CLAUSE 5.—(Special Provisions for Persons Serving on War Service.) (Hansard, 25 June 1917)

§ Colonel LESLIE WILSON
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "is of full age," and to insert instead thereof the words "has attained the age of nineteen years and is."
In moving this Amendment I should like to express my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the manner in which he has met those of us who are interested in this Clause. If lie will only accept one or two other Amendments, such as the one I now propose, I think the Clause will be as perfect as we can hope for at this stage of the Bill. I think I might content myself with the argument that if the State considers a man of nineteen old enough to go out and fight for his country surely he is old enough to have a vote for his country. That is why I have chosen the age of nineteen. The State is saying to young men," As soon as you have attained the age of nineteen years, and not before, you must be prepared to go out to the front line and undertake all the risks, dangers, and discomforts of active service in modern warfare, and, not only that, you must be prepared at the age of nineteen to make the greatest sacrifice that any man can be asked to make in this world." In altering this Clause as laid down in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has omitted several words to which we who take an interest in this Clause had serious objections. He has omitted the first part of the Clause, which says that the Clause shall only last for the period of the War and twelve months afterwards. The fact that he has done that strongly reinforces the argument in favour of this Amendment. I do not suppose I should be in order in attempting to forecast what is going to be the future of the naval and military forces of the Crown after this War, but I think this country has learnt one lesson in this War, and it has learnt it at an appalling price, and that is, that, however skilful 61 your diplomatists may be, however convinced a section of the community may be that you will be able to ensure peace in this world by negotiations and treaties, all the efforts of your diplomatists and the effect of your treaties are worse than useless unless you have behind the country a. properly organised and professionally trained Navy and Army to enforce those treaties as a last resort if it is absolutely necessary. It it is absolutely necessary to use the forces of the Crown as a last resort, the decision as to whether the forces of the Crown are to be used must rest ultimately with this House. It is only fair and reasonable and just that if you are going to tell a man of nineteen that he has to go out and take all the risks which I have mentioned he should have a voice in choosing his representative in this House who is going to tell him that that is his duty.
There is one argument and it is this, that in the past, as is well known, soldiers and sailors did not enjoy the privileges which civilians enjoyed. It is well known that the wearing of His Majesty's uniform in the past was a bar to privileges enjoyed by civilians. Even in regard to the franchise there are many soldiers and sailors of my own acquantance who have served for twenty years, thirty years, and even longer, who have never had a vote for representatives in this House. In the past the wearing of His Majesty's uniform, in the opinion of some people, placed the wearers in a different category, and, in the opinion of some, a lower category than civilians. The War has changed all that I am glad to say, and it has very largely changed that not only because of what our soldiers and sailors have done, but because everybody who is of military age is, or ought to be, a soldier or sailor. As the War has changed that, I think this House would be willing to grant greater privileges to the soldier and sailor in future than are to be given even to civilians, and I suggest to the Committee that you cannot grant a greater privilege to a man than to give him a vote perhaps at an earlier age than that at which it is given to civilians. If the Committee passes my Amendment the State will be saying to the soldier and sailor, "You have volunteered and risked your life for your country. We, on our side, are prepared to grant you not a concession, but a privilege, which will last all the time that you are in full pay in His Majesty's Service."

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. I would like to know whether you can put the question in such a way as to preserve the Amendment standing later on the Paper, which might be affected by the insertion of the words now proposed and will, in fact, if you put the question merely to leave out the words proposed to be left out? The Amendment I have on the Paper might be shut out if these proposed words were there inserted. My hon. and gallant Friend (Captain O'Neill) has an Amendment on the Paper which I think would be shut out.

The CHAIRMAN
I think I am usually fairly careful on these points. I was going to watch that in the way I put the question.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I wish to support this Amendment. I had a similar Amendment down to the Clause as 'it stood in its orignal shape. That Amendment is out of order now Therefore, I propose to support this Amendment. Like my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved this Amendment, I am very pleased that the Home Secretary has seen fit to remodel the Bill as it stood so far as it refers to Clause 5, which gives the franchise to soldiers and sailors. I was dumbfounded when I saw the Bill in its original form and noted that it only gave the franchise to soldiers and sailors who have been engaged in the War and for a period of twelve months after the termination of the War. That was not the view taken by the Speaker's Conference according to the information which was given to us on the Second Reading by the Colonial Secretary. Therefore, It was only in accordance with what was said by the Colonial Secretary that the Home Secretary has seen fit to introduce this new Clause. This new Clause meets the case which I should have felt it my duty to raise in order to give the vote to soldiers and sailors for all time upon their attaining the age of twenty-one, and gives them the alternative of exercising the franchise in two different places. In regard to the places where they can exercise the franchise, I have a manuscript Amendment which will endeavour to alter one phrase and give sailors, at any rate, the opportunity of voting in their home ports. I support the Amendment to give the vote to soldiers and sailors when they attain the age of nineteen, which is the age at which men in the Army have been sent to the front. They have been thought old enough to fight for their country at the 63 age of nineteen and many a soldier of nineteen has fought extremely well. I do not know whether any V.C. has been won by a boy of nineteen, but it is probable. At any rate we know that other honours on the field have been gained by boys of nineteen. In the Flying Service boys of nineteen are thought a great deal about and are very much sought after. Some of the most daring deeds in the Flying Service have been performed by boys of nineteen.
I think we ought to give some special privilege to soldiers and sailors, and that privilege ought to be given not only to men fighting in the War and for twelve months afterwards; it ought to be given to them for all time. It should be given to them so that they might understand it was something given to soldiers or sailors which would be given to no other members of the community—something to live up to and treasure and remind them that they have been in the ranks of the Navy or Army. I do not see what possible objection can be raised to this Amendment. It may be said that it is given only to a certain class, but that is one of the reasons why the Amendment is proposed. We shall probably hear that midshipmen of fifteen or sixteen and boys in the Army have done very well That is all beside the point. The question which the hon. Member behind me has raised, and which I wish to raise myself, is that the vote shall be given to every soldier or sailor that joins the forces, and is prepared to fight for his country in an emergency. You are giving the vote by this Bill—I shall have a great deal to say about this to-night and to-morrow—to conscientious objectors. Nothing could be more scandalous, and nothing is more calculated to bring down the Government than such action as that, and I hope that they will think better of it. But that is not my point now. My point is that on the grounds that I have put forward the Government should amend the Bill so as to give all soldiers and sailors a vote on attaining the age of nineteen.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The considerations put forward in support of the Amendment must excite a great deal of sympathy at the present time, and if the vote had to be given as a reward, particularly as a reward for the highest kind of public spirit, and of splendid achievement for the defence of the country, we should all be exceedingly anxious to meet the demand 64 which is made. But the franchise is not given in any sense as a reward for public service, and if it were so given we should have to consider not only the case of the soldiers and sailors who are defending the country, but that of others who are doing admirable work for our defence, such as munition workers. The Amendment is one which goes beyond the whole purpose of this Clause. Our object is that no one who is otherwise entitled to vote shall lose his vote, or the opportunity of exercising it merely because he is in the service of the. Crown in one capacity or another—that is, that a soldier merely because he is a soldier, and is abroad or is away from home, shall not for that reason lose his vote. That is the whole meaning of the Clause and the object which we have in view. Of course, the proposal now made to give the vote to sailors and soldiers at an age of two years below that at which it is given to other persons is not within the objects of the Clause, and I doubt whether it is really in the interests of the soldiers or sailors to seek to make them a privileged class. I do not think that they would consider it fair to give them privileges at a special age as compared with other classes. I think it far better and more in accordance with the spirit in which they fight that we should treat them just like other people, taking care that they do not suffer by the fact that they are in the service of the State. It may be recalled that we fixed the age for women's franchise at thirty, which is considerably above the age at which it is given to men. If there were a proposal for raising the age of men generally that would be another matter, but the proposal to lower the age of a particular class of men would not be within the purpose of the Bill, and I do not think that we could accept the Amendment however much we sympathise with the speeches that have been made.

Captain O'NEILL
I have got lower down on the Paper an Amendment the effect of which is, to a certain extent, the same as the effect of this Amendment, but it considerably narrows this Amendment, and I do not know if it is possible to discuss my Amendment at the same time. My object is to reduce the age to nineteen only in respect of men who actually serve on active service in a war.

The CHAIRMAN
That is an alternative matter to the one that is at present 65 before the Committee and can properly be discussed on that, or, if the hon. likes, later on. Of course, it cannot be discussed, I am afraid, if this were negatived. If this were withdrawn we could go on to the other proposal, but I think that the hon. and gallant Member put forward his arguments in the present discussion.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am glad that I am in agreement with the Government upon this occasion, I think almost for the first time in the history of the Bill. I hope that that is a happy augury, and that there will be more agreement between the Government and myself. I have listened with very great attention to the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I am not convinced by them. My hon. and gallant Friend founded his arguments upon the fact that the Government had amended the Clause as it originally stood, and had taken out those words which confined the franchise to soldiers who actually had fought in the War and for twelve months afterwards. Then he went on to say that because those words were taken out the Amendment should be carried. I think that that might possibly be some argument—I will deal with that afterwards—for giving the franchise to men who have fought in this War, but I cannot conceive that that can be any argument for giving the franchise at nineteen to all soldiers and sailors—because this is for all time—who may not fight in any war at all, and who may join His Majesty's Forces either of their own will or by compulsion. We do not know what is going to happen after the War. I hope we shall have compulsion, and that everybody will have to fight for his country, and join the Army or Navy. If this is so, why should a boy have a vote if he is taken into the Army at the age of nineteen? He is not useful in civil life at nineteen, but he is useful in the Army, and in two years he can be trained to make an efficient soldier. If that is so, and if every soldier is fit to exercise a vote at nineteen—

Captain O'NEILL
Of course he is!

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Then if he is, everybody else is fit to exercise a vote at nineteen. If my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to reduce the age from twenty-one to nineteen for everybody—

Captain O' NEILL
I did not say so.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
If a boy of nineteen is fit to exercise a vote because he happens to be in the Army, then a boy of nineteen who is not in the Army— perhaps who has taken honours at Oxford—is equally fit; I think myself more fitted. But it is not contended merely that a boy of nineteen should be given a vote. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that women are restricted to the age of thirty. If the Amendment were carried we should have three different ages. Women at thirty, men not in the Army at twenty-one, and boys in the Army, nineteen. We should be going back to the old form, which certainly was not simple, and which this particular Bill is brought in to alter. My own opinion is that nobody is fit to exercise a vote at nineteen. Certainly I do not think that it is either a privilege or a reward. It is a duty which is imposed only on those who are fit to carry it out, and who, in the belief of the givers, are in a position to exercise their vote as a duty. I think that it would be a very dangerous precedent to be introduced to lower the age from twenty-one to nineteen. It would certainly be followed by a demand that the age should be lowered for everybody. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned munition workers. They would certainly, rightly or wrongly, demand that they should have the vote just as well as anybody else. Therefore, I am glad that the Home Secretary has announced that he is unable to accept this Amendment.

Captain O'NEILL
With regard to the Amendment now before the House, I have been impressed by some of the remarks that have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I consider that to give the vote to soldiers of nineteen under the Clause as it stands at present—that is to say, with soldiers, as such, included for all time— would be going too far, but I do think that we ought to give the vote to soldiers of nineteen who are, or who have been on active service in a war. It might be any war. If I remember rightly the discussions which took place on this matter before the Speaker's Conference ever assembled, there was a very emphatic demand from the whole country for votes for soldiers, and it was based entirely upon the belief that soldiers should be given votes, not because they were more qualified to exercise them 67 than many other people, but because they were soldiers, and they had gone through this War, and made far greater sacrifices and endured far greater hardships than any other class of the community can possibly imagine, and it is of the greatest importance that the next Parliament particularly, which, as we all know, is the Parliament which is going to deal with the great problems of reconstruction which have arisen as a result of this War, should be elected by the men who have made the greatest sacrifices and who have taken part in the War. If the Clause had stood as originally drafted, I should have supported the Amendment which is now before the Committee, but as it has been changed, I consider that the vote should be given to soldiers who have attained the age of nineteen years if they have served on active service in the War. Why is a soldier or sailor entitled to separate consideration with regard to the vote? It is because he has undergone sacrifices to bring about the victory which we all hope for and expect, on a scale which no other person has, or possibly could undergo.
There was in this House the other day some discussion with regard to the sacrifices borne in the War. The hon. Member asks what about mothers who have lost their children. Mothers who have lost their children undergo a terrible sacrifice; all of us who lose relatives in this War undergo terrible sacrifices; but no mother, no father, no brother, nobody undergoes anything in proportion to the sacrifices made by the soldier who is actually fighting for his country, and facing death every day. There is no comparison. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Carson), before the Speaker's Conference, emphasising this fact very strongly, and he said that soldiers on active service are in an entirely different category from any other person who is going to get the franchise. I must say that I understood that the proposal was that soldiers and sailors who had fought for their country on active service were not merely to get the vote, but that nothing was to be done to prevent their getting the vote. I feel confident that the Service Members of this House will support this proposition, and will agree that something more was contemplated than merely doing something to prevent them from suffering dis- 68 abilities. What was contemplated was that the men who had served their country in the War were to have the vote, and that is what is expected by the Army.
The only way in which you can do it is by in some manner putting the soldiers in a special category, and of course you do that by reducing the age to nineteen, in the case of those who have really undergone the hardships of war. I can imagine no more terrible case of hardship than that of a soldier who has gone through many months of this terrible War. He may be a boy of twenty, or not quite twenty-one, when the next election comes on; he may have been badly wounded, may have lost an arm or a leg, and probably gone through all the hardships and trying sacrifices of war in the trenches. That man, I submit, has given more to the country than any munition worker or any other person. We ask that the vote should be given to such a man, not because he is especially able, not because he is particularly qualified, not because he has taken honours at a university, but because he is a soldier who has served in the War—it may be, has been wounded, maimed, or disabled in the War. When such a man comes home at the time of the next election he may not be twenty-one, and unless a provision of this sort is adopted he would not be able to vote, simply because he was not twenty-one. But I would point out that in the next General Election the country probably will be called upon to decide what is to be the character of the next Parliament which is to take part in ruling this country, and which is to pass measures that will have a tremendous effect upon the country in which the soldiers, who are now fighting for us, and many of whom come back wounded and disabled, have to live. I am not quite certain what is the proper procedure, but I do ask the Home Secretary very carefully to consider the whole of this question. I quite agree that this particular Amendment goes too far, but I submit that he should give careful attention to the Amendment which I have upon the Paper, and which is a modification of that now under consideration.

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
The hon. and gallant Members have spoken in support of this Amendment which, if assented to, would carry us a good deal further than the proposal before the Committee, because the hon. Members lay 69 down the principle that anyone who has fought and who has suffered in the service of their country during the War, and who have received wounds, or have otherwise suffered, should, for that reason, be enfranchised. But when they come to submit a concrete proposal to the Committee that is not at all the proposal they make, and if that were, indeed, a sound principle of legislation, then the age of nineteen ought not to appear at all. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers and sailors of eighteen years of age. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no ! "] We all know that there are on board our ships many thousands of young men who have not reached the age of nineteen. The name of one of them has become immortal; I speak of the ship-boy Cornwall, whose name lives in the memory of all of us. A midshipman won great distinction the other day, and there are many youths in our Navy who have gallantly faced danger on our ships. There are thousands of midshipmen and boys who are now facing danger on our ships, and who fulfil all the contions laid down by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of this Amendment. Therefore, if you are to accept the principle that to fight in the War is to be the qualification for the franchise, then you must, if you have any regard for reason or logic at all, strike out the age of nineteen. But the hon. Members do not do that, because they realise themselves that it would not be reasonable to say that a boy of fifteen or sixteen years of age is qualified to vote at the polls. They recognise that they have to say that not merely a soldier or sailor who has fought in the War should have the vote, but also that he requires a certain maturity of judgment. Hitherto, it has been held that a man has not reached the age of maturity and judgment until twenty-one; and that reason alone appears to me to be the most powerful one in support of the Government, and which should lead Members to support the Government in resisting the Amendment now before the Committee.

§ Major HUNT
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says we are not to give soldiers the vote because there are lads having served at the age of sixteen. I think that is a shocking bad argument. Nearly all those who have served in this War will be nineteen 70 years of age before they get a chance of voting, and nineteen is the age at which they are sent abroad to serve. You call this a Bill for giving votes to soldiers and sailors, and you not only do not give them the vote because they are soldiers and sailors, but you do not let them have the vote when they are nineteen years of age, however much they may have done to serve their country. Surely if men fight for their country they are good enough to vote for it, and there will be a good many people voting for it who would not fight for it. That is no sort of ground for legislation, and, according to my way of thinking about the subject, I would submit that if you politicians do not take care, the soldiers and sailors, when they find they have not got the vote to help in ruling their country, very likely when they come back they may take the power themselves, and I am not sure they would not be right. That, at all events, is one way of looking at it. The Home Secretary has said that the vote is not given as a reward. I do not know whether it is or not, but I do think that it ought to be given as a right; it ought to be given to everybody who has been abroad to fight for his country. I cannot understand the lawyer-politician objecting to giving votes to men of nineteen who have done such enormous service in saving the liberties of this country and of the Empire. I cannot understand how Members will be able to go back to their constituents if the vote is not given to soldiers and sailors. In every constituency there will be wounded soldiers who will have to be faced—soldiers who have saved the country, who have been badly wounded, or maimed for life, but with regard to whom politicians take very great care to, as far as possible, prevent them from having any chance of taking their part in ruling the country for which they have fought. This Amendment is not exactly in the form in which I should like it, but there is one on the Paper which, if this one should be negatived, I should like to have considered, for it affirms the principle that those who have fought for us abroad should have the vote. If you do not give them the vote, I believe you will be very sorry for it afterwards.

§ General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
On a point of Order. May I ask, for the convenience of the Committee, whether, if 71 this Amendment is disposed of, we shall be able afterwards to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Antrim?

The CHAIRMAN
If the present Amendment were withdrawn it would be open to the Committee to discuss the alternative Amendment.

§ Colonel WILSON
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Captain O'NEILL
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "age" ["who is of full age"], to insert the words, "or, having served on active service in any War in which His Majesty is engaged, has attained the age of nineteen years."

§ Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
I think the Committee ought to be very grateful to the Home Secretary for having moved the Clause giving the vote to soldiers and sailors but I think that a. great many of us feel that the proposal does not go nearly far enough, and that the vote is the right of soldiers and sailors who have taken part in the War. As one who took an active part in raising troops in this country voluntarily, in the early stages of the War, I was always met with the objection, "Why should I go and fight for the country, while others stay at home?" and I, for one, told them at every recruiting meeting that I would use every effort to see that those who fought for their country should on their return have a share in the ruling of their country. I believe that is the feeling which exists throughout the few millions of men who are now fighting for this country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that those Members who are not prepared to adopt this Amendment will find what the feeling will be when those men come home. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Herbert Samuel) to say, "Why take the age of nineteen, because if that argument holds good why not take boys of fifteen or sixteen?" We must take some age, and we have taken nineteen because that is the age at which men are sent to the Army abroad. There is a far greater number of young men in the Army than in the Navy, so that the argument of my right hon. Friend is no argument at all. He talks 72 about midshipmen and a few boys in the Navy, but if you take the whole of the men and boys in the naval service together they are infinitesimal compared with the numbers in our armies. I should like, personally, to have seen it eighteen, but I talked it over with other military Members of this House, and we came to the conclusion that nineteen was the proper age to put in, because that was the official age when a man was considered old enough to fight for his country. I submit that if you are old enough to fight for your country at nineteen you are old enough to vote for it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) was not, of course, in favour of this. We could know that beforehand. If it had been the case of an acre or half-an-acre of land at 30s. a year, or something of that sort, the right hon. Gentleman would have been up at this box advocating that extension.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Not at nineteen.

§ Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been standing here. I can only say that I believe that if it were a case of the extension of the property vote he would be the one man here voting for it, but because it is a case of a man fighting for him the right hon. Gentleman asks, "Why should he have it?" I hope the Home Secretary will, after consideration, accept this Amendment. It is not a question of a reward. We do not ask for a reward. We say that a man who is old enough to fight for his country is old enough to vote for it, and that is what we provide for here. Further, I say that over and over again we have been promised that in this Bill soldiers and sailors shall receive the vote. There is nothing in this Bill whatever to give a vote to a soldier or a sailor. It simply says that if he has a vote it makes it somewhat easier for him to use it. I believe that this Amendment is essential to complete the Clause the Home Secretary put down, and I therefore hope the House will adopt it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I make a personal explanation? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has stated, I do not know "on what authority, that if this had been a proposal to give a man of property the vote when he was only nineteen I should have voted for it So far from 73 that being the case, at the Speaker's Conference I supported a proposal that no man, whatever his position in life, should have the vote under twenty-five years of age, and in this House I stated, when the question of women was' before the Committee, that if the age for men was made thirty I should support it. The statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, entirely unfounded, as I have taken quite the contrary line.

§ Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
I withdraw that remark in connection with the right hon. Baronet.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
I was not at all impressed by the interposition of the right hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel). His speech was what we always expect from him, an extremely clever and dexterous Parliamentary intervention. I have no doubt that an assembly of logicians would have applauded him, but what he said really has nothing to do with the common-sense of this subject. While we were dealing with the question of men, the right hon. Gentleman, as it were, rushed in with the infant prodigy. We all know there are midshipmen and Casabiancas, from time to time, and that there have been during this War, but as an hon. Gentleman said just now, we have to draw the line somewhere. Nineteen is the official age at which soldiers cannot merely be trained in this country but be sent out to fight, and therefore it is a perfectly legitimate and common-sense age to take. I certainly think the Amendment now before the Committee is one which we ought to accept. I agree that the first Amendment was too wide, and I should have been sorry to have seen the vote conferred upon all soldiers of all kinds at a different age to that of the ordinary citizen, altogether apart from his service in this War. I agree with the Home Secretary that the very last thing we want to do in this country is in any way to build up anything like a military or privileged caste of that sort. Militarism is the very last thing we want in this country, and on that point a most extraordinary argument was used by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). My right hon. Friend, in opposing this proposal for giving the vote to soldiers at a younger age than others, asked, "Why give soldiers votes at an earlier age?" and he turned round to my hon. and gallant Friend and said, 74 What do you expect after the War? My hon. and gallant Friend said, "I hope to have compulsory service. I hope to have all men compelled to serve in the Army after the War. Therefore, do not let us give them votes." My altitude is exactly opposite. I hope with all my heart we shall not have compulsory service after the War. I hope the necessity for it will not arise, and that the result of the war will be to enable us to get rid of it. But if we were to have compulsory service, it would be the very best reason for giving the soldiers a vote.
One of the strongest reasons, to my mind, why men fighting in this War should be given the vote, no matter what their age down to nineteen, is that we have Conscription. We have made an enormous invasion on the ordinary civil rights of the individual for the purposes of the State. I think we have been quite right, but having in that way invaded the ordinary civil rights of the population, J think the least we can do is to say, "You happen to have been of an age which made you liable to the most exceptional service that has ever been known in this country, and that being so, and we having treated you as a citizen on whom the country has had to rely not only for its; honour but for its very existence, we intend to give you the vote." I cannot imagine our having to turn round to them afterwards and say, "It is quite true we have relied on you for two years for saving the country from disappearing from among the nations of the earth, but that is no reason whatever why you, because you are not twenty-one, should have anything to say on any of the problems that come up after peace is declared." I confess I was very much struck by what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Captain O'Neill). He referred to the possibility, or rather to what is more than a possibility, the certainty, that there will be a number of young men who will come back whenever the War ends who have seen a considerable amount of active service during that War, who have gone through all the horrors and hardships to which he referred, who will come back under the age of twenty-one, and will therefore be deprived of a vote. What will be their feeling? If they are men of any thought at all—and the great majority of the present Armies are—they will reflect in some such way as this: They will recall the battles they have seen, the hardships they 75 have undergone, the frightful tax upon their health and strength, possibly disablement for life either by wounds or the weakening of their constitution; that will all pass through their minds, and then they will say, "Here is a General Election just going to take place. Everyone in my town is excited as to whether Smith or Jones is going to be returned to the House of Commons. The problems being discussed at meetings are problems arising out of the War and are problems of reconstruction which never could have arisen but for the efforts I and my colleagues have made." Are all the grey-headed old fogies like we who sit in this House going to the ballot-box to vote on these problems while those who have made it possible to bring that state of things about stand round the polling booths because we will not allow them to vote until they are twenty-one? It would be a perfectly intolerable situation.
I do not want the general standard to be interfered with for the future, but I do say that this War is an exceptional thing. We have treated it as exceptional in all the legislation we have passed. This Bill is exceptional because of the War, and surely we should be merely hidebound pedants if we could not make an exception to the general law of the franchise of those who, in this exceptional time in our history, have been doing this work for us. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will, if necessary, go to a Division and find out how many Members of this House are really prepared to back by their votes in the Lobby the proposition that a man of nineteen or twenty, or twenty-one, no matter what he has done in this War, is not qualified to vote on the problems of reconstruction. I hope very earnestly that it will not be necessary to vote in the Division Lobby. I cannot believe that if the Government give really full consideration to the issue raised here, they will persist in requiring UB to vote against them on this proposition. I earnestly hope they will not force us to do that for this reason: I am myself a loyal supporter of the Government, and the last thing I want to see at the present juncture of affairs is the existing Government weakened. I am very certain, however, that the Government cannot resist this Amendment in the Division Lobby without very seriously 76 weakening their prestige and power in the country, and, as I think, very rightly.

§ Mr. T. DAVIES
It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. To-day I do, although I cannot call myself a military man, but quite the reverse. I think this an Amendment which the Government ought to accept. After all, it is not an Amendment merely for the man who is nineteen because the Bill without it would deprive of the vote every soldier who has fought for his country and been willing to lay his life down for it if he is twenty years and ten months old. I shall have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment in the Lobby. As has already been said so well, these young men, with eighteen months or nearly two years at the front, when they come back before the election will be between twenty and twenty-one and will be deprived of the vote in the next important election. I think the House and the Government will do well to accept the Amendment in the present circumstances. I could not possibly have voted for the first Amendment moved, but this is a very different thing—to give the vote to men who have fought for this country and who are not twenty-one years of ago.

§ Mr. MACMASTER
I have been more or less a supporter of the twenty-one years of age and for the substantial reason that the Speaker's Conference, on which this Clause of the Bill was based, fixed twenty-one years as being the age, and therefore I felt hardly justified in departing from that. I think it is a mistake to create a basis for the soldier that will have any reference whatever to residence. The soldier in the natural course of things who goes abroad to fight for his country cannot possibly have a residence, and to say that he is to have the qualification which he would have were it not for the circumstances of the War is to misunderstand the actual situation. How could the soldier possibly acquire a regular place of residence or pursue any regular occupation except the camp life in which he is engaged, or the occupation of his life, namely soldiering? I approve of the Home Secretary's changes and of the substitution of this Clause 5 for the old Clause 5, because I had a Motion to reject entirely the old Clause 5, but still I think it would be far better to omit any question of residence 77 in connection with the soldier. Now if you will look at this Report of the Speaker's Conference you will see there is no such reservation. In the Report the vote is given absolutely to the soldier and sailor without any reference to the residence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or age!"] Yes, the age was given as twenty-one. I should like, if I may, to read to the House Section 32: It shall be the duty of the registration officer to ascertain, so far as possible, the names and addresses of all persons of full age who ordinarily reside in his area, but who are serving in his Majesty's Forces, and such persons shall be qualified to be registered and to vote as Parliamentary electors within that area. The provision there is with regard to residence. I cannot understand even now why that Clause applies to the Service.

The CHAIRMAN
That goes rather beyond the present Amendment. There is a subsequent proposal before me to leave out the word "residence."

§ Commander BELLAIRS
I do not see how the question of the Speaker's Conference arises, because we have been assured again and again that the House is in no way affected. By supporting the Amendment, as I intend to do, I would point out in regard to the age of nineteen it is that at which the recruit proceeds abroad. As to what was said about the Navy, nineteen is the age at which the average midshipman becomes a sub-lieutenant and takes the responsibility of a commissioned officer. As regards the boys of the Navy, they have become ordinary seamen or able seamen by nineteen years of age. I make a final appeal to the Government. If the Government means to go to a Division on the question, which is one essentially of age, Members would like to be free to vote without the Government Whips being put on. I ask the hon. Member who replies for the Government to consider the matter, and give us the assurance that the Government Whips will not be put on.

§ General HICKMAN
We are always having in this discussion the Speaker's Conference shoved up against our heads. It appears to be used freely as an argument required by movers of Clauses, and it is allowed to be used in 78 other ways whenever the Government wish to get out of a certain position. It seems to me that the Speaker's Conference decided that every man of age should have a vote. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill explained to us that the intention as to this Clause is to select every soldier who may be entitled to vote and see he is not in danger -of losing his vote. I do not think that is the real question that the Bill was brought in for, nor were we troubled about the soldiers' agitation in this country before the Speaker's Conference was heard of, or whether soldiers in the existing election should have a voice in the management of their country. Men who have fought and bled are deserving of it, but if you are going to leave the age at twenty-one you are going to exclude a large number who have fought and bled, because a large number of the Army new, since Conscription came in, consists of young men between nineteen and twenty-one. The longer the Wax lasts the more you will be obtaining the large majority of men who come back from France who will be between nineteen and twenty-one. Are you going to deprive them of the opportunity of voting as to the deeds of the Government and what measure should be passed by this House? It is perfectly certain that not only the young men themselves, but the general voters and the country who are proud of them, know very well the risks these men have run, and in many cases they are back wounded. They should have the chance of expressing their views of what the Army thinks of the Government. It is said, because you give a soldier of nineteen a vote, therefore you ought to give a sailor of fourteen a vote. It is ridiculous. You must have some age as a limit, and the sailor does not really become recognised as a man until he has reached the age of nineteen. I hope the Home Secretary will consider the argument which he has heard this afternoon, and that he will not ask us to go to a Division but that he will accept this Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend and save us from going to a Division, which we shall certainly do if pressed.

§ Brigadier-General CROFT
There is one point about the Speaker's Conference that ought to be touched upon. It has been said that the Conference laid down some special ruling with regard to age. That was not so. From the very first it was understood the Speaker's Conference—and 79 the right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir John Simon) will correct me if I am wrong—made it clear that we were dealing with the whole structure of electoral reform, including redistribution, for all time, and we were denied the opportunity of dealing with temporary matters. I do not think there need be any fear that we are opposed to the general conclusion of the Speaker's Conference by dealing with the question of learning the age of those who have actually taken part in the campaign.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I be allowed to say in answer to the hon. and gallant Member that, so far as soldiers and sailors are concerned, it is dealt with in one of the Clauses?

§ General CROFT
That does not affect the fact that we are dealing with a new situation. That is why we did not make any representation with regard to soldiers and sailors, or introduce machinery for dealing with them. It does not preclude the recommendation of giving the vote to men of nineteen. One word on this subject. Surely we recognise that our soldiers have reached the highest form of citizenship by going through that course. I do not think there is anyone here who will deny a similar privilege to our lighting men. The soldier of nineteen will have grown up, and will have to be dealt with as a permanent structure of the franchise.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
I would like to be aware of what the intention of the Amendment is. The words here refer to men on active service fighting. I understand those words to mean all men in the Army. [Cries of "No!"]

Captain O'NEILL
I think I am right in saying as the words stand at present they do include all men on active service. That would include all men in this country during the War. I shall be quite prepared to accept an Amendment to my Amendment in the meaning of the hon. Member who has just spoken, who has drawn attention to a point which I see now goes rather further than I intended.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
The Amendment as it stands would seem to confer the franchise on all men in the Army, or at all events to all men over the age of nineteen. I have read the objection to conferring the franchise on men of nineteen, and I have considerable doubts as to the justice that will be meted 80 out even to women if the Amendment now before the House is accepted. For example, we must remember that there are women serving the country in one capacity or another, and as the Amendment stands women up to the age of thirty-one and men who have been doing splendid work under circumstances of great difficulty and danger, will not have recognition. Then we have the case of a man who may be with the active forces who may be standing on the quayside at Boulogne putting letters in a sack and sending them to the front. If he is detained on that work as a C 2 man is he to get the vote, while a man on searchlight duty, who is on active service, but cannot go abroad, is not to have the vote? Then take the case of a civilian at home who has been persuaded that it is his duty to stay at home. I know many who would have gladly gone if they could have done so, but they were persuaded that their duty lay at home, and they remained. That seems to me a form of active service as honourable as many at the depots at the front. Surely that point should be remembered, and should have the acknowledgment that is not possible under this Amendment. I think the policy advocated ought not to be adopted unless the rule can have general application, by which persons can exercise their vote in the period of, reconstruction which will come soon. There might also be a jealousy between men under twenty-one abroad and the men who are at home" and cannot go abroad because they cannot be spared. You have men at home because they are C 2 and C 3 who are anxious to go abroad but who are retained here. Does anyone imagine that along that line there will be peace at home when reconstruction comes? We may, by doing so, arouse the very feeling on which the threatened revolution to be led by the hon. Member for Ludlow might come about. Let us have the Bill as it stands following the Speaker's Conference, and we shall be on safer lines by following the lead of the Government in the matter.

§ Mr. SHAW
I do not rise to split hairs about this Amendment, but to support its general principle. The Government knows perfectly well what that general principle is, and if they will, between now and the Report stage, offer to consider that general principle and embody the views of the vast majority of the House in the Bill, then I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment will agree not to 81 press it now. I have had the honour of serving with these men of nineteen. One of the most gallant officers in a gallant corps to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beading (Colonel L. Wilson) belongs, was a boy of nineteen, and one of the most gallant actions of the War was performed by him. You entrusted the lives of hundreds of men to the charge of those like him under the most critical circumstances which can ever confront a human being, and now when you have maimed him— because he is maimed—you calmly say, "You have behaved like a man, but we shall not give you the vote." I believe that the substantial justice of this question appeals to the House. As my hon. and gallant Friend behind (General Croft) said—and may I say in that connection with what pride I saw him do his work and saw the care which he took of these boys who were in his charge at the front— the point is an absolute exceptional one and does not in any way affect the general principle which the Conference was called to consider and on which it reported. So far as I am concerned, if this matter goes to a Division I shall support my hon. Friends who have raised it, and I think that anyone who has seen the work which these boys have performed and who refuses this concession to them would be doing a grave injustice.

§ Mr. A. SAMUELS
As a University Member I desire to support the Amendment. Every one of my Constituents of the age affected is at the front. There is not one of them of physical ability to serve in this War who is not there. I am sure the same thing can be said of all the universities. The spring has gone out of the year for the generation. I know numbers of them who have fallen and numbers who are wounded, many of whom had brilliant careers before them and who cannot now ever attain the positions which they would have attained in civil life. They will never be able in after life to have such recognition as their own achievements would have secured for them. They have given everything to their country and even although they are not twenty-one they should got from the country, gallant boys that they are, this small recognition for a couple of years of the right to vote.

§ Captain GWYNN
I desire also to support the Amendment, more particularly as it has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain O'Neill) who has associations with another division than that to which I belong. A great many difficulties 82 have been suggested, but I do not think that the jealousies that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) fears will really exist. I do not think there is any soldier who will not recognise that the man who has actually been in the trenches has a prior claim to the man who has not been. The man who goes to France may be kept at the base, but once in France he does not know when by some transfer or change in the Regulations he may be sent into the fighting line. So far as I know anything about the Army I think all ranks would welcome this proposal. If you make a distinction for the purpose of the vote between those of nineteen and twenty-one, may I point out that between the men of nineteen and twenty-one or thirty or other ages there has been no distinction as men, and if you set up this distinction between them as citizens it will lead to confusion. Officers who held high and responsible commands and who have been decorated will be unable tio vote while the most stupid private of the age mentioned will be entitled to do so. Then you will have the men of nineteen and twenty who have become non-commissioned officers set on one side and you will have other men by a purely arbitrary distinction entitled to this privilege. Often in the half light of the morning on going round and seeing men who have been out there for the night enduring the bitter wind, the feeling one had was that there was not a man amongst those men who was not entitled to a medal for the night's work. The least thing that this House can do, I think, is to give those men the recognition of full citizenship.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, have both had the great advantage of listening to the animated Debate which has taken place, and which shows a very great desire to extend the lines on which the Speaker's Conference based their support of the extension of the franchise to our soldiers and sailors. To listen to the remarks of some hon. Members, one might imagine that the Home Secretary and the other members of the Government had always shown a desire to keep as many soldiers and sailors off the register as possible, and one hon. Member suggested that all the Government cared was that these men should fight for their country and that they were 83 not in the least anxious to give them the vote. Those are very unfair and absolutely baseless charges. I know how far my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary —I will not say anything now for myself— went in every kind of endeavour to get soldiers and sailors on to the register. My right hon. Friend has shown every desire instead of trying to keep them off the register to do the very opposite, and in addition to enabling soldiers and sailors to retain the franchise which they had, he has tried in every way to obtain for the others the right to vote and to the exercise of the vote. As for myself, I never thought such a suggestion would be made as I have referred to in the case of my right hon. Friend. The age of twenty-one is the full age, and the only age that we know in this country. It was considered by the Speaker's Conference, and undoubtedly arguments prevailed on that occasion which would prevail with anybody when first considering this question. You must consider, if you are giving the vote in any way as a reward of service, that there are people remaining here who were compelled to remain here, and who are doing equal service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That is a matter of opinion. I say that the man who is kept here because of his great skill which allows him to produce munitions, and who works in that way hour after hour and day after day for long weeks and months, toiling to make supplies for those at the front, while he is not allowed to go tihere, though he may actually want to, is rendering as good service to the country as the man who fights.
As the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) said, we have to consider the case of those who would fight and who would like to fight, but who are medically rejected or unable to fight. We have to consider such questions as that if we take the age of nineteen for some men we are accentuating the case as regards women who will not be allowed to vote. All these things are matters for consideration. At the same time, I admit the argument is exceedingly attractive that if a man is good enough to fight for you he is good enough to vote on all matters such as the reconstruction of our country after the War. If you use that formula you are then up against the qestion of the age at which a man can fight. That age is sometimes as low as fifteen. If you cannot call a boy of 84 fifteen a man, at ali events for the purposes of fighting, he fights like a man and with all the courage and spirit of a man, and very often with the effect of a man. You must have some age and some limit when you adopt that very attractive formula that anybody who is good enough to fight for the country is good enough to vote. The age of nineteen has been mentioned, and the proposers of the Amendment recognise a difficulty in that case also, because the hon. and gallant Member the Member for Mid-Antrim (Captain O'Neill) built his case very largely on the ground that here were people who actually lost limbs or had been grievously wounded in fight, and who had met the enemy in open" fight, and he contended that those men ought to have the franchise and ought to be treated in an exceptional way. How can you adopt any standard of that kind? After all, the registration officer could not tell what men had been in open fight or what men had been actually fighting, and it would be very difficult, or almost impossible, for the registration officer to say what men had been wounded or "had not.

Captain O'NEILL
I merely used that as an illustration of the class of man who would not get the franchise now, but would get it under my Amendment. I do not suggest that the registration officer would have to inquire whether the man had been engaged under those circumstances.

§ Mr. FISHER
I hope I do not do my hon. Friend any injustice. I said that he built his case on the sentiment which would very naturally attach to those people who have been wounded in the fight or who have lost limbs. But, after all, we have got to find words for an Act of Parliament. My hon. and gallant Friend says: "Anyone who has attained the age of nineteen, and who has served on active service in any war in which His Majesty is engaged, shall have the vote." That again presents very great difficulty in actually carrying it out. The registration officer calls at a house, and he is told that the son is in the Army. How is he to say whether he is on active service engaged in any war? There is very great difficulty in that particular form. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend would be willing to put in the words, "who has served abroad," but again the registration officer would be in very great difficulty.

§ Major HUNT
It is the duty of the military authorities to inform the registration officer.

§ Mr. FISHER
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Shropshire thinks that it would be perfectly simple for the military authorities to inform all the registration officers throughout the United Kingdom what men have actually served abroad and are qualified under the Bill. All I can tell him is that I should be very sorry for the registration officer and for the military authorities.

§ Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
I thought you had started a special office on purpose to do this?

§ Mr. FISHER
One special office?

§ Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
One central London office.

§ Mr. FISHER
Not in that way. That again would be extremely difficult. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to find actual words or actual phrasing By which the registration officer may come to the right view as to who he shall and who he shall not put on the register. It is impossible to disguise—my right hon. Friend does not disguise from himself nor do I disguise from myself—that there is a very strong current of opinion in favour of giving the franchise, at all events for the election after this War, to those who have seen active service and have attained the age of nineteen. It comes from many quarters of the House and it certainly comes from men of all parties, and there does not seem to be any very strong opinion against it. All that I can say on behalf of the Government is that whilst these words are quite impossible and could not be taken the Government will consider the whole matter again before Report, and they will recognise that a very strong opinion has been expressed in this House in favour of giving the franchise at all events for the election after the War—I do not say for all time—to soldiers of nineteen, and they will see whether they themselves can find any form of words which will meet the opinion of this House as expressed by the great majority of the speakers who have spoken to-day. They will see whether they can adopt some form of words which will make it at all events not extremely difficult for the registration officer to assist all soldiers and sailors of nineteen who have seen active service to obtain 86 their place on the register, at all events on that register which will operate at the next election, and which will have as its-result the election of those who will have the main work of reconstruction to which we are all looking forward. I cannot say more than that to-day on behalf of the Government. These are not words which it would be possible to accept, but the Government recognise the very strong opinion there is in this House in favour of some such Amendment as that which has been put down, and my right hon. Friend will very carefully consider how he can meet that expression of opinion before the Report stage.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I think my right hon. Friend has quite correctly gauged the prevailing view in the Committee, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman sitting behind him (General Croft) made a reference to me in his speech, I should like to say a word or two. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his recollection. He is quite correct when he says that when the Speaker's Conference first approached this matter they did so rather as a problem connected with the present War, and he is also quite correct when he says that the matter was subsequently considered in the Conference more generally and not merely in reference to this particular War.

§ General CROFT
I did not suggest at any time that it was considered as a matter to do with the War. I raised the point on the first day.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I are at one. Though at one time it might have appeared that the Conference was going to deal with this War specifically, the proposal ultimately was more general. I should be very sorry if his recollection and mine did not coincide, because I know that we are thinking of the same thing. The Resolution reported to the House was a general Resolution, and I am bound to say, if there were going to be any general and permanent distinction drawn between what I may call the military and the civil voters, that I should be wholly opposed to it. It is essentially a wrong principle, as a principle, to divide your voters into two classes, a class called the military voter to be arrived at by one series of tests and a class called the civil voter to be arrived at by another series of tests. That has never been the state of the law in this 87 country, and though we all desire to do the fullest justice to the soldiers and sailors and to recognise in the fullest way the services, the unparalleled services, which the military citizens of this country render, I do not believe that we truly represent their action in this War if we treat them essentially as other than citizens. It is, no doubt, a different thing when you are faced with the particular difficulty that arises in this War, and I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken a wise course when he says that he is anxious to consider what has been said and to see if he can introduce an Amendment limited in this way.
I tell the Committee quite frankly that I should be very sorry to see established this suggested distinction between the military voter and the civil voter, because I agree with what my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Goldstone) said just now, and because, secondly, we must recognise that it is going away from that scheme which, presented as a whole, has hitherto been found to command a very large body of general support both in the House and out of it. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman has very wisely and properly indicated that he proposes to consider this and see what can be done. It is quite plain that it needs some consideration. Let me point this out. The new Clause proposed by the Home Secretary appears to refer to women as well as to men. It refers specifically to women who have served abroad in connection with nursing and the like. I do not suggest that there are very many women who are between the ages of nineteen and twenty-one serving abroad as nurses and the like, but there are some. Most of them are older, and a good deal of care will have to be taken.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
You ought to consider the ages in the case of women as between nineteen and thirty.

§ Sir J. SIMON
Yes, but I am talking about this Clause. The new Clause says, "This Section shall apply to any person." It does not say "any man.'' The first three Sections of the Bill talk about "men," the fourth about "women," and the fifth about "persons": This Section shall apply to any person who, in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, is abroad and is: 88

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

(b) serving in any work of the British Bed Cross Society or the St. John Ambulance Association, or any other body with a similar object."

I am not clear at present whether this Clause would not in part bring in some women. That, no doubt, is a matter which the Government will have to consider, and it is desirable that it should be looked into before a final decision is made. I interpose, because I wish in all candour to confirm what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said just now. I agree with him in his recollection. The Speaker's Conference was dealing with the matter generally, and, in my judgment, in dealing with it generally, they were perfectly right in saying that there ought not to be a distinction drawn between the military and the civil voter—not, indeed, on the ground that die men at the front are not running infinitely greater risks, but because they, in common with the rest of the country, are doing their best. I trust that is a common fact about many citizens at home as well as many citizens abroad. Therefore, though I think the Conference was perfectly right in refusing to draw this distinction when dealing with the subject generally, I am glad the Government say that they are going to consider what can be done about the special circumstances which arise out of this War.

§ Captain SPENDER CLAY
I am certain that everyone in this House would willingly vote on sentimental grounds for this Amendment, but I am rather doubtful whether it is wise to legislate on sentimental grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board stated that the Government were going to consider whether they could introduce any words to meet the Amendment which has been suggested. He did not say one word—and while I have been in the House I have not heard the subject mentioned—about the men of the merchant service. In my opinion, the men of the merchant service are far more deserving of the vote than the soldier who has been at Malta or at Gibraltar, and when considering the question the Government should certainly take the claims of the merchant service into serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct when he 89 stated that there would be difficulty in tracing whether men had been abroad or not. Anybody who has anything to do with the records of Soldiers must know that within a few weeks it is extremely difficult to trace where a man has been. It would mean a vast amount of clerical work and constant disputes as to whether a man had been abroad or not.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I wish to express my cordial agreement with my hon. Friend who has just spoken as to the claims of the mercantile marine. Their case certainly ought to be considered whether this Amendment is accepted or not, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will consider it. I wish to express my own thanks to the Government for having promised to reconsider this matter, and I am sure that everyone who has the interests of the soldiers and sailors at heart must be most grateful to both the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board for the great care and attention which they have given to this matter. I am sure no one except the ignorant, if there be such, would suggest that they have not done all in their power to give the soldiers and sailors the vote in the most full and effective manner.
I accept what my right hon. Friend said as to the objection to the Amendment in the precise form in which it stands, but I do hope that before the Report stage the Government will be able to devise some form of words which will meet the almost unanimous feeling of everyone who has spoken in this House to-night, that men who have fought for us, even though they have not attained the age of twenty-one, shall receive, at any rate, the small recognition of being entitled to vote when the opportunity arises. It is a very small matter. You may say it is a matter of sentiment. I do not think it is a matter of sentiment. I think it is an occasion when we ought to recognise what they have done for us; and, therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will be able to discover some form of words which will meet the opinion of the House. With regard to what the right hon. Member for Waltham-stow has said about a distinction being drawn between military and civil voters, I do not think he need be under any great alarm. I think this is a case where we should distinguish between the men who have fought for us and those who have not fought for us; but the idea that we are going to form a, military class and set it up 90 against the civilian population I think is a chimera which, I trust, will not turn the right hon. Gentleman from giving this matter his fullest consideration.

Captain O'NEILL
After what the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has said, I shall ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I quite appreciate that probably better words could be found to carry out the intention, though I think it is clear what the intention of my Amendment is. I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government have given a definite assurance that they will, on the Report stage, bring in some words which will insure, as far as it is-possible to insure it, that all soldiers of nineteen who have served on active service—abroad, if you like to call it—in this War shall get the franchise. I think the right hon. Gentleman went as far as that. The right hon. Member for Walthamstow stated that the Government had promised to consider and see what could be done, but I think the right hon. Gentleman went further than that. I think he gave a more definite assurance; he specifically referred to men of nineteen who have been on active service. On that understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway, that sentiment is a very unwise thing to act upon; but we are acting now on sentiment. What really took place at the Speaker's Conference was this: It was understood at the beginning of the Conference that the Government were going to deal with the question of sailors' and soldiers' votes. Afterwards the Government repudiated that, and said they were not going to deal with it. Then the Speaker's Conference took it up.

§ General CROFT
The right hon. Gentleman was not present.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I pointed out that at the beginning the Speaker's Conference did not deal with it, because the Government said they were going to deal with it. The Government then withdrew, and then the question came up. The Report is perfectly definite that the vote should only be given to men of full age. I have always held that we are not> bound in any way by the Speaker's Conference, and I do not suggest otherwise now. I do not advance against the 91 acceptance of this Amendment that the Speaker's Conference suggested something else, but I do say to the Government that if they are going to break away from the Conference proposals on this, as they have already on another point, then we cannot have from them the argument that they cannot accept Amendments because it would be breaking away from the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. The Speaker's Conference goes by the board now, Those hon. Members who are prepared to depart from the proposals of the Speaker's Conference when it suits them, cannot advance the argument that you must not depart from the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, when they do not approve of a particular Amendment which does depart from them. With regard to the Amendment, my hon. Friend opposite made one of the best speeches against it. How is anyone going to find out whether anyone has actually served abroad? Then I would point out that there are people serving abroad at the present time who have never seen a shot fired in anger, and who never will see a shot fired in anger. They are to be given the vote because somebody else has undergone what is undoubtedly great hardship, and they have undergone it in a most gallant and brave way. Then how about the boy of eighteen and three-quarters? There have been instances of boys who have gone out at sixteen and have fought in France. They are to be deprived of the vote. Then there is the question of the mercantile marine, who undoubtedly have performed great deeds of valour, and have suffered very much indeed. Once you begin to bring in people and to alter the age there is no knowing where you are to stop. Practically all the people of the country, with the exception of conscientious objectors, have endeavoured to do their duty, and by saying that in the case of persons who have done certain things the age is to be extended, you are opening up, T am afraid, a very difficult problem, for the Government are certain to be asked to extend it to others. Again there is no particular ground for making the age nineteen. Twenty-one is the ordinary age at which everyone hitherto has been allowed to vote. Once you do away with twenty-one on the ground that people have risked their lives, the boy of eighteen and a half 92 who has risked his life is just as much entitled to vote as the boy of nineteen who has risked his life.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
I think I must say a few words on this Amendment, because of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that no opposition has been expressed in the House to the Amendment.

§ Mr. FISHER
I did not say there was no opposition. I am perfectly aware that two right hon. Gentlemen have spoken against it.

§ Mr. JONES
It is difficult to oppose an Amendment of this kind, because all sentiment is ranged on the side of giving a vote to the gallant men who have run risks at the front. It is a very invidious position to get up and oppose it on any ground, and if I may say so, it requires some courage. I think it would be far easier to sit still and let a mistake be made than to stand up and let it be supposed that you have no sympathy with these brave men. Personally, I do not think any reward of the right kind is too great a reward to these men. But I protest against the vote for a Member of Parliament being treated as a reward to men for what they have done, and I think the Government should remember that in lowering the age from twenty-one to nineteen in certain exceptional cases they are opening a very wide door. After all, I should have thought the general tendency was to raise the age rather than to lower it for the Parliamentary vote, and that in view of the increasing number of voters in this country it was more likely that a proposal should be made to raise the age to twenty-five than in certain cases to lower it to nineteen. It must also be remembered that, once you have lowered the age to nineteen for any particular class in the community, for whatever reason you give it, you have to provide a reason for excluding all other citizens of that age in the country. I do point out to the Government that they are opening up in Committee a very wide question indeed, and it must not be thought that there will be no opposition to this proposal. I say this very reluctantly, because it seems to put the Committee in the position of refusing a reward to the soldier. I do not think the vote should be treated as a reward, and that once they make this exception they do break the principle on which the vote is at present founded. Therefore, the Government should think the question well over before deciding.

§ Major HUNT
I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that votes should be given to soldiers as a right, not as a reward, and I should like to point out that when a man goes abroad he goes into the danger zone, and he is also liable to be torpedoed. Anybody who has ever been engaged in the War knows what the men have to go through. I cannot understand why several Members should have said that we are asked to give the vote to men of nineteen for sentimental reasons. I do not see any sentiment in giving the vote to men who have rightly earned it. I must ask this question of the Home Secretary: Are we to understand definitely from him that he will bring in a Clause, or an Amendment, at the Report stage that sailors and soldiers who have served abroad in this War who are nineteen years of age or over will get the vote? That is what we want to know. It ought to be at the next election and all elections, but, at any rate, is to be at the next election? Is that the definite premise? If not, I think we ought to go to a Division.

§ Lord H. CECIL
I should like to submit a case with which I happen to be familiar, that of the Royal Flying Corps. That is a very difficult case from the point of view of those who urge this Amendment. Air mechanics of the Royal Flying Corps are employed, for example, in France at the various aircraft parks. Some of these are very remote indeed from the firing-line. One very important one which deals with engines is, I think, in the neighbourhood of Rouen. It cannot reasonably be said that they are in greater danger of their lives at Rouen or neighbourhood than they are at Farnborough. They are engaged on mechanical work of immense value, but they are not, in the ordinary sense of the word, exposed to the perils of active service. If you go a little nearer to the line you find squadrons of the air mechanics still normally not exposed to the dangers of active service, although occasionally, perhaps, under some exceptional circumstances, such as the bombing of the aerodrome, or something of that kind, they might be exposed to them. You have in the Royal Flying Corps an absolute gradation from people who are exposed for the greatest possible amount of danger under an absolutely graduated scale down to the air mechanics. I do not think you can equitably distinguish between those 94 two classes on any principle which is equitable by an Act of Parliament. If you are going to adopt the principle of service, and the test of that service is going to be the danger to which they have been exposed, I do not know how you are going possibly to apply that principle to the officers of the Royal Flying Corps. The same thing no doubt might be shown in regard to the Royal Engineers. Personally, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is unworkable to base the franchise on the service, however attractive such a programme may be. The moment you depart from the ordinary age there really is no reason why you should excuse midshipmen, who are always very young, or boys like Jack Cornwall. Voting is a privilege to be exercised in the interests of the public, and only those should exercise it who can do so to the advantage of the public. Whether twenty-one is the right age or not is a difficult question to decide, and there are arguments for putting it earlier and later. Whatever is the age at which the human mind can exercise this right to the advantage of the community, the vote ought to apply to everyone who has attained that age. I hope the Government will not adopt this Amendment in its present form.

§ Sir WILLIAM BULL
It should not be forgotten that as the War has now been going on for practically three years we are really dealing now with those who have been conscripts, and I am absolutely against lowering the age.

§ Mr. LOUGH
I would like to join in the note of warning which has been given to the Government with regard to the step they propose to take. I feel that the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cecil) did a great service to the Committee by laying down what is the foundation of this matter, and what is the principle upon which the vote ought to be given in this country. If you are going to give the vote for very distinguished services in the field, then of course there is no more virtue in nineteen than twenty-one, and that has been shown over and over again, because we have had some great deeds performed by boys at the age of eighteen, and even seventeen. If we lose sight of the question which the Noble Lord put before us, I am sure the Government will get themselves into a mess which I am afraid will be destructive of the Speaker's Conference. What is the reason why we have fixed on the age of twenty-one?
95 Simply because it is as early an age as could possibly be fixed when there has been a certain maturity of mind, and certain experience has been gained and the judgment is right. That is the time when a man can discharge the duty which everyone knows political life requires; that is the reason for fixing that age, and if you depart from this rule you will only get into a sea of trouble which has not yet been realised.
This proposal would be a great triumph for militarism. Are there no men who are now following peaceful private occupations endangering their lives? The Noble Lord opposite mentioned flying, but even that will not be confined to militarism after the War. I would like to point out that those who after the War will fly for civil purposes will run as great risks. The case of our sailors has been mentioned, and the men who work the mine-sweepers and drifters, and the men who serve us so nobly in the mercantile marine. There are also the men connected with our railways and mines who are risking their lives every day, and if you establish to-day that for every distinguished service you are going to give the vote, irrespective of age and other fitness, and irrespective of the old principle which has always been recognised, I warn you that this will be immediately followed by another claim, and another claim will follow to-morrow and the next day. Look at the absurdity of the position with regard to women. Women have risked their lives at the front in the case of nurses who have gone abroad. In this instance we fix thirty years for them, and after a momentary Debate in an almost empty House we are being asked to lower the age from twenty-one to nineteen with regard to these men. I agree with all that has been said about our willingness to give every honour to the men who have rendered such distinguished services. But I think it is putting an improper value on the vote to say that because they did this service they must have a vote. By doing this I think you are dealing a blow at the principles of the Speaker's Conference. You cannot go on like that. Why should this House be asked to do this without knowing how many voters will be added by this change? We ought to have from the Government an estimate showing how many hundred thousands will be added, and I earnestly appeal to the 96 Government before it is too late to proceed with the greatest caution in this matter. I do not believe that what I am suggesting is any reflection whatever on the gallantry of our men, but I do think we ought to be very careful in substituting the age of nineteen for twenty-one.

§ Sir COURTENAY WARNER
I hope the Government will stick to it that they are only considering this Amendment, and I do not think they ought to give any further pledge. Nobody has any idea of the difficulties there are in carrying out a proposal of this kind. Perhaps some of those hon. Members who have put down Amendments to give soldiers of nineteen votes will begin to realise that there is not one of those Amendments which is in any way workable. I think the House has pretty well come to that conclusion already. The point I want to come to is that every man who has put on a uniform ought not to have a vote, because there are plenty of people walking about the streets in uniform to whom you ought not to give a vote. I have seen Members of this House in uniform who have never thought of doing a day's fighting. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not between nineteen and twenty-one!"] No, but there are many people of that age who are wearing uniforms now, and I rather think they are doing so with a view of avoiding fighting. You do not want to give these civilians the vote, although I agree you should give it to the combatant, and I am in thorough sympathy with that. I should like to see every man over nineteen who has been in the trenches or who has been engaged in the Merchant Service or mine sweeping get a vote.
But how are you going to distinguish in all these cases? Take the difficulties that have occurred before in the South African War. At the conclusion of that war there was a medal issued, and it was given very freely. There were some Militia regiments garrisoned in the Channel Islands, and they got the South African War medal. There are people now who are garrisoned in places everywhere, and there are many people who have been over to France for two or three weeks, and who have never thought of going into the fighting line. The word "abroad" does not discriminate in these cases. Do you want to give everybody who has only pretended to fight a vote, or do you wish to give it only to those who have done real work? The difficulties of 97 ascertaining this are enormous, and it is not so simple. The military authorities have the greatest difficulty in identifying them, and when you get them transferring these names to the registration officers, the difficulties will be multiplied tenfold. It is said that you can get over all these difficulties, and that the Government will find some way of doing it. It is, however, in my opinion, such a difficult question that I hope the Government will not give any pledge in regard to it, because anything they may put forward even after mature consideration, when it is brought up here, may be so objectionable that it may be set aside by this House. If hon. Members think the Government have given more than a promise to consider this, I hope they will press the matter to a Division, because it will clear the air, and then we should know exactly what is meant, and we shall know whether this is a vague attempt to get the sympathy of soldiers and sailors, or whether it is an attempt to do something by legislation to get the men who have really fought in the ranks the vote.

§ Sir CHARLES HOBHOUSE
I understand that in a somewhat thin House— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—the Home Secretary gave an understanding that he would consider the question of extending the vote to soldiers of nineteen. I also understand that an invitation has been extended to the House to let the Government understand more or less what the feeling of the Committee is upon this important subject. I find myself in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) and other hon. Members who have spoken from this bench, that the evidence for granting votes to soldiers of nineteen is not sufficient. I followed pretty closely, as everybody in this House has done, the political course of other countries during the War. If you turn to other countries, to the most democratic countries in the world, France and the United States, and, so far as the nominal franchise goes, Germany, you will find in none of those countries is the vote extended to anybody under the age of twenty-one. Of those countries, France and Germany conscript their soldiers for service abroad at the age of twenty. They, therefore, recognise that, at all events, a year of service of the conscripted soldier is to go as service without any political reward. It seems to me that the discussion has 98 proceeded somewhat on the assumption that you ought to consider what is best or most satisfying to the individual soldier. That is not the question at all. The real question at issue is whether or not a man of nineteen who has been in the trenches can give a vote which is for the advantage of the country to which he belongs. I believe that a man of nineteen, whatever his military experience may be, has not got the necessary civic experience to enable him to give a vote of very much value or for the country's advantage. He cannot be acquainted, when serving abroad, with the issues of questions at home or the direction in which they turn. He, therefore, must give a vote to a certain extent in ignorance of the difficulties of the questions at stake. For that reason, if the Committee goes to a Division—and I hope the matter will not be held in suspense—I shall find myself supporting my hon. Friends.

§ Mr. J. MASON
This question really is dependent upon a principle which has been strangely ignored in many of the speeches to which we have listened. The question is, Is the franchise given to people for services rendered to the State or is it given to them because they are considered to be qualified to give a vote? If the franchise is given to a man for services to the State, how are you going to differentiate between a small service and a large service? Are you going to give an equal right to the man who has been in a draft for a few days and the man who has been in the War for a year? If, on the other hand, it is maintained, as it generally is, that the franchise is given to people because they are assumed to have sufficient intelligence to exercise it, how then are you going to justify giving it to one young man of nineteen who happens to be a soldier and happens to have been sent abroad, and refusing it to another young man of nineteen who, equally a soldier, happens not to have been sent abroad, or to refuse it to the young man of the same age who happens only to have lost two or three fingers, but who has never served abroad? Desirable as the change may, from many points of view, to some appear, it is, I think, unjustifiable as long as you maintain that the franchise is given to people who are assumed to exercise it properly, and is not to be considered, like the Military Medal, to be something to be given for deeds done in the War.

Mr. JARDINE
The earlier part of the Debate presented a cheerful sort of hearing, for everyone in the House appeared to be anxious that the soldier should have a vote. It is only when we come to what appears to me—who has never been able quite to read the Ministerial mind—to be a pledge to give the soldier who has been abroad a vote that there seems to be stern opposition, Member after Member getting up and on one pretext or another fighting against this vote being given to the men. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol said he did not consider that a man of nineteen was really qualified to give a civic vote. He apparently considers that the man of nineteen is equal to taking command of men in the field, and to give his health, prospects, life, his everything, for his country ! To give a vote, however, for red or blue—well, he is not good enough! I do hope, if there is any doubt as to the pledge by the Government to consider this matter in a favourable light with a view, as I understand it, of finding words which would give the fighting soldier of nineteen a vote—that, I understand, was the pledge—we shall have a Division. If the Government—but I feel sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not do anything of the kind—back up the people who want to prevent the soldier getting the vote, I trust the Bill will be wrecked. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board was in earnest when he said that the munition worker of nineteen who was here at home was, because of the services he was rendering, equally entitled to a vote as the man who is risking everything at the front.
Sentiment has been mentioned quite a number of times in the course of this Debate. There is a lot of sentiment—tosh —about the men who are giving up everything at home in working unheard-of hours on munitions work! I have had a good deal to do with munitions factories. I am sorry to say that I have had to do with a number of young men of nineteen who ought to be at the front, and who have been sheltered because of their so-called indispensability. Let the House understand—I hope somebody will contradict me if they disagree from what I am saying—that the young munition worker of nineteen here at home is having the time of his life. He is having three times the pay that he ever had. In many cases it is three times as much as he honestly earns. Reckoning everything 100 together, and the increased cost of living, he is twice as well off. He does not want to go and fight. He is not entitled to a vote, because he is having such an easy time, with high wages, lax discipline, picture palaces, and everything. I hope that the question of sentiment will be put to one side—sentiment for the fellow who is doing nothing but draw good wages ! I hope that the question of sentiment will be dismissed, because the sentiment is not for the soldier, but it is for the man at home. May I beg of the Home Secretary to make clear to the House what was the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman, so that those who do not mean the soldier to have a vote can have their share of voting in the Division?

§ Colonel GREIG
I intervene in this Debate for a little while, because I feel very strongly on the point that has been raised. I am bound to agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. If you are going to make the test of facing danger—and that is what it comes to—the test for a vote, you cannot draw the line at those who go abroad. Just let me give one or two instances that have come within ray own knowledge in training men for the front. Every man, be he eighteen or nineteen, has to go through a course of live bombing, and I have known cases where the youngsters of that age have been so injured that they can never go to the front. They live on, but they have been so maimed that they cannot go abroad. Are you going to deprive these men of the vote? If the Amendment is carried and it refers only to those who have gone abroad, what about the oases of men who have faced danger and been injured and who have gone through, I will not say as much danger as in a bombing attack, but, in view of the inexperience when they first began to take their bombing course, they probably did go through as much danger in many cases as those qualified to go to the front, having gone through the course? Take another instance—relating to the men who are training for the Royal Flying Corps. I have known a youngster who was just nineteen and while training was shot out of his machine and killed. Suppose he had only been maimed for life—as some of them are—he would never have got the vote for service, but he would have gone through as much test of courage in the way of facing danger as the men who, having gone 101 through the course, proceeded to the front. Under all the circumstances, it seems to me you cannot draw the line where it is suggested to be drawn.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Perhaps I may be allowed a few words in answer to various questions that have been put to me. Let the Committee consider the difficult position in which the Government, is and was placed. A proposal was made that soldiers and sailors of nineteen years of age should have the vote. That was modified, first to soldiers on active service, then it was reduced to soldiers who had seen active service abroad, then to soldiers who had been on active service abroad in this War, then it was confined to the next register and election—the election which will next follow—and that the vote should be given to those who were more than nineteen years of age for that election.

Captain O'NEILL
So far as the Amendment standing in my name is concerned, I was certainly no party to it going beyond the words which are expressed in the Amendment. An hon. Member got up and suggested the difficulty about the men who are on active service, and those who are still in this country and I said—or I meant to convey the idea—that supposing by the addition of the word "abroad" the Government would be led to accept the Amendment, that naturally would greatly influence him. Beyond that, so far as my Amendment is concerned, I do not think I have gone.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The hon. and gallant Gentleman certainly showed a willingness to accept the Amendment. Other hon. Members pressed the Government. At all events the point we had to consider was whether that very limited demand should be absolutely negatived to-day or whether we should give it further consideration. So far as this Debate is concerned, with one exception the whole of the speakers have been in favour of the grant being very much wider. I quite accept what has been said that it is very difficult to speak against a proposal of this kind, although I hope none of us will hesitate to do so if we hold that opinion. The first proposal was definitely negatived. But we had to consider a very much modified proposal. The matter has been put as a question of rewarding the soldier for his services, but that view has now been disclaimed. The argument now put to us is that the soldier who at the age of 102 nineteen has fought in this War, is qualified, and is a man who could be relied upon to give a vote in the next election which will arise following the War. The claim is put on that ground. I state quite frankly that my own personal sympathy is with those who press this Amendment. I do not desire to disguise at all my opinion. I would not have let that influence me to go beyond the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference unless I had conceived the idea that the strong feeling of the House was in that direction. I may be right or I may be wrong in that, but that is the feeling I have. Therefore the promise which I gave, or which my right hon. Friend gave on our behalf, was to consider the question on the Report stage, and when I say consider it, I do not mean simply to think it over, but what I meant, and what I believe the House understood me to mean, was, that we would consider the matter in the hope, if possible, of meeting the request that was made.
I cannot give—no Minister could give— an absolute promise to put in words before knowing what their effect would be, what the form would be and whether there were any insuperable difficulties in the way. I cannot give that kind of absolute pledge, but I shall be believed when I say I mean to try to do it if I can. If I can find a way of doing it, I shall propose to the House that effect should be given to the desire that has been expressed in the hon. Gentleman's proposal. I think I have expressed my views pretty clearly. There are difficulties, very real difficulties, I know. Some of them were pointed out by my right hon. Friend in his speech. I think they can be overcome. I have had the opportunity of discussing not this particular Amendment, but points connected with it with distinguished officers, and I think it is possible to give the registration officers; materials by which they may give effect to the proposal. My present impression is that it can be done, and that there is no difficulty which cannot be overcome. I am going to try to do it before the Report stage. Of course, I shall be in the hands of the House then and they can do what they please. But I do want to meet this, which I believe to be a genuine demand.
May I add that it is quite true that if we are able to do this thing we shall be doing something which is perfectly new 103 in franchise matters. I realise that as fully as anyone. But we are in the middle of this great War, and none of us can help feeling that upon the courage of these men depends the issue of the War, and that when they come back they will be at nineteen very different men from what they were before they went out. We are entitled to treat this very exceptional demand in an exceptional way. I do not desire in the least to make it a precedent for the future, not even for future wars, still less for future times of peace, but I have a strong feeling that the times are exceptional, that the demands made upon our people are exceptional, and that it might be a good thing to give special recognition to the services that have Been given to us by our soldiers and sailors. One word about a Division. If we are forced to a Division and have to vote on one side or the other, we should be forced to vote against the Amendment, because the form of it is such that it could not be inserted in the Bill. If a Division is taken I shall not regard such a Division as the index of the feeling of the Committee on the subject. That being so, I rather hope that on both sides we shall agree to avoid the necessity of a Division, and that if the Amendment is not allowed to be withdrawn, at least it will be allowed to be negatived without a Division, and the matter left open for consideration on Report.

§ Sir C. WARNER
The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned one class—that is, the sailors of the merchant navy, who are doing sweeping operations. He must also remember that sailors in the Royal Navy are never abroad on service.

§ Sir G. CAVE
That is the kind of point we are going to consider.

§ Major NEWMAN
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "who is serving on full pay" and insert instead thereof the words "whose name is shown on a pay roll."
Earlier in the afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Christ-church (General Croft), showed what was in the minds of the Speaker's Conference 104 when they first approached the subject of giving the vote to men in the Navy and military forces of the Crown. He told us that at the beginning the Conference considered that they were dealing with the problem merely as it affected the present War and that afterwards they saw that the problem was one not for this War only but for all time, and they approached it in that spirit. I should imagine the draftsman of this Bill had only the present War in his mind. When we began the discussion on the Bill the Home Secretary did not fully realise that we were not giving the votes to the men engaged in this War only. I admit that he now clearly sees the point, but I am not sure that he is giving effect to it in the wording of his Amendment. The words "full pay" are not adequate to meet the situation. We have to remember that full pay is not the same thing as full age. It is easy to fix age because you have the birth register, but when you come to the matter of full pay you are up against many difficulties and snags. At the moment the position is an easy one, because Regular soldiers, Yeomen, Special Reserves, Territorial officers and men, all serve on equal terms of full pay at the front. We must remember, too, that we are legislating blindfold for the future. We cannot tell what will happen when the War is over. I hope we shall have a comparatively small standing Army, with an Expeditionary Force, and a force of Empire Police, perhaps on the Swiss model, serving for two or three years, down to men answering their names at a roll call; but if you have a Territorial Force, perhaps with national service, the words "on full pay" will not meet the situation. Take the case of the ordinary Territorial Force or the Special Reserve. An officer serves for two or three months, and for the rest of the year is engaged in business as a civilian, while the man will serve for two or three months and will then return to civil employment. Will they be included in the Home Secretary's Amendment? If they are, there is no particular object in pressing my Amendment, but we shall have to get a better definition of what is military service than merely saying "on full pay."
To show that I am not talking round my hat, I will give one illustration of the difficulty. If hon. Members will turn to Article 315 of the new Royal Warrant they will see it says that half-pay may be drawn by officers commanding Territorial 105 Force, mounted and Infantry brigades, and headquarters of Divisional Artillery. Here at once is a difficulty. Here are officers who can only draw half-pay when commanding a Territorial brigade. How are you going to deal with that particular case? There are many others which might be quoted from the Warrant as regards the officers, and probably as regards men also. I admit that in the present temper of this Committee, the House generally, and the country, I should have no fear at all, because I should be perfectly certain that no registration officer or party agent would object in any way to any officer or man who could possibly be got off the register for any qualification. We have to legislate not for the moment, but for the future The enthusiasm for our gallant soldiers and sailors, which is strong at present, may die away in twenty or thirty years, and their services will be largely forgotten, as have been the services of men engaged in previous wars. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) was somewhat lukewarm about the claims of the men now at the front, and the same thing applies to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse). As time goes on -that feeling will become more common, and we might have a keen party agent trying to keep men who were against his party off the register. He will be able to do it if we keep in the words "on full pay." My Amendment is something definite. The name will have to be shown on a pay-roll. Hon. Members who are in the Army know that a pay-roll or sheet is a very important tiling which is kept with the greatest accuracy and care. It has to be initialled and looked into. These pay-sheets are sent up to headquarters and lodged with the command pay office and are there as records for almost all time. An hon. Friend reminds me that an officer's name does not appear on a pay-sheet. I know it does not, but an officer's name does appear on certain registers, such as the command pay-roll or at Cox's. If this Amendment is adopted, the difficulty connected with the words "on full pay" would not occur. I admit that if we were only dealing with the situation as it is for the moment perhaps it would be unnecessary to press the Amendment; but if we leave in the words "on full pay," in a very short time, say three or four years, we should have to have an amending Act 106 to deal with the matter. Would it not be better to deal with it now in a more comprehensive fashion by accepting my Amendment or some words equivalent to it?

§ Sir G. CAVE
The words in the Bill are well known in Acts of Parliament and are well understood, and my feeling is that if we substitute other words we shall substitute the evidence for the fact. The officer has to be satisfied that the man is serving on full pay, and if you make him refer to the pay-roll, of course the registration officer would not be in a position always to look at the pay-roll, and it would put upon him a difficult task to perform. At present he has to satisfy himself by that or any other evidence that the soldier or sailor is on full pay. As regards a man of the Territorial Force, my own view is that he would not come ordinarily within this Clause. I am not speaking of war time, of course, but in peace time, when the Territorial is only on active service for a short time in the year, he comes upon the register, as anyone else does, as a resident or as the occupier of business premises. The idea was not to give to such a man in respect of his quite short service a right to be registered at the place where his Home is, or the alternative right to choose other places for registration. This Clause is intended to apply to the ordinary soldier or sailor on full pay, and for that purpose I think it is sufficient, and it appears to me that if we adopted the alteration proposed we should be opening up difficulties which we had better avoid if we can.

§ General CROFT
I think the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Newman) is really an important one. I do not think he meant to suggest for a moment that anyone in the present Territorial Force in peace time should have a vote under this Clause. I think the suggestion was to safeguard against the possibility of young men in any future citizen Army in this country being called up for nine months or a year being precluded from obtaining the vote.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Would they be on full pay?

§ General CROFT
That is the question. It is possible that such a citizen Army might have the same pay in the future as the Regular Army. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider whether some words could be brought in which would 107 make it possible to cover a suggestion of that kind. Another point arising out of the Amendment is that there is a considerable number of officers, I should imagine, who are employed on half pay. It seems it would be only right to consider those cases.

§ Colonel ORMSBY-GORE
I think my hon. and gallant Friend's last point is a sound one in respect of a very small class, that is to say the regular soldiers who are employed in training a citizen army or a territorial force, or anything on those lines. The system before the War was that the brigadiers and brigade majors who trained Territorials were on half pay throughout the year and, I believe, got some special allowances during the fortnight's training, but did not go on full pay. It is a very small point and only affects a limited number. I do not know if the Home Secretary would be willing to make inquiries of the War Office authorities whether there is substance in this point before Report.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes, I will do that.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I should like to ask whether the expression, "full pay" is restricted in the way of excluding men on short pay or whose pay is subject to deduction or anything of that kind.

§ Colonel YATE
May I ask my right hon. Friend if there is any necessity to put in the words "on full pay" at all? Would it not be equally good if the man is serving as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown. There are all sorts of incongruities. We see generals and full colonels appointed to serve as staff sub-lieutenants and all sorts of things. I do not know whether a general on the pay of a sub-lieutenant can be described as on full pay Is there any necessity for the words?

§ Major NEWMAN
May I put one concrete case. Take a man in a territorial army of the future of a class which is called up for two months. He is called up for July and August and is away from his home and business qualification during that time. Will he lose his vote or will he not? That is the whole point.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I will take expert advice on these matters.

§ Major NEWMAN
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "entitled to be" ["shall be entitled to be registered"].
I move this because I do not know what the words mean. They appear in several Clauses which we have already dealt with. Do they mean Oyez, Oyez, Oyez, and the Royal Proclamation, or have they a really definite meaning? For instance, do they mean that if the man is entitled to be registered he shall be registered? Supposing I was entitled to get £5 from the Home Secretary. Knowing him as I do, I know I should get it, and I would not bother about the word "shall," but in the case of other Home Secretaries who have been in the House while I have been here, if I Had been told I was entitled to get £o I should prefer the word "shall" put in. I will not mention names. The soldier will not be able to look after his vote himself. In a good many cases even the party agent may not be able to do it for him, and it will be up to the registration authority to put him on the list if he possibly can. If the words mean nothing at all I do not mind, but if they make it at all likely that the soldier or someone on his behalf may have to cast about to get him put on the voter's list these words ought to be left out in deference to our men, and the word "shall" alone ought to stand.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The words "shall be entitled to be registered" are the same words as are found in the preceding four Clauses of the Bill. What they do is to give to the man the right to be registered. They make it the duty of the registration officer to register him. It carries it no further to say he shall be registered. That only means that the officer shall do his duty. He is bound to do his duty. We carry it no further by leaving out the words.

§ Mr. PETO
I beg Lo move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "registered" ["shall be entitled to be registered "], to leave the words, "and to be placed upon the absent voters' list."
I ought to apologise for moving a manuscript Amendment, but it has been on the Paper since the Second Reading and has been omitted in consequence of the Home Secretary's redrafting of this 109 part of the Clause. In the Bill as drafted the first mention of the absent voters' list is in Clause 18, which provides machinery whereby persons who are on the absent voters' list shall exercise the franchise. But the making of the absent voters' list is in the first Schedule, and this question of whether the soldier or sailor is to be placed on the register is really vital to the whole of what we are debating on this Clause 5. It seems to me that if there is anything which should be the subject of a special Clause in this Bill it is this absent voters' list, because it is a new departure, and it certainly should not be tucked away in the thirteenth Subsection of the first Schedule, which is headed "Registration Rules." It is no use putting these soldiers and sailors upon the register and then leaving it, as the Bill leaves it under the Schedule, that the person placed on the register may claim in each case, if he can show that he is likely to be absent from the polling place on polling day, to be placed upon the absent voters' list. Our soldiers and sailors are much too busy doing other things very much better for the country than filling up forms and claiming to be placed upon a particular part of the register, and it is the intention of the House not only to place these men upon the register, but to see, without any trouble for themselves, as far as we can see to it, that they shall be placed in a position to exercise the franchise. It is true there is only a limited time in which they can exercise the franchise, but that we can deal with at a later stage of the Bill. It seems to me that in this Clause it is essential that we should not only say that these men should be placed upon the register, but we should impose upon the registration officer the duty to place them upon it there and then.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I have an Amendment on Clause 11 very much on the same lines as this. I do not know whether I shall be able to move mine if the matter is dealt with at this stage. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) also has the same Amendment down.

The CHAIRMAN
When the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) submitted his manuscript Amendment to me a short time ago I was doubtful whether this Clause was the correct point. I suggested to him that he should just move it and get an answer which would clear up the point 110 as between Clause 11 and Clause 18, and I think that will be a course which will not debar the question being raised on Clause 11.

§ Mr. PETO
It appears to me that there are two or three courses open to the Home Secretary and one which is absolutely closed, and that is to leave this question of the absent voters' list where it appears in the Schedule alone. He may accept an Amendment I have on the Paper and put down a new Clause, which is substantially paragraph 13 of the Schedule, or he may simply put in these words in this Clause, which appear to mo to make clear, the intention of the Committee to give soldiers and sailors the opportunity in the easiest possible way of being registered under the provisions of an absent voters' list, the principle argument for which, apart from the merchant service, which has been claiming these facilities to vote for twenty-five years, was that it rendered effective the provision for getting these men upon the register. I am quite willing to leave it in that form, but I did not want to lose the opportunity on this Clause, where it seems to me it is quite proper, of defining exactly what the duty of the registration officer is.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think it will be a pity to put the words in this Clause in the way suggested, because if they are coming in here they should come in on every Clause Every voter has the right to be put on the absent voters' list. What we intend is this: The Schedule must have a very carefully drawn provision with regard to the registration of soldiers and sailors. We intend in the Schedule to insert a provision under which the naval and military authorities will give assistance to the registration officers in regard to the soldiers and sailors to be included in the register. Following that there is a provision in the Schedule for absent voters. Provision is made that anybody shall have the right, on giving certain evidence that he will be away, to be put on the list. We propose that the registration officer shall automatically place the soldier or sailor on active service on the list. I do not think it is necessary that there should be a reference in the Clause, but chat would be put in the Schedule. I would rather that the hon. Member should consider what I have said, and we can deal with the matter at a later 111 stage. I am quite satisfied that the Bill really meets all the requirements which I have laid down.

§ Mr. PETO
While I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to put it into the Schedule, or possibly into the Clause if he decides it should be put into the Clause, I should like to know whether there will be provision by which a soldier and sailor will be put automatically upon the absent voters' list without his having to make a claim?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I understand it is to be the duty of the military and naval authorities to assist the registration officer? In that case that could go into the Schedule and not into this Clause.

Colonel J. HOPE
Will the right hon. Gentleman not put all soldiers automatically on the absent voters' list whether on active service or not?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Those who come within this Clause.

§ Lord H. CECIL
I understand it is the intention of the Government that soldiers at the front shall vote on the absent voters' list? I ask this question because language was used earlier in the Session in another place which seemed to indicate that the Government was absolutely opposed to soldiers voting in the trenches. That was said to be contrary to the best and strongest advice of the military authorities. I merely want to make this point clear, because my right hon. Friend's statement is of the highest possible interest, if I have rightly understood him.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I did not think that I had made any new declaration. Everybody hopes there will be no election during the War. The idea which I had in my mind was the ordinary Army in peace time in respect of which the absent voters' right would be exercised. The point raised by the Noble Lord as to how far it is possible for soldiers who are actually fighting to vote is a serious one, and I have no intention of dealing with it.

§ Lord H. CECIL
It is not contemplated to exclude them?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Oh, no.

§ Lord H. CECIL
They will have the same right as any other absent voters?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes.

§ General HICKMAN
Are we right in assuming that when we get to the Schedule, the Home Secretary will move that the onus of their being registered is upon the registration officer and not upon the soldiers?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Certainly. That is the effect of this Clause.

§ Mr. MACMASTER
I understand that this Clause simply declares the right of the soldier and sailor to be registered, and the method by which that is to be done is a matter of separate procedure?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes.

§ Mr. CAUTLEY
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "any" ["for any constituency "], and to insert instead thereof the word "the."
The object of this Amendment and of the one which stands in my name lower down on the Paper is to provide that every soldier and sailor on reaching the age of twenty-one years shall be registered without the residential qualification of six months. The second part of my Amendment is that he shall be registered in the constituency in which he was residing when he enlisted or when he entered the Navy. I suggest that this will make the service franchise simpler and put it on a more intelligible basis. It will avoid what I cannot help considering is the absurd and hypothetical speculation that every soldier and sailor will have to go through, in saying where he would have been residing if he had not been a soldier or a sailor. I think the absurdity is seen on asking any man to go through that speculation when he has been five or six years in the Service, and has long since left his home and very often has been travelling round the world, and more so in the case of men who have been ten or twelve years in the Service. During these Debates I have tried to find some intelligible principle upon which we consider that the franchise is conferred in the case of civilians, and I can only come to the conclusion that we confer the franchise on the ground of expediencey, and on no other. It seems to me that the community say— it was stated very clearly and succinctly by the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil)—that there is no abstract right to the vote. I 113 think we probably all accept that. It occurs to me that the community grant the right to vote to such members of the community as it considers for the time being are reasonably likely to exercise properly the function of voting. We have seen our ancestors limit the right to freeholders We have seen the next generation extend the right to occupiers and ratepayers. We are now extending the right to residence for six months. I am not one who considers that our ancestors acted capriciously or that we are acting capriciously. I think that probably the growth of education, the spread of newspapers, and the more wide and general knowledge acquired by the community at large steadily increases the classes who are competent to exercise the, franchise. If that is so, why have we put on the limit of six months' residential qualification? What is the object of a man residing in a shanty or in some premises of no particular value and very often not paying the rent? What is it that qualifies him for the vote?
I think the true explanation is that the Government have inserted this limitation of six months as being the right means of excluding what I may call the wastrel and the ne'er do well. If that is the real reason, how on earth can it be suggested that this residence of six months is applicable to the soldier? The soldier is a man who, as has been well stated in the discussion on the first Amendment to-day, is gallantly performing the highest services of citizenship. He joins the Service, he submits to discipline, he is a man more or less of education and of character, and it is quite immaterial to his right to a vote where he resided in the past, or whether he would have been residing at home or in the Army for six months or more. I am not sure as to how far, or if at all, this affects a very large number of persons, because I believe that in ordinary peace time, in ordinary recruiting for the Army, men join at the age of eighteen to twenty years, and, therefore, will have been in the Army for six months more than the qualifying period before they arrive at the age of twenty-one. I think it is pretty certain that in the case of the Navy boys join at a younger age, and they will have been in the Service and will have had a residential qualification in the Service before they arrive at the age of twenty-one. I commend this Amendment for the Home Secretary's consideration if he lays any stress at all on the residential qualification for men in the Army and Navy.
114 He is needlessly blocking his Bill by insisting on such a qualification. A much more simple means of securing his object is to put every soldier and sailor on the register, and I suggest that my Amendment affords a much simpler means of doing so than is provided in this Clause. Every soldier when he joins the Army, has to attest before a magistrate, and in his attestation papers he has to state his place of residence. Those attestation papers are filed away at the depot of his regiment and are there for reference at any time and are easily got at by the regimental authority at the depot. The sailor when he joins the Navy is asked a number of questions, amongst which is his place of residence. These questions and answers are taken down and are filed away for reference, and they are most important documents. Every sailor, as I understand it, is at once appropriated to one of three ports, Portsmouth, Devonport, or Chatham, which port is called his home port, and the records are sent there, so that the naval authority has close at hand the full record of every man on full pay in. the Navy in the same way that the regimental authority has a full record close at hand containing the place of residence of every soldier in full pay in any particular regiment.
If the Home Secretary is really in earnest in his intention to put on the register every soldier and sailor who is entitled to a vole there should be no obligation on the soldier and sailor to make a claim to get on the register, but they should come on automatically. I would ask the Committee to consider whether the Amendment standing in the name, I think, of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, by the insertion of a Schedule with the direction that it shall be the duty of the regimental authority, and of each port authority to send to the registration officer the name and rank of every man of twenty-one in the Service who is under this Section entitled to be put on the register, does not provide the necessary machinery. It is a much easier, simpler and more perfect way than the Homes Secretary's suggestion that the registration officer should go to various houses saying, "Have you got a soldier or sailor in this house?" The Home Secretary's scheme will not work in practice. I do not believe that it will put on the register more than half the soldiers and sailors who are entitled to be put upon it. As I understand the scheme 115 is that the registration officer is to go to every house and ask the occupier, "Have you a son or other relative in the Army or Navy?" The parents may have left or emigrated, or the soldier or sailor may have been in the Service for five or ten years or more, and the parents may have gone to live in another district. When you consider the number of removals you will see the difficulties which will confront the registration officer. For instance, you may go to a house in Bath and find that there is a son in the Army or Navy and put him down for Bath, though they may not have heard from him for five years, when he had lived with his parents in Newcastle, where all his friends are, with whom he still keeps up an association. The Home Secretary's scheme will lead to an insuperable amount of work by the registration officers, a large amount of which will be useless, and it will not attain the object in view.
Under the Home Secretary's Amendment to Clause 5 the option is given to the man serving, whether as a soldier or as a sailor, to be put on the register cither for his home or the constituency where he is serving. But the scheme which I have suggested would make it infinitely better and be more easily worked, by providing in the Schedule, if the man exercises that option, for the giving of notice to the regimental or naval authorities that before a certain date such authority should send the names of the persons entitled to vote in respect of naval or military service to the substituted registration officer instead of to the place of residence. It seems to me that by adopting the scheme which I have suggested you will get rid of what, to my mind, is an objectionable feature in this Clause as it stands. In this Clause you are actually saying that the statement made by the sailor or the soldier that he would have resided in a particular place if he had not joined the Army or Navy is to be accepted as sufficient evidence. This is objectionable in many ways. It is not before the Committee at the moment, and I do not propose to go into it now, but will move my Amendment.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
I have got an Amendment lower on the Paper which substantially although not verbally is the same as that of my hon. and learned Friend, and I am rather inclined to think, after hearing my hon. and learned Friend, 116 that his Amendment is the better of the two. His Amendment proposes that a man shall be entitled to vote in a constituency in which he has resided when, he joined the force. My proposal is that he should be entitled to vote in a constituency in which he had resided a month before he joined the force. Either of those Amendments would be a more effective way of attaining the result, which we all desire, of getting the soldiers and sailors on the register, and with certainty and accuracy. When we come to consider the question, what should be the constituency for which the soldier would be entitled to get a vote we have to consider two main points. First, what is the place with which he is most closely associated, speaking generally, and second, what is the place which you can ascertain with the greatest certainty? As regards the first of those, I would suggest the place where he resided at the time he joined up. In these matters you have to take what is most true on the average, and in this definition of the place for which he should be registered we may have this objection— that it would not be the most appropriate place in all cases. But, speaking broadly, the place where the soldier or sailor has resided at the time he was called up is, as a rule, his home; and therefore it would, as a rule, be the most appropriate place for him to be registered in as a voter, and the place in which he is to be registered can then be ascertained with certainty. If it is the place where he was residing, there is very little difficulty. As my hon. and learned friend pointed out, the soldier's attestation paper always contains the name of the place where he resided. Therefore there is no difficulty in that case. I am not so familiar with the practice in regard to the sailor, but I should imagine that there would be no greater difficulty in that case. It may be granted that there must be some cases in which the place where he has resided when called up would be an inappropriate place for him to be registered as a voter, and he might have lost his connection there. Possibly he was a bachelor when he was called up. His parents might have left their residence during the time he is serving, and when he came back from the War he might find that his friends had gone, and he might not care to be registered in the place where they were residing when he left. But that would not lose him his vote. All it would do 117 would be to make the place where he was registered less appropriate than, possibly some other place that might be suggested. But, speaking broadly, my hon. Friend's proposal would meet the case.
Take by way of contrast the proposal of my right hon. Friend as it appears on the Paper, which is that the man should be registered for the constituency in which he would have the necessary residential qualification but for his service. That is certainly open to the objection which has been urged by my hon. and learned Friend, because it is exceedingly difficult for the registration officer to know how to find the place for which the man would have been qualified if he had never gone into the Service. The words "in which he would have had a vote if he had not been called up" are really too vague to act upon even under the scheme of this Clause, because I think that under Sub-section (2) of the Bill the soldier or the sailor has got to make a statement which would be sufficient—

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
That is only if he wants to transfer his vote.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
As I understand it, the Bill says that he is to have a vote in the constituency in which he would have had the necessary qualification but for his service, and the next Sub-section goes on to say that the statement of a person claiming to be so registered that he would have had the necessary qualification but for his service shall for all purposes be sufficient. In other words, when this Clause comes to be considered, the man is asked, "where would you have had your qualification but for your service?" and the statement which he makes is to be accepted as true. How is the man to be able to make the statement at all? How is he to be able to say where he would have had the qualification but for his service? Of course, he might say, "when I enlisted I was residing at A, and but for my enlistment I should have gone on residing there for six months, and should have been entitled to vote in A." That is the simplest case. But there must be numbers of cases where, owing to uncertainty as to his future movements, it is quite impossible for him to say whether, if he had not been called up, he would or would not have had the requisite qualification. Therefore, you are really throwing on the soldier the duty, for the purpose of getting the right to vote, of making a statement which it is impossible for him to 118 make. I ask my right hon. Friend, supposing that the soldier or sailor cannot make the statement, will he be given his vote?

§ Sir G. CAVE
He will be put on the register by the registration officer if he can say where he resided; if he cannot say where he resided, I suppose he would not be put on the register.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
That is precisely my point. Unless he is able to make a statement as to where he would be entitled to be registered but for his service he cannot be put on the register. In other words, it is for him to say for what constituency he can claim. It is very unfair to ask him to make his right to vote dependent upon his making a statement which he may, in fact in a number of cases, be wholly unable to make, because he has to make the statement on some hypothetical circumstances; which do not in fact happen, namely, where he would have been residing but for his being called up for service. If he cannot make that statement he loses his vote altogether, subject to this, that he has got an alternative, namely, where he is serving; but the residential vote is lost altogether unless he makes this statement, which in a large number of cases he could not make. Therefore, I beg the Home Secretary to consider whether he cannot accept my hon. Friend's form of words, in preference to those on the Paper, and so ensure that certainty and simplicity which would enable the soldier or sailor to be entered upon the register in the way he desires.

Colonel HOPE
I have an Amendment a little lower down on the Paper which practically comes to the same thing. I think it is perfectly clear from what the last speaker said, and the Mover of the Amendment said, that the Home Secretary's present proposal gives rather a vague definition of the former place of qualification, and does not provide, readily, machinery that would ensure the soldiers being able to qualify and get on the register. The object of the Bill is quite clear and concise, but as to residential qualification it is very vague. The Home Secretary mentioned only this afternoon that he hoped to make arrangement later on with the military authorities to provide the registration officer with information which would ensure placing the soldier on the register. In fact, he has already in his mind something of the 119 scheme contained in my Amendment, and which I should like to suggest. I would point out that the Clause as it already stands would impose an almost impossible task upon the registration officer, namely, to test the qualifications of soldiers, and place them on the register. The Home Secretary last Wednesday, I think, said the registration officer would make a house-to-house visitation and inquire whether any occupant had gone into the Army. To ascertain that the soldier had been at least one month in residence in a particular house previous to joining the Army, and that he had also been five months in the Army, making a six months' qualification, is very important, but also very difficult for the registration officer to find out. As has already been mentioned, a large number of these soldiers who have enlisted are from a floating population, and how is the registration officer to get the information? The soldier may have lived in Edinburgh six months before the War and then have gone to Glasgow in October, 1914, where he may have worked six months at munitions, wandering about from lodging to lodging, until he finally comes to London, where he enlists in April, 1915. What registration officer could possibly trace that man? That man had his residential qualification in Edinburgh, he leaves for Glasgow, and he is now serving his country in the War, having been in the Army since April 1915. I submit that the only way to deal with this matter and to get the necessary machinery for placing the soldier on the register is to use the information which the military authorities obtain about the man, and I submit that you should ensure, in some later Schedule, that the military authorities will give the necessary information to the registration officer.
The Mover of the Amendment suggests that the place of registration should be the place in which he was residing when he joined. Personally, I do not think that is quite as good a proposal as taking the place of the nearest next-of-kin. In the first place, the soldier's residence is put on the attestation paper, but in many cases he only sleeps in the house the night before he enlisted. The attestation papers constantly show that the men who have joined the Army have stopped in London the night before enlisting, and have slept in lodging houses. It is the duty of the military 120 officer, directly a man joins up, to obtain all necessary information about him, and that is entered up, and you have it all in the attestation paper. Look at what that means! If you take the place where the next-of-kin resides, if it is the father or mother, it is obviously the place where an unmarried man might well apply, and if a married man gave the residence of his next-of-kin, it would be where his wife was residing when he joined. His wife might, of course, remove afterwards while he is in service, but where the nearest relation resides when the soldier has joined seems to me a very suitable place to adopt for the purpose of registration. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will consider this suggestion, that the constituency in which the next-of-kin resided at the time the soldier enlisted in the naval or military forces should be the place for which the soldier should have the vote. If my Amendment embodying this proposal were adopted, it would be giving the soldier a vote on a simple qualification; he would be entitled to a vote in the constituency in which his next-of-kin resided at the time he joined the Army or Navy. In that event, all you have got to do is to arrange in the Schedule that the officer in charge should, within three months of the passing of the Act, forward a certificate to the registration officer, which he could easily do from his record already drawn up. The certificate would show that the soldier was twenty-one years of age, and was serving in such-and-such a regiment, and such-and-such a battalion, and that his next-of-kin was "Mrs Atkins; 20, Bow Road, London." The officer could put that in an envelope and send' it to the registration officer. The case would be considered by the registration officer, who, without any further question or claims, or anything of that sort, would put the soldier on the register for the constituency in which lies 20, Bow Road.
It seems to me that is a proposal well worthy of consideration, and I do hope that the Home Secretary will give it his careful attention. I think there are many advantages in it, and I am quite convinced that as the Clause at present stands a good many soldiers will be left out; a very large proportion will not get on the register, and it seems to me that the registration officer, of himself, could only hope to get information where some of the near relatives of the soldiers were 121 living. A soldier may have moved altogether, and nothing may be known about him in a district which he left three years ago. We know how these men move about, living six months here, a year there, making frequent removals, and to trace these cases back two or three years would be a task almost impossible to carry out. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has spoken about the difficulties which a registration officer would experience in certain cases, where men had been wounded, but I suggest that if you were to apply to the officer in charge of the military records to give the information required he could equally give that with other information in regard to how long a man had been in the Army. It would be quite easy for him to give all that information. I feel sure that the line I suggest is one which you might well go upon, and I hope the Home Secretary will consider my proposal.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
All these observations and suggestions show the extreme complexity of this particular problem. Each speaker has suggested a different solution and each solution I think would prove to have great objections if put into operation. The last two suggestions would certainly seem very reasonable, the first being that the soldier should always vote in the constituency in which he was residing when he joined, and the other suggesting the constituency in which the next-of-kin resides. But the next-of-kin may live all over the world—in Canada or in Ireland or elsewhere. Therefore I do not think the suggestion as to the next-of-kin's residence is practicable. The other suggestion is that the place where the soldier resided at the time he joined the Colours should be taken; but that may have been years ago, and I do not see why a man now living in London, who has joined the Army, should have his registration settled as being at York, for example, for all time.

§ Mr. CAUTLEY
He can exercise his option.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I understand that. Under this particular Clause the soldier can claim for any constituency he wishes provided he can show that he has been ordinarily residing there. This suggestion as to the place where he would have been residing was a recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. I do not claim 122 that it is a solution, for it is a very difficult problem, but looking at it as a matter of registration we had to choose between two systems. There might have been the perfect system suggested by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that of the War Office taking upon themselves, the responsibility of allocating every soldier to a particular constituency. That would be a perfect way of doing it. But, as I understand it—I have no information that entitles me to say so—that process would be quite impossible in the Army at the present moment, because the thing has got to be done this-summer to begin with. Although it is a very perfect arrangement, and every soldier could be reported upon by the-regimental officer, and this information has only to be sent down to the constituency for the soldier to get the vote. Still, I understand that it is not practicable. The only method which can be adopted is to fall back upon the existing system of registration, and rely on the registration officer in the particular locality, and make him responsible for finding out not only the people who are in his constituency but the soldiers and sailors whose ordinary homes are in the constituency. Of course, it is perfectly clear that that will not include all soldiers. I doubt very much whether it is possible by any system—unless-the War Office carried it through entirely themselves—to include all soldiers, but I believe this would include the great majority of soldiers. In all counties it is perfectly easy to find out how many soldiers and sailors there are away from their homes, and it is not difficult in the towns. We have had an experiment in the poor parts of London in order to find out about soldiers and sailors, and it has been found quite possible by a house-to-house canvass to discover exactly how many young fellows have gone to the War. They are the one class of person better known to their neighbours than anyone else, and if it can be done in London I believe it can be done elsewhere. That is why the Conference suggested that all that should be necessary should be that it should be the duty of the registration officer to ascertain as far as possible the names and addresses of persons of full age who ordinarily resided in that area, but who were serving in His Majesty's Forces, which persons should be qualified to be registered in that area. We used the words "ordinarily reside," but those words are rather vague. The Home Secretary has 123 chosen rather more definite phraseology, but the principle adopted is that which we suggested.
Having taken advice from those really experienced in registration I think the most effective plan is the one that it should be left a positive duty of the registration officer in each area to go to every house and find out as far as he possibly can the names of the soldiers and sailors living there. I have put down an Amendment myself to this Clause. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is going to consider it, but I will just mention it because it is one of the three or four dealing with this point. Instead of the words "would have had the necessary residence qualification but for such service," I want to say "in which he would have been residing but for such service." I think the essential question before us is to give to the registration officer as simple a problem as possible. You do not want to complicate it with more than the one thing or any question beyond the one question. Is this the man's ordinary home—that is to say, Would he have been residing there on the 15th of July, or whatever date is taken as the qualifying date? The Home Secretary's words rather go beyond that, and give the registration officer a somewhat more difficult problem, because he will have to see whether the man would have had the qualification but for his being away. The qualification he has to have is residence or occupancy on a particular date—say, the 15th of July—and it is also six months' successive occupation prior to that date. The registration officer's problem, therefore, would be not only, Would the soldier have been there on the 15th of July, but would he also in all the circumstances have been in that locality for six months prior to that date? I think the simplest method is just to ask whether he was residing there. I have no doubt the Home Secretary has considered this carefully, and I hope he will be able to accept the words I have suggested. I am perfectly certain he and we all wish for one thing, namely, that the soldier shall go on the register because he is a soldier, that his qualification is one for service only, and that it shall be as easy as possible for him to be placed on the register.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think the Committee realises that this is a very complicated question indeed, and I hope, after considering 124 it as a whole, they will realise that our proposal goes as near as is possible to satisfying us all. The problem is, To what constituency are you to attach a soldier's vote? The solution which we tried to arrive at was this: Let him vote at his home. That is what we want to do if we can do it. Let me take the proposals that are made. First, we have the one in the Amendment now under consideration which makes the soldier or the sailor—I will take the soldier for brevity—vote in the constituency in which he was residing at the time when he joined the Army. Is that a reasonable thing to do, and does that carry out what we all wish? As regards the New Army, the men who have lately joined and are serving in this War, they would, I suppose, have joined in the same constituency in which they made their homes, but take the old soldier, who joined ten or twenty years ago. He enlisted at some place, and when he did so he gave an address, which, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Colonel Hope) said, might just have been the lodging in London where he stayed the night before he enlisted. He may have had no connection with that place whatever, even at the time of enlistment. It does not stop there, because since he enlisted things may have changed. Even though he gave his home address, his state may have changed—he may have married; he may have been living with his parents and they may have moved and the new place where his parents live may be the place to which he will return when he leaves the Army. Yet according to the proposal he is not to vote in that place, but in the place at which they lived before. A man's wife may have set up in a new place altogether. That is the kind of case we have to get at if we possibly can, and it is the problem which we desire to solve. More than that, in many cases, the place where an officer lived when he took his commission is not his present place of residence. He may have married and set up somewhere else and have gone right away from his old place of residence and lost all connection with the place he came from. I do think, therefore, that this proposal really does not go the whole way, and I am going to tell the Committee what we propose to do to get at the man's home and to use the information the Army has in the attestation papers. Before I do that, however, let me take the question of the next-of- 125 kin. Whether you take the present or the old address of the next-of-kin does not seem to me to make very much difference, though, perhaps, the present address would get better at the facts. We all know that the address of the next-of-kin is not given for the purpose of ascertaining the man's home address, but of getting the name of someone to whom notice shall be sent if anything happens to him. The next-of-kin may not, of course, live at the man's home at all. It may be his brother who lives miles away, or his sister, who lives in a place he has never seen; it may be a friend who perhaps is serving in the Army; it may be his fiancée; or, in fact, anybody. The address of the next-of-kin does not gat anywhere near the address of the man himself or his home.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) had a third suggestion. He wanted to give the place in which the man would have been residing if he had not been in the Army. I think there is a difficulty about that. I am proposing to leave out the word "residence," so that my Clause would run "for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for such service." I have come to that conclusion this week, that if the soldier would have had business premises but for that service, he ought to be able to get a vote in respect of that place. If the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras were adopted, you would not get that result. You would only get the residence vote, and nothing else, and the man would lose his business premises, occupation vote. Take the case of a woman, the Army or the Red Cross nurse. Her residence is not the test. You want to give a vote where she would have the vote but for that service—that is, where she would have been a local government elector. I think if the Committee will look into that they will find it would be very difficult to work.
What we propose is to give the man a vote in that place in which he would have had the qualification but for his service in the Army. How is that to be obtained? We propose that the Army authorities shall be asked to make out a list of all soldiers, with the addresses given in their attestation or commission papers, whichever it may be. I believe that the address of the private soldier, if it is available, is usually in his attestation paper. Of course, as regards soldiers in the new Armies you get their proper address because they are 126 based on the National Registration papers. As regards the officer, I believe the register is kept up to date and that it is always possible to obtain from the War Office the present address of an officer. At all events, whatever it may be, we propose that the military and naval authorities shall get out all these addresses, divide them up into counties, and send the addresses to the registration officer of the county or the town. So you get the benefit of this Amendment, although I do not think the Amendment ought to be taken for this reason. I think the registration officer ought to be able to correct the addresses. For instance, he may know that the address of enlistment, if I may so describe it, is not the present address of the man. He may know that the man has moved and gone elsewhere, and he ought to be able to send the papers to the other constituency where the man lives and get the correct address on the register of voters.

§ Colonel L. WILSON
Will this proposal appear in the first Schedule as a Government Amendment to the Schedule?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes; that is our intention.

§ Major NEWTON
If the correct address, as the Home Secretary just described it, cannot be got at, will he provide that the vote shall be given to the soldier at the first address brought to light? 9

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes. I am disposed to think "hat the best way is to provide that the registration officer shall take the address sent to him by the Army authorities as, primâ facie, the man's address. Unless he knows better, he should put that address down.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not know whether leaving out the word "residence" will not give the soldier two votes. I do not object to it in the least, but I presume it will do that, and that if he has a business and a residence he will get a vote for both.

§ Mr. PETO
That being so, as I quite clearly understand from the Home Secretary, does he propose to leave out Subsection (b). if the Clause is amended; because if you get "any qualification" in the remainder of the Clause, I do not think it will have any meaning in it.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes, I think so.

§ Mr. PETO
Then will it not be necessary to put in the words "for which he 127 would have had the necessary qualifications" or "either of the necessary qualifications"; because if you use the word "the" it rather implies one and not two qualifications?

§ Lord H. CECIL
May I ask whether the authorities at the War Office have been consulted about this and have approved it, because it sounds a very laborious process.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I should not have ventured to put it before the Committee unless I had consulted the military authorities. I consulted with them this morning. We went through the whole matter, and they see no difficulty in carrying it out.

§ Colonel L. WILSON
Does that apply to the Admiralty?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
The proposal of the Home Secretary is of very great importance on this scheme, because previously, although the registration officer had power to admit a soldier who had been residing in a constituency or moving from place to place of which he was not aware, whatever soldiers may have claimed to be put on the register for any district they might wish they would not know they were not on the register, and so the real provision of the Bill would become a deadlock. To get at the man's address and registration from the military point of view is of very great importance to the complete register. There are two points I wish to point out to the hon. Gentleman. By leaving out the word "residence" and inserting the word "occupation," you will, of course, very greatly add to the number of plural voters. I think if anyone has the right to be there it should be the soldier. What I ask is, if the Clause relates to the Parliamentary franchise, what will be the position of the soldier in regard to the local government franchise, and what will be the position of the soldier's wife in regard to the Parliamentary franchise? Will the men's votes be devised by securing their automatic qualification, and will the soldier's wife exercise the vote if the parties are divided? The other point is what meaning is to be attached to the words in the Sub-section of this Clause which speaks of the statement of any person named in the 128 prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner? That means the verification is merely the verification of the statement made by them, or does it have any bearing on the substance of his qualification? Is it a verification that Private John Smith made a statement or has it got to be that Private John Smith reached Newcastle. There is an ambiguity about that relevant to the point of view we have been discussing.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think this is rather premature. Our view is that we want the officer who attests the declaration to say that he believes the statement to be true. It is some sort of verification which would be corroboration.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I ask whether, this Clause will not greatly extend the number of women electors? As I understand it, the nature of the Amendment is to increase plural voting. I do not say a soldier should not have two votes if he is entitled to them. Now I think we are mixed up with the wives. How far do the conditions affect them?

The CHAIRMAN
I think we had better keep the wives where they are.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
You would rather this question were discussed when the word "residence" is in question.

§ Mr. PETO
Will the Home Secretary consider the "necessary qualification"?

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think that will be done.

§ Mr. BUTCHER
Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us a little more as to the nature of the statement that has to be made. It might impose considerable disability.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The registration officers put a man on the register, and it is only when the man has to make a claim that he will make a statement.

Colonel J. HOPE
I understand he signs something before the registration officer. Does that provide that he shall be six months at home or will that be abolished?

§ Sir G. CAVE
These are hypothetical cases.

§ Lord H. CECIL
What will happen in the case of a man who enlisted at some station which is quite a long way from his normal place of residence? If I rightly understand, the military authorities say 129 that where he enlisted is the place where he was at the time. A case has been put of a servant staying with his master in a part of England remote from his normal place of residence. There he enlisted as a soldier. I understand the registration officer will have to trace where his normal place of residence is. It was probably in London. I should think that that presents in many cases a very great deal of difficulty. The ordinary residence will be taken in many cases as his address, and they will have difficulty in finding where he lived. In such a case will the registration officer, if he cannot find where the man lived, register him in Suffolk, or wherever he may have enlisted? He may try to discover, but he may fail.

§ Mr. CAUTLEY
May I ask the Home Secretary if he will insist upon the hypothetical six months refusal to give soldiers and sailors a vote, as they insist on a soldier or sailor being in the Army for six months?

§ Sir G. CAVE
The object is to save the soldier and sailor his vote, whether as a resident in a place or as an occupier of business premises.

The CHAIRMAN
If they have the vote it must be for some constituency or other.

Colonel HOPE
I should say that if a soldier received a vote the recruiting officer would send his address to the registration officer, and when that is done he will have the right to be put on the register, unless the registration officer discovered that a similar name had been put on the register in another constituency.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The Record Office would send the address to the registration officer. If the address was six months old, as it would probably be, the registration officer would assume that that was the proper address. I do not think it would have the effect of creating a new franchise. We are doing all we can to keep the soldier and sailor on the register.

§ Major NEWTON
I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be thanked for doing all he can in this matter as to the special qualification for soldiers and sailors. I think there is a good deal of dissatisfaction as to the treatment of conscientious objectors, aliens, and so on. I am very grateful that in answer to a question of 130 mine he approached the registration question to meet the cases of the soldiers. If the name and address which were first sent were insufficient and there was no better, the soldier should be registered as a voter in some constituency. The point is that we want to get as many of these men as possible on the register. No doubt many of the points have been complicated and involved, and the right hon. Gentleman may take it from the Committee that anything which will simplify the granting of effective votes to soldiers and sailors will be appreciated.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I do not wish to press the Amendment after what the Home Secretary has said as to the rights of a soldier. There is one point I would wish to raise, and that is as to his relatives not having lived in the same place for six months. He must have occupied his home for six months, or he will not be on the register. It is not at all an unusual case that when a soldier goes to the front the father moves away because he cannot keep on his house, and so he moves into another constituency. The wife may move, and very often does on the ground of expense, and in that case the man would not get his vote. That is simply because his wife has changed her house. I think that is a mistake, and that you are going en a wrong system, and with great respect to the Home Secretary I think it is too pedantic an adherence to the idea that this new Vote is to be given on a qualification that people have who are at home. The qualification that people who have who are at home is six months, but that is not the classification we should give the soldier, nor should we prevent the soldier from getting a vote because his wife has changed residence, or his father and mother, for some reason or other That is going too far in the direction of insisting on the idea that be must have a qualification which he is not to lose while he is away. I still think the Home Secretary would be much wiser to adopt the simple proposition that the soldier is to have the vote in the place where he would be residing on the 25th of July had it not been for the War.

§ Colonel YATE
May I ask what precisely is being done now?

§ Sir G. CAVE
We propose to leave the Bill as it is.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
The next Amendments in order on the Paper are covered by the discussion which has been before the Committee for some time.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment made: Leave out the word "residence" ["residence qualification"].— (Mr. Hayes Fisher.)

§ Mr. PENNEFATHER
I desire to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the words "service" ["but for such service"], to insert the words "This Section shall apply to any person who has been so serving."
My object in moving is to ensure the enfranchisement of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors who at present apparently fall between two stools. Clause 6, for example, does not give them the franchise, as it deals merely with the period of qualification, while they may not have obtained a residential qualification under Clause I. I am anxious that the ex-soldier and the ex-sailor should have the same right of voting as the soldier who has served, provided that in both cases the occupation has been merely interrupted by the service.

§ Sir J. SIMON
I submit that this Amendment does not come in here, since we have put some sentences in.

§ Mr. PENNEFATHER
My Amendment comes in at the end of line 5 of the proposed Amendment. I respectfully submit that the man who has been wounded and is an ex-soldier because of that wound and because of his discharge on account of it from hospital, for example, is not getting the vote under this proposal, and that therefore some such words as those I propose are necessary to secure that the ex-soldier and the ex-sailor should be enfranchised, and should not be left under the dilemma of not being provided for either under Clause 6 or of being qualified under Clause 1. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see if something cannot be done to meet these cases.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On examining the proposed Amendment a. little more closely I cannot see that it reads, and therefore I cannot allow it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words 'may for the time being be serving," and 132 to insert instead thereof the words "shall have been serving for a period of not less than three months."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sanders) who had given notice of it, and who is unable at the moment to be here. This proposition is, I think, necessary, especially now in view of the probability which has arisen from the fact that we have had an undertaking from the Government that they would consider whether or not boys of nineteen should be included in the franchise. Take, for example, the case of a boy of nineteen, or, should the age remain at twenty-one, the man of twenty-one, unless words of this kind are put in, when he goes into the Service he immediately becomes entitled to be a voter. He may only stay in the Service a short time, and may be dismissed from it, either for having done something or for other reasons, and I think it is necessary that there should be some period during which he has to show that he is capable and fitted to be a soldier, and that he is going to remain in the Army and carry out the duties of his profession. It is more than ever necessary if the age of nineteen is put in later on, because it might well be that a boy of nineteen suddenly introduced into the Army may, on the ground that he is going to run the risk of losing his life, only remain in for a very short time, and even if he went to France only for a month or two still be would be entitled to have the vote. I do not know what objection there can be to putting in the three months' qualification, but as it has been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, who has been one of the most ardent supporters of giving the vote to soldiers and sailors, there is primâ facie evidence that this period of probation is necessary. I do not think I have yet had an Amendment accepted, and, though this is not mine, I have moved it, and I hope the Government will accept it.

§ Major NEWMAN
I have an Amendment on this point, and I should like to-support my right hon. Friend, though I confess that I put my Amendment down with somewhat different ideas. I may tell the Committee perfectly frankly that I put it down to prevent rather unseemly attempts at vote-snatching between party agents. According to the Clause as it stands, a soldier, if his battalion moves to-Salisbury Plain, becomes qualified at once for a vote there, and if he does certain 133 things specified in the Clause he has the option of voting there instead of in his own constituency. Take the case of a man who goes into the Middlesex Regiment and is sent to serve with his battalion on Salisbury Plain. If he does certain things he will have the opportunity of voting, not for me, but for whoever represents the Salisbury Division. I should very naturally object to that. I should want that man, who has resided in my Constituency all his life and who is an Enfield man, to vote for me and not for the hon. Member for the Salisbury Division. My Amendment would ensure that he must have been serving on Salisbury Plain not for a day or a week, but for three months. Without some such Amendment there might be an unseemly attempt at snatching votes. Take another case. Suppose a ship comes into a port, her crew apparently will be able at once to vote at that particular port. That might suit the hon. Member for Portsmouth, or for Plymouth, or for Southampton, but it might not suit the hon. Members in whose divisions those sailors resided. It must, therefore, be plain to the Committee and to the Government that some such provision must be inserted. You must have some definite period, because if he is to have the vote the first week he gets there it will be very unfair, and it will mean a good deal of vote-snatching and discontent as between Members and as between party agents. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

§ Colonel GRETTON
The first part of this Clause says that the soldier shall have the vote for the place where he would have had it but for his military service, and as an alternative he may have it at another place if he takes certain steps which are set out in this Sub-section. It has been pointed out that he might take those steps after having been transferred to a training station for only a few days, if it so happened that he arrived there a few days before the making up of the register. If we are going to alter the age to nineteen, a soldier would have great inducement to claim his vote at the place of his training station, because otherwise ho might not be qualified under the first part of the Clause. This point deserves the most careful attention of the Government, but whether the period of three months is the correct period or whether some better period might be chosen is a matter for consideration. I confess, after 134 what has transpired to-day, that I am not quite sure that three months is the right period, but it is quite clear that some definite period for the alternative vote ought to be inserted in the Bill.
I hope, after the explanation that has been given, the Government will appreciate the position and accept this Amendment in principle, although they may want further consideration for the period of qualification. This alternative qualification is manifestly for the soldier at home on home service. In time of war the soldier on home service, in the majority of cases—of course, there are a large number of exceptions, such as training staffs and men who are in convalescent camps, who would find difficulty in travelling and recording their votes in the constituency to which they belong under the first part of this Clause—is the soldier who has just joined and who is not a trained soldier, but a soldier in training who has manifestly no war service, although he is preparing for it. This alternative vote, therefore, ought not to be made too easy, and there should be some definite period of qualification before a soldier or a sailor should be allowed to transfer his vote from the constituency in which he habitually resides and in which he is qualified under Part I. of the Clause.

§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
This Amendment has rather surprised me, because the complaint that has generally come from my hon. Friend is that the Government have not been sufficiently anxious to offer facilities to the soldier and sailor to obtain the vote. Here my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in redrafting the Clause gives an easy alternative of obtaining a vote in the place in which the person is serving. It has been pointed out in Debate that many of our soldiers would not desire to go back to the place in which they resided and in which they enlisted, but that, owing "to the profession which they were following, and the obligations which were entailed upon them by that profession, they would find themselves in large military districts where they would desire to be registered as voters.

§ Major NEWMAN
But could they not be put on the absent voters' list?

§ Mr. FISHER
Of course this Amendment is a restrictive Amendment on the alternative given to the soldier by which 135 he may be registered in the place in which he is likely to serve in the next twelve months, and my hon. Friend seems very anxious to cut down the rights and privileges of the soldier which my right hon. Friend has given in this Clause. I am not going to say there is not something in the argument, but I certainly think a probation of three months is rather a long term. I think this would happen: If a soldier came to a large military camp or district he would know he had some appointment there which would probably keep him, say, for at least twelve months, and he would very likely say to himself, "An election is likely to come, and if I have a choice as to whether I should be registered where I would be but for the War, or in this place, where I am likely to be, and have my interests for the next twelve months or the next two or three years, after all, if I have to wait three months for it, I had better be registered in the place in which I could have a qualification but for the War." I think there is something in the suggestion that a man should not obtain a vote, perhaps, on the very day or in the very week of his coming into a new constituency. There might possibly be some brief period by which he might be tested. I should not object to the Amendment if it were in these words: "has been serving for a period of not less than one month"; so that my right hon. Friend's Amendment would read: Any such person shall be entitled to be registered for any constituency in which he has been serving for a period of not less than one month. I think three months is undoubtedly too long, but I should be disposed to accept one month. After all, here we are not governed in any way by the Speaker's Conference. This is a matter quite outside the Conference. It is a new Clause proposed by the Home Secretary offering an alternative to the soldier by which he may register in the constituency in which he is likely to have far greater interests than in the constituency in which he formerly resided. It is an alternative offered by my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend has no objection to accepting it in the form I have just stated, if the soldier wishes to exercise the alternative right of being registered in the constituency in which he is serving, rather than in the constituency in which he would have obtained a residential qualification but for the War.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the courtesy and consideration with which he has received this Amendment. As I understand it, the soldier will get a vote under any circumstances for the place in which he would have had the necessary qualification if he had not joined the Army, but he may get a vote in the place in which he happens to be quartered if he chooses to make an application for a vote there instead of in the other place. It has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend that that might lead to some objectionable occurrences on the part of agents.

§ Major NEWMAN
Some party agents.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
My right hon. Friend says he thinks there is something in that, and he will accept one month. May I make an offer? Shall we say two months? My hon. and gallant Friend, who, I am sorry, is not here, for whom I moved the Amendment, put down three months. He is a very moderate person, as my right hon. Friend knows. He does not often put down an Amendment which asks for more than he is entitled to have, and, in his absence, I am rather loath to accept such a very serious curtailment of the period from three months to one month. I do not think any very great harm would result if my right hon. Friend would make it two months, because it is a matter entirely at the option of the soldier. He will not lose the vote if he does not make the claim. He will still have a vote, but it will not be in that particular constituency, and, therefore, he is not injured in any kind of way; but it will stop, or tend to stop, any attempt at gerrymandering which we are all desirous of stopping.

§ Mr. FISHER
There is some little precedent for one month. In Clause 6, as drafted, one month is substituted for six months as the qualifying period in the case of a person who has been serving as a member of the naval or military forces of the Crown. As that one month is put in Clause 6 very deliberately by my right hon. Friend, it is just as well that we should adhere to one month in this Amendment, and I am afraid it is the only offer I can make.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I think my right hon. Friend would be well advised to accept the Amendment, as put by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government, because at any rate he will 137 obtain the concession of the principle for which we have been arguing. I still adhere to the three months' qualification for reasons which I might set out at some length. I hope this Amendment will be accepted in the interests of registration and of having a reasonable and well-made register. We must not forget in our enthusiasm to make it as easy as possible for soldiers 'to obtain votes, that this is a. concession of great importance, and therefore I should be very glad if the Member for the City of London will accept it in the form suggested. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite imagines that anybody who has been arguing for this Amendment is in any way opposed to the soldiers having a vote he is very much mistaken. At any rate, if the soldier has a vote it is highly desirable that it should be done in a regular way and that he should be put upon the register. It is from that point of view that we have supported this Amendment and we are ready to accept the offer which the Government has made.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I will accept the concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), after the word "form" ["prescribed form"] to insert the words "set out in the Schedule to this Act.'' This seems to me to be in the form of a drafting Amendment, but I think it makes the meaning of the Clause rather clearer.

§ Mr. FISHER
As this can be done by Order in Council it will not be necessary to insert it in the Schedule.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
The object was that the form should be put into the Schedule and passed by the House. The Government Amendment reads: Any person may be entitled to be registered for any constituency … on 138 making application to the registration officer and making a declaration in the prescribed form. It is very little trouble to put this into the Schedule, and then you would have a stereotyped form in the Bill. If you leave it to be done by Order in Council it may or it may not be carried out. I think the very point the Government have made is a real reason why the Amendment should be accepted, namely, that a form of that kind should be put into the Schedule, and it would then be easily accessible to anybody, and the House of Commons will have more control.

§ Colonel GRETTON
We have become rather lax and irregular as to the view we take about Orders in Council. This Amendment is to ensure that the Act when it is passed shall be complete. Anyone who wishes to consult the details of the election law should be able to refer to the Act and find all the information there. The form should be approved by Parliament, and should not be left to be dealt with in some obscure manner by Orders; in Council, in regard to which there is some difficulty of tracing even when it is done by experts. It is from that point of view that this Amendment has been put on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), and I think these matters should receive the attention of Parliament. Parliament should take a few minutes to approve of a proper form which ought to be introduced into the Schedule.

§ Mr. PENNEFATHER
I wish to say a very few words in support of this Amendment. I have one on the Paper on very similar terms, and I certainly agree that it is very important the House of Commons should have the actual form before: it. It is very hard to say what an Order in Council may contain, and it would be far better if it could be put actually into the Schedule, for then it might be referred to by all parties concerned, and it could be approved by the House of Commons.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
When I fast came into the House of Commons I was told by very great authorities that very often in Committee what appeared to be a very simple and innocent Amendment turned out to be a very important one. When I moved this Amendment I thought it was merely a drafting Amendment, which I saw no objection 139 to putting in because it made the Clause clearer, and I thought I had better move it in order to get an expression real effect. My right hon. Friend says he cannot accept this Amendment because it can be done by an Order in Council, and the Government prefer to leave the Bill as it is because it is able to do certain things in relation to the franchise by an Order in Council. I had no idea, when I moved this Amendment, that it was such an important one. I am very sorry there are so few hon. Members present, for there can be no doubt that the majority of Members of this House would not agree to such a very important question as any thing relating to the franchise as being left to an Order in Council. I well remember a dispute before this Bill came before the House as to whether or not there were a large number of provisions in it which were to be left to Orders in Council, and, unless I am very much mistaken, I remember the Colonial Secretary stating, when the Bill was introduced under the Ten Minutes' Rule, that that was an erroneous idea, and that it was not right to say that there were provisions which provided that Orders in Council should cary out the details of the Bill. Here comes in a very important matter. At the end is a form which has to be filled in under which the soldier has to declare that he has made a reasonable effort to prevent his being registered under the foregoing provisions for any other constituency. If there is anything to prevent, I do not say, of course, wantonly, but perhaps erroneously, the soldier getting on the register of any more than one constituency when he ought only to be registered in one, it ought to be made effective.
I appeal to members of the Liberal party who are present and who object to plural voting to support one in this matter, because it might easily result, if the Clause is not properly drawn, that the soldier may get registered quite unwittingly in more than one constituency. I myself cannot see any objection to the form being put in a Schedule. Why not? It is a very simple form—or it ought to be —the simpler the better. I feel that the House of Commons ought to have the opportunity of seeing the manner in which all the details of this Bill are going to be carried out. We do not know how many electors are going to be added to the register by this particular 140 new Clause, and by this particular provision. Therefore, it makes it ail the more necessary, when we are taking so momentous a step, to see that all the forms and all the particulars that are necessary shall be approved by this House. I think the matter is so important that I shall, if need be, take a Division upon it. This, of course, does not touch the Speaker's Conference, but I think we ought to make an effort to maintain the supremacy of this House. We have much too many Orders in Council. We cannot do anything without an Orders in Council nowadays. We live, I know, in exceptional times, and it may be necessary for so many Orders in Council to be issued. This Bill, however, is going to apply to all time; after we have finished the War, and when we are living in an ordinary state of existence as we were before the War. At that time I hope that Orders in Council will be abolished, or very nearly so, and that this House will resume that control which it ought never to have abandoned. Therefore, I shall certainly, if I can get support, go to a Division.

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I am afraid I shall not be prepared to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby. On the other hand, I am rather chary of supporting the Government in any attitude they take up because, from recent experience, we find that they subsequently take an opposite view. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a matter of importance. It is simply that a person who is entitled to be registered has to sign and make a declaration in a certain form to the effect that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent being registered in another constituency. If that is to be put in to the Schedule of this Bill we shall have to have thirty or forty forms put into it. This is no more important than the ordinary claim for a vote, nor an ordinary notice of objection. It is certainly no more important than the form referred to later in the Clause. It is quite contrary to the whole of our practice of registration that we should burden our Statute books, and have pages and pages of printing in Acts consisting of purely formal declarations, which obviously are matters which can easily be dealt with by regulations or Orders in Council under the Act.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), after the word "form" ["in the prescribed form "], to insert the words "that so far as he is aware he has not been, and."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have been studying the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, and I cannot make it read. Perhaps the hon. Baronet can?

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
The explanation of the Amendment, I think is this: It was meant to run in this way—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Yes; but I am afraid I must stick to the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, and clearly it does not read.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Would it be in order if my hon. and learned Friend were to move an Amendment at this place, but in other words?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I cannot keep the Committee waiting while the hon. Member puts together an Amendment when this is on the Paper.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "under the foregoing provision," and to insert instead thereof the words "as a Parliamentary elector."
What does the expression "under the foregoing provision" mean? It probably means the provision of this Sub-section. In paragraph (b) you will find the words "this provision," which probably means this Sub-section. The use of these two phrases is obviously an obscurity, and my two Amendments are devised to make the meaning clear. I am sure the clear legal mind of the Solicitor-General will see that there is a great deal of point in what I say.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: (Sir Gordon Hewart)
My hon. Friend has made a direct appeal to me or I should 142 not have taken up the time of the Commitee by replying to the Amendment. I would remind my hon. Friend that a famous man on a celebrated occasion said: "Few things annoy me, or this would; most things amuse me, or this would not." If I follow my hon. Friend, his point is that the words "under the foregoing provision" are less clear in the Bill than would be the words "as a Parliamentary elector." Nobody understands better than he does himself that the "foregoing provision" is the provision contained in Sub-section (1).

§ Sir C. JOHNSTON
I understand the Home Secretary to intimate that the Government are prepared to deal in the Schedule with the matter contained in this Amendment. If that is so, it is unnecessary to move the Amendment at this stage.
Proposed words, as amended, inserted.

§ Sir G. HEWART
I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "claiming to be so registered."

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
On a point of Order. Before that is put, may I ask what has become of the previous Amendment standing in the name of the Home Secretary to leave out Sub-section (2)?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
That Amendment was put down previously to the Amendment of the Home Secretary which has now been accepted.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "claiming" ["the statement of any person claiming"], to insert the words "or of any person on behalf of such person claiming."
The question arises in this way: The soldier or sailor may be absent at the time of registration, and if an objection is 143 raised the soldier or the sailor, who may be at some distance, is not available to fill in the form for the date when the register has to be made up. It is a very common thing for a soldier or sailor to leave behind with his best friend what is practically a power of attorney. That comes under the ordinary Regulations of the Army, and under it the best friend performs all the ordinary and necessary duties on his behalf until he becomes available to perform those duties himself. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) put down this Amendment in order to ensure that a sailor or soldier, during his absence or service, should not lose his vote because the ordinary declaration cannot be made by somebody on his behalf. The matter requires some consideration by the Government.

§ Sir G. HEWART
I cannot help thinking that this Amendment has been moved under some misapprehension as to the meaning and the effect of the Clause as it now stands. If my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) will kindly turn to the opening words of Clause 5 as it now stands, he will see that the provisions of Sub-section (1) relate to any person who is of full age and who satisfies certain other conditions. Then with regard to that particular person, certain alternatives are presented. Then one goes to Sub-section (2), which provides that the statement of any person made in the prescribed form that he would have had the necessary residence qualification in any constituency but for his service, shall, for all the purposes of the Section, be sufficient. That is so if the person himself claiming the vote makes that statement. Such a statement is for all purposes sufficient, but it by no means follows that if some other person makes a statement for him, that is sufficient. The advantage of sufficiency, in other words, is given to that kind of statement if it comes from the claimant himself. Once he makes a claim, his word is for all purposes sufficient upon that claim, but if some other person makes it, then the claim has to be examined. I can well imagine some other person making it whose authority upon the matter was not less to be accepted than the authority of the claimant himself. But to say that any person claiming on his behalf shall be able to make a binding and conclusive statement 144 would be taking a long step. It is saying that not only the statement of the claimant himself is to be accepted, but the statement of any other person, whoever he may be. I am sure my hon. Friend will see that the scheme of the Clause is right. The question whether there is an actual residence qualification elsewhere is a question which may have to be considered. Provided the claimant says he has that qualification, it is enough, but it is a different thing to say that if somebody else makes that statement that shall be enough also.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I quite appreciate what the Solicitor-General has said, and up to a certain point I quite agree with him. I do not go with him the whole way. As it stands now the Clause would be likely to do an injustice. A man is ex-hypothesi abroad, and if he makes a statement in the prescribed form that is held to be sufficient evidence that he has a residential qualification in a particular parish. The Amendment seeks to say that it will be equally good if someone who is duly authorised by the soldier shall make the statement for him. I quite agree that it would be better to put in the words in the middle of the Amendment, "or any other person duly authorised on behalf of such person." The prescribed form may not be able to be filled in by a man when he is abroad, and he may have left a power of attorney and duly authorised someone in this country to fill it in for him, and the proposal of the Amendment is that not only shall it be good if the man himself signs the form, but if he gets someone who is duly authorised to fill it in for him. That is probably an Amendment which the Government might take, as it certainly would not apply in the case which the Solicitor-General had in view, which I certainly would not wish to bring within the purview of the Amendment, namely, where-an agent made application, for a large number of people. For that reason I think the Amendment is a reasonable one.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I think it is absolutely essential that it should be possible for someone else than the claimant to claim on his behalf, otherwise he would find that a great number of persons claims would be impossible. There is an Amendment which has been put down by some hon. Friends of mine on the 145 next page, "provided that where such person is absent from such constituency by reason of his duties in connection with any of the services hereinafter referred to in this Section, a statement made by any other person on his behalf having personal knowledge of the circumstances of the claimant in the prescribed form shall for all purposes be sufficient." I had something to do with the drafting of that Amendment, and we put in those words, "made on his behalf by persons having personal knowledge of the circumstances," because we were anxious on account of the possibility of the claim being signed by the agent. No one wants the claim to be signed by a political agent, but it is important in this sort of case that the wife, or some relative who knows the man perfectly well, should have as much right to say, "This man lives in this house and would be here if it was not for the War" as the man himself, and it would be a very cumbrous business if you had to wait until you got claims from the individual soldiers who were abroad. I hope the Government has not rejected this Amendment, but will at any rate be prepared to consider the Amendments which come afterwards in the form of provisos at the end of the Clause.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
I should like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend says as to the necessity of some other person being in a position, should necessity arise, to make a claim on behalf of the absent person. If I understood the Solicitor-General's argument aright, it was that it would be very undesirable to create an opening for a person to make a claim on behalf of an absent voter, because that would open the door to all sorts of claims being made, lie went on to say that if you cannot accept the statement of the absent person, you could not accept the statement of the person who made the declaration on his behalf.

§ Sir G. HEWART
The point I sought to make was this: It is not provided in this Clause that a statement to this effect can be made only by the person claiming. What is provided is that when the statement is made by the person claiming, it is for all purposes of this Clause sufficient. The question is not whether he is alone the person who can put forward these materials before the registration officer. With regard to what my hon. Friend (Mr. 146 Rawlinson) said, the difficulty is a practical difficulty. The difficulty of due authorisation is no less a difficulty than the difficulty of making the claim itself. No-doubt the argument used would carry great weight if the true meaning of the Clause were as suggested, but that is not the meaning. The claim may be made from other quarters, but if the person himself makes it his mere statement is decisive on the point.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
Perhaps that carries us a little further forward, but has not that statement to be verified in the prescribed manner?

§ Sir G. HEWART
Certainly.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
It is not a statement made and automatically accepted. It is a statement made and then verified. If that is so, why should not the same method of verification be applied to a statement made on behalf of the man by his wife, or by some other person having intimate cognisance of the circumstances? I do not pretend to have suggested the proper words which will carry out the point which is in the minds of all of us. Perhaps the Home Secretary will consider the point a little further and not give a decisive refusal at this moment, but carry it forward in his mind to the Report stage, and perhaps announce his decision at that time.

§ Mr. WING
It appears to me that it is quite possible at this point for us to disfranchise a very large number of soldiers who are well known residents by making; it merely on the statement of the soldier himself. I presume the Bill allows for other authorised persons—for instance, a mother or wife—who would be able to communicate those facts, and they would be accepted.

§ Mr. GILBERT
As I am one of those-responsible for the Amendment on the next page, I should like to support the appeal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson). When the Home Secretary was moving a new Clause last week I asked some questions on this particular point, and the second Amendment on the next page was drafted in order to meet the case of the questions which I asked that night. I am particularly concerned with London. What will happen at the canvass in order to obtain the names of the soldiers? The Town Clerk's Department at present is not at all organized 147 to carry out a complete and successful canvass of all the soldiers in the big boroughs, and in the first canvass for the first register under this Bill a good many men will be missed. Therefore I certainly think there ought to be something put in the Clause by which a man who is missed on the canvass may have a claim made on his behalf. You cannot expect a soldier serving in Egypt, or Salonika, or India, or even on the Western Front, to give a power of attorney in order that someone may claim a vote on his behalf. I certainly think someone who has personal knowledge—either his wife or someone who lives in the house and knows the man—should be entitled to fill up a properly drawn up claim, or A declaration, if you like, before a justice or something of that kind, should be allowed to claim on his behalf. I hope the Home Secretary will give this matter his favourable consideration, and endeavour to meet us in the matter.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I do not say that this is the best drafted Amendment that could be devised, but the point is really a substantial one. If some definite and well-known legal claim is not made in the case of these soldiers' votes' we shall be setting up the old system of claims, counter-claims, and objections which this Bill is designed to abolish. I think it would be very unfortunate that that should be the case, and I am sure that the intention of the Government is in the way I have suggested. It is very unfortunate that the person who is to suffer under the old difficulties of claims and objections to votes should be the soldier who happens to be serving abroad. The Amendment I have moved which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) is intended to ensure that the declaration of some duly authorised person should be sufficient. There always is some duly authorised person in such cases, and that duly authorised person should be entitled to make a claim on behalf of the soldier, and that claim should hold good, otherwise a soldier will be in great difficulties. He will not be there to claim himself, and there will be nobody there in a position to claim for him. However careful the register may be made up we cannot expect that the registration officer will succeed in putting on the register every soldier who is en- 148 titled to a vote under this Bill. There must be some kind of agreement. Provision for making good mistakes or deficiencies in the register should be remedied in the easiest way possible. It is for that reason I moved my Amendment.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think the point has been made clear by the Solicitor-General. Anybody can inform the registration officer that the soldier is entitled to a vote. Anybody can claim on his behalf, and anybody can prove his claim. The wife or anybody else can prove his claim, and their evidence will be accepted as a matter of course. If you are going to rely upon a statement and nothing more it must be a statement of the soldier. You cannot allow anybody, even an authorised person, to make a statement and accept that alone as sufficient.

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
The question seems to me to come more properly under the Schedule which deals with registration. It is not quite clear from that Schedule whether a person can claim on behalf of another person, or whether he must not himself claim and sign his claim. Perhaps the Home Secretary can consider it when we come to Paragraph 8 in the First Schedule. It does not arise here. This paragraph has nothing whatever to do with claims, but only with statements that are made to determine whether a soldier has resided in a particular place. That is a totally different thing.

§ Colonel GRETTON
I hope the Government will not shut their mind altogether against further consideration of this subject which, in the opinion of some Members, is one of more importance than the Government appear to realise. I am satisfied with the ventilation of the subject on this occasion, but I have no doubt my hon. Friend will raise it again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Major HUNT
Is my Amendment in order? Its object is to give the soldier the vote in municipal elections. There is nothing in the Bill, as it was drawn to give him a vote in municipal elections.

§ Mr. WARDLE
On a point of Order. How can we deal with the municipal vote on a Clause of this kind? The municipal vote has to do with the occupation franchise and not with the residential.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
My hon. Friend was not here. We have left out residential and put in occupation.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think the Chairman of Ways and Means ruled that this Amendment would not be in order here.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think that as it is at present framed it should come in in the place where the hon. Member desires to move it. It is rather out of place there. If moved at all, I think it requires some further Amendment to make it fit in with the Clause. Perhaps the hon. Member can move it later, or on Report, in another form.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
Could it not be moved as a Sub-section at the end of this Clause, because it does raise an important point?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
On consideration I must ask the hon. Member not to move it here. He can consider it and bring it up again perhaps as a Sub-section to this Clause.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
I do not want to move as it stands my Amendment in Subsection (2), to leave out from the word "no" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert the words "is entitled to be registered in a constituency shall be sufficient unless the contrary is moved before the registration officer." It is not necessary now, seeing that the Home Secretary has altered the words in front of it, but I want to get in words to ensure that a statement "shall be sufficient unless the contrary is proved before the registration officer."

§ Sir G. CAVE
It cannot be moved at this point.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think it should be moved in another place. It is rather difficult to follow the Amendments 150 exactly owing to the very great changes that have been made. However, I think the Amendment is inappropriate here.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
It would come in after the word "sufficient."

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Older. I have an Amendment later to the same effect, to insert the words "if there is no evidence to the contrary."

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
We had better wait until we get to that.

§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, to leave out the word "necessary" ["the necessary qualification"] and to insert instead thereof the word "requisite."

§ Sir G. CAVE
It does not matter a farthing whether you use the word "requisite" or "necessary." We are accustomed to both words. They appear together in the Prayer Book. I hope the Committee will set its face against these mere verbal Amendments. They are not worth troubling the Committee about for two minutes, and I hope the Committee will not accept this.

§ Mr. KING
All right, I will withdraw it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words "if there is no evidence to the contrary."
151 This Amendment carries out the desire of the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), though, perhaps, in rather different words. I am not a lawyer, but so far as I can understand the words of the Section, if any soldier chooses to send to the registration officer a statement in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, whatever that may be, that he has the necessary qualification, that would be sufficient for all purposes, and if anybody came forward and said that that statement was incorrect, it seems to me that the registration officer under the Clause as it stands would be obliged to accept the statement of the soldier, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. That is a very inefficient way of carrying out the important object which we all desire, that no person should be on the register unless he is qualified. We know perfectly well that there are people—I will not say always with malice prépense, but who for a variety of reasons make claims which they cannot justify. Therefore, it is necessary to put in some qualifying words. Those which I suggest seem the simplest, but I will accept any others which the Home Secretary may think more suitable, so that if anybody comes forward and produces evidence to the contrary of the statement made by the soldier, the registration officer may have power to investigate the matter to see whether or not the soldier has any right to make the claim.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Under the Bill as it stands I think the statement that the evidence shall be sufficient only means that it shall be sufficient if there is no evidence to the contrary. If you had the words "conclusive evidence" that would be quite different, but I am quite willing to take these words.

§ Mr. SAMUELS
The words "primâ facie" have been used in the other Registration Acts.

§ Colonel GRETTON
There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Bridgwater Division of Somersetshire (Colonel Sanders) in reference to voting by proxy. I am not sure that this is the best place for it to come in.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Clause 18 is the right place for it to come in.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
There is a manuscript Amendment handed in by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I really cannot find time to deal with manuscript Amendments put in at the last moment when the hon. Members responsible for them are not in their places. Those who-put in manuscript Amendments should be here to move them themselves. Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the word "applies," and insert instead thereof the words "shall apply."—[Sir G, Care.]

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, after the word "who," to insert the words "being a woman over thirty years of age."
As it stands, this Clause is absolutely contrary to the decision of the Government to give a vote to no woman under thirty years of age. Unless some words of this sort are put in, women of twenty-one will be able to have the vote if they are employed "serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society or the St. John Ambulance Association or any other body with a similar object." I am not at all sure that there would not also be some women who are employed "in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of moneys provided by Parliament." It requires some consideration to understand thoroughly what it means. This Clause is for all time; it must be, because we have cut out the words "during the continuance of the War and twelve months afterwards." Therefore, you have arrived at this, that the Committee have refused to allow women of twenty-one years of age to vote; at the same time it is proposed under certain circumstances to allow women of twenty-one to vote I do not know whether, when this; Clause was drawn, the Government realised it would have this effect. As it is, I suggest there are only two alternatives. One is the Amendment I have proposed, "the woman being a woman over thirty years of age," which would make the Bill apply equally to all women; or, later on, on the Report stage, we must reduce the age from thirty to twenty-one. I myself voted in favour of reducing the age from thirty to twenty-one, not that I am in favour of the franchise for women—I am against it—but if you are going to abolish this qualification you must give the votes to the women on the same terms you give it to men. 153 However that may be, it would be absurd to suppose that a woman, because she happens to be serving in a naval or military caracter for payment made out of moneys provided by Parliament, should have the vote at twenty-one, while other women would only have it at thirty. What is there in receiving payment by moneys provided out of Parliament which qualifies a woman to exercise the vote at twenty-one, whereas if she is not paid out of moneys provided by Parliament she would not be qualified to have the vote at that age? The Home Secretary shakes his head.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I do not understand it.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I put my argument?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I hardly understand it. The Amendment would read, "This Section applies to any person who being a woman over thirty years of age." The Amendment cannot come in there, and should come as a new Subsection.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am sure you will excuse me, Sir, for having moved the Amendment in rather a wrong form. It should come in under Sub-section (3), and would read, "This Section applies to any person who in connection with the War, is abroad, and, if a woman, is over thirty years of age, and is then serving," and so on.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is an Amendment upon the Paper which has precedence of the Amendment which the right hon. Baronet has just read, and perhaps he will wait until we get to the word "abroad."

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Yes, I think that is so.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "the War" ["in connection with the War"] and insert instead thereof the words "any war in which His Majesty is engaged."

§ Lord H. CECIL
May I ask if this is to Apply to any war that may arise? Why should that be done? There are circumstances which appeal very strongly to public opinion in connection with the existing War. It seems to me really an unwise thing at a moment like this, after not very deliberate consideration, to change the general law of the country, and to make it apply to any war.

§ Sir G. CAVE
This Sub-section only applies to persons, who are not soldiers or sailors, and who are in the position of nurses and so on, and in their case it is confined to this War.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
When we were discussing the question of the age of nineteen it had reference only to this War, and if the words are put in "any war in which His Majesty is engaged" there must be some limiting words.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
This Amendment would make a very great alteration in respect of persons in service of a naval or military character. Many people might be abroad, and not necessarily have any connection with any war in which His Majesty was engaged. It is not a point of substance, it is a question of drafting, and the right drafting would be that it should apply only to the person who is abroad and engaged in military or naval service at the time.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
What is the War now? The War at the present moment is no doubt a war between us, Germany, Austria, and Turkey. So far as I can make out, my hon, and learned Friend, for once, is mistaken. The words "during the continuance of the war" are left out, and thus it would mean any war; and therefore I think some definition of war is necessary. The definition which the Home Secretary wishes to put in is, "any war in which His Majesty is engaged," and that practically is repeating the words which were left out at the beginning. They make it clear that when His Majesty is engaged in any war certain events follow; but surely it is rather a strong order that if there is a war in India, the person who has been paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for services of a naval or military character should be entitled to vote.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Only engaged in connection with that war.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
With that particular war?

§ Sir G. CAVE
Yes.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Supposing there was a, war in the province of Bengal, and these were people in the province of Calcutta, would they get it? It says, "in connection with the War." It does not say those "engaged in the War," but those "in connection with the War." If there were 155 words specifying what "engaged in the War" is it would be a different matter, but this says" in connection with the War," and therefore it seems to me that it is perfectly clear that if any person were sent to India in service of a naval or military character—I do not know quite what that is—if he were sent in company with a regiment that was sent out to fight in a war in India, he would get the vote. Surely that is not intended? We ought to have a better description of the Bill.

§ Lord H. CECIL
This does not propose any definition of the War. It is proposed to be a general enactment lasting for ever, and we all know how many distinctions have been drawn in connection with the word "war." Mr. Gladstone used to be abundant in that connection. Is it certain that a frontier engagement in India would be regarded as a war at all, or would an engagement in South Africa be regarded as a war? It really is not possible for the Government to legislate by using language which they do not understand themselves, and which they are incapable of explaining to the Committee. Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain "war," and when the country is at war and when it is not. Was it at war in the Egyptians Expeditions of '82 and '85? Was it at war in the South African War? Is it at war now? These are all different degrees of the same disease, as one may say. It is important if you are going to have legislation which is to determine whether people are to have votes or not to use language which will be capable of exact interpretation. So far as I can see, the word war is not capable of that, unless it is denned. Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to instruct me, because he is better able to understand it than I am. I do not want to stand between the Committee and the Home Secretary if he is prepared with a very clear definition of what "war" is. I think it is a pity that Amendments of this kind should be put down without any explanation being offered when they are put from the Chair.

§ Colonel SANDERS
I think if the Noble Lord will look at the Clause as a whole in the form published the other day he will see that this Amendment makes it perfectly clear that all persons serving on full pay get the vote anyhow, and that this Sub-section merely applies to nurses and mine sweepers or people who have gone out in connection with the Y.M.C.A. 156 There are various capacities of that description connected with the War to whom this Sub-section will give the vote, and I think it is quite clear that the soldiers and sailors get the vote anyhow whether we are at war or not.

§ Lord H. CECIL
That is quite true. Presumably this Sub-section is inserted for some rational purpose. Even from the present Government we may expect so much. It is intended to enact something. I do not believe the Home Secretary knows what, but if he does I am sure he is willing to explain.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I want to get this Clause—

§ Lord H. CECIL
That is all you do want.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I think we all know what a war is.

§ Lord H. CECIL
No.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The effect of the Subsection is that people engaged in connection with the War abroad shall be entitled to exercise the vote in the form prescribed.

§ Lord H. CECIL
Does it apply to an Indian expedition?

§ Sir G. CAVE
It applies to anything that is a war. I do not think that the Noble Lord or the Committee as a whole is in doubt as to what that is, and I should like to suggest that it is worth while to get on.

§ Mr. GILBERT
I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "is abroad and."
My reason for doing that is that it would seem to me that this is putting a limitation on the soldier's vote. As the words stand it is not clear to what "is abroad" refers. Does it mean the soldier who is abroad is the only man who is to get the vote under this Sub-section, and that the ordinary soldier is excluded? If that is so, you are doing: away with the intention of the Clause?

§ Sir G. CAVE
The hon. Gentleman has not noticed that the Sub-section does not refer to the soldier at all. The soldier is dealt with in the first Sub-section. This 157 only deals with such persons as Bed Cross nurses and mine-sweepers, who are brought by this sub-Section into the Section as a whole. The view is that in these cases were the nurse at home she would have a vote in the ordinary way and would be qualified under the other Section, but if she is abroad in connection with the War she loses that qualification, and we put that right here.

§ Mr. WARDLE
I should like to ask whether it is possible to regard a minesweeper, who is on the seas around the coast, as being abroad?

§ Colonel GRETTON
The minesweepers and persons employed in patrols are, of course, not technically abroad, but, as a matter of fact, these persons who are on service afloat lose their residential qualification ashore, and their case does require, I submit to the Home Secretary, further consideration. I do not advocate that all these persons employed in these various categories should have special provision made for them when they are serving abroad, but the case of the mine-sweeper is different. He is very often on duty, is a very short time in port, and when there is getting ready for his next turn at sea. There are a very large number of these people who, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, lose their ordinary qualification. There is no special provision for them as soldiers or sailors, because they are not in the regular service of the Crown. I submit that that is a point of real substance. I do not think it is met by the Amendment, which goes further than the argument I put forward. I should not be able to support it, but the matter does require further consideration, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give it some sympathetic thought before we come to the later stages of the Bill, so that any grievances in this connection may be remedied.

§ Mr. ROWLANDS
I think it rather wants to be more clearly defined than it is.

§ Mr. FELL
Such words as "with the Fleet or at sea" might be inserted; "abroad" does not cover my Constituents.

The CHAIRMAN
"Out of the United Kingdom," or some words of that kind, might be used.

§ Mr. GILBERT
In view of the Home Secretary's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), at the end of paragraph, (a), to insert the words "and if a woman not less than thirty years of age." The Home Secretary said this particular part of the Clause was to give votes to people who were not engaged in the service of the Crown, but who would not get it unless these words were inserted.

§ Sir G. CAVE
It only gives it to a woman who somewhere else has the necessary qualification.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I should be the last person to dispute the reading of a rule of an Act of Parliament by the learned Home Secretary. I should not put myself up against him, but let me point oat that this Section applies to any "person." If you, Sir, will look back you will see that it applies to "man" in Clause 4. Until you come to a "person" is it a man or woman! I venture to say that it means both. Any person claiming should be entitled to be put on the register, and then it says this Section applies to any person. My contention is that those words mean that any person, that is a person of full age, man or woman, is qualified.

An HON. MEMBER
If they have the necessary qualifications.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Of course, and the necessary qualifications are that they are of age or were resident in some place and had an occupation. The qualification we have been discussing this afternoon is residential or occupation, or whether it should be both, but now the residence has been left out and the Amendment is whether a person should be resident or one of occupation. If I am wrong what harm is there in my Amendment being accepted? If it is to carry out the meaning of the Government it is quite clear-to me that it saves them further trouble, and as I can see no reason for the Government really doing anything that women shall have the vote under this Section, why should it not be put in?

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
The right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has put his finger on a weak spot in the Clause.

§ Sir G. CAVE
It may save time if I say that the Amendment as moved makes the case very confused. I have instructed the draughtsman to make sure that the point is met.

§ Mr. PENNEFATHER
May I ask for my Amendment—after the word "is" ["abroad and is"], to insert the words "or has been"—to receive attention?
The Amendment secures the enfranchisement of ex -soldiers or sailors. This does not come under the franchise which deals with the period of qualification, and if some words are inserted the case of the ex-soldier will have the right of franchise by reason of the fact that he has been serving with the naval or military forces of the Crown.

§ Sir G. CAVE
This is in the wrong place altogether.

The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is out of time.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
I do not know in the least what these words cover. They might cover all sorts of services entitled to a vote. The Home Secretary in defining the Amendment as to men said that this particular part of the Clause was to give votes to people who were engaged in the service of the Crown in some way, but who, unless these provisions were put in, would not get it. But this is not the Clause. This goes further. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] The Clause, as it stands, will only permit men of twenty-one years of age to obtain the vote. The Home Secretary said he wished to make a statement, so I will say nothing more but move the Amendment so that the Home Secretary may, to some extent, deal with these vague points and the interjections.

§ Sir G. CAVE
They are the general words taken from the Finance Act of last year. They are intended to cover all cases of men of this character serving abroad, as, for instance, a mine-sweeper, who is paid out of Government money and yet is not provided for, also men engaged on labour work and other persons. It includes people paid out of public moneys although they are not in direct naval or military service. The words are purposely very sweeping because it is quite right that such people should be included.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
A very large number of postal women workers have been quite recently sent out abroad. Would this provision, include those workers who are in the service of the Crown and are paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

§ Lord H. CECIL
It is, I think, rather perverse on the part of the Government to try to introduce general legislation into this Clause and it would be very much batter to deal with the exigencies of the present moment in a separate Clause which would be perfectly intelligible. It seems to be a most unscientific way to take the present war as an example of all wars and to use language professedly very vague in order to cover all the cases which arise out of the present War and make that extend for ever to all warlike operations which the Government may ever engage in. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider before the Report whether the whole Clause might not be drafted in a more workmanlike fashion. In Report his mind will be free from the obsession that he is not going to get his Bill and he may consider how he can make this legislation workmanlike instead of trying to pass it easily through Committee late at night.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not particularly want to press this Amendment, but I really do think the Home Secretary ought to consider between now and Report whether he could not put in some words more clearly defining the people to whom he intends this Clause to apply. He has told us it will include mine-sweepers. No one can have the slightest objection to mine-sweepers being included. There are many reasons why they should be. My right hon. Friend (Sir C. Hobhouse) pointed out just now that it might include certain Post Office officials sent out for a short time. I really do not see why they should be included. They probably would get the vote in the ordinary way. If by some misfortune they do not happen to get it in the ordinary way, I really do not think it would have any grievous result. Not only may it apply to Post Office officials but it may apply to all sorts of workmen sent out for a short time. There are at present large numbers of people being sent out on the railways engaged in, plate-laying, driving engines, and work of that sort, and who may only be out there for a short time. Supposing the registration period occurred at that particular moment, 161 I doubt if they would be disqualified from getting the vote in the ordinary way. Why should the registration officer be put to the trouble of ascertaining whether those particular people, disqualified from obtaining the vote in the ordinary way, are qualified to obtain it in this exceptional way? I think that case is totally different from the case of the soldier who is sent out. I can see no reason why it should be made to apply to all these people who are sent out for a short time, and I do earnestly trust, if I withdraw the Amendment, that I shall get an assurance from the Home Secretary that he will really see whether it is beyond the wit of man to put in words which will define these particular people to whom it is necessary to grant this particular privilege. If the Home Secretary will give me that assurance, I will withdraw it.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I will certainly give that assurance, which is a very modest one.

The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Shropshire has handed in a manuscript Amendment to insert at the end of the Clause the words, "Any person entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for the same qualification." I am not sure how that would read as the Clause now stands. I do not think that it would read.

§ Major HUNT
Could I put it in this way: "Any person in this Section qualified as a Parliamentary elector shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for the same qualification"?

The CHAIRMAN
I do not think it would read. The hon. and gallant Member will remember that I suggested to him, before the Clause was remodelled, that an Amendment should be put down for the Report stage, after the word "Parliamentary" ["registered as a Parliamentary elector"] to insert the words "or local government." That would be the correct 162 way to deal with it. Then we should know what we were doing in the rest of the Clause. If we bring in new matter like this at the end of the Clause, it affects what we have done in the previous Amendments. The hon. Member will find the way I suggest the best for bringing his proposal forward. It is quite a legitimate point to raise at the right place.

§ Lord H. CECIL
On the point of Order. That may be the most convenient method, but surely it is a fair issue for the Committee to decide whether they would like what they have already decided upon as fit for the Parliamentary qualification also to be extended to the local government qualification?

§ Major HUNT
I was told, when I endeavoured to move it earlier, to do so further on.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
In your absence the Deputy-Chairman asked my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment at the place where he wished to move it, but to move it at this place.

The CHAIRMAN
If that is so, of course I have nothing further to say, but I did, I think, first suggest that the place for the Amendment was after the words "Parliamentary elector" in the original form of the Clause before that was swept out by the new Government proposals. Perhaps the hon. Member will move now.

§ Major HUNT
I beg to move, to add as a new Sub-section: "(4) any person entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector under this Section shall be entitled also to be registered as a local government elector for the same qualification."
I cannot think that the Government can have meant not to have given the vote for local elections, if they give the Parliamentary vote. I think these men are quite as much entitled to be allowed to vote at local elections as anybody else. I do not know how it is that it was not put in before, because it seems to have been expected by people who understand Parliamentary draughtsmanship, which I certainly do not. I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will see his way to put it in now.

§ Sir G. CAVE
It is quite clear that the Amendment could not be accepted in the form in which it is moved, because the effect would be that a man qualified for the Parliamentary vote under this Clause 163 would be qualified as a local government elector. That introduces an entirely new kind of franchise. But, apart from the form, there is a difficulty in making this great change. Of course, it is one thing to say a soldier should not be deprived of a vote altogether by his absence, but it is another thing to say that he should have a vote for local purposes in a district which he has left for a year or more and where he occupies no premises at all. I do not think they can be very well linked together.

§ Mr. C. ROBERTS
Will the Home Secretary consider it in some more limited form, so that if by virtue of his services in the War a soldier has lost what would have been a local government qualification, it could then in some way be preserved. That is a different point, and very much more limited. I think if he will consider it before the Report stage in that form there might be some case for that.

§ Lord H. CECIL
I think the Home Secretary is quite right in saying it cannot be dealt with in the summary way my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, but there is a point of some considerable substance in its effect upon the votes of women. The machinery of the Bill is that the woman's Parliamentary vote depends upon her husband's local government qualification. Therefore, it is clear a soldier's wife would lose her Parliamentary vote because her husband is at the War. This is to be a permanent enactment, and it certainly does seem to be unreasonable that a soldier's wife should lose her Parliamentary vote because her husband goes to the War. So far as I understand the Bill, that is what happens. It is desirable that so much of the local government qualification of the husband should be preserved as would qualify his wife to be a Parliamentary voter; otherwise she suffers because of the courage or patriotism of her husband in enlisting in the Army. That is obviously undesirable. Therefore, it is a point of substance which the Home Secretary might be prepared to consider at the proper time. It would probably have to be dealt with in a new Clause, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would consider it before we reach the stage at which new Clauses are considered. Of course, the Home Secretary knows these things better than I do, but I apprehend it would require a complete Clause in order to make 164 the purpose operative, and I hope the Home Secretary will not put it aside as an impossible suggestion, because it has a very substantial bearing on the women's votes.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
I do not quite understand the way in which the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend has been met by the Home Secretary. I think he said no more than that he would not close the door upon it for ever, but that does not seem a satisfactory way of dealing with the point if there is any substance in it. I agree with what the Noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Cecil) said as to the hardship that a woman should be deprived of her Parliamentary vote merely because her husband happened to be at the War. That is due to the unsatisfactory way in which women franchise has been introduced, but in addition to that there is a real point of substance. I agree that it would be impossible to deal with it in the way suggested by this Amendment, but it does seem absurd that provisions introduced to enable soldiers to become Parliamentary electors should not, by some similar machinery, enable them to be local government electors where they have the necessary local interest in the affairs of the community in which they live. I hope the Home Secretary will seriously consider, before the Bill leaves the House, in what way the provisions here introduced for the benefit of the soldier to obtain the Parliamentary vote shall also be entitled as far as the local government vote is concerned. I think it would be much more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would consider that point, and bring up in its proper place and form on the Report stage a Clause or Amendment for dealing with it so that the House may have an opportunity of considering it.

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I raised the same point earlier in the Debate. I am not quite sure that there is really any point of substance in this proposal. The Parliamentary vote depends upon residence, and the soldier who goes abroad of course loses his qualification, because he no longer resides in the premises, and therefore it is necessary to save his qualification. On the other hand, the local government vote depends either upon ownership or occupation, and so far as ownership is concerned the soldier is not prevented or disqualified by being abroad. Perhaps the Home Secretary can relieve the mind of the Committee by confirming that view. If there is any occasion in which 165 there may be any cases in which a soldier, by virtue only of his business abroad in the service of the State, were to lose his local Government vote, and if the consequence of that is also that his wife loses her Parliamentary vote, I am sure the whole of the Committee would most earnestly desire that the Government, after consideration, should put down an Amendment which would relieve a soldier's wife of consequences which no one would wish to see ensue.

§ Sir G. CAVE
The soldier who is going abroad may very well keep his occupation qualification for local government purposes. If that be so, I am very unwilling to introduce into the local government register the machinery suggested. But I will consider the point.

§ Mr. DICKINSON
Unless some provision such as this is made the soldier may lose his occupation vote by lack of fixity of tenure.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
It seems to me, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there are a large number of people in London who occupy houses on a three months' or three weeks' term, and it might easily be that the soldier might say to his wife, "I am going abroad, I cannot afford to keep this house going, and you must take furnished apartments." That is not at all an improbable contingency. The result will be that the woman will lose her vote because her husband is serving his country. There is the similar case of the shopkeeper who lives over his shop. He is going abroad as a soldier, and cannot keep up his residence. He sells his business, or someone carries it on in his absence. The wife takes furnished rooms, and, similarly to the last case, she loses her vote. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that that is quite a probable contingency. Again, there is the case of a man who gets an allotment and with it an occupation vote, and the same thing happens in respect to the wife. This, therefore, is a question of substance. I do not want to insist upon anything being put in now, but I hope the matter will be seriously considered before we come to the Third Reading.

§ Major HUNT
I tried before, in the Debate to get in an Amendment to this 166 Clause to make it so that the soldier or sailor or woman who has gone abroad to serve in the war should have votes because they are serving their country abroad. The Government may give as a reason for bringing in—

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley. May I ask you, in regard to my Amendment, in Subsection (2), at end of paragraph (c), to add the words, "Any person compelled to leave his residence or business premises on account of actual or prospective naval or military operations." I understood you to say that in its present form it did not read with the proposed Amendment of the Home Secretary. Is there anything to prevent me moving it as a new Subsection? If you rule against it now shall I have the opportunity of moving it on Clause 6?

The CHAIRMAN
I really cannot Bay on the spur of the moment. It is quite clear it will not read here. But I will be able to consider it on Clause 6.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
Then could I move it as a Sub-section now?

The CHAIRMAN
I do not think so.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
Then may I move the terms I gave you just now as a manuscript Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member handed in an Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment. He was called, I was informed, when I had left the Chair, and did not respond. We have passed that point.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I gave notice I would move a new Sub-section at the end of the Clause, and I understand that the time to move it is when the end of the Clause is reached.

The CHAIRMAN
I have no such proposal in front of me. The only one T have in. front of me is "Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke: as Amendment to Home Secretary's Amendment." I asked particularly about that when I resumed the Chair, and I was informed that the hon. Member was called, but was not in his place.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
All I can say is that I handed in two manuscript Amendments, and, at your request, Sir, I handed in a third. I informed the right hon. Gentleman who was then in 167 the Chair that I desired to move a new Sub-section. I beg leave to ask your permission to move it now.

The CHAIRMAN
I can only deal with what is in front of me. I went through the manuscript Amendments, and I particularly asked on that question, and I was so informed. I have already put to the Committee the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and the hon. and gallant Member (Major Hunt) is speaking to that question.

§ Major HUNT
The chief reason the Government gave for bringing in this Franchise Bill was that they meant to give the vote to soldiers and sailors who have served in the War. The Home Secretary said he had been trying to do so. If he had he would have made it clear that the very fact that soldiers and sailors had served abroad in this War and had attained the age of nineteen years would have given them the vote, either for the place in which they usually lived before the War or where they were born, or where their next-of-kin lived. The result of this Clause will be that the great majority of the soldiers and sailors who have saved our liberties and saved us from the horrors endured by France and Belgium will most decidedly not have the vote at the next General Election. From what I have heard, I tell the right hon. Gentleman plainly that the soldiers and sailors do not like it at all. They will not be satisfied when they come back, after having saved the country and suffered all the hardships they have undergone, and find that a very large number of them have no voice at all in the government of the country. It appears to me almost insane that the Government should go deliberately out of its way to break the well-known, well-understood agreement not to bring in controversial legislation on the plea that it is in order to give sailors and soldiers votes because they have saved the country, and when you read the Bill you find the one thing the Government has not done is to give the majority of soldiers and sailors votes at the next or any other election. They have not given them votes. They have given a tinkering measure to give them a chance of voting if they had the vote before. Under this Bill you are 168 going to give 6,000,000 women the vote—a most controversial question—and you are going to allow a lot of people to have the vote who would not go and defend their country, and those who have saved us are not to have it. It is a most extraordinary proceeding. I think the Bill is an absolute fraud. You are deliberately humbugging the people, pretending that you are bringing in this Bill for the very purpose of giving the vote to soldiers and sailors, while you are taking devilish good care you do not give it. How the Home Secretary can sit here calmly, knowing that the Bill is a fraud, knowing that he is humbugging the whole people—

The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member is going a good deal beyond Parliamentary usage.

§ Major HUNT
I really feel very strongly about this Clause. I should have been rather inclined, much as I hate a great deal of the rest of the Bill, not to have worried about this Clause, but, with this in it, I think it is the duty of everyone in the House who has the welfare of the Army and Navy at heart, to oppose this Clause for all he is worth. When it gets out in the country—and it will get out—that the majority of sailors and soldiers under this Bill are not going to get the vote, I cannot help thinking when these sailors and soldiers come home some of you will be asked some funny questions when you go round electioneering, and I hope they will give it you well, for I am sure you deserve it.

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I should like to ask the Home Secretary some questions bearing on one or two Amendments which unfortunately the Chairman has been unable to reach. The first Amendment I have in my name is in regard to persons who will be deprived of their vote through having to move on account of their premises being taken over on account of naval or military operations. Do I understand that these persons will retain their vote? Secondly, I should like to ask what is the position in the case of sailors, that is, men serving in the Royal Navy, who are serving outside their territorial waters. In the case of members of the naval forces of the Crown, I suggest to the Home Secretary that the person qualified to vote should be deemed to be serving in that constituency in which his home port is situated. On that point we have had no decision given by 169 the Home Secretary, and I think before the Clause is passed we should have his views on the matter.

§ Colonel SANDERS
May I ask on what portion of the Bill the question of voting by proxy can be raised? It was down as an Amendment to this Clause, but it was not taken. Would it come on Clause 18 or on a new Clause, or on the Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid I cannot answer that question at the moment. I think it could be first raised on Clause 18. When we get there we can see whether it is appropriate to that Clause or to the Schedule. I can give the hon. and gallant Member an assurance that I will try to make quite certain that there is a specific opportunity of dealing with this question.

§ Mr. STEWART
In regard to voting by proxy, is the Amendment that is down to Clause 18 in my name and that of other hon. Members in order?

The CHAIRMAN
I cannot really say so far in advance, but I can assure the Committee that I have the question under observation, and I will see that there is opportunity for dealing with it.

§ Sir G. CAVE
In regard to the first question put by the hon. Member (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke), I am afraid that if the person ceased to reside there because his home is taken there would be danger of his losing his qualification. With regard to business premises, the result-might be different. In regard to the second point, I have already promised to consider the question as to the position of the sailor who is not abroad—that is, not in any foreign country but at sea. I hope some words may be brought in to cover that point. As regards the third question, I think there would be some danger in saying that the sailor in every ship should be deemed to be serving in the home port of the vessel. That might bring a very large number of voters to Devonport, Portsmouth, and Chatham, and I am not quite sure whether that would not too much overload the register of those constituencies. I think probably the sailor would be content with having the chance of getting his vote at his home.

§ Mr. PETO
I should not like the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Major Hunt) to go out as representing the views of the Committee. As a member of the Speaker's Conference I feel that, with the Amendments made to this Clause by the Home Secretary, we are carrying out the intentions of the Speaker's Conference, and, far from my belief being that the majority of soldiers and sailors will not have the franchise, I am convinced that as large a majority of them will have the franchise, and be able to exercise it, as could possibly be arranged under such a complicated and difficult business. I have only one criticism in regard to this Clause. I do hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to place the provision in regard to the absent voters' list in the Bill in its proper place, as Clause 6, before the finally part with the Bill. I think that with; that and Clause 5 as it now stands we have I arrived at a most satisfactory conclusion of a difficult problem, and one which the country will be glad to welcome.