technical disability, have no vote in this country. I suggest that 75 per cent. of the men in this country who would be entitled to a vote, even if a new register were prepared on the old lines, have no vote to-day. I am quite sure that the feeling of the people outside is one of intense irritation and dissatisfaction that this House is calmly prolonging its own life and taking no steps whatsoever to enable the people to express their opinion in any way. I consider, therefore, that the Amendment put down is one which ought to be left to the House of Commons, as distinct from the Government, to be decided. But I would also suggest, if it would be in order to make such a suggestion, and I do not know whether the Amendment will provide for it, that a should not be within the power of the Government to terminate their own lives during that period, because we have had some little experience quite recently of the Government's methods. Personally, I have not the slightest confidence in either Front Bench when it comes to a question of whether they will terminate or whether they will prolong their own lives in the interests of the country, and as distinct from their own. I have said in this House before, and I say it again, that it is simply a question of expediency: whether it will pay the Government at any given moment, perhaps one month after this Bill has been given to them, to come and take a snap vote of confidence here on some trivial matter and then turn round to the country and say, "How can we conduct this War; how can we go on with all this opposition in the House?" They might take some popular election cry, as has been seen again and again, and go to the country on some issue which it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get a representative opinion upon. Therefore, I think that if this House prolongs its life, and that of the Government, it should certainly be on the understanding that it shall not be
  1702
  within the power of the Government to play fast and loose with the House of Commons. If some sort of Amendment can be put down to give effect to that view. I shall be very pleased to support it.
  Mr. PETO: In view of the statement made by the Government Front Bench, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the word "ten" ["six years and ten months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."
  The Amendment which I move is exactly the contrary to the Amendment which my hon. Friend has withdrawn. My Amendment is calculated to reduce the time from seven months to five months. I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I am fortified in putting forward this proposal by what took place when the last prolongation of the life of Parliament was passed. Upon that occasion the present First Lord of the Admiralty made an extremely able speech, in which he said that if it was necessary to prolong the life of Parliament it should be prolonged for as short a time as possible. On that occasion he continued:
  "I put down six months as a compromise between the eight mouths in the Bill and what is preferred by a huge number of those who consult with me, namely, four months."
  I carry it a little further, for my Amendment will provide for five months. I should also like to draw the attention of the Government and of the House, and especially of the Government, to the following words of the right hon. Gentleman in the speech to which I refer. He said:
  "may I point out to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment that the extension by ourselves of our own life is a very serious proposition? It is only the absolute exigencies of the War that can justify it, if it can be justified at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th August, 1916, col. 2168, Vol. LXXXV."]
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
  "In point of fact at the present moment we hardly represent anybody."
  I do not think the situation has changed. Even if it has changed at all, it has changed for the worse. That is to say, that as seven months have gone by, we are still less representative than we were

  1703
  at that time of the opinion of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
  "I suppose we represent above 25 per cent. of the electors. We boast that we are representative of the people. We are not, or only a little more than the House of Lords are. You were not elected upon these issues that have arisen."
  I will not read the whole of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, though it is a very interesting one, but I hope he will read it himself. I am sorry he is not here to listen to what I have to say. He continued:
  "Therefore, at all events, I think that. compatible with convenience, we ought to extend the life of this Parliament from time to time for the very shortest period that is convenient and not for the longest period."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 17th August, 1916. col. 2169, Vol. LX XXV.]
  Sir J. D. REES: Who said that?
  Sir F. BANBURY: The present First Lord of the Admiralty the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. Following that very excellent example I am proposing that the extension of the life of this Parliament should be for only five months, and not for seven. That is to say, that it should terminate on 30th September. That seems to me to be a most convenient date, because, if by any good fortune the War was to finish before the end of the summer we then should be in a position to decide—this House would be in a position to decide—and I should like to impress that fact upon hon. Members—it would not be for the Government to decade whether or not they should go to the country, it would be for this House to decide.
  Mr. BOOTH: And the other.
  Sir F. BANBURY: And the other—for Parliament to decide—Parliament, that is right, whether or not its life should be prolonged. If the two Houses agreed that a little further time should be given it would be in their power to settle it. It would not be an inconvenient moment either, because this House generally adjourns somewhere towards the end of August, and it could meet again in the middle of September, and if it were necessary so to do could prolong its life. The question of whether or not the other House should have a voice in the matter is, I think, extremely important. It must be remembered that when the septennial period was cut down and the quinquennial period substituted the powers
  1704
  of the other House were curtailed. That was one of the reasons for cutting it down. It was said by the late Prime Minister that after, I think, four years this House no longer represented the country. Therefore, as the whole power under the Parliament Act would remain in the hands of the Members of this House, it was not right that they should be returned for more than five years. My recollection is that the right hon. Gentleman said the last year—perhaps he said two—but anyhow he said that in the last year the House of Commons, or the proceedings in the House, neither interested the country nor represented it. I think I have shown very good reason why this extension should be only for five months, and not for seven. On the last occasion, I admit, it was extended for seven months, but it must be remembered that that extension was a month shorter, than the previous extension; therefore, if we are going on precedent, we ought to make this time six months, being a month shorter than the last extension. I see the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Hazleton) has a somewhat similar Amendment. I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway will support this Amendment of mine. If I may say so, I think it is a little better and more sufficient than the hon. Member's, because he would make this House terminate on 30th August, which is rather an inconvenient time. On the other hand, as I have said, 30th September is an extremely convenient time.
  Sir J. D. REES: I am somewhat surprised that my right hon. Friend has moved this Amendment, because I should have thought that he, like myself, was one of those who deplored the Act which reduced the term of the life of Parliament. It seems to me that after all we are in that position.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly not; I think I have pointed out the difference.
  Sir J. D. REES: Well, my right hon. Friend's Amendment does tend to reduce the life of this Parliament, which was originally elected for seven years. It is quite true its life has been shortened to five years under deplorable circumstances, and the right hon. Gentleman is now for reducing the period. Surely whether Parliament ends in September or October is now a matter of very little importance? Whether it is a particular date or another matters little in the crisis in which we live. What I venture to submit to the House is

  1705
  of importance is that there should be no election during the War. When the late Prime Minister announced in the House that he had given way to representations coming from the opposite side of the House—and the difficulty now is to know to which side of the House one belongs—coming from the side of the House upon which I sat then, I was the only Member of the House who ventured to urge him to stick to his guns and to have the longest possible prolongation of the life of this Parliament. It would be unfortunate to reduce this period which the Government themselves have proposed. There is, I confess, a sort of retribution in making the period seven years, which to me has an extreme attraction. Those who regretted the reduction from the septennial to the quinquennial period could only rejoice if, in a period of crisis, of stress and storm, it should come out that after all the true inwardness of the former charge was deplorable political circumstance, and no real necessity.
  No one can tell when the War will be over. Originally it was proposed that the life of this Parliament should be prolonged for the period of the War. Nobody is now protesting that Parliament does not represent the people and that there must be an election. The only Voice that is heard in that way is heard within these walls. One does not hear an echo outside. People are perfectly content.
  Mr. BOOTH: The newspapers!
  Sir J. D. REES: Well, perhaps some newspapers. Perhaps the "Nation." I do not know. My hon. Friend no doubt is right. He would not have been right if he had said most newspapers, and he does not say that. If he had, he, at any rate, would have failed to convince me. What is required is that the life of Parliament should be prolonged for the longest period, but that the Parliament, whose life is so prolonged, should cease from introducing subjects of a controversial character, such as it proposes to introduce during its extended life. I refer to subjects such as female suffrage, further interference—shall I say persecution—of the liquor trade, the introduction of Bills like the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, all which questions, whether they be right or wrong in what they are going to do, anybody who is kind enough to hear me, will admit are controversial to the core! Let the Government drop all these matters which are pressed
  1706
  upon them by small sections—I do not like to be betrayed into using any disrespectful expressions—but which are not, at any rate, pressed upon them by the country. If they would drop all these controversial matters and confine themselves to the prosecution of the War, I believe the whole country would say, "Let them have seven months." They would indeed give them another seven years if necessary, but surely the War—now a war of nations—cannot last very much longer I The Prime Minister did say in his proposal here, and I thank him heartily for it, that during the remaining period proportional representation, at any rate, was not going to be introduced. That is almost the only controversial factor which he left out of the programme. I venture with great respect to oppose the Amendment of my right hon. Friend with whom I am most generally in the most hearty agreement. Questions of September or October do not matter. Let us leave the Government free to prosecute the War by giving them the whole period for which they ask, and begging them in return to drop all controversial subjects, and not to put too strong a strain upon loyal supporters who are asked to swallow female suffrage, total abolition, proportional representation, Criminal Law Amendment, and every other kind of controversial thing, while they are honestly and honourably supporting the Government in their great task of finishing the War.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not going to delay the Debate by entering into the question as to what use is going to be made of the time.
  Sir J. D. REES: It is vital.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It may be vital to the Bill, but it might mean the death of the Bill if we had to debate all these topics. The Bill carries the life of this Parliament to the 30th November. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes would have extended the possibility of the life of Parliament for two more months, until the end of January, 1918. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London wants to lop off two months of the period which the Government purpose. I think the compromise which the Government have made between 31st January and 30th September, namely, 30th November, is a compromise which, on the whole, is acceptable to the House of Commons, who, after all,

  1707
  are perhaps the best judges of matters of this kind, and the date which the Government have chosen, after very careful consideration, is the date to which they intend to adhere. I cannot agree that 30th September would be a very conveninent date, because if it were necessary, owing to circumstances connected with the War, to bring in another Bill to extend that period beyond 30th September, I think it would be extremely awkward perhaps to call Parliament together in September in order to debate the question; and if it were necessary to have an election in September, I cannot help thinking that the Minister responsible for the Board of Agriculture and the production of food would have a good deal to say as to the question whether it would be convenient to hold an election in the month of September, and so take away from all field and harvest operations those engaged in that work.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Government, of which he was a member, in the Boer War in 1900, had an election in September.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: But will my right hon. Friend say that the food problem was then of so much consideration as it is at the present moment? Even if the War should be over then, or even happily over in June or July, or indeed whether we have peace next year, the pressure of the food supply is likely to be a problem of the greatest importance, so that I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend in saying that September is a favourable month. Anyhow, the Government adhere to the date that they have put in the Bill, namely, 30th November.
  Mr. HAZLETON: There was one statement made by the right hon. Gentleman which rather astonished me, namely, that the Government would adhere to the compromise which this Bill represents. The Government have offered no compromise. There are a large number of Members in this House who consider that there ought to be, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, no prolongation of the life of Parliament at all. The Government, however, have not taken that view; they have brought in a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament for seven months, and although proposals have been made on the one side to extend that time, and on the
  1708
  other side and from these benches to reduce it, the Government are holding fast to their Bill, and I certainly fail to see where the nature of a compromise is in that transaction.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is a compromise between the Amendments proposed. I do not think the hon. Member was present when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes was before the Committee.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I was here through the whole Debate. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the course which the Government are taking on this occasion is a wholly different course from that taken by his Government and that of his predecessors on the former occasions when similar Bills to extend the life of Parliament were before the House of Commons. What happened the first time? The Government introduced a Bill to prolong the life of Parliament by twelve months, and, under pressure from various quarters in the House of Commons, that period was reduced to eight months, so that the Government gave way on that occasion by four months. The next time when it was necessary to introduce a similar Bill the period proposed by the Government was eight months, and, as the right hon. Baronet pointed out, that provision was opposed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and again the Government gave way and changed their provision in the Bill from eight months to seven months. The right hon. Baronet quoted some remarkable passages from the speeches made on the occasion of the Second Reading of that Bill by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who was very concerned on that occasion to see that Parliament should keep some control over the conduct of the Government. Now that he is a member of the Government, of course he does not come near the House of Commons. He has lost all that interest for Parliamentary control, but I think it is difficult for him to escape the position in which he placed himself by his speeches on that occasion. The right hon. Baronet quoted one speech. I will quote another, on the introduction of the Bill last year. He said:
  "I think the Government are asking too much in asking us to give them eight months. I see no necessity for it. The next eight months may be fraught with questions of vast importance to the whole body politic. All the questions may arise during those eight months which will affect the lives and interests of the entire community for ages to come. This is not

  1709
  the time to elaborate that. but I hope my right hon. Friend will not lay down that period of eight months as a matter to which the Government absolutely adhere, but that it will be open to argument either on the Second Heading or the Committee stage of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th August, 1916, col. 1459, Vol. LXXXV.]
  Now, the fundamental misconception in the mind of the Minister in charge of this Bill is that he takes it for granted that if you put six months, or five months, or four months into this Bill as the period for which the life of Parliament will be renewed, it means that you are going to have an election then, and he says, "Oh, August or September would not be a convenient month for an election." The right hon. Baronet suggested, I think, that August would not be a convenient month for an election, and August is the month mentioned in my Amendment on the Paper. But we need not necessarily have an election then. The life of Parliament was already expiring twice, and we continued it beyond that time. What we want is not that you shall have an election at the time fixed in this Bill, but that there shall be control over the conduct of the Government, and that it is to the interest of this country and the interest of this House to give the Government the shortest possible time, consistent with convenience, so that we may have some regulation and some opportunity of holding them up if we believe that they are taking a course contrary to the public interest.
  I think for these reasons that the Government are taking a reactionary course to-day in refusing to listen, as they have done, to the voice of the House of Commons, as their predecessors did on former occasions when their Bills were altered in Committee and the times proposed by them were further reduced. I would also like to impress this consideration upon the Committee, that the longer it is necessary to prolong the existence of Parliament the more careful we ought to be as to the period that we give the House, because undoubtedly, however necessity may be urged, the fact remains that it is a reactionary proceeding—that it is, at least, an unfortunate proceeding, due to an unfortunate necessity, and that it is getting worse and worse upon each occasion that the necessity arises. I hope that the last word has not been spoken by the right hon. Gentleman from his point of view; and that he will recognise that what we want is a review of the time given to
  1710
  the Government, and the time given for the existence of this House, and that we do not necessarily say that at the moment that time expires the Government is not perfectly entitled to come down to the House of Commons and show, if they are in a position to show, that it is desirable to give them a lease of life for the House of Commons.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I, in answer to what my right hon. Friend said in regard to an election in September, point out that what the hon. Member below the Gangway said is my intention? It was not my intention to force an election in September, but we want to have the power, if we find the Government are not doing their duty, of saying to them, "You shall not go on." That power is a very vital one to this House, and it is important in these days, when the Government do not pay much attention to the House of Commons, to have some reserve of that sort in your hands. With regard to an election in September, may I point out that in all probability, if the War were continuing, a further extension would be given, and that an election would not take place unless the War were over? Therefore the question would not arise. May I also point out, as my right hon. Friend is perfectly well aware, that there is during the month of September at least two or three hours every morning in which the agricultural labourer cannot get on with the harvest, because the corn cannot be collected until the dew is off? Therefore there is plenty of time for the agricultural labourer to record his vote, without in any way interfering with the collection of food.
  An HON. MEMBER: The poll opens at eight o'clock.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: This Bill would give a new lease of life to this Parliament, and incidentally, to a Government which has failed in its obligations towards Ireland, and by its shilly-shallying delay in declaring its intention towards that country, has strained to a great extent the relations existing at the beginning of the War.
  Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 51.

  Division No. 29.]

  AYES.

  [5.45 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynto

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Montagu, Rt. Hon, E. S.

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Moore, William

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morgan, George Hay

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Gretten, John

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Morrell, Phillip

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Haddock, George Barr

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

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

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Barton, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Nuttail, Harry

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haslam, Lewis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Henry, Denis S.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Bird, Alfred

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Blair, Reginald

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pratt, J. W.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hinds, John

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Beyton, James

  Holmes, Daniel Turnel

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Howard, John Geoffrey

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Richards, Thomas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

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

  Butcher, John George

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rowlands, James

  Cautley, Harry Strother

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

  Johnson, William

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

  chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Johnston, sir Christopher

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

  Chambers, J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Rt. Hen. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Clough, William

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G,

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  King, Joseph

  Spicer, Rt. Hon Sir Albert

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Coote, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff)

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

  Currie, George W.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H

  Lockwood, Rt. Hen. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thomas-Stanford Charles

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

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

  Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)

  Denman, Hon. Ricnard Douglas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Tickler, T. G.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

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

  Tootill, Robert

  Dixon, C. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Macmaster, Donald

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Fell, Arthur

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Finney, Samuel

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

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

  Fisher. Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

  McNeill, Roland (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Weston, J. W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gardner, Ernest

  Martin, Joseph

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  1712

  1713

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen).

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Williams, Col Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  younger, Sir George

  Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea)

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

  Williamson, Sir Archibald,

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Primrose.

  Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M.(Beth'l Green, S.W.)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Boland, John Plus

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Meagher, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hackett, John

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mooney, John J.

  Cosgrave, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Muldoon, John

  Cowan, William Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cullinan, John

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Shee, James John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, Michael

  Donovan, John Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

  McGhee, Richard

  Field, William

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Hazleton.

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for East Mayo has handed in the following manuscript Amendment:
  To insert after the word "months" ["five years and eight months"] the words,
  "and if at the end of the said six years and ten months the Resolution of this House as to franchise; registration, and redistribution of seats has not been embodied in a law—until the Royal Assent has been given to a measure enacting the proposals approved of in that Resolution."
  These words seem to me to be too vague to embody in an Act of Parliament, and I must rule the Amendment out of order
  Mr. DILLON: With all due respect to your ruling, Mr. Maclean, I think my Amendment is very much to the point. One of the main reasons for the passing of this Act was that if an election took place on the 30th of this month it would be necessary, in the event of this Act not being passed, to have the election on a very inadequate register. The point is whether we are going to have an improved register. I addressed a question on that point the other day to the Government, and the answer I received was entirely unsatisfactory, and therefore I submit that we are entitled in some shape or other to put into this Bill some condition that in the event of our agreeing to meet the demand of the Government by extending the life of this Parliament for eight months we should have some assurance
  1714
  that the life of Parliament will be extended for such a period as will enable the reform I have suggested to be carried out. It is my intention, in case I am allowed to move this Amendment, to follow it up by a new Clause taken from the law under which the last Long Parliament made its existence independent of the Government, and decided that no Government should dissolve that Parliament without its own consent. As we have now gone back to this ancient procedure, I think we are entitled to discuss this measure in all its details, and as the Government now for the third time desire to prolong the life of this Parliament, we ought to be entitled to insert some conditions in this Bill.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: I think the difficulty which occurs to you is that the Amendment is not sufficiently definite to permit Parliamentary action to be taken on it. If my hon. Friend added to the words of the Resolution the date on which that Resolution passed the House of Commons, would that sufficiently incorporate a tangible object, until the achievement of which this Parliament should remain in existence? We have an exact analogy, though it is much more vague, in the Act whereby the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and the Home Rule Bill are suspended until after the War. The meaning of the words, "after the War," is very much less determinate than the meaning of a definite Resolution of the House of Commons incorporated in

  1715
  definite language. Would that meet your view? The second and supplementary Amendment which my hon. Friend intends to move is in the exact words of the Statute of Charles I, and the analogy is perfect. I would, therefore, respectfully ask you to reconsider your ruling in reference to the only objection to this Amendment, that it is not sufficiently succinct, and that it does not definitely touch a Parliamentary point.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Members for the expression of their views on the point of Order, but I am unable to change the decision at which I have already arrived. There is, of course, a very sound principle in legislation, and it is that Bills passing through this Committee and through the House of Commons must express as clearly as possible the object which they desire to attain. The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member seeks to make it a condition that the Resolution of the House on Franchise and Registration Reform shall be embodied in law. If the hon. Member will look at the Resolution, which I have before me, he will see that it says that the House is of opinion that legislation should be promptly introduced on the lines of the Resolutions reported from the Conference. It is perfectly clear that it would be almost beyond the wit of man to arrive at a clear conclusion, in view of the diverse views held with regard to that Conference, as to whether its Resolutions had or had not been embodied in an Act of Parliament. Therefore, while I do not desire to take a pedantic view of the matter, I regret that it is my duty to rule this Amendment out of order.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Further Postponement of Local Elections.)
  (1) For the purpose of postponing local elections, section two of the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, shall be deemed to be incorporated in this Act, subject to the following modifications:—
  The reference in Sub-section (1) to the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, shall include a reference to the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916; the first of June, nineteen
  1716
  hundred and eighteen, and the twentieth of May, nineteen hundred and eighteen, shall be substituted respectively for the first of June, nineteen hundred and seventeen, and the twentieth of May, nineteen hundred and seventeen; and the year nineteen hundred and eighteen shall be substituted for the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in Sub-section two of that Section.
  (2) Section four of the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, shall have effect with respect to the revision of the jurors' lists in Ireland in the present year as it had effect with respect to the revision of the jurors' lists in Ireland in the year nineteen hundred and sixteen.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "elections" ["For the purpose of postponing local elections"], to insert the words "in Great Britain."
  The obvious effect of the Amendment would be to allow local elections in Ireland to take place next month. I confess that, as an Irish ratepayer, I attach a certain amount of importance to this Amendment. The Leader of the House told us yesterday that if there were any considerable opposition to this Bill to extend the life of Parliament, the Government would not proceed with it. The Committee will agree that the opposition to the prolongation of the life of Parliament has been very languid as was shown by the fact that only some fifty Members went into the Lobby against it. The Government can safely say, therefore, that the House and the country are with them in their desire to avoid a General Election at the present time, and I think what is true of a Parliamentary election is true also of local elections, so far as Great Britain is concerned. I do not think that there is any desire in Great Britain to have the local elections which are due in the course of the next few weeks. After all, the same reasons to a great extent apply to local elections as to a Parliamentary election. The majority of the electors are away, party politics at the present moment are altogether dead, and before and above all there has been a small decrease in the rates in the majority of cases in the country. The rates struck since the War have been less than the rates which prevailed before the War. Therefore, there is no great cause for the

  1717
  local ratepayers to grumble at their representatives or to wish for a change. I do not think that is true at any rate of the southern part of Ireland. In Ireland we still have the great majority of the electors available to give their votes either in Parliamentary or local elections, and, again, party politics in Ireland are by no means dead. We had an election not long ago in North Roscommon contested by three gentlemen, and there is another election coming along in which there are three, if not four, gentlemen standing. Therefore, so far from politics in Ireland being dead, there never was a time when they were more alive or active. It may be said that they are Parliamentary and not local politics and that what is true with regard to the election of Members of Parliament is not true with regard to the election of members of urban district or county councils. We have to remember, however, that in Ireland local affairs are very largely run, indeed almost entirely, on political lines. Therefore, that which applies in England does not apply in the same degree in Ireland.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are you converted to Home Rule then?
  Major NEWMAN: I am not at the present time discussing the question of Home Rule. The General Society of County Councils, which is a very powerful body and one of the most representative bodies in Ireland, met the other day and passed a very important resolution with regard to the proposed Home Rule settlement. Then, again, not long ago the Member for North Roscommon (Mr. Plunkett) formed the idea of getting together in Dublin a large number of delegates from the local authorities all over Ireland to discuss his policy as against the policy of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. That policy met with diverse receptions. In some cases it was adopted and delegates were appointed; in other cases the request to appoint delegates was thrown into the waste-paper basket; and in further cases no action was taken. The local authorities said that it was not their business to deal with a question of this sort. I, therefore, contend that politics in Ireland and in Great Britain are totally different. I have told the Committee that the average rate struck in Great Britain has gone down, but that has not been the case in Ireland. The rates there have gone up, in some cases excessively, and
  1718
  the Irish ratepayer, being a human being, in a great many cases, is kicking, and he does not see why he should be saddled with representatives whom he thinks extravagant for another full year. In Dublin the rate, I imagine, is something like 11s. in the £. It has shown a very great increase during the period of the War. It may be said that there are special reasons why the rate in Dublin has gone up so excessively, but at any rate there is an enormous amount of discontent with regard to the way in which the rates have been spent and the general extravagance of the corporation. I want to give another example nearer home, which affects me personally. I mean the rates which are at present being paid in the City of Cork. I will quote a letter which appeared in the "Irish Independent" this morning, and which puts the matter far better than I can:
  "The corporation has now passed estimates for the present financial year, providing for the rate of 13s. 6d. in the £. This is 1s. int. over and above the highest rate ever struck in Cork or in any town or city in the United Kingdom. In 1807—"
  that was before the Local Government (Ireland) Act was passed—
  "the total rate in Cork was £78,930. Now that has reached the enormous total of £125,680, an increase of £46,600, Not bad for a population of 76,761, who are at present literally taxed up to the apple of the throat by our local legislators, who do not care a thraneen what the rates are, as they pay no direct taxation whatever. Before more injury is done the law which gives representation without taxation ought to be changed."
  Then the letter goes on to ask that there shall be a General Election and that these men shall be sent out of office. Those are two pretty strong points.
  Mr. LUNDON: Who wrote the letter?
  Major NEWMAN: Mr. J. J. Goggin, of Montone Villas, Cork. That is a letter written by a Cork ratepayer complaining bitterly of his representatives, and what is true of Cork, I imagine, is true of other parts of Ireland. If the Irish ratepayer could come to this House and make this complaint known the Government would see that whatever is true with regard to prolonging the life of Parliament, or of local bodies in England is not true with regard to prolonging the life of local bodies in Ireland. I therefore suggest that my Amendment should be adopted to give the Irish ratepayers a chance of finding new representatives next month if they care to do so. The independent Member for Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) yesterday made an accusation that a great many members of rural district and county

  1719
  councils had accepted jobs through Members below the Gangway, and were, therefore, to a certain extent, paid hirelings of the Government of the day. That is a very ugly charge. I do not believe it is a true charge. If this Amendment were passed the Irish local bodies and hon. Members below the Gangway would be able to clear themselves of the accusation that has been made as to their integrity. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment and trust I shall have the support of the Committee.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am very surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should move an Amendment of this kind. If it is so important, as he represents, to the Irish ratepayers that the tenure of the present holders of offices in these local bodies should not be prolonged, I am surprised that the hon. Member has received no support from a single Member sitting for an Irish constituency. I must have much more substantial evidence that it is desired that Ireland in respect of these local elections should be omitted from the Bill before I can accept such an Amendment.
  Mr. LUNDON: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Newman) opposed an Amendment moved from the Irish Benches demanding a General Election for a Parliamentary contest, but he now asks that elections for public bodies throughout Ireland should be carried out. He referred to the increased rates in the city of Cork. I dare say that if he goes to the city of Belfast he will find a similar increase has taken place there.
  Major NEWMAN: Their rates are only 6s. 6d.
  Mr. LUNDON: I do not mind what the rates are, but he will find that since the beginning of the War, in every district in Ireland there has been an increase in the rates, largely caused by the increased cost of living to those employed by local bodies. The hon. and gallant Member read a letter from Mr. Goggin, of Cork. He is one of the men who support the doctrine of republicanism, of which the hon. and gallant Member is a very faithful supporter. He asks that local elections should take place all over Ireland, for what purpose? Simply because public bodies in Ireland—urban councils, county councils, and corpora-
  1720
  tions—have refused to associate themselves with republicanism and the cause for which Count Plunkett stands. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Germanism!") Because they refuse to associate themselves with that cause the idea is that they should go to their constituents and all be wiped out. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will not disagree when I say that he would prefer to see the supporters of Count Plunkett governing the Cork Corporation rather than the supporters of the constitutional movement.
  Major NEWMAN: I object to the rates.
  Mr. LUNDON: My own idea is that the rates in Ireland, and particularly in the South of Ireland, are not high enough to suit the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member. The higher the rates go and the greater fools public bodies in Ireland make of themselves, the better he will be pleased. I am glad that this Amendment has not been accepted, not because I believe that the county and district councillors in Munster, Leinster and Con-naught, who are supporters of ours and of the constitutional movement, are not as eager to face their constituents as we are ourselves. The hon. and gallant Member said that the local bodies are being run on the lines of party politics. I should like to ask him why he applies this principle only to the three provinces? Are not local bodies in the province of Ulster also being run on the lines of party polities'! Why, if you want a washerwoman in Belfast, you have to decide first of all whether she is a Catholic or Protestant! If you take any of the cities in Ulster which are dominated by a Protestant majority, you will find that not a single Catholic is employed by the corporation in their public business. Is not that party politics? Apparently anything can be done in Ulster, but no similar action must be adopted in any of the other provinces. The hon. and gallant Member referred to his friend and colleague the Independent Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell). What a lovely pair they are I One of them has left the trenches in France and has thrown off the uniform for the purpose of coming here to blacken his own countrymen upon every available opportunity; and as for the other hon. Gentleman, whose leader, Count Plunkett, declares that this Parliament has no right to make laws for Ireland, he comes over here and accepts £400 a year out of the taxpayers' money. The hon. and gallant

  1721
  Gentleman apparently is prepared to substantiate what the hon. Member for North Westmeath says, namely, that Irish county councillors have accepted Government jobs, and that they are therefore in the hands of the Government. I am sure that the Chief Secretary will bear me out when I say that the members of Irish county councils are as far above bribery and corruption at the hands of this Government as either of the two Gentlemen who have charged them with it. I hope and trust that when the question comes up as to who have been applicants for Government jobs during the last fifteen or sixteen yeans that the hon. Member for Westmeath will have as clean a record as some of the members of the county councils of Ireland. It is all very well to meer at the Council of County Councils. The hon. and gallant Member said that Ulster delegates would not go into it because of party politics. Ulster delegates never entered the General Council of County Councils. Party politics were not introduced at the General Council of County Councils held last week. It is wrong for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that they have dragged party politics into their counsels. I hope that not a single Member from Ireland will support the hon. and gallant Member. We are living in a time in Ireland when the best thing to do, so far as local elections are concerned, is to follow the principle laid down in Great Britain. I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that his proper place would be not in the House of Commons for the purpose of flinging mud at and trying to stab his own countrymen in the back, whether they come from Cork or elsewhere, but to go out with the men from Cork who are fighting in the trenches.
  Major NEWMAN: If you will go, I will.
  Mr. LUNDON: I have more relatives of mine in the Army than you have.
  Major NEWMAN: Why do you not join them?
  Mr. LUNDON: Some men of my family have been wounded twice and have gone back a third time. That is what you cannot say. When you can say that, it is time enough for you to reproach me for not being there myself. Your place is to be with the Munster Fusiliers if you are a Cork man, although if you led them I do not think they would get many victories.
  Mr. BOOTH: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member (Major Newman) will not withdraw this Amendment, because it is one of the things upon which I should like to vote. It is one of the most toothsome titbits introduced even from Ireland. As I listened to the hon. and gallant Member he seemed at first to propose this Amendment for the purpose of making a downright Home Rule speech and announcing his conversion to Home Rule. Afterwards I took him to be a Home Ruler for the three provinces, excluding Ulster. He urged that these elections were necessary for Dublin and Cork, but so far as Belfast was concerned he did not think an election was necessary. Apparently he wants the three provinces separated from this country. I understand that he voted for the Bill yesterday, but does not want Sinn Feiners in this House, although he wants them to be spending his rates. The hon. and gallant Member is one of two men who have told me they were Sinn Feiners. The other was shot as a rebel. How can he justify his attitude? He says the matter comes home to him in Cork because he is a Cork ratepayer, and now that the question comes home to him so closely he wants some Sinn Feiners on the Cork Council.
  Major NEWMAN: I want my rates down.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think I have touched the spot. He wants the Sinn Feiners, these men who believe in republican simplicity, to be spending his rates in Cork. I would appeal to him to overcome that temptation. What do we hear more than anything in the House during the War? That both Englishmen and Irishmen were rather anxious to keep the two countries together in this great conflict. I know-that there are difficulties, but I think they should be overcome. The hon. and gallant Member wants to proclaim to the whole world that Ireland is different from this country and must be treated differently from this country even on the question of elections. I do not know why he should wish for these local elections. There is a very small poll as a rule. For the hon. and gallant Member to be so self-sacrificing that he will leave this House, which is so attractive to him, and go over to Cork, paying his fare there and back, in order to vote for a Sinn Fein candidate for the purpose of getting a penny off his rates, is an example to us of how far a man will go. I hope he will give us an

  1723
  opportunity of voting upon this Amendment. If nobody else will tell with him, I shall be quite willing to do so, in order to see what kind of a Lobby we get.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "first of June, nineteen hundred and eighteen and the twentieth of May, nineteen hundred and eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth of November, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
  My Amendment is rather a technical one, but I hope the Government will see their way to accept it, because, apparently, there has been some misconception in the mind of the Government draftsman. This is an example of the terrible difficulty in which we find ourselves put by legislation by reference. I do not think any hon. Member reading this Clause understands what is its drift, and it is impossible to understand it unless one carefully looks at the Act not of last year, but of the year before. I will state in ordinary language the effect of the Clause as it stands. An election of Parliament, if nothing else happens, will take place not later than November of this year. If it is not to take place, then this House will have to reconsider the position afresh before that date and prolong this Parliament or otherwise as it thinks fit. But this Clause deals also with local elections. It deals with any local election which takes place prior to June, 1918, and, therefore, if we pass it in this form, it may happen that we shall have an election in October or November, 1917, or earlier possibly if the War comes to an end, and notwithstanding that the county council elections which should take place in March, 1918, will be postponed until March, 1919.
  I fail to see the reason for that if that is what is intended. I can quite understand the advisability of postponing the county council and other elections, as we have done hitherto, so long as this principle of postponement of Parliamentary elections holds good. Put when once we have had a Parliamentary election, as we shall if nothing else is done before November, there is no reason why you should postpone the county council elections which take place in March. 1918. The Clause applies to municipal county council, and guardians elections, and one
  1724
  or two others. The municipal elections will take place in the ordinary course at the beginning of November, and, therefore, if we postpone our Parliamentary election until 30th November, there would be reason for postponing the municipal electionswhich would takeplace during that period, and the Amendment that I propose would make 30th November the final date, so that the municipal elections which take place in the early part of November of this year will be postponed because, of course, we shall have postponement of the Parliamentary election; but all the local elections which take place after that—that is to say, the county council in March and the guardians later on—will not be postponed, because the circumstances, of course, will have changed. Perhaps the War will be over. At any rate, we shall have had our Parliamentary election, if it has not been postponed. It seems to me that the proper course is to leave the matter in this position, namely, that if we have to reconsider the whole question before November of this year we should naturally reconsider the question of postponing the local government elections which take place after that date. If we do not have to reconsider the matter at all, if we have a Parliamentary election, we ought to have the local government elections. At present we have postponed the elections for local government bodies for two years more than their term of office, and during that time they have had to fill vacancies, not as we do, by going to the electorate, but by the principle of co-optation, and I cannot help thinking that it would be quite improper if after the War is over perhaps, or at any rate, after we put an end to our process of continuing our existence, that process should be continued for another year until March, 1919. I cannot help thinking, looking carefully at this Clause, that it has been drafted in this way because it was drafted last year in this way. But last year the dates were not the same, and therefore the same criticism would not apply. It is only because we find ourselves now here, in April, and postponing Parliament to a date which is before the county council elections of the following March, that this Clause brings about this complication. My suggestion is that we should simplify it by simply saying that up to 30th November any election which should take place prior to that date shall not take place; and then as regards other

  1725
  elections later on, if we have to reconsider our position with regard to the election of Parliament we shall be able to reconsider the question as regards the municipal elections.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I should like to support the Amendment. It seems to me to be not only a technicality, but really a question of policy. As I understand it, the policy of Parliament has been to prevent local elections during the period of the War. Everyone who has anything to do with local government elections will agree that it is very desirable indeed that there should not be such elections during the War. On the other hand, it is a matter of very great doubt, to put it no higher, whether you ought not to have local elections at their ordinary time if the War is then over because a great deal will have to be done in local government after the War, as well as in Imperial government. The machinery of local government has been driven at very low speed of necessity during the War period, and matters will arise in which the conflicting issues of finance and of construction will be important and ought to be submitted to the local electorate. I think my right hon. Friend is correct in his interpretation of the Clause, and, if so, the short point is this: Do we want to say now, in April, 1917, that there shall be no elections for county councils or guardians or district councils or parish councils until March. 1919? That seems to me either to mean a somewhat pessimistic view of the length of the War or else to tie up for an unnecessarily long period the rights of electors in these matters of local government. If, on the other hand, the Government was prepared to accept the Amendment, it would rightly prevent all local government elections until the end of November, and then any fresh Act of Parliament could decide how long in next year, or, if necessary, in the following year, was the embargo still to be kept on local elections. The argument is really very simple. At this stage of the War is it quite wise to prevent all local elections for a period of two years'! I submit to the Government that that is rather an unnecessarily long period, although, like all Members of the House, I am in the strongest agreement with the idea that during the period of the War there should be no local elections. On the other hand, when the War is over, I do not think they ought to be unnecessarily postponed, and I hope the Government
  1726
  will see' its way either to accept this or to put in such words as will give Parliament the opportunity of fixing a further date at the end of next year, or early next year, so that we may not be more than a year ahead.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The two hon. Members who have spoken have correctly stated the position which would be caused by the Clause as it stands, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) made a very good guess how we came to frame the Bill in this way, because, first of all, we are going back to the Parliament and Registration Bill of 1915, which ordained that all statutory elections which would take place prior to 1st June should be postponed for one year. Then we come to the Parliamentary and Local Elections Act, which again extended that period for a further year; and then comes the Bill of 1917, which is drafted on the lines of the Parliamentary and Local Elections Act of 1916 and carries all these elections still further for a period of one year. The result of it is that if the Clause is retained in its present shape, and if Parliament took no further action, county council elections would not take place until March, 1919 The right hon. Gentleman says, "After all, you are contemplating an election of Parliament in October or November." I certainly hope he is not contemplating an election in October or November. But I do not think it is the election of Parliament which actually governs the situation. What really governs the situation is, in the first place, the War, and, in the next place, the new register. I think there is a good deal in the right hon. Gentleman's argument that if a new register should come into force, say, early next year, it is rather a strong measure perhaps to say that still under these circumstances you have passed an Act of Parliament under which no elections for county councils can lake place till March, 1919—that is, for something like fifteen months after the new register has come into force. I had detected it before the Amendment was put down, and the Local Government Board considers it would be doing the right thing if the postponement of these elections were limited, as they would be under the Amendment, to elections for the municipal boroughs, borough councils, urban district councils, and so on, and that this great extension of time should not be imposed upon the electors for the county councils. I am not

  1727
  empowered to do anything more than to say that the Government has not had time to consider the Amendment in all its full force and consequences, but I can promise that we will consider the position which is put forward and which has my own sympathy, and perhaps in another place, if not here—there may not be a Report stage—we may be able so to amend the Bill as to prolong the life of the present councils and yet to secure that after the new register has come into force it may be possible to hold the elections for county councils long before March, 1919.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Not only county councils, but borough council elections, of course, are in November, but all the others are in March, and the same objection really applies.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: These elections take place at different times in the year, and my observations were intended to cover all elections which take place about that period.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I am very glad my right hon. Friend has received this Amendment in such a sympathetic way, but I cannot understand why he is not able to accept the Amendment right away. As he has already pointed out, it is just possible, especially if he resists this Amendment, that there will be no Report stage, and, therefore, whatever the sympathies of the Government may be, there may be no favourable opportunity for discussing the matter further. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend did not quite meet the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson). I wish to support, as far as I can, the protest which that right hon. Gentleman made as to the method in which this Clause, and, indeed, this Bill is drafted. Time after time, when a Bill is brought before this House, protests are made against this abominable method of legislation by reference. Such protests are always favourably received in the House, and usually some occupant of the Front Bench gets up and says the Government are in entire sympathy with the protest and that they dislike the method very much. Then the matter goes through, and the next Bill which is brought before the House is, if possible, a worse offender in that respect than its predecessor. The point which the right
  1728
  hon. Member for St. Pancras made in this Amendment was, as I understood it, very short and very simple. It was this, that the purpose of this Bill is to postpone Parliamentary elections in this country until 30th November. Would it not be perfectly simple to frame a Clause which would say in plain, simple, understandable English that no elections, Parliamentary or local, shall be held until the 30th November. There is no occasion to have this elaborate reference to one Act after another, and to say that a certain phrase in such and such an Act shall be read as if it were quite a different phrase. Why should local elections throughout the country under any circumstances be postponed to a date further ahead than the date fixed for the postponement of Parliamentary elections? That is really the point aimed at by the Mover of the Amendment. I think the Government ought to put the Bill in such a form that whatever date they fix—and I entirely accept the date on the Bill—for the postponement of Parliamentary elections, should also be the date for the postponement of local elections, whether for county councils, borough councils, or district councils, rural or urban. I hope my right hon. Friend will obtain the power which I am sorry he does not feel himself able to exercise at the present time, and to have that point made good in the Bill. I can only express the hope, though I have not very much expectation that it will be carried out, that he will also put it in plain simple language, and get rid of these absurd references to other Acts of Parliament.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The speech of my right hon. Friend has left the Committee in a position of some difficulty. I understood him to agree with the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken behind him, that the Bill as it stands is wrong. If this House passes this Bill as it stands the effect apparently would be that the election for county councils will be put off all over the country to so remote a date as March, 1919. Although the War may be over long before that, and although there may be a new register in good time, as we all hope and expect will be the case, to allow elections to be held in March of next year, yet unless Parliament introduces another Bill and legislates afresh, nothing can be done to expedite the county council elections, and

  1729
  they will be put off until March, 1919. I do not quite understand why my right hon Friend has not been able to present to the Committee a definite view in this matter. This was not a manuscript Amendment handed in at the last moment; it has been on the Paper. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has rendered a great service in putting his finger upon a clear defect in the Bill, and I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board that the best course would be to accept this Amendment now, if he is unable to give the Committee any strong reasons against that, or else give the Committee a definite undertaking that the matter will be put right so far as the Government can secure it in another place. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have all the stages of this Bill to day, so that in any case if the matter is left over to the Report stage, there will be no further opportunity for mature consideration, or for consulting the draftsmen. Therefore, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that the matter is not left in a satisfactory position now, and that the House will feel if it lets this Bill go through in its present form it will be deliberately accepting legislation which is avowedly imperfect. I suggest that he should accept this Amendemnt now and in another place reconsider its drafting, if its terms are not quite right, or give the assurance which I have asked for.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think it is a very reasonable request which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. There are difficulties in accepting the Amendment as it stands, because we are not quite sure of the full effect of the Amendment. There are other reasons why I should prefer, if I possibly could, to deal with this question in another place. I admit all the criticisms as to the involved nature of this Clause. It may be decided in another place to redraft the Clause and put it in another form. Of course, we have often spent time in this House denouncing legislation by reference, and this is certainly a most involved piece of legislation by reference, and it is rather difficult to make out what it means. Therefore, I am in some hope that in another place we may make it clear. Even if that were not done, inasmuch as this Parliament will have to come for further extension of its own life, this question, which relates
  1730
  acutely to elections for county councils, could be dealt with then. Parliament might easily pass another Bill if circumstances were very different from what they are now, and say, "Notwithstanding the Clause in this Bill relating to county councils, the elections for county councils shall take place at an earlier period than that prescribed in this Bill." I think you have shown that we do see that it would be most inconvenient to postpone the elections for all these different local bodies until such a remote period as March, 1919, and that we are most anxious to meet the wishes of the House, and, so far as county councils are concerned, to abbreviate that period very considerably. It is only a question of how it can be done. I think it would be better if my right hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment would agree to take my assurance that we shall give the most careful consideration to the matter with a view to meeting his wishes, and to choose some form of words which will secure that elections for county councils shall take place, if it is wise they should take place, considerably earlier than March, 1919.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Samuel). It is a very important question of principle. The mistake has been made not by the House, but by the Government's own draftsman. I agree with what has been pointed out by the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill), that the method of legislation by reference is very objectionable. If it had not been for the energy and diligence of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras this Bill would have gone through in its present form. The flaw apparently has escaped the notice of local authorities, because they have not taken any active steps to have the matter put right. It is even more important that county councils, as soon as the War is over and as soon as peace is restored, should get into touch with the electorate than this House, because by by-elections we can find out the state of public opinion. There have been contested elections which prove at the present time that this House and the Government, as far as can be ascertained, have the confidence of the country, but the local authorities, in their present position, have no method for getting into touch with the electorate. They have the power of co-opting mem-

  1731
  bers, if they think fit, without contests. On the London County Council at the present time there is one vacancy for Mile End, I think, for which the county council have not even thought fit to co-opt a member. I believe the vacancy has existed for six months. One of my hon. Friends says that it has existed for twelve months. That makes the matter even worse. There is a very strong feeling outside now, owing to their increased activities in industry and trade, that a certain number of women should be on these local authorities. The local authorities are not using their power of co-option and putting women on their bodies. The London County Council have not co-opted a single woman, although there have been a great number of vacancies, and although both the Suffragists and the anti-Suffragists have accepted the principle that women should be on local authorities and take an active part in local administration, especially in regard to education.
  The matter is becoming especially acute owing to the scheme which we understand is to be foreshadowed to-morrow by the President of the Board of Education. We are going to have a great reform in our education system, and we are going to run the risk that local authorities who are to have the spending of these large sums of money may not be elected till March, 1919. That, I think, would be nothing short of a scandal. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill suggests that we should trust the House of Lords. I do not understand for a moment that he is in a position to dictate what action the House of Lords shall take on this Bill. They might very well say that the House of Commons has expressed no opinion on this subject, and that, therefore, they are justified in leaving the Bill as it is, and not putting the electors to the trouble of contested elections for local authorities. The House of Lords are not so much in touch with popular opinion as this House is, and they, therefore, might possibly take that action. Under these circumstances I would press the right hon. Gentleman to accept this most reasonable Amendment.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I am glad to see the Leader of the House present. Before the right hon. Gentleman came in the right hon. Member for St. Pancras moved an Amendment, the necessity of which is admitted, with reference to local
  1732
  government elections. The Clause as it stands is a Chinese puzzle, and an utterly-incompetent piece of legislation. It is legislation by reference in its very worst form, and legislation drafted by some well-paid fellow who did not take the trouble to make it clear. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher), though he is not a member of the Cabinet, though he is not a member of the outer-circle Cabinet, and though he does not come anything near the ambit of the five luminaries who compose the great War Council, is in charge of this Bill connected with the life of Parliament. I suppose it is because he is a just man, and, for a Minister, rather above ordinary intelligence. He admits that the Bill as it stands is indefensible. He admits that the Amendment would do very well if it cannot be accepted now. He will not even amend it on Report; but, better still, it shall be carried to another place. We are, therefore, in the matter of elections to trust to the tender mercies of the House of Lords and not to accept an Amendment which could be dealt with now or amended on Report. Why is it? The meaning is still further to reduce the position of the House of Commons. When the right hon. Gentleman smiles in that kindly way he makes me cry. I scarcely like to attack him. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whose memory is something amazing, and who I am sure knows all the Rules upside down, knows that if the Bill passes through Committee without Amendment there is no Report stage at all, and in order to prevent a Report stage of this Bill, the Third Reading, of which he wants to take immediately, he asks the House of Commons to pass a palpable absurdity as this Bill is with the present Clause. I ask that this Amendment be accepted, even though there be a Report stage, and that the Clause, if necessary, be amended on the Report stage, and it can then be sent to the House of Lords. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not intend to disparage the dignity or power of the House of Commons, then I say that it is grossly disparaging to this House that it should be asked to pass an absurd Clause, the absurdity of which is recognised by the Minister himself, and that it should not be allowed to amend it, but should leave it to be amended by the House of Lords simply for the convenience of the Government. The Leader of

  1733
  the House has only been here for ten minutes and thirty seconds, but we will condone his absence if, with the great authority of the War Cabinet behind him, he allows the House of Commons not to make a fool of itself as it is doing at the present time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall certainly always do my best to prevent the House of Commons from making a fool of itself, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I can give no pledge as to particular Members. I have heard in Debate of the House of Commons not being treated with proper respect. It has become a commonplace of debate, and there is generally more authority behind it than there is in the case to which we have just listened. The hon. Member speaks as if it was an unheard of thing to ask the House of Commons to agree that an Amendment should be put in in another place. It is done constantly, and there is no kind of disrespect to the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend has already shown that he does recognise that the Bill could be improved by an Amendment. It is quite true that we do wish to avoid a Report stage so as to get the Bill to-day. It is not for the convenience of the Government only but for the convenience of the House of Commons, but in addition it is quite obvious that the wording of the Amendment must be carefully considered, and it would be very undesirable to accept an Amendment now without proper consultation as to the exact form which it should take. My right hon. Friend has given an undertaking that an Amendment will be introduced in another place, and it is obvious that an Amendment of this character would be in precisely the same position in another place as the whole Bill. Therefore, he can rely upon it being treated in the other place in precisely the same way. In view of the short time which we have to carry this Bill, and as it is a matter of convenience for the House, I hope that the reasonable course suggested by my right hon. Friend will be agreed to.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I point out that the case of the county councils in Scotland is somewhat different from the case of the county councils in England, and express the hope that this will be looked into when this Clause is being adjusted?
  Mr. HAZLETON: The Leader of the House has made what some, perhaps, may think a very reasonable appeal, but he was not here when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was making his speech. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) was a very reasonable Amendment, but that before it was put down on the Paper the Parliamentary Secretary had detected the flaw in the Bill. If that is so, why does he wait until the Committee stage of the Bill without having a consultation with the draftsman, either with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment or with regard to the flaw in the Bill which he had detected before the Amendment was put down? I do not think that the Leader of the House would have been so ready in saying that there was no foundation for the charge of disrespect to the House which has been made so often if he had heard the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, which means that Ministers, having seen the flaws in their own Bills, before they had been brought down to the House, do not take the trouble to consult their own draftsmen or to put Amendments of their own on the Paper. If that is not treating the House of Commons in an offhand and disrespectful manner, I do not know what the meaning of the words is. Though it is satisfactory to have an assurance that this flaw is, even in another place, to be amended, it is well for the Committee to realise that it would not have been amended, even though it had been detected by the Parliamentary Secretary, but for the Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman on the Back Benches.
  Sir G. RADFORD: The right hon. Gentleman has made a conciliatory, plausible speech. He has acquired considerable skill in doing that particular thing, but I do not think that he has convinced the intellects of those who have heard him. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill told us that it is desirable to take this Bill to another place in order to consider whether it might not be improved. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not lay that flattering unction to his soul. This Bill, on account of vices in its constitution, cannot be improved. It is quite impossible. We are grateful to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill)

  1735
  for denouncing the vices of legislation by reference, of which this is the most atrocious example which I think I have seen for the last ten years. Therefore, you may send it to the House of Lords, but the flaws it contains are constitutional and chronic and it cannot there be improved. The best thing we can do is to avail ourselves of the Amendment which my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras has devised, and pass that and leave the House of Lords to do what they can with it. Therefore, I hope that the plausible suggestion that has been made will not be considered by the House, but that it will persevere with this Debate and keep it up until there is an opportunity of sending a boy messenger or somebody to get the authority of—
  Mr. HAZLETON: The draftsman.
  Sir G. RADFORD: I do not say the draftsman. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants authority from someone. I should have thought that he would have had it himself. I am not in the secrets of the inner working of the War Cabinet, but I should have thought that he had the right to deal with this himself. Meanwhile, I may say a few words on the subject of legislation by reference. I have spoken on it before, but nothing whatever has been done. Perhaps I have not spoken strongly enough. I would suggest that if this fault occurs again perhaps it will be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration whether he or his Cabinet, if he requires Cabinet authority, should sack some six or eight draftsmen, and should employ somebody who can draft a Bill by another method and take it to the House of Lords in such a form that it may be clearly understood. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's has said in the form in which it has come down to us I do not suppose that there were three Members of the House who had the slightest idea of what it meant, and it was only owing to the skill of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras that he dropped upon this vice in the Bill. This sort of thing ought not to be. There appears to be this in it, that legislation by reference is not introduced as something inserted for the ease of draftsmanship—it is inserted in order to mislead the House of Commons. It is much easier to introduce a Bill which, by reason of its repeated references, is in such a state that
  1736
  nobody can understand it, than to introduce a Bill that can be understood, appreciated and denounced on its merits; and, therefore, it is much easier to put through the House of Commons a Bill which nobody understands and to give an effect to it which we only find out to our remorse later on. I could give many other reasons if I wished to occupy time, but for these reasons I hope that the House will persevere with this Amenderant, and will insist on having it accepted now, and not in the House of Lords. We are too frequently beguiled by honeyed words from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and by other Ministers who have studied that kind of art. I hope that to-day we shall no longer heed them but stick to the business in which we are engaged.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I quite appreciate the kindly way in which the Leader of the House has proposed to meet the point that I have put. It is not my fault that this matter has not been dealt with properly by the draftsman of the Bill. The Government had a Second Reading of the Bill yesterday and there was no possibility of putting down Amendments before last night. I put this Amendment down last night, and I venture to say with great respect, that the Minister in charge of the Bill ought to have seen that Amendment this morning and taken proper advice upon it and been able to come down and say whether or not it was a reasonable way to deal with the question. I have made a careful study of the matter and I believe the way that I have suggested is the best way of meeting this difficulty. I do not quite understand the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he wants to take all the stages to-night. I understand that we have resolved to take all the stages to-night, and one of the stages would be the Report stage, and I do not understand that there would be any difficulty on the point of pure procedure in accepting the Amendment which I have suggested, and proceeding through all the stages of the Bill to-night and then sending it to the House of Lords, and if the House of Lords wants to make further Amendments and if my Amendment is not satisfactory I see no difficulty whatever in the Government introducing Amendments in the House of Lords. I should have thought that that was the best way to deal with the matter, and I suggest for the consideration of the Government still whether they will not do so. Of course, I do not

  1737
  want to put the House to the trouble of a Division on this point, especially after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I would submit that from the point of view of procedure he should accept the Amendment and then send the Bill to the House of Lords and leave the question of principle to be considered by the House of Lords. I have made my suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, and, if he cannot accept it, I must bow to the inevitable, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Mr. DILLON: Before there is any consideration of the question of the withdrawal of the Amendment I want to protest against the really most outrageous procedure on the part of the Government in dealing with a Bill of this kind. There is no pretence of any urgency that can justify the Government in departing from the ordinary decent procedure in order to get a Bill of this importance to-night. There is every reason why they should take the measure in the ordinary way that is followed in dealing with important business, and this is an important Bill. I am sorry to say that our procedure is rapidly drifting into such a state that measures of this kind are really being treated like a Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, or as something of no importance at all. Here we are committing a breach of a constitutional principle which has existed for 240 years, and the Government have been invited to explain why it is necessary to take all the stages of this Bill to-night. I do not know whether the Rules permit of that, in the face of any objection by any Member of the House. I know perfectly well that if there were a Report stage it would be impossible to take all the stages to-night; yet, apparently, the Government have come to the House on an important Bill like this determined not to allow any Amendment to be considered on its merits in order that they may drive the Bill through all its stages to-night, and without attempting to give a single reason for doing so. It would be perfectly legitimate to take the Report and Third Reading to-morrow, but for some reason which they do not explain the Government are determined to take all the stages of this Bill to-night, and to achieve that object they will allow no Amendment, even where it is proved to be a necessary one, and rather than accept it they prefer to send it up to the House of Lords. I think
  1738
  that is unfair treatment of the House of Commons, and it is practised without any reason being given as to extreme urgency. For my part, I shall certainly object, if it is possible to do so, to all the stages of this Bill being taken to-night. I do not know whether that is in my power, but if it is I shall certainly do so.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: I see the Attorney-General is present, and I would like his attention for a moment in regard to the draftsmanship of this Clause, which could be rendered intelligible by an Amendment which is not to be accepted, simply for the convenience of the Government. I would ask my right hon. Friend, who has experience, and is a first-rate lawyer, whether he has ever seen such an example of a Chinese juggle as the Clause which is now under consideration. Does he understand it? I should think if the Attorney-General's devil, rightly BO called, were to put a draft of that kind before him he would consider that the chances of the draftsman becoming a puisne judge were rather dark. In respect to this legislation by reference, of which this is a horrible example, I am reminded that the late Sir Charles Dilke put down a Motion on the subject, and it is a method which is adopted simply because the draftsman does not take the trouble to put the Clause into definite English. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General if he will endeavour to put the Leader of the House for once into a reasonable mood, in order that he may accept this Amendment.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I think that if we went to a Division, and the House voted against the Amendment, the House of Lords would assume that my proposal had been rejected. If the right hon. Gentleman holds to his view, then my only choice is-to withdraw the Amendment, so that it may be proceeded with in another place. I have still another Amendment to follow, on similar lines, and I shall have to move it in order to get a similar assurance from my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have given my right hon. Friend the assurance that, to the best of my power, his Amendment will be introduced in another place; and as regards the last point he made, that if there is a Division and the Amendment is defeated the Government would not be

  1739
  under the obligation to move it in another place, that is not correct, for we will do that in any event.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (I), to leave out the words "and the year nineteen hundred and eighteen shall be substituted for the year 1917 in Sub-section (2) of that Section."
  I submit this Amendment in order that the House of Lords may be instructed in the method of remedying our mistakes. This is again a point of detail. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Act of 1916, and subsequent Sub-sections refer to the Act of 1915. I look to the earlier Act of 1915, and I find Sub-section (3), which is referred to in the later Act, is a long Subsection, and, so far as I am able to see, the year 1916 was subsequently altered to 1917, and it is now proposed to be altered to 1918. Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1915 relates to the election of the chairman of the county councils in England and Wales other than the chairman of the London County Council, and that the election shall be on the day of the first ordinary quarterly meeting of the council after the 8th day of March in that year. As I understand, this Bill proposes, therefore, to lay down that the year of 1918 is to be the year in which this particular provision with regard to the election of chairmen of county councils is to hold good. There, again, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter his attention, and undertake that the Amendment shall be considered in the House of Lords, because it seems to me perfectly clear that if the. War is concluded before the end of this year, as we all hope it may, there is no reason at all for making a special provision for the election of chairmen of county councils, which will take place in March, 1918. It is a small point, but it is one which the draftsman of the Bill ought to have seen, and which I think whoever is responsible for this Bill ought to have provided for.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): The right hon. Gentleman has called attention to this point for the consideration of the Government. At the time the Bill was drafted it was thought that the termination of the War might not be reached until 1918, and there was at that time reason for putting in that date. I, however, will give the right hon. Gentle-
  1740
  man's Amendment full consideration, and, if it is necessary, will deal with it in another place.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I had an Amendment which would be necessary if the election took place during the War next year. It is a consequenital Amendment, but as we have this distinct understanding with the Leader of the House, I hope that the matter will be put right in another place.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment on the same understanding as applies to my previous Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of ss. (2) of s. 1 of the Parliament and Registration Act, 1916.)
  Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Parliament and Registration Act, 1916, is hereby repealed.—[Sir F. Banbury.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I moved a similar Clause on 17th August, 1916, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer then said:
  "I mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that my right hon. Friend opposite, with that careful regard to possibilities which always distinguishes him, intended to move this Clause, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorised me at once to say that there was no question whatever of this Government introducing this measure during the period of the extension of the life of this Parliament."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 17th August, I916,col. 2195, Vol. LXXXV.]
  I am not at all sure that those words cover a further extension of the life of this Parliament, but in order that there may be no doubt upon the matter I put this Clause down, and I understand that my right hon. Friend is prepared to renew the assurance. If that is so, I will only move the Clause formally so as to receive that assurance and shall then ask leave to withdraw.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As my right hon. Friend has said, the pledge which I then gave was given with the authority of the Prime Minister at that time. I am sorry to find that from the wording of it my right hon. Friend doubts as to whether it was only intended to make the pledge

  1741
  apply to the extension which was asked for at that time. I am quite ready to give the same pledge with regard to this extension. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the pledged"] The pledge is that the Plural Voting Bill will not be introduced by this Government during the period for which the life of this Parliament is extended.
  Mr. DILLON: That might be interpreted by the infinite Parliamentary skill of the right hon. Baronet as a pledge against the Reform Bill.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, no!
  Mr. DILLON: But the Reform Bill deals with plural voting.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is one of the curious reminiscences of this War the amount of feeling aroused by the possibility during its continuance of again introducing the Plural Voting Bill, which had already gone through the House. This pledge applies only to that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It applies to that one measure.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of New Parliament.)
  Section three of the Parliament and Local Elections Act, 1916, shall have effect subject to the following addition:
  Provided also that should a Dissolution of Parliament take place, whether before or after any such register has been brought into force, but before the end of the present War, the Parliament so elected shall exist for a period not exceeding one year after the end of the present War.—[Mr. Hazleton.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time.
  This proposal is one of considerable importance, and if the Government persist in their policy of refusing to have any Report and to accept any Amendment, no matter how reasonable, I hope at least they will give the same assurance with regard to this proposal as that which they have given with regard to the previous Amendment, and that before the Bill is passed into law a provision of this kind will be inserted. When a Bill of this kind was last before the House the then Leader of the Opposition, the
  1742
  Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) had given notice of an Amendment that any Parliament elected on the existing old register should not have a longer life than two years. I had an Amendment limiting the period to twelve months after the end of the War. Both of those Amendments were ruled out of order in Committee, on the ground that they were outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill went to another place, and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment word for word was inserted. The Bill came back here, and that was held to be in. order, as the same rules did not apply in another place as here. As that Amendment was accepted by the Government I want to extend the provision by my present proposal. Let me point out the importance of this Motion. The purpose is to limit the life of any Parliament, whether elected on the old register or the new register, if elected during the War, to a period not longer than twelve months after the end of the War. We all know the dangers of what is called a khaki election, when the Administration of the day may, as they always do, seize what they regard as a favourable moment for a General Election, and come back and remain in office for a period of five years, as the Government did in 1900 which was elected during the Boer War.
  This Clause is designed to take that power and weapon out of the hands of the Administration, so as to prevent such a thing happening again. I think it is a reasonable proposition. The Government recognised that it was reasonable that any Parliament elected on the old register should only be elected for a very short period. It seems to me imperative that any Parliament elected during the course of the War should have to deal mainly with War issues, and not with the problems which may arise in these countries after the War. A great many problems of peace which there is not time now to consider will have to be dealt with soon after the War. Everybody knows if you had a Dissolution now, these are not problems that would be before the electorate of this country. Therefore, I say that the Government would be adopting a wise course if they met the cases presented by this Clause, and agreed that a Parliament elected on definite war issues shall be confined to dealing with those war issues. If the Government were to say now that the period I propose is not long enough, and that eighteen months would be more

  1743
  reasonable, I shall be quite ready to listen to their point of view in that respect. Another very serious consideration arises in connection with this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has told the House that he does not believe that the Government has any serious intention of passing the Reform Bill into law this Session. We supported the Resolution in favour of the proposal of Mr. Speaker's Conference, but I warn the Government there is most serious danger of jeopardising the future of the Reform Bill if a provision of this kind is not inserted in this Bill, and I will tell the House why. So long as you have the old register, any new Parliament that may be elected following this is only to be elected for two years, but if you pass the Reform Bill, any Parliament may have a life of five years. Thus those who are opposed to having a Parliament elected for five years during the War will find it necessary to oppose the carrying into effect of the Reform Bill during the War. An opposition of that kind combined with the opposition of the sixty Members who voted against the Resolution might well be of so formidable and difficult a character that the Government would find itself unable to force it through the House of Commons in the present Session.
  Therefore I say that by taking a reasonable attitude upon a proposal of this kind they would make it unnecessary to involve the fate and future of the Reform Bill, and they would be taking an enormous step towards smoothing the future progress of legislation at a later stage in this Session. I think that these considerations will present themselves to the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary as being reasonable and practical, and even if the Government stick to the determination to avoid a Report stage this afternoon I hope, as in the case of the other Amendment, they will promise to consider this and make an alteration before the Bill becomes law. I would make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to persist in the course which the Government has so far held with regard to the procedure of this measure. After all, neither he nor the Leader of the House nor any Member can accuse me of being obstructive or delaying the passage of this Bill unreasonably. They got their Second Reading of the Bill at an early hour yesterday. There has not been a single
  1744
  Amendment moved from these benches to-day until I have stood up to move this. I do not think we have unreasonably or unduly occupied the time of the House. When we approach a serious matter of this kind in a reasonable and practical spirit I think it is the duty of the Government to meet us also in a reasonable and practical spirit. Even if we were to have a Report stage there is no earthly reason why it should take more than a few minutes, and it would be quite possible to have that stage and Third Reading to-morrow and send the Bill in the evening to another place. By meeting the wishes and views of the House in this respect they would not be delaying the passage of the Bill into law for a single hour. I hope that the Parliamentary-Secretary will see his way to adopt the suggestion I have made.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I should be inclined to support the hon. Member if it were merely a question of having a Report stage, and I agree that he has not taken any undue time. But I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment for a very different reason, and that is because I think the new Clause proposed is an extremely objectionable one and therefore should be resisted, not in order to avoid a Report stage, but in order to avoid an objectionable Clause in the Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member is that even in the event of a new register having been brought into force that a Parliament elected on that register should be limited in a way which is not in accordance with the ordinary law.
  Mr. HAZLETON: During the War.
  Mr. McNEILL: I can see no object in that at all. It appears to me that once you have got the new register and Parliament elected on that register, whether during or after the War, that Parliament is truly representative of the feeling of the country. The only reason for the limitation which was put in the last Bill was because it was recognised that there might be the necessity for a General Election which would return a House of Commons utterly unrepresentative of the feeling of the country. This Amendment goes far beyond that, and if it were carried it might be possible that the House of Commons, properly elected upon a new register, and therefore in every sense of the word up to date and fresh from the constituencies, might be unduly and in the true sense of the word unconstitu-

  1745
  tionally limited in the period of its operations. I can see no reason for any such provision, and I hope my right hon. Friend will refuse to accept this new Clause.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I cannot say that I agree with the last speaker. He seems to imagine that we could have an election during the War which would be truly representative of all the electors. I do not know how. I cannot imagine, even if the present Franchise Bill is carried, that we can really get a really representative House of Commons elected during the War with all the men at the front and the great difficulties which there would be in getting everything into order. There seems to be a great deal to be said for the Amendment. It is most undesirable that any Parliament elected during the War should have anything but almost a nominal lease of life. If we are to have the possibility of a Franchise Bill being passed through this House and then, merely upon the excuse that there is a new register, which as a matter of fact must be owing to the War largely inoperative, we are to have an election and a Parliament to last for five years, it would be a totally objectionable state of things, and I suggest that there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment, and that it would be a very excellent thing if it were understood that any Parliament elected during the War—that is to say, until the country has really settled down to a state of things in which they can really consider the position, should be limited in its life.
  Mr. DILLON: I hope the Government will listen to this Amendment in a fair spirit. Just see what will be the condition of things, assuming—and it is a large assumption—that the Government succeed in passing the Franchise Reform Bill and get their register and the War goes on. There will then be in the way of the Government a very strong temptation, the reality of which we have had full warning of, because I heard myself yesterday a most remarkable sentence from the lips of the Leader of the House, when he was dealing with the question of the* threat or warning which he had addressed to us some time ago about the possibility of a General Election being forced on the Government in the event of the Irish party going into opposition. He said again yesterday that circumstances might arise which would compel the Government to appeal to the country, and he specified the circumstances, which were
  1746
  that the Government might take it into their heads or be convinced that they had the country behind them, and that the House of Commons was not giving them a sufficient amount of support. Any Government can get into that temper. It is very common with Governments, and if the Government, having got through the Reform Bill, found that the War was still continuing, the temptation would be one that ought not to be put into the path of any Front Bench in the world, and that is the temptation to declare that the House of Commons was too critical, and to appeal to the country on the issue, "Will you support us in carrying on the War?" The result would be a khaki election and a khaki Parliament, because everybody knows that a Government in the position of this Government could put the issue in-a most unfair way before the country. The late Government was subjected to a most cruel storm of criticism while they were struggling through a critical period of the War. Would it not have been legitimate for them to say, if they had been unpatriotic enough to do so, that they would appeal to the country to support them in the conduct of the War?
  This Government has enjoyed an amount of peace from criticism in this House and of smoothness in the working of this House which the late Government never enjoyed, and this Government, assuming that they got the Reform Bill through, might say, "Now we have got a proper register and have emancipated large masses of the people, and it is only right that we should take the earliest opportunity of appealing to them. The War is going on still, but we are criticised in this House, and we are interfered with." This was said the other day in a leading journal in London urging the Government to appeal now to the country. If they appealed on the issue, "Are you going-to support the Government in carrying on the War?" and indicated that certain sections of the House of Commons were not giving them loyal support, can any man stand up here and say it would be fair to entrust the Government of this country and the settlement of all the vast complicated problems of labour which will arise after the War to a Parliament elected simply on that issue? That is what we are threatened with. If this Amendment had raised a fresh principle I could understand the Government saying something against it, but it raises no fresh principle, because the right hon.

  1747
  Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Carson) pressed this matter on the Government in the last Bill, and succeeded by his influence in the House of Lords, although it had been ruled out in this House, in circumventing the Chairman's ruling and in getting his Amendment passed through the House of Lords and brought back here, when the Speaker ruled that the House of Lords had not got the same Rules as we had, and that, although the Amendment was out of order here, it was possible to be introduced into the Bill through that channel. Therefore the principle has been established, and that is that a Parliament elected under certain conditions, namely, under a defective register, cannot have a life of more than two years. The principle contended for in this Amendment is precisely on all fours, the only difference being that my hon. Friend says that a Parliament elected under certain abnormal conditions, namely, that a simple war issue is put, shall be limited in the period of its operation.
  The Government might be so ill-advised as to take advantage of such an occasion, and to raise the cry that everybody who did not exactly agree with them were proGermans. I remember an election when every single man who criticised the Boer War or the conduct of that war in any single respect was denounced to the country as a pro-Boer, and dozens of men lost their seats on that issue alone. That same state of things might arise if an election is precipitated during the War on the new register, and the old prayer which we are all taught to recite, "Lead us not into temptation," has as good an application to Governments as to any private individuals. You should remove from the path of Governments these temptations. Such a condition as this Amendment imposes would save the Government from themselves, and they might live to be thankful for it. The gentlemen who engineered the historical election of 1900 lived to regret it. It brought disaster to their party. It was thought to be a tremendously clever thing at the time, and it gave them eight years of power, but it landed them in the greatest disaster that any political party has ever experienced in this country. I think it would be a disaster to this country, after the unity which this nation has exhibited—I say nothing of our nation—in face of
  1748
  the enemy, if in an evil hour the Government in power when the War was coming to a conclusion were to fall a victim to a temptation which other Governments composed of high-minded individuals have fallen a victim to in the past, and if this great contest were to be disgraced in its closing period by an electoral trick. It would be impossible to imagine the extent of that disaster. It would make it impossible for the people of this country to face in anything like a true spirit the solution of the terrible problems which will arise after the War is over. I hope the Government will meet my hon. Friend and promise to introduce his Amendment in another place.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should like the Committee thoroughly to understand what the Amendment is. It would bring about a state of things that if the Electoral Reform Bill were passed, and if some eight or ten millions of electors were added to the register, and if under those circumstances the Government should bring about an election, the Parliament so elected should only sit for one year.
  Mr. HAZLETON: No, no; for one year after the end of the War!
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: For one year after the War has terminated.
  Mr. HAZLETON: My intention is that, supposing the War lasted for five years, there would be nothing in this Amendment to prevent a Parliament so elected from lasting for five years, but it must not last for longer than one year after the end of the War.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Certainly; this Parliament, elected under those circumstances, could not last for more than one year after the War was over. The argument adduced for this Amendment is that on a previous occasion and in another Bill, which has now become an Act of Parliament, the House almost unanimously, I think, agreed that a Parliament elected on the old register of 1913 and 1914 would so little represent the country that it ought not to last more than two years. I think that is a matter of general agreement. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that exactly the same principle would apply in this Amendment. It is the same principle, but it would have a very different complexion and a very different result, because what was com-

  1749
  plained of then was that Parliament might not be returned by more than 40 per cent. of the electorate. I do not believe that if you had an election now on the old register of 1913–14 you would get a 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. vote throughout the country. The removals have been very great from one cause and another, and therefore while it is perfectly fair and just that it should be thought, and nearly everybody thought it was so, that a Parliament elected by 40 per cent. of the electors with hardly any soldiers or sailors on the register could not be regarded as representative of the country, and therefore ought not to last more than two years, is it fair to argue that a Parliament elected by something like 70 per cent. of the new electorate, to which eight or ten millions are added, would not be representative? The hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) put it quite clearly. You might pass this Electoral Reform Bill—I hope we shall—and have your register made up, and for the first time for a long time you might have an electorate composed of all sections and thoroughly representative of the country. An election might take place, full preparation might have been made for that election, all the circumstances set out, even a reconstruction programme well thought out and discussed, with 70 or 80 per cent. of the electorate voting and yet only able to return a Parliament lasting for one year, or one year after the War.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: How about the soldiers and sailors?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am asked how about the soldiers and sailors. If the proposals of Mr. Speaker's Conference are put into a Bill and that Bill becomes law, one of those proposals provides for an absentee voters' list. The hon. Member is perfectly familiar with those Resolutions, and under that absentee voters' list hundreds of thousands of soldiers or sailors on the very short qualification now which will be necessary for them to get a vote will get on the register.
  Mr. DILLON: Not while the War is going on.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Why not?
  Mr. DILLON: They cannot vote in the trenches.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Cannot they get on the voters' list?
  Mr. DILLON: The point is, can they take part in the election?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Are we quite certain that they cannot take part in the election?
  Mr. HAZLETON: Yes, absolutely!
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not so certain. The War might be coming to an end. There might be at least two months' notice of this election, and it might be perfectly possible to collect a very great number of these votes. I am not quite certain yet whether the House has fully considered and rejected a system by which they could vote by proxy. That might be considered. I have given a very great deal of thought to it, and have not yet turned my back on it. I think that when the House comes thoroughly to consider the position of our soldiers and sailors they may desire to see some means by which these men can vote by proxy. If we accept this Amendment, you then rule out all possibility of the election, in which 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the new electorate take part, of any Parliament except under the almost ridiculous circumstances that that Parliament would have to come to an end within one year of the end of the War. This is an Amendment I cannot possibly accept. The whole position is not, to my mind, at all on the same lines as that where an election takes place on an old register and certainly not more than 40 per cent. of the electorate votes. I maintain that where an election takes place, where a large number of the electors may very well represent the people and may have all the questions placed before them, where they might vote on these questions, there is no reason whatever why that Parliament should come to an end within one year of its existence and be unable to carry out an adequate programme. The hon. Member for East Mayo said it was quite possible, unless something of this kind was put in the Bill, for a Government to dissolve Parliament and take advantage of the war cry or the war fever and place the issues before the electors most unfairly, and so secure a tenure of office for four or possibly five years. I know the possibility of that. Although my experience is not quite so long as that of the hon. Gentleman it is quite considerable, and I have not observed yet that the Government have an entire monoply of placing issues unfairly before the country.

  1751
  There are sometimes complaints that Oppositions who want to become Governments place issues unfairly before the country. The hon. Member himself has said—I do not say whether I agree with him or not, because that is not necessary to my argument—that it was once done, that unfair advantage was taken by the Government of the country at the time, that they were paid out for it, that it led to disaster, and that they were out of office for a great number of years. If that punishment was so effective in one case, may not it be effective in another case?
  Mr. HEMMERDE: They had five years of it.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I might have something to say about the Government of 1906–1910. Hon. Members have their views and I have mine as to the respective merits of the Governments from the time I was in Parliament in 1885. I am only taking up the hon. Gentleman's own argument. After all, I do not think we can provide against that. I believe that Governments will choose the time which to a certain extent tells in favour of the great issues—not of themselves only—they are putting before the country, and it seems to me that the Opposition are just as likely to put these issues favourably to themselves as the Government are likely to put them favourably to themselves. I do not think the Amendment is practicable, and it is not one the Government can accept.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am bound to say I do not think the answer we have just had is a very convincing one. The right hon. Member will admit at once that after the War there is going to be a great deal of rebuilding and reconstruction with regard to all our economic and social problems. I do not believe anyone will contend that if an election were taken during the War these grave issues of reconstruction could be properly put before the country, and therefore a Parliament elected during that time would be elected for definite and specific purposes, but not in the least the purposes that would arise after the War is over. I think we have very clearly before us the example of the Parliament of 1900, where the election issues were wholly war issues, but where the Government, after exhausting that particular mandate, went on to deal
  1752
  with question after question—education, that had never been placed before the pe6ple of the country in regard to that particular issue, and which, indeed, they had pledged themselves not to raise. I think all that does arouse very important and fundamental questions, and it would certainly be very advisable indeed that, following the War, whether taking one year or a period approximating to one year, the people who are going to have a hand in all this reconstruetion—the land question, housing, employment, and all the social issues that will come before us—ought to have this clearly before their minds, should have a chance to vote upon them, and not be deflected by the terrible issues we now see. Unless there is some limit put to it, we shall have something like the position of 1900. We can have a Parliament elected during the War, when perhaps the War is coming to an end, elected not on these issues, but yet going on to deal with reconstruction on lines not acceptable to large numbers of people in the country. The people might have to wait for five or six years before they could deal with the Government, or try to get their point of view driven home. It is quite true that in 1906 the people did very strongly express their view on what had been going on between 1900 and 1906. It is true that the people of the country passed the strongest censure on what had been taking place—but it was six years before they had that opportunity. They may have to wait another six years. That is not carrying out the principles of democracy, but is flaunting the principles of democracy, and there ought to be some safeguard.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I rise to support my hon. Friend's Amendment, and to join in the complaint against the very unsatisfactory answer the right hon. Gentleman has given. I trust my hon. Friend will divide the Committee on this Amendment, and I sincerely trust the Committee will support him in it, because I cannot imagine anything which is more calculated to strengthen this Bill and make it acceptable to the country than the proposal it embodies. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has not made a fair representation to the Committee of the meaning and effect of this Amendment. I am sure he did not wish intentionally to misrepresent my hon. Friend, but he is very far from showing, even in the speech he has made, a proper appreciation of the mean-

  1753
  ing and effect of this Amendment. What it proposes is this:
  "Provided also that should a Dissolution of Parliament take place, whether before or after any such register has been brought into force, but before the end of the War, the Parliament so elected shall exist for a period not exceeding one year after the end of the present War."
  The right hon. Gentleman treats this Amendment as if it only dealt with the possibility that a new register would come into operation, and that it was to have effect then. But it is quite possible that this Government might last to the end of the War, and it is quite possible that this Government might do nothing to provide a now register. It is quite possible that this Government may shirk the duty of giving effect to Mr. Speaker's Conferance, and in that case, if a Parliament is elected, say, just on the end of the con-elusion Of peace, does any reasonable man in the House either on the Treasury Bench or in any other part of the House maintain that such a Parliament will not have a sufficient opportunity for winding up all the business of bringing about the conditions of peace, if it has a period of existence not exceeding one year after the end of the present War? Even though there is a new register it is quite impossible that the soldiers at the front and the sailors will have voted. The right hon. Gentleman said something about soldiers voting by proxy. That is not a proposal emanating from Mr. Speaker's Conference. Even though you had a system of voting by proxy, can anyone reasonably maintain that the votes from soldiers at the front, taken by proxy, would represent the feelings of the soldiers and the sailors who have taken part in this War? We have had it repeatedly stated from the Government Benches that the general officers of the Army and the heads of the War Office have said that it is utterly impossible to take a record of the votes of soldiers during the continuance of the War. In view of the fact that it has been pointed out by every speaker in this discussion that the conditions under which a Parliament is elected before the conclusion of the War will cease to have effect even a year after the War, I think it is most unfair for the Government to refuse to accept this Amendment. I say that the Parliament which is charged with the winding up of the affairs of the War and of bringing about the settlement of peace
  1754
  will be qualified to deal with the many complex and vital questions, vital to every interest of the nation, which will arise, and which will have to be dealt with immediately on the conclusion of peace. I, therefore, submit that this Amendment is most important. Instead of weakening the Bill it would strengthen it. I again appeal to the Government and the Leader of the House to accept the Amendment. I hope, if it is not accepted, it will be supported by members of the Committee in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: I beg to support the Amendment. It is one which will prevent a recurrence of happenings of 1900. I recollect it as if it were yesterday. If this Amendment be not accepted, what occurred in 1900 may occur again. There will be no difficulty, as there was no difficulty in 1900, through War Office malignancy—the expression is that of the present Prime Minister—in publishing a notification that the War was ended when the War was not ended It so happened that the notification was made in 1900, and the war that was ended in 1900 went on with vigour, though it was called by one politician "a sort of war," until 1902. The war was ended for the purposes of an election. A cry went throughout the country, "We who have ended the war can surely settle it." We had the Khaki Election. The Government which got in in 1900 remained in until December, 1905, without the least possibility of having a mandate from the country. If this Amendment be not carried a series of transactions similar to what happened before may go on, and the Treasury Bench may be made into a Noah's Ark of relatives. The business of legislation may be so utterly impaired that it will become like the children of persons too closely connected; they will be complete family transactions. If this be not ended, a whole series of legislative enactments make take place in favour, not of the aristocratic classes, but of the metallic and materialistic classes of the country, and popular liberties may be affected.
  Above all, if this Amendment be not accepted, we may have this most scandalous thing in the history of Parliament: we may have a Parliament defeated in the House of Commons and still clinging, after defeat in July, to their places, proroguing in August, and never again meeting the country, staying in office and providing for themselves and their relatives—

  1755
  for the ninety-eight. It may be that they might not meet the House of Commons again, but might dissolve, not having asked for a vote of confidence. They might be like fraudulent tenants who at the close of the year quit the house. They would dissolve because they would be afraid to face the people. Such a thing would never have occurred before in the history of Parliament that a Ministry had dissolved without any notification to the House of Commons, without any programme before the country, without having dared to take the opinion of the country upon their action. They dissolved in 1900, as I know, in the hope, and largely they were successful, that a Cabinet would be formed much altered and much more anti-popular than a Cabinet constituted after Dissolution. However, this is a
  protest against the recurrence of a great public scandal like that. I trust that my hon. Friend will persevere, and, if need be, go into the Division Lobby. At all events, if defeated in the Division Lobbies, we shall have an approving conscience. I think it is very delightful that it is not the House generally who are in competition. with each other for office. There are some people who have come to this Parment who do not belong to the British nation, who have been long years in this Parliament and have observed its procedure, who have an affection for it, and who do not like it to be degraded and defiled as it is at present.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 184.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [8.23 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Fitzpatrick, John Lalor

  Molloy, Michael

  Anderson, W. C.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Muldoon, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boland, John Pius

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Shee, James John

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hoggs, James Myles

  Reddy, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cosgrave, James

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Cullinan, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  King, Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Donovan, John Thomas

  McGhee, Richard

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Captain Donclan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  NOES.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Chambers. James

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

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Clough, William

  Hancock, John George

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clynes, John R.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Coote, William

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haslam, Lewis

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham).

  Barrio, H. T.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Henry, Denis S.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Currie, George W.

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bigland, Alfred

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Hills, John Waller

  Bluck, Sir Arthur W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hinds, John

  Blair, Reginald

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Fell, Arthur

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Finney, Samuel

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Boyton, James

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Johnson, W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Johnston, Sir Christopher

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Jones, Edqar (Merthyr Tvdvil)

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)

  Gretton, John

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Knutsford)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North).

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Tootill, Robert

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Randall, Athelstan

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Williams, Colonel Sir R. (Dorset, W.J

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading).

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Rowlands, James

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Moore, William

  Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophae

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Younger, Sir George

  Nicholson, Sir Charles R. (Don-caster)

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Gershem

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Beck.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Sutton, John E.

  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. HUGH LAW: In the very few words I shall address to the House I desire to explain why it is we on these benches have found it necessary to continue throughout these sittings to oppose the Rill now under discussion. I hope the House will not imagine that this is merely a Parliamentary manoeuvre. There is, as the basis of our opposition to this Bill, a very real, a very profound and, as I think, a very true appreciation of the situation which now presents itself to us. It may strike hon. Members as a strange thing that just at this moment the Irish party, of all parties in this House, should desire a General Election. It may seem strange, because they have been told that we of the Irish party have been losing the confidence of Ireland. They know we have been challenged at certain by-elections in Ireland. They know that in one case the contest has gone against us, and they know at this moment we are threatened in another constituency. They are told that we can no longer speak for Ireland. That is false, but they know what is undoubtedly true, namely, that events which have occurred during the last twelve months have undoubtedly diminished very sadly the hold which the constitutional movement had attained in Ireland, and they may well wonder why
  1758
  any politician should in those circumstances be anxious about an election. If it were a mere partymanceuvre our proceedings to-day would be meaningless, but we are anxious for a General Election, and we do not desire this Bill to pass because, as far as Ireland is concerned, we are ready and anxious at the earliest possible moment to meet our critics in Ireland face to face and defeat them. We have been subject for years past to every kind of innuendo and base insinuations from all parts of the country, and I believe the sooner we meet these gentlemen the sooner we shall be able to strengthen and once more fortify the position of this party. It may be said that we are simply following this course to gain a party advantage, and that we are doing this in the middle of a great war when the whole of the liberties of Europe are at stake. It may also be said that we are choosing this moment because it may be a favourable one for us to snatch a party advantage at the poll. Not at all. I want to stop the dry rot in Ireland before it goes any further, and I want to meet these people quite plainly upon the issue of revolutionary republicanism or the constitutional movement.
  It is because I regard the movement in Ireland, of which I speak as dangerous both to Ireland and the Empire, that I desire that we should have a clear issue between those who desire constitutional reform and those who do not. We want

  1759
  this opportunity of an election in order to resist the insane policy which these men are putting forward. I contend that in doing this we are doing a great service to that cause for which the Allies are fighting, namely, the cause of liberty and self-government throughout the world. I do not want the House to think upon this matter in mere terms of expediency. If one adopted that attitude one might be altogether mistaken about the true situation. One of the reasons why our party has lost hold in Ireland, as it to some extent may have done, is this: Bitterly as I have opposed the policy of the Sinn Feiners I think it would be folly not to recognise that amongst them are men of the highest and noblest personal character. If we want to view the Irish question in its true proportion we must remember these facts. I am told that amongst the young men who were the leaders of the insurrection in Dublin last year there were men not only of the highest personal character, but men who sought no personal advantage, and who went into the revolution knowing that they must be defeated, knowing perfectly well that they were challenging forces which were bound in the end to conquer. They had no illusions on that subject, and I am told that many of them for months before the rebellion were conscious that they were going to defeat and to their death, and they prepared themselves for what was coming by almost daily communion. That does not indicate a criminal type of men, and I think it is important that we should realise what kind of men they were. They were men of high character who believed that in doing what they did they were lighting a purer flame of patriotism in Ireland. A great man once said that it is better to be on the side of bad men fighting for a good cause than on the side of good men fighting for a bad cause. Just because I realise that in this matter we are up against real patriotism, all the more I am determined to resist an insane policy which is bound to bring disaster on my country. I welcome the chance which an election would bring to us. I welcome the opportunity of a General Election of meeting these men and placing plainly before the people of Ireland the issue, and of convincing the people that these men are embarking upon a foolish and insane policy of revolution, and of giving the people an opportunity of choos-
  1760
  ing between them and the constitutional procedure and agitation which has brought such benefits to Ireland in the past.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. I think it is due to this party which has opposed this Bill at all its stages that we should show our determination and purpose in the course of conduct we have taken by resisting the Bill at this stage and dividing against the Third Beading. I oppose the Third Reading on account of the object of this Bill. Its object is to give the present Coalition Government a further lease of power. Further, I oppose this measure because I do not think the present Government deserve any further lease of power from this House. I am directing my mind in considering this Bill to the manner in which this measure if it becomes an Act of Parliament will affect Ireland. What is the position with regard to Ireland? We heard in one if the short speeches which the Leader of the House condescended to address to the House in the course of the Second Reading what he said about Ireland and about an Irish settlement. His speech was a rather strange admixture of hope and despair. So far as I am concerned, I am expressing my views freely as an Irish National representative. I say that this Government have, up to the present, done nothing to redeem their pledges to Ireland, and they have not put themselves in the position of being trusted by the representatives of Ireland as a Government which is determined to give effect not only to the views of Ireland, but to the views, I believe, of all parties in this country and to the unanimous and oft-expressed opinion of the Colonies and Dominions of the Empire. We know that there is a demand for a settlement, but nothing that the Prime Minister has said on the subject can meet with the approval of any Member who sits on those benches, and personally I entertain very little hope that when the Prime Minister returns from his visit to France he will have anything to say which will give more hope, more comfort, and more satisfaction to the people of Ireland than they have been able to derive from any of his utterances in the past.
  Looking at the position of the Government as Englishmen and Scotsmen may look at it, can anyone say that this Coalition Government deserves, or the Coalition Government which preceded it

  1761
  deserved, the confidence of the country or an extension of their tenure of office and control of the State? I remember the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Carson), when he was opposing the length of extension of life which it was proposed to give to the former Government in 1916. He said that the Jess time we gave to the Government and the shorter periods by which we continued their existence the better it was for the country. Can anyone maintain that this Coalition Government are anything better or more acceptable to the people of this country or to the people of Ireland than their predecessors in office? Are they more acceptable to the people of this country or to the people of Ireland because the former First Lord of the Admiralty has been deposed, and because the present First Lord of the Admiralty is the right hon. and learned Gentleman who sits for Trinity College, Dublin? Let us not forget that it has been stated by the present Prime Minister and by the late Prime Minister that unless there is a settlement of the question of Irish Home Rule English statesmanship will have to confess its bankruptcy. In the same way we have heard from members of this Government and from members of the former Government that the settlement of the Irish problem is not merely an Irish question and not merely a question deeply affecting the interests of the Empire, but is a war necessity. How has this Government treated that war necessity? The present Government, with their experience of the negotiations of June and July of last year and with their knowledge they possess of Nationalist Ireland and of what will be acceptable to the people of Nationalist Ireland know very well that the only line on which a settlement can be acceptable to the people of Ireland will be by setting up Home Rule for the whole of Ireland, preserving the essential unity of the country, and, if they are not going to do that, the position they will occupy will be that as described by the late Prime Minister of confessed political bankruptcy. I oppose the Third Reading of this Bill because the Government have failed to convince Ireland, and I am sure they have failed to convince this country, that they are firm and sincere in their purpose dealing with Ireland. I do not think this measure is necessary. If the Government had been prepared to make a settlement
  1762
  of the Irish question, they should have declared the terms they propose to incorporate in that settlement before this Bill was introduced. I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister, although he was able to come to this House and deal with another matter of infinitely less importance to Ireland or this country, or to any single individual in this country—
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: That was only a personal matter.
  Mr. SCANLAN: He found it possible to come down to this House and to devote a certain amount of his time to giving a personal explanation, and I fail to see what prevented him on the same day giving the House a statement and a declaration of his Irish policy. I fail to see that the Leader of the House or any of his colleagues in the Government have given any cogent reason why at the present time this House should give an extension of time to this Government to continue in office, and on that account I find it necessary to adopt the course of supporting my hon. Friend in opposing the Third Reading of this Bill, and I hope that we shall be supported in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. DONOVAN: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), in resisting the Third Reading of this Bill. I recognise that if logic and argument and reason and fair play obtained in this House it would not be necessary for the Members on these benches to oppose this Bill, because if you gave to us the right to return to our own country and to legislate for ourselves in the capital of our country we should not be troubling you in connection with a Bill of this character. I remember well that my entering this House synchronised with the outbreak of hostilities in August, 1914, and we then heard the magic whisper of a truce among all parties. Here we are to-day, and we see where the truce is. You have no truce, simply because successive Governments have broken faith with Ireland. At the beginning we promised you the assistance of the Jrish people in carrying this War to a successful termination. You have blundered stupidly in your dealings with the Irish people, and now, after the blunders of your War Office, and after your maladministration during two and a half years of war, having done everything practically to undermine our position in the country, you have the temerity to suggest that we do not

  1763
  retain the confidence of our people. We are here for the purpose of getting this Bill rejected in order that we may return to Ireland and test the feeling of the people as to whether or not we have their confidence. We on these benches are supporters of constitutionalism. The elder representatives on these benches have fought the fight for Irish legislative independence for the last forty years in a constitutional way, but through your sinister efforts in Ireland you have caused the re-existence of the physical force party in that country, with the result that to-day we are threatened as a constitutional party. All I can say is that if the constitutional party ceases to exist you in this House—I am not making any threat—will have entering this House a Sinn Fein party, which would have no regard whatever for your symbols of authority or your talk about law and order so long as they were suffering under the injustices from which they are suffering.
  9.0 P.M.
  The Irish representatives felt, when you entered into this War for the vindication of the rights of small nationalities, that you ought to give them that measure of freedom which they had won by constitutional efforts. You have denied them that right. So long as you deny the Irish people the right to rule themselves, so long will they come here and oppose your Bills. It is for that reason that I. as a young member of the party, oppose this Bill. I reflect a good deal of the sentiments of the young men in Ireland when I say that if you do not settle this question quickly and in a manner satisfactory to the Irish people you will have a state of feeling in Ireland that will bode no good for the future relations between the English and Irish people. The Irish Members on these benches have made every effort to reconcile the English and the Irish democracies. They have fought their battle through the English constituencies and have converted the majority of the English people to their way of thinking in connection with the right of Ireland to enjoy national autonomy. It is rather late in the day for us to have to come here and beg for what we have won fairly and squarely as a constitutional point. For that reason, so far as we are concerned, we do not fear a General Election. We are prepared to go over and stand by our principles as against the principles of the extreme party in Ireland. If the result should go against us it is
  1764
  not Ireland that will suffer, but the British Empire. Our people have been so often disappointed in connection with the broken promises of English Ministers that they naturally no longer put any faith in what is said from the Treasury Bench. It is all very well to make promises and suggest makeshifts as being likely to settle the Irish question. The only settlement of the Irish question which will be acceptable to us is a settlement upon the line of the present Home Rule Act—that is, a National Assembly for the entire country. We have reason for feeling that we are not being properly treated by the Government in regard to the taxation of Ireland. At the present time we are paying something like £24,000,000 a year. ID should be remembered that by the findings of the Financial Relations Commission we are mulcted in more than £2,750,000 of overtaxation. We are not only paying our own way, but we are paying more than £12,000,000 a year. Ireland is not like the Colonies. As a result of the War Loans, the Colonies have received something like £890,000,000 to assist them in participating in this War. You do not give Ireland anything in the shape of loans, but you tax them for the upkeep of all the Departments of the Empire. You tax them in a way that works out unjustly as compared with the taxation levied on the English or the Welsh. We believe the time has come when we ought to have an opportunity of getting a mandate from our people to say that they will no longer put up with this system of overtaxation in Ireland. Ireland stands in a different position from that of the great industrial countries included in Great Britain. You are spending millions of pounds in Great Britain; you are spending a paltry few thousands, speaking comparatively, in Ireland in wages in connection with munitions work. We have a grievance on that point. For these and other reasons we are anxious to go before our constituents to see whether we retain their confidence. We believe we do, and for that reason I support the hon. Member for Sligo in saying that this Bill ought to be rejected, and that so far as the Irish people are concerned they should have the right of declaring their will at this juncture.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: I rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill on account of the inaction of the Government in reference to the Irish question. The present attitude of the Government has

  1765
  strained to the utmost the friendly relations that existed between Ireland and this country, at the beginning of the War. There has not been a battlefield in France or elsewhere during the present War that has not been sanctified by Irish blood; there has not been a battlefield on which Irish heroism has not confirmed its proudest traditions. For what have our men been fighting? For the freedom and liberty of the small nations, particularly for the freedom and liberty of that small nation in which our hopes and our hearts always have been and will be eternally centred—Ireland. How have the present Government treated Ireland? They have refused to concede our demand for selfgovernment. They have pandered to a minority, and they have sacrificed the hopes of a majority on the altar of prejudice and bigotry. Is it any wonder, in these circumstances, that many of our people should have lost the little faith they had in the promises of British statesmen, and, in despair, have reverted to a policy of physical force? In dealing with this question I have to ask myself, Are British statesmen hypocritical poseurs or are they genuine in their propaganda and protestations in regard to the liberty and freedom of small nations? We demand the application to Ireland of that principle for which the Allies are fighting, and we are told that our demand is impeding the progress of the War. I say that the refusal of that demand is impeding the progress of the War and is imperilling the future of the small nationalities of the world. The Government's continued refusal to confer on Ireland the full measure of self-government to which we are entitled tends to create dissension and disunion amongst the Allies, because they cannot close their eyes to the spectacle of Ireland demanding the application of that principle to herself. Yesterday the Leader of the House said:
  "We may be right or wrong. I know that many of my Friends do not agree with me, but. as a Government, we do believe that if it were possible to settle this question it would be a distinct advantage in the prosecution of the War."
  Who stands in the way? We do not stand in the way, and if we were convinced that in the near future the Government would evolve any satisfactory solution, instead of opposing the Third Reading of the Bill we should be prepared to give Parliament a still longer lease of life. But there is no reasonable hope as long as you have in the Govern-
  1766
  ment the First Lord of the Admiralty, a potential rebel, pledged by his covenant to resist the application to Ireland of the measure of self-government which this House has granted to it. As long as he is in the Government there is very little hope.
  Then when you consider the question further, and consider that in a constitutionally-governed country this dictum is laid down, that a minority cannot be coerced into accepting the enactments of a free and independent Parliament, the little hope we had vanishes in the atmosphere that the suggestion of such a dictum creates. This dictum, in my opinion, has shaken the foundation of constitutional Government. It is a complete surrender to lawlessness and anarchy, and it has given strength to the position of the enemies of this party in our demands for a full legislative government for Ireland. It may be said that we are not genuine in our desire for an election. I say we are. We want to go back to our people to put our position clearly before them. We want to show that if their hopes have been deferred it is not our fault, but the blame is on the Government of the day and the Government which it replaced. We want to go back to them and make our position clear, a position which we shall always maintain, a position of absolute belief in constitutional legislation. On the Second Beading yesterday the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell) reflected on public men in Ireland. He stated that the great bulk of the men on the public boards were getting Government money and did not represent their constituents, and that was his argument for an immediate election. I repudiate that statement. I deprecate that uncalled for attack on the men who sit on the public boards of Ireland, whose character and honour are safe in the hands of their constituents, and for that reason I should like to have an election soon. It would be the best answer that the people of Ireland could give to those who say that in rejecting the policy that has been put before the country they do not represent the voice and feelings of the country. The reason of the hon. Member's attack is this. A certain programme was put before the country and* practically unanimously, the public boards of Ireland have rejected that and have reaffirmed their belief in constitutional agitation for Ireland and the party which represents her in this House. I am sorry to have referred to

  1767
  the matter but I could not allow the opportunity to pass without endeavouring to vindicate the men who have devoted all their time to the public boards of Ireland without fee, favour, or reward. The hon. Member is flirting with that policy which is put before the country because he has not the courage to carry it out in its entirety. I hope the House will reject the Bill.
  Mr. LUNDON: I should like to join with my colleagues from Ireland in opposition to the Bill. The sooner we get back to Ireland, attacking not alone our political opponents in the Sinn Fein party but our political opponents in other parties allied with them, the better it will be for ourselves, for the constitutional movement and for this House, because after all, we have to face more than Sinn Fein in Ireland. We have to face the men who are out for an Irish Republic, associated with men of the Pretyman-Newman type and of the type of Robert Saunders, and with the old inveterate enemies of the Irish Nationalist movement and of Irish Nationalist sentiment. You have every crank, every sorehead, every man who has applied for a Government position and been disappointed, out to attack the Irish Parliamentary party, and, taking all the circumstances into account, the sooner we get back the better it will be for ourselves even though we have to come back to the House in far smaller numbers than to-day. I am not very much surprised at the hostility which there is in Ireland against any authority from this side of the Channel, because the leaders of the Sinn Fein movement, the men who are forming a new party and a new policy, are young men. They have not seen the work of the agitation of the last thirty-five years, but they have seen that for the last three years promises have been made by members of this Government and of the two previous ones, pledging themselves to confer upon Ireland the right of national self-government. They have seen every one of those promises tumbling to the ground, withdrawn, or many of them absolutely denied, because the First Lord of the Admiralty says, "I shall not have it." Let me ask the House, Was there ever a better opportunity for a settlement of the Irish question on a broad, generous basis than there is to-day? Take the Press of this country. Is there a single newspaper in Great Britain, except the "Morning Post," that is not out for a settlement
  1768
  of this great crisis? Is there a Member of Parliament belonging cither to the Liberal or the Tory ranks, outside a few diehards, who is not anxious to see a-friendly settlement and a better feeling existing in Ireland? The honest and consistent Unionists of Ireland, who are anxious to see this old feud abandoned, are as anxious for a generous settlement as we are. But the way is blocked, and it is blocked by one man and by one party, and that man sits on that Front Bench directing the policy of the Navy, while the men who are at his back are a few thousand fanatics in the North of Ireland. Our position in Ireland will be made all the more difficult next week because the Chief Secretary knows that for the last three or four weeks the hopes of the Irish people have been in the ascendant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an announcement that for the bettor prosecution of the War—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member must not seize the opportunity on the Third Heading of this Bill of going into the whole Irish question.
  Mr. LUNDON: I do not know, but the last speaker did.
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: Would not my hon. Friend be justified in showing, as he has tried to do, the grievances of Irish Government as a proper argument for an appeal to the country and that the Gentlemen who propagate those grievances should go to the country and give an account of themselves? That is rather a wide latitude that should be given on the Third Reading of such a Rill as this.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member had listened as I have listened to this Debate, I think he would agree with me that a very wide latitude has been allowed, and it was because I was afraid that he was going beyond the reach of even a wide latitude that I asked the hon. Member to speak more directly to the question before the House.
  Mr. LUNDON: The reason we are opposed to this Bill is in order that we can go back to Ireland, and at the same time to give a chance to the electors of this country of saying whether or not they approve the policy which the present Government has adopted towards Ireland. As regards the condition of Ireland, I would like to say, as I was saying

  1769
  before you hauled me up, that the hopes of the people of Ireland were in the ascendant on account of the attitude of British Ministers, but that next week things will be different, because of the possibility, and it is almost a probability, that the Prime Minister will come down and say, "I will give you certain terms"—terms, I have no doubt, drawn up by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the same point again. The hon. Member is going into detail on matters which are really not relevant to this Debate.
  Mr. LUNDON: I will not mention the name of the First Lord of the Admiralty again. Perhaps he is better left alone. The fact of mentioning his name incurs displeasure, and he is such a mighty man that I had better leave him out. But I must say this, that our position in Ireland is made more difficult—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The reference to the name of any Member, however distinguished, was not the reason why I called the hon. Member to order. I asked him not to go into great detail in regard to the Irish question. I again ask him not to do so, and I remind him that it is the third time I have directed his attention to the fact that he is irrelevant.
  Mr. LUNDON: The Chief Secretary and his administration in Ireland has largely helped the policy of Sinn Fein. Just imagine men and boys being brought up and court-martialled before removable magistrates for whistling "The Wearing of the Green"! Others are being sentenced to months of imprisonment for singing "The Felons of our Land. "I sang" The Felons of our Land "and "Who fears to speak of '98" for the late Prime Minister. I sang them at the invitation of the late Prime Minister. If a man is going to get a month or six weeks' imprisonment for singing "The Felons of our Land," I think the right hon. Gentleman who asks a person to sing it ought to get the same penalty. The right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister when he asked me to sing it. Of course, we are living in different times now. These petty things are taken up by the police and by the Crown, and they are helping to make our position more difficult and to make our enemies more numerous So far as we are concerned, we are anxious and willing that an election
  1770
  should take place, and it is because we are anxious and willing that it should take place that we are opposing the Third Reading of this Bill, and that we intend to register our protest in the Division Lobby. I trust that the Chief Secretary, whether we have an election or not, will change his policy so far as petty prosecutions in Ireland are concerned. I know of an instance only the other night of nine or ten men who were returning from a graveyard, after placing a wreath upon the grave of one of the men who died during the recent rebellion. They were going along peacably, not whistling "The Wearing of the Green," not singing "The Felons of our Land," but nine were taken from the procession and put into prison. Is that the way to get peace in Ireland? Is that the way to make our path smoother than it has been during the last few years? The Chief Secretary's understrappers are playing the part of Sinn Fein, because they want to wreck this movement, and they want to wreck our party, because, with the wreckage of our party, you will have the promotion of men of the stamp of Major Price. Therefore, our opposition to this Bill is based upon genuine grounds, and because it is based upon those grounds we are going to enter our protest, not only by speaking against it, but by voting against it in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. P. WHITE: I rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, because in my opinion the condition of Ireland as a small nationality in Europe is one of urgent and pressing importance. The Government who perpetuate the present maladministration of that country ought not to be allowed twenty-four hours' lease of life. They ought to be compelled to go to their constituents in order that they might answer before them for the permanent disgrace which they are bringing upon this country by the misgovern-ment of Ireland. They are flaunting in the face of Europe that they are out for small nationalities, while at their own door there is misgoverned and tyrannised over by them an older nationality perhaps than any in Europe. If there is a stranger in the Gallery who asks why this handful of men on these benches oppose the rest of the House in this matter, I will tell him that the reason is that the present government of Ireland is no better than, but analogous to, the government of Russia before the late Czar was deposed. The Chief Secre-

  1771
  tary for Ireland a few weeks ago asked what he could do in Ireland, except be guided by the advice of his experts and by the heads of his permannent departments; what could he do, except do what he was told by those Castle officials, who have long been the curse of Ireland and brought discredit upon this country, and act upon their advice and flout the representatives of the people. Is there any other country in Europe, Russia, Finland, or Poland where such a state of affairs exists? Not one. No country in Europe has suffered half as much, or has bled half so freely.
  My hon. Friend deprecated rebellion. I do not always join in that cry. I believe that rebellion, if it had a chance of success, is always justifiable in Ireland. Rebellion is always justifiable where the elected representatives of the people have no voice in the government of the country. How are you to upset an autocracy, how was the Russian autocracy upset, except by rebellion? It is just as justifiable in Ireland to-day as it was in Russia two weeks ago. Until, to use the language of the American President, you have in Ireland government of the people, for the people, and by the people, you can have no real settlement in any country. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite, instead of sympathising with the people of Ireland, instead or saying a few soft words and making a few vague promises, go to the root of this question, make peace with the people of Ireland and bring about not a union of force, but a voluntary union, a union of equals on equal terms, he will make the sister country the heartfelt upholder of the laws of this country. You can do that it you will. But in order to do that you must give full free self-government to Ireland. Ireland must have control over its future destinies, fiscal and commercial. It is entitled to full commercial control. It is entitled to develop its own land, its own trade, its own commerce, its own interests as it thinks best. It is entitled to collect its own taxes and spend and apportion them as it thinks best. Unless you are prepared to do that no halting half measures will ever bring peace between the two countries. It is idle to give to Ireland measures controlled by high officialdom. It will only perpetuate the struggle, of which it is the interest of this country to effect a permanent settlement.
  1772
  If the right hon. Gentleman only knew half the iniquities which are perpetrated in Ireland in his name, I believe that he would blush to sit on the Treasury Bench and defend them. I believe, at all events, he went to Ireland with the best intentions. I believe that he has the best intentions still, but I know that he is overpowered by the mass of officialdom which weighs down every Chief Secretary who goes to Dublin Castle. The first duty of the Chief Secretary when he goes to Ireland is to go round the country in a perambulator pushed by Sir Henry Robinson, President of the Local Government Board. He takes from him all his advice and his first lessons on that country. In the delightful tour through the West of Ireland he thinks that he imbibes more about the hearts and spirit of the people than by listening to their representatives in this House. I recollect a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman who was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland. I believe that he now sits on the Treasury Bench. He went on a short visit to Ireland. He came back. He was accused when he came back to this House of having taken the advice and guidance of the permanent officials. He said, "No; I was on the boat and I met a gentleman who told me all about Ireland." That is the case still. They select everybody to guide them except those who represent the people, who can enter into the minds and hearts and souls and sympathies of the people, and can speak for them according to their wishes. In those circumstances, how can we for a moment, consistently with our duty, continue the existence of such a Government for another day? It is their clear duty to go to the country to reconcile the government of Ireland with their declarations before Europe and the world. It is their clear duty, unless they are to appear before Europe as the arch-hypocrites of civilisation, to make peace at home, to make peace with a generous people who have always treated this country well in spite of the bad fiscal treatment and the bad treatment in other respects to which they have been subjected by an alien Government. While it is not yet too late I hope that the Chief Secretary will stand up and say that they will take the opinions of the people of this country upon the action of the Government in Ireland.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I oppose the Third Reading of this Bill on grounds somewhat different from those that have been enun-

  1773
  ciated by previous speakers. For many years I have had a great deal of confidence in the desire of the British democraey to do justice to Ireland and to give her the right to manage her own affairs, and I remember on several occasions, and especially on a recent occasion, when the Labour party in this House, the direct representatives of organised labour in Great Britain, passed a Resolution calling upon the Prime Minister and the Government of the day to proceed without delay to put the Home Rule Act into force to give to Ireland the right to manage her own affairs, and, by doing so, do more for the successful prosecution of the War than by any other course which it was possible for them to adopt. My faith in the democracy of this country is not shattered. My faith even in some hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench is not shattered. I as a clansman, still believing in clanship, have hopes for certain clansmen who now occupy seats on the Treasury Bench, and I have great hopes for the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I recognise the anomalous and difficult position which he occupies. I believe the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be a good man struggling with adversity. I have no doubt that if he had autocratic power in this matter, Ireland would not be long without being in the enjoyment of Home Rule. The Chief Secretary for Ireland is not an autocrat, and he now finds himself in a difficult situation, the difficulty, to my mind, being that certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this country, members of His Majesty's present Administration, have in an evil moment committed themselves by speech to a certain line of policy, which resolves itself into this, namely, that the minority has the right permanently to coerce the majority. I do not believe for a moment that the democracy of England or of Scotland or of Wales would for an instant put up with the dictum that the minority has the right to coerce the majority. If that were so, what becomes of democracy, what becomes of constitutional Government? It is because of that I want the English people to have the opportunity of declaring their opinion of these points, and that I want a General Election.
  Further, I want a General Election to make my own position perfectly clear to my own people. I remember the time, not so many years ago, when I was convinced that I should never see the day when I would cheer a British
  1774
  victory at home or abroad. What has changed my mind? The belief I have that the British democracy will put an end, once and for all, to all this ancient strife. As I said, I want to put myself light with my own people. They say to me, "It is rather late in the day for you to cheer British victories in France or in any part of the world." I admit freely that I once thought that I would never live to see the day that I would not cheer a British defeat. During the whole of the Boer War I did not miss cheering onthusiasti-cally any reverse to British arms, and it was because I believed this country was absolutely wrong and that the Boers were fighting in the cause of freedom and justice, fighting for the right of small nationalities to manage their own affairs. It is exactly the same doctrine which was enunciated the other day by General Smuts. That is why I cheered the defeats of the British in South Africa. But the British democracy has brought me to a better state of mind. It has induced me and several of my colleagues who sit on these benches to believe in it. Being above military age themselves, they gave their sons to fight in the cause of liberty, both in Flanders and in France. Three of my colleagues have had their sons killed. The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Connemara heard that his son was killed while fighting in France for the cause of human rights and human liberty, and the interests of civilisation. The British democracy has converted me from what I was to become a supporter of this country in its cause. It is because I believe that England at the present day is fighting in the interest of civilisation and of common humanity that my views are very much changed from what they were some few years ago.
  I do not believe that the British democracy wants a continuance of the present disagreement that exists between England and Ireland. I believe that at the earliest opportunity the world will see that the British democracy is earnest and is honest in its declaration that, while it supports the Government, it is fighting: for the freedom of small nationalities abroad. The British democracy thinks that charity ought to begin at home, and that it is a reflection upon it if Ireland is not the first country to receive its national rights. What is the difficulty? It is that a small section of religious bigots in the North-East part of Ireland are, some of them, so extreme, so un-

  1775
  reasonable, and so fanatical that they would sooner see the Germans win to-morrow than that Ireland should get Home Rule. That may seem a very extreme statement to make, but how long ago is it that in a Debate; in this House the extraordinary spectacle was witnessed of the hon. Member for Enfield telling the House of Commons that if he had been in North Roscommon he would have voted for Lord Plunkett, and yet he gets up in this House of Commons and proclaims that he and the members of the minority are the only loyal people in Ireland. I want to give the British democracy some understanding of gentlemen of that kind in Ireland, whether they come from county Cork or the city of Belfast. The Chief Secretary is probably not aware that the head schoolmaster or his descendant still exists in Ireland, and that the local country poet still exists in Ireland. I noticed the other day that a peasant who was singing the doggerel rhyme of one of the country poets was arrested by the police, to be brought before, I think, the High Court of Justice. They regarded his crime as of such a heinous character that they did not think he could be brought before two removables and that he should be brought before the High Court of Justice—I think before the Lord Chief Justice, whose record we all know as a Crown Prosecutor. May I bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary that this humble peasant was going to be given two years' penal servitude—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member's observations are not relevant to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I think I can show you in a moment that they are extremely relevant, and it is because of this outrage perpetrated upon a humble Irish peasant that I want to see a General Election, and to see an end of this system.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The whole Irish question is not open to debate. The hon. Member has exceeded the wide limits of debate which I permitted, but he must not continue to do so.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I will try to observe your ruling, Sir, so far as my limited capacity will allow me, and if I transgress your ruling, I am quite sure that it will not be done out of any disrespect to the Chair, but will be entirely due to my want of knowledge of the procedure of this
  1776
  House. One reason among many why I want a General Election, and why I am opposed to the continuance of the life of Parliament, is that I am against the continuance of the life of the present Government. Why I am opposed to the continuance of the life of the present Government is due to their action against some of the humbler peasantry of Ireland. I do not know whether that is logical or not?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It may seem logical to the hon. Member, but it is not in order.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I will have to abandon that line of argument in deference to your ruling. I much regret to have to do so, and I shall have to take some other method of giving this doggerel to the world. It would be unfair on my part to deprive the British democracy of this doggerel. I do not want to come into collision with the Chair, though it is quite possible I might have got it in before your attention was so intimately drawn to the fact that I was bordering on the rules of order. I do not want to give a further lease of life to the propagation of physical force in Ireland, and it is because I do not want to give them any further time for an increase of their power that I desire a General Election at the earliest moment. I know the misfortunes well and intimately that revolutionary methods and physical force have brought upon many of my race and of my country, and I do not desire to see them either re-enacted or perpetuated. It is for that reason that I desire that the opportunity should be given to me and to all my colleagues sitting on these, benches to put our position clearly before our own people and to give the Irish people at home the opportunity of declaring whether they are in favour of revolutionary or constitutional methods. If a majority of the Irish people at home declare in the ballot boxes that they are in favour of revolutionary methods I shall retire to my native obscurity for the rest of my life and let revolutionary methods have a fair chance.
  I remember a long time ago I happened to be one of a small dinner-party of fourteen or fifteen in another country, where everyone present was a man directly and intimately associated with revolutionary methods. I was the only one amongst them who had not taken an oath which if I had taken and if the Chief Secretary was aware of it it would probably succeed in getting me five or seven years' penal

  1777
  servitude. A proposition was made to me, "if you constitutionalists are given a fair chance of success by us and if we give you our moral support, and if you fail will you agree to stand aside as soon as it is made clear to the world by the British Government that constitutionalism cannot succeed and give us a fair chance." I thought that proposition extremely fair. If the constitutional movement fails to-morrow I shall remember the statement I made on that occasion, and retire, as I have said, into my native obscurity and give the revolutionaries a chance. There is another reason why I want to see a General Election immediately. I. want to see the Germans beaten in this War. I do not want to see another European War for another fifty or a hundred years. An hon. Gentleman seems rather surprised that I gave myself such a lease of life, but why should I be anxious to deprive myself of my own existence even if it does not please him. In the near future the race to which I am proud to belong will have more trained soldiers than it ever had before. I see plainly that one of the results will be that when the Germans are beaten the Irish-American will say to himself, "I have fought for freedom for every small country in Europe, but my own country has not got it." I do not want to see future collisions between the two races, and I believe that one of the ways of averting such a collision, in my opinion an inevitable collision, if you refuse to give Ireland Home Rule, is to give the British democracy a chance at the present time against this Government, and to give them a chance of doing not alone a good day's work for England, but also for Ireland, and for civilisation and common humanity. Those are the reasons why I oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. My last reason is out of pure respect and friendship for the Chief Secretary. It outrages my better feelings to see a good man day after day struggling hopelessly with adversity, such as the Chief Secretary for Ireland does.
  Colonel SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: I rise to say a word on behalf of those who have the honour to wear the same uniform as that which I have the honour to wear and they include Nationalists and Unionists who, if an election took place, as the Nationalist party desires, would be debarred from the franchise. I support the Bill as a Unionist Member. Whatever attack has been made on the First Lord of the Admiralty by hon. Members below the
  1778
  Gangway I only wish to say, on behalf of the Unionist Members, that we heartily sympathise and co-operate in everything the First Lord of the Admiralty has done, and we are to blame as well as he is. I am not going to speak on the Irish question as it would not be in order, and I support the Bill chiefly on account of the position of those wearing the uniform.
  Mr. KEATING: The Third Reading of this Bill, I suppose, is practically decided upon, but it is just as well that the House of Commons and the British people should realise the feeling that we Irish Members have about the present situation. I do not want to go into any matters which are not germane to the subject before the House, but questions have been raised both in this House and in the Press which make it necessary for any man who is a friend of Ireland and a friend of Great Britain and a friend of the Empire, as I am, to put the position quite clearly before the Members of this House, and, as far as I am able to do so, before the people of the United Kingdom. I have noticed during the Debate this evening a smile of amusement on the face of many Members of this House at the passionate expressions of feeling which have emanated from these benches. I advise these Members to pay more attention to the feelings expressed than to the amusement aroused in their breasts. The Irish people, I think, have demonstrated in their past and present history a title to be respected on all grounds upon which human respect rests, and if our present attitude has in the slightest degree aroused anything but respect and dignity in the minds of the Members of this House, I warn them that the power of the Irish race in America and the Dominions and in Ireland is sufficiently strong to put up with the consequences of all they can do to us. I repudiate with contempt and defiance that superior attitude which some of the Members of this House assume towards Ireland and the Irish race and the cause for which they are fighting. I am as free a man as any man in this House, and I belong to a race which you in your wisdom and your majesty and your power regard as a brilliant race; but, as Bernard Shaw says in one of his plays, "Their talk is all tommy rot, you know."
  10.0 P.M.
  It is not a superficial expression of opinion that you have to deal with, but a deep-rooted determination to demand all that liberty and all that freedom which

  1779
  any race is entitled to demand, and which you are fighting for and which we are fighting for. When war broke out my Constituency sent as many men proportionately to fight against the scientific barbarians of Europe as any constituency in this country. How was it received? We came to you with generous hearts, with a common determination to fight for liberty. The War Office and the members of the British Government in Ireland said, "It is all very well for you to render service to this cause in the Army, but surely you are not entitled to liberty or to be regarded as being competent to demand the principles for which we are fighting." If it was the Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty, that would be a different matter. He is the superman, the super-patriot; he is to be entitled to all the credit of a great super-patriot and all the luxury of a great rebel. He was allowed special privileges in recognition both of himself and of those who are associated with him, but we were denied anything like a similar standard at the time that we were willing and anxious to use all our influence with our own people to promote the common cause which every one of us is anxious to see successful. I do not think it is entirely out of order to refer to the root causes which animate our attitude to-night. The Irish representatives are as anxious as anybody in this House can be to see justice done and to further the successful prosecution of the War, but what is our position? I ask Members of this House, if they possibly can do so, to put themselves in our position. In the first place, we used all our influence and all our force for the purpose of persuading our people that this was Ireland's war as much as England's war.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER Mr. Whitley: Really, this is not relevant to the Motion before the House.
  Mr. KEATING: I am sorry, Sir. I am sure you will exonerate me from any desire to trespass upon the latitude which you allow, and I will not pursue that line any more. But I was endeavouring to explain to the House the root causes which animate our attitude to-night. So far as this Bill is concerned we are in a dilemma. We do not want to do anything to stop the successful prosecution of the War. God forbid. Many of us have
  1780
  our relatives fighting in France to-night, and they may probably die to-morrow. Therefore, none of us want to do anything that will stop the successful organisation of all the forces at our command to enable our brave lads to win the victory which we are all anxious to achieve. But the dilemma that I am in—I speak for myself, and I suppose I typify what my party stands for—is this: that we are engaged in a fight for liberty, and we are denied liberty. Why are we denied liberty? Because the Government, which is the Government because they simply would not wait and see, are not applying that principle to this question of Ireland. They are going to wait and see what happens. In everything else they want to do it now. I am quite convinced of this, that there is a passionate conviction in the minds and in the hearts of nine-tenths of the British people that the time for an Irish settlement is now, and that there is no need to wait and see what will happen in the future. The only reason why the settlement is not effected is because a successful remnant has terrified the powers of government in this country. What are we to do when we go to Ireland? Here is the position. We proclaim with loud voices the success of the Russian democracy. We glorify the victory, the power, and liberty, which has fortunately come to successful birth in Russia. We are called upon to rejoice in that fact. The inherent justice of the cause of the War has induced America to come in and join with all of us in putting down a military autocracy and an administrative bureaucracy. Everywhere in the world except in Ireland, and I think that this Bill, although in practical effect it may help in promoting the War even more successfully than it is being promoted at present, leaves Ireland and the Irish representatives in a very ignominious position. We have helped you and fought for you in this War. We have the Home Rule Bill on the Statute Book; your own folly and your own stupidity have driven a small portion of our race into carrying into effect what the First Lord of the Admiralty threatened to do, and because of that—a small handful of our people carried away by their ideals, for which they have had the courage to die—and in defiance of all the precedents of your history, you shot the leading men for doing it.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Really it is not open to hon. Members on this Motion

  1781
  to discuss the general government of Ireland. It is quite outside the scope of the question now before the House.
  Mr. KEATING: I must say in all sincerity that I had no intention of trespassing at all on your ruling. [Laughter.] I may be unfortunate enough not to convey to the superior intelligence of certain Members of this House the motives that inspire me, but I shall put up with that misfortune. I think myself that I was perfectly consistent in the argument I was pursuing in pointing out to the House the dilemma in which I found myself to be. We are denied that liberty for which you are fighting, and we are asked to go on being denied it. Why do you do that? I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to ask the House upon this Bill, and if unfortunately, in the progagation of that argument, I stepped outside, I can assure you I did so quite unwittingly. I submit I am perfectly entitled to pursue the argument I am pursuing, namely, to show the dilemma and injustice which is being inflicted upon us by this Bill. If I am fallacious in my reasoning, there are many well-qualified reasoners in this House who can demonstrate where that fallacy is. I defy them to do it. The practical issue which we have to face, both in this House and in this country, is this: By the folly and stupidity of the Administration—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue that. I have twice warned him that that is not within the scope of the present Motion, and he must not pursue it.
  Mr. KEATING: I think I am entitled to defend myself against the inference that I am wilfully opposing your ruling—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have endeavoured to guide the hon. Member. I do not suppose that he is wilfully defying my ruling, but if he goes further I shall have to change my mind after the third warning. There are not usually more than two.
  Mr. KEATING: I am only unfortunate in the understanding of the intention that you had in your mind, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We oppose this Bill because we want the Government to go to the country and we want to go to the country. We want to go to the country in order to get a renewed mandate from our own people to continue the work of constitutional effort for reform, and the longer you delay
  1782
  that the more you will strengthen the hands of those who are imitating another party in the action of something very different to constitutional agitation. I want, so long as I am able to do so, and so far as my limited powers will allow me, to convince the House of the necessity of this course. If I had the power and the eloquence, nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to persuade Members of the House to defeat this Bill, because I am quite convinced that the British House of Commons does not represent the feelings of the British people upon the Irish question. I would not be a bit afraid of taking the opinion of the British people upon the justice and expediency of giving to Ireland the fruits of her constitutional efforts. One of those is enshrined in the pages of the Statute Book. Another is something that will benefit the people of England very much more than the people of Ireland—that is the destruction of the autocratic power of the Prussians of another House to defeat British legislation. The point I wish to make I have made. We are not a bit afraid of a General Election. If anybody in this House challenges us and sneers at the tone of Bombastes Furioso, we reply that we do not shrink from the result of an election. We will come back again with more power, strength, vigour, and determination to promote the Irish cause in the House of Commons.
  Mr. FIELD: I will not delay the House for more than a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I hope, however, the House will listen to what I have to say, because it is not from the Irish point of view that I wish to address the House, it is as an old Member of twenty-five years standing, as a Member of Parliament, of the British House of Commons, which I do not want to remain, I want to put a point of view to the Front Bench. My reason for opposing the prolongation of the life of Parliament is because I am a Member of Parliament, and because Members of Parliament now have really no power whatever in this House. We are simply cyphers, behind the leading figures on the Front Bench. We have at the present time what is called a British Government, but which really consists of an oligarchical constitution of gentlemen who force their will on the House of Commons. We have a Council of War. We have a select coterie carrying on the War. I am not opposed to the War. I want to defeat the Prussians and I

  1783
  want that as sincerely as any member of the Front Bench. If we go on as we are going on Parliament is really a fraud. Members of Parliament are supposed to have some power. We are only here as voting machines! The order is given by whoever happens to be in command of the House, and we have an extraordinary condition of affairs at the present time. The Prime Minister who, during my time, has always been here to lead the House we never see except on extraordinary occasions, when we get the benefit of his eloquence to pass the particular Bills. We bad him last night because it was a particular occasion last night. I should be out of order in discussing that question further than to say this, that amongst the other extraordinary edicts from the Front Bench, apparently not only the liberty of the subject but the liberty of the Pres3 is to be attacked in this what is called "the Mother of Parliaments."
  I think this point that I have brought before the House is worthy of consideration. There is an old Latin proverb, "Major lex major injuria" ("The greater the law the greater the injury"), and here we have a great law promulgated by the collection of all the talents on the Front Bench, and we ordinary Members of the House of Commons are not supposed to have sufficient intelligence even to criticise their action. It appears to me that that is a very extraordinary condition of things, and the reason I oppose the prolongation of Parliament is that this is really not a Parliament at all at the present time. I would like to hear a reply from the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to what I have said. It may be regarded as a matter for laughter, but in my view it is a very serious matter, because the whole scheme of Parliamentary functions has been changed recently, and we are getting so accustomed to it that very little attention has been paid to this view of the subject. I do not think we can go on for ever in the style carried on at the present time; otherwise you might just as well put up a placard saying that you are expected to vote in a particular way, with the result that whatever the Government wishes has to be done. I will support the Government in the prosecution of the War, but while we are fighting for the liberty of small nations, we also want to fight for the liberty of private Members of the House of Commons, and I trust that some atten-
  1784
  tion will be paid to these remarks of mine, because I regard the position of the House of Commons now as a very dangerous one, and the longer we go on the worse the position gets. There is an old proverb which says, "Time, which weakens everything else, adds new strength to bad habits," and when all mankind, more or less, are creatures of habit, we get into habits of thought and habits of action—
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: And habits of office!
  Mr. FIELD: Yes; I am coming to that. The official mind gets into that groove of thought that they come to consider themselves as infallible. What is to become of the democracy of this country in the immediate future? Parliament is not now a democratic institution at all because the voice of the people is smothered here and the men who take up an independent position are considered to be cranks or faddists who ought to be removed as soon as possible from the sphere of active, practical politics. I trust that these considerations will have some attention, because I am perfectly serious in stating that in my view private Members of Parliament are deprived, I do not say of their privileges, but of their rights. Are we sent here to be dummies? What have we to rely upon but our institutions? The whole power of Parliament is now concentrated on the Treasury Bench and their supporters in this House, and I ask the Leader of the House to seriously to consider this matter, because we are all democrats now. I have seen the most marvellous changes since I came here twenty-five years ago, and the most blue-blooded Conservative you meet now is an absolute democrat. Whether it is that the Russian revolution has civilised him and current events in other countries have completed his political education, it is not for me to say. We as Irishmen have been sent here for the purpose of obtaining Home Rule, and until it is granted its denial will constitute a danger, not alone to the British here, but to the British connection all over the world. That is one of the reasons why I oppose the prolongation of the life of this Parliament, and I could not allow this opportunity to pass without entering my protest against the present system which prevents a private Member of this House from exercising the ordinary duties and rights of citizenship.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES.

  [10.28 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Harris, Henry Percy, Paddington, S.)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

  Haslam, Lewis

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Henry, Denis S.

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherhars)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hills, John Waller

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Hinds, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Robinson, Sidney

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rowlands, James

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Bigland, Alfred

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

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

  Black, Sir Arthur W.

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Blair, Reginald

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Bliss, Joseph

  Johnston, Sir Christopher

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

  Boscawen, Sir A. S. T. Griffith-

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Boyton, James

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  King, Joseph

  Stewart, Gershom

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chambers, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Clough, William

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Clynes, John R.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Tickler, T. G.

  Coote, William

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent., St. Augustine's)

  Tootill, Robert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Touche, Sir George Alexander

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Toulmin, sir George

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Currie, George W.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mend, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

  Weston, J. W.

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

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Moore, William

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duke, Rt. Hon, Henry Edward

  Morgan, George Hay

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Edge, Captain William

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Needham, Christopher T.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Finney, Samuel

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wilson, Lt.-Cl. Sir M.(Beth'l Green, S.W.)

  Fisher, Rt. Hen. W. Hayes

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Flannery, Sir J, Fortescue

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Galbraith, Samuel

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Goulding. Sir Edward Alfred

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Younger, Sir George

  Gretton, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Philippe, Sir Owen (Chester)

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Beck and Mr. James Hope.

  Hancock, John George

  Pratt, J. W.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  NOES.

  Boland, John Plus

  Cosgrave, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Cullinan, John

  Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Donovan, John Thomas

  Field, William

  Fitzpatrick, John Laler

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hackett, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Molloy, Michael

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Joyce, Michael

  Muldoon, John

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Nolan, Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Reddy, Michael

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
As amended, further considered.
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 6.—((Relief from Disqualification for Membership of House of Commons in Certain Cases.)
  (1) Whereas by reason of the emergencies of the present War Members of the Commons House of Parliament have sometimes been, or may hereafter be, required to supply property to, or to permit the use thereof by, a Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, it is hereby declared that none of the provisions of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1782, or of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1801, shall be construed so as to extend to a contract or agreement entered into during the present War as to the price or compensation to be paid for any property so requisitioned or taken or as to any other terms on which any property so requisitioned or taken is to be handed over or supplied.
  (2) This Section shall not affect any legal proceedings instituted before the twenty-first day of February, nineteen hundred -and seventeen.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "instituted," to insert the words "or for any actions committed."
  This Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:I would point out that the Amendment that stands on the Notice Paper does not make sense.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I. AMENDMENT) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I. AMENDMENT) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 5 Geo. 5, c. 29, S. 1 (1).)
  (1) For Sub-section (1) of Section one of the National Insurance (Part 1. Amendment) Act, 1915, the following Sub-section shall be substituted:—
  "(1) Where, in pursuance of any Order in Council relating to pensions of officers or seamen and marines, or of any Royal Warrant relating to pensions of officers or soldiers, disabled in consequence of the present War, there has been granted, whether before or after the passing of this Act, to any person to whom Section forty-six of the National Insurance Act, 1911, applied at the time of his leaving naval or military service, a pension in respect of disablement in the highest degree, the rate of any sickness or disablement benefit to which that person may be entitled in respect of Ms insurance under the National Insurance Act, 1911, shall, throughout the period in respect of which that pension, or a pension of a greater amount granted in lieu thereof, is payable, be reduced by five shillings a week, notwithstanding anything in the said Act to the contrary:
  "Provided that a person to whom such a pension has been granted shall not be subject, or shall cease to be subject, to such reduction in the rate of benefit—

  "(i.) as respects sickness benefit, if he proves that since leaving naval or military service he has been employed within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, 1911, during twenty-six weeks, whether consecutive or not, and that twenty-six weekly contributions have been paid in respect of him; and

  "(ii.) as respects disablement benefit, if he proves that since leaving naval or military service he has been so em-

  1789
  ployed during one hundred and four weeks, whether consecutive or not, and that one hundred and four weekly contributions have been paid in respect of him.

  "For the purposes of this Sub-section—

  "(a) an allowance in lieu of pension to a person undergoing a special course of medical treatment or undergoing treatment in an institution or receiving training in a technical institution or otherwise; and

  "(b) a pension in respect of total disablement suffered in consequence of the present war, granted before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and seventeen,

  shall be treated as if such allowance or pension were a pension in respect of disablement in the highest degree."
  (2) Where benefit at the unreduced rate has been paid for any period between the first day of April, nineteen hundred and seventeen and the passing of this Act to a person to whom a pension in respect of disablement in the highest degree has been granted since the first-mentioned date, then the amount of the difference between benefit at the unreduced rate and at the reduced rate for such period shall be treated as an advance, and Sub-section (2) of Section one of the National Insurance (Part I. Amendment) Act, 1915, shall apply to the recovery thereof.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. KING: We ought to have some explanation of the Clause. It is rather difficult for me to understand it. As we have plenty of time before eleven o'clock—
  Mr. S. MacNEILL: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended.
  Mr. KING: Not for this Bill. I should like an explanation of the Clause.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I explained the object of the Bill when the Second Reading was taken. It is necessitated by an alteration in the terminology of pensions. In the new Warrant the expression "total disablement" disappears and the expression "highest degree of disablement" is substituted, and it is necessary to amend the National Health Insurance Act of 1915 in order to regularise the payment of benefits to discharged soldiers under the
  1790
  altered conditions arising out of the new Pensions Warrant. The Clause has no other object.
  Mr. O'SHEE: This Clause deals with a subject which has caused considerable discussion in Ireland among the benefit societies, and a conference has been held within the past week or two at Dublin of representatives of benefit societies at which the question was discussed. The onus thrown on benefit societies under the National Health Insurance Act in consequence of the War is a very serious one, and they fear that as the result of the charges for disablement benefit arising from the cases of men who have been wounded their reserve funds will be seriously diminished. When the Act was passed no one expected this great War in the immediate future. Wounded men who are not pensioners in respect of disablement in the highest degree are thrown for 10s. a week for a period of twenty-six weeks on the benefit societies, and are further thrown on the benefit societies for 5s. per week for the remainder of their lives. Last night, on the Motion for the Adjournment, I raised a case of this very kine where an Irish Guardsman was seriously wounded and discharged from the Army on 17th August last as unfit for further service, and was getting a pension of 18s. 9d. a week, and now has a right under the law as it stands—and this Clause does not alter it in any way—to claim from the benefit society which he joined in 1912, 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks and 5s. a week thereafter, unless under the new scale his pension is increased to 27s. 6d. Certainly the contributions under the National Health Insurance Act were not devised on a basis which was meant to cover the liability to be incurred for wounded men in a great War of this kind. It is a very serious matter. The representatives at the recent conference of benefit societies in Ireland took the view that the State, through the finances of the National Government, ought to bear the entire charges consequent upon the wounds received by men in this War, and that the benefit societies should not be charged or their funds in any way trespassed upon by reason of men coming back from the War disabled from wounds but not sufficiently disabled to receive a pension in what is called the highest degree. Why should a distinction be drawn? If a man is unfit for further

  1791
  service the State should provide for whatever pension that man should receive. Why should he be thrown upon the benefit society? Take the case of life insurance. Does not everybody know that if a man receives a wound or is killed in this War his relatives cannot claim after his death under a life policy? In the case I have outlined why should a charge be thrown upon the benefit society which it was never intended should bear such a charge. I should like to know what answer the Minister in charge of the Bill can give on this point. It is a very serious point, and I think our opposition to this Bill must be pressed unless some attempt is made to solve this problem in a rational and satisfactory way.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I can assure the hon. Member that nothing in this Clause affects the position of the discharged soldier who is wounded and receives a pension below the highest degree of disablement. In regard to the case he mentioned last night and to which he has just referred, an arrangement has been made between the National Health Insurance Commissioners and the Ministry of Pensions that any disablement or sickness arising in consequence of wounds or any damage to health in consequence of the War should not fall on the insurance fund, but upon the Pensions Ministry. Therefore, there is no idea whatever that the insurance fund of the societies the hon. Member has referred to should be charged with something which properly falls, upon the State in consequence of injuries due to war service. That point has been entirely met, and the hon. Member can assure the societies with which he has been in communication that the matter has been dealt with satisfactorily. Those of us who are in charge of National Health Insurance have been as anxious as the societies are, and as the hon. Member is, to protect the National Health Insurance funds, which, as he rightly says, were never intended to bear charges other than the ordinary charge provided for by the ordinary contributions. The cost of providing for any incapacity arising from the War will be met by other funds. The disabled soldier will be entitled to the benefits, whatever they are. Sometimes the question arises as to what those benefits are. Whatever they are, he will be entitled to those benefits in the
  1792
  ordinary way from his society, but the cost of providing benefits for sickness arising in consequence of the War will be made good to the society out of funds provided by the State.
  Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether this arrangement which has been come to between the National Health Insurance Commissioners and the Pensions Ministry is in this Bill or in any Bill? Is it an arrangement between these two Departments as Departments, or is it proposed to incorporate it in this Bill?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: The Bill does not touch that point. I am only explaining the question raised by my hon. Friend, but it is not necessary to have it in the Bill at all. This only deals with the case of the men to whom I have referred, but the point mentioned does not arise in the Bill.
  Mr. SCANLAN: The point I desire explained is this. The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with this very point, and he says, in order to allay any mistrust which may exist among members of the Committee, that there will be no charge on the funds of insurance societies. The only reason he gives for this is that an arrangement has been come to between the National Insurance Commissioners and the Minister of Pensions. If there is any arrangement of that kind it should be incorporated in this Bill and made part of it. Otherwise, the assurance of the hon. Gentleman with all respect counts for nothing, and cannot satisfy the distrust of those who are interested in protecting the interests of societies carrying on the business of national health insurance.
  Mr. KING: As I understand, this is to relieve the friendly societies of any possible liability. That seems to me to impose a charge, or the possibility of a charge, and if that is so I think that there ought to have been a Money Resolution. I would ask the hon. Member for Bewdley whether he has not considered this point. whether money may not have to be paid by the Treasury in consequence of this Clause, and if this Clause imposes a charge, ought not there to be a Money Resolution? On previous occasions the hon. Member has recognised very rightly the rights of this House in the matter of financial control, and if this is a case in which a charge may be imposed he ought to say so.
  Mr. CLANCY: The hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Cornwall) has made a pretty important statement. He has stated that an arrangement has been come to between two Government Departments. Does he mean that this arrangement does not necessitate a Bill or Act in order to make it effective? If it does, what is the Bill which legalises it? If it does not, of course, if it is a matter which may be arranged between two Departments, there is no necessity for any further discussion, because his assurance would be regarded as satisfactory, in that case, by my hon. Friend; but if it requires an Act of Parliament, then the assurance of the hon. Gentleman is not worth a single sixpence.
  Mr. O'SHEE: Of course, I should be most happy to accept what the hon. Gentleman has said if I were satisfied that it enables to be carried out what he says will be carried out. My hon. Friend has said that an arrangement can be made between the two Government Departments, but how can that arrangement between two Departments alter the law as it is proposed to be laid down by this Clause? Since the hon. Member spoke I have again read the Clause, and I see that it does not relieve the societies from the charge for the disabled soldier or sailor who has been wounded and is receiving pension for disablement, except in one case, where the 10s. per week is reduced to 5s. This would only mean £6 10s. altogether. That man may be during the whole of twenty or thirty years of his life a charge on his society, which is liable for 5s. per week. That is the serious part of it. This Clause, instead of bearing out what the hon. Member has said, confirms my view that this is a most serious proposal, as it leaves nearly the whole of the liability of the societies unaffected. It goes on to say that even that reduction from 10s. to 5s. shall not take place in the case of the person who receives disablement pension in the highest degree if he has been in employment for twenty-six weeks after he has left the Army, and after he has been in employment for twenty-six weeks he shall again be entitled to pension at the full rate. My contention is that no charge whatever should be put on these benefit societies in respect of pensions for men who have been wounded in the War, and that no disablement money should be paid in respect of anything except sickness or accident arising out of or because of the
  1794
  civil employment of these persons. I fear that the benefit societies under the Health Insurance Act in this country have not had their attention called to this Bill. I doubt whether public attention has been called to this matter or whether the benefit societies of this country knew that this proposal was being made.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: The assurance which I have given is quite correct, and I trust that before eleven o'clock we will be allowed to get this stage of She Bill.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I confess that to those of us who are not lawyers it seems an extraordinary thing that we have not some member of the legal profession belonging to the House to come here to-night and guide us in these matters. The House is well aware that there are many legal authorities connected with it. We have the Attorney-General for England, and the Solicitor-General, and I am very glad to see that the Solicitor-General for Ireland is here occupying a very modest position on the Front Bench—a position entirely inconsistent with his highly intellectual and physical qualities. Therefore, I think it is the greatest insult to the House of Commons that the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, has a very considerable grip of this question of insurance, and is anxious in a most conciliatory fashion to carry this Bill through Parliament, that those of us who are not lawyers, who have not the good fortune to be successful solicitors, like my hon. Friend behind me—
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. KING: I think we ought to have some explanation of the way in which the Government intend to carry on the business. Those of us who have been here a great many hours since the first Order of

1795
the Day were surprised to find, when that Order was completed, that those Orders which we expected were not to be taken and other Orders in which other Members were interested were taken against all previous arrangement. That is not the way to get on with business. I was very interested myself in the Venereal Disease Bill. We were told it was to he taken yesterday and again to-day. We were led to understand it would be taken to-day and would go to the Grand Committee and got through next week. At twenty minutes to eleven there was an opportunity for that Bill to be taken, but it was not moved. That is very unfortunate. I had a Motion down to reject the Bill, but I was quite ready to give way and not speak about it at all, in order that we might have the discussion upstairs in Grand Committee next week. That was quite contrary to what was arranged and hoped for on both sides of the House. We have had a Bill taken up for which nobody was prepared. The Minister of Pensions, whose name was on the back of it, was not able to answer questions, and, on being sent for, arrives in the House at one minute to eleven. The result is that time has been wasted simply by bad management of the Government, and those of us who have been here waiting for hours and wanting to get on with the business if we could only have had two minutes in which to say a word or two, have attended for no purpose at all. That business is not taken, and the Government do not get any further. I really must protest against the way in which we are treated. Time is wasted and the Government do not make progress with the business. If the Government would be a little more accessible to hon. Members who do attend here, and give an intimation as to what business they proposed to
1796
take and what they did not propose to take, they would get on with the business which is so congested. We are all really working under great strain and pressure, and nobody wishes to impose any further strain or pressure upon anybody, especially on Ministers. I do hope these few words will have some effect, at any rate, in getting the Government to take Members of the House who do attend a little more into their confidence, and thus ease and accelerate the course of public business.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am sorry that the hon. Member is dissatisfied with the arrangement of business, but I can assure him that what we did was for the convenience of the House, and, I should have thought, for his own convenience. I understood he has an interest in the Venereal Disease Bill, and the Minister in charge of that Bill assured me that he would not have time to make his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. It therefore appeared to be a useless waste of time to start on that to-night. The same thing applies to the other Orders. The Minister in charge of the Munitions of War Bill informed me that, although be would have time to say all he had to say, he knew there were other Members who wanted to speak on it, and that there was no possible chance of completing that Bill. It appeared that the Bill which we did try to get through would give rise to very little discussion, and there was just a chance of getting it through, because there was no Amendment on the Paper. On that ground we took that Bill, thinking that we should suit the general convenience.
Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.