Commons Sitting of 15 November 1917

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

MALAY STATES.
Copies presented of Reports for 1916 on the Unfederated Malay States under British Protection [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Report for 1916 on the State of Brunei [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 941 (Cyprus, Report for 1916-17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by 'the Couneils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed, with Amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
City of Cardiff;
City of Leeds
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GREECE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been ascertained with any degree of surety that King Alexander of Greece has no means of communicating with the German Kaiser by wireless telegrahpy, exchange of confidential messages, Royal or other highly placed spies; and, if so, whether it is intended to continue to him the same facilities in this respect as those enjoyed by his father?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): Such matters are the concern of the Royal Hellenic Government presided over by M. Venizelos, in whom the Allied Governments have full confidence.
    Mr. LYNCH: So that I take it that you are quite content with the warming-pan?
    Mr. WATT: Does the Foreign Office think it wise to trust this monarch, seeing that his father and mother were guilty of duplicity—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that reflections upon neutral or Allied monarchs can be allowed.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether at any time during the reign of King Constantine in Greece Lord Hardinge communicated to the French Government the suggestion that for dynastic reasons it was necessary that the throne of the King should not be imperilled, and that the course of operations should have regard to that consideration?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether all the communications of the British representatives at Athens during the reign of King Constantine will be published, or, alternatively, submitted to this House in Secret Session?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I can give no such undertaking.
    Mr. LYNCH: I shall raise the question to-night.

    POPE'S PEACE NOTE.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the approaching Conference of the Allies on prosecuting the War will consider the advisability of a reply to the Pope's Peace Note?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it desirable to make any forecast of the course which the deliberations of the Conference may take.
    Mr. KING: Is this matter being considered, or does the Government think that a mere acknowledgment of the Pope's Note is sufficient?
    Lord R. CECIL: I trust the House will have sufficient confidence in His Majesty s Government to believe that they are considering all matters vital to the conduct of the War.

    GERMANY (INDEMNITIES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether any estimate has been formed of the indemnities which Germany has already levied on France, Belgium, and Russia by levies, fines, and organised systems of looting in the conquered territories?
    Lord R. CECIL: I can only surmise that estimates have probably been formed by the Governments of the countries directly concerned, but such estimates, if made, have not been communicated to His Majesty's Government.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Would it not be very useful to have an estimate for propaganda purposes?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for the suggestion. I shall certainly consider it.

    FRANCE.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the Debate in the French Chamber of Deputies on 31st July, 1917, M. Ribot, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed the Chamber that the Czar of Russia had promised M. Briand, when Prime Minister, that he would, in addition to supporting the French claim to Alsace-Lorraine, leave France free to make, if need be, an autonomous state out of German territories on the left bank of the Rhine; and whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?
    Lord R. CECIL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I may remind the hon. Member that Monsieur Ribot stated on that occasion that he repudiated on the part of the French Government a policy of conquest.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the Noble Lord recollect that when this arrangement was referred to by myself in the Debate on Foreign policy last week the Foreign Secretary stated that it was an absolute mare's nest; in view of the answer of the Noble Lord does he adhere to the statement of the Foreign Secretary?
    Lord R. CECIL: I had not the pleasure or hearing the speech of my right hon. Friend, but I read it the next morning: I adhere to everything he said.
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether any negotiations with France had been opened. up regarding Alsace and Lorraine before the War; and, if not, when the British Government agreed to support the French Government in making the restitution of Alsace and Lorraine an essential item in our war aims?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, it was a well understood war-aim from the moment we entered the War.

    PORTUGAL.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the disquietude still existing in Portugal as a result of the Labour party's proposal to internationalise Central Africa; and whether, with a view to allaying such disquietude, he will make a clear statement that His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for such a proposal?
    Lord R. CECIL: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the state of feeling in Portugal on this question, and am glad to have this opportunity of saying that His Majesty's. Government neither have, nor could have, any responsibility for proposals designed to deprive Portugal of any of her Colonies. Great Britain has promised to defend and protect the Portuguese Colonies against all enemies.

    MALTA.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering that in the Report on Malta for 1916–17 (No. 935) there is no mention of the War, or of the part Malta has taken in the prosecution of the War, or in the provision of men and material for either combatant or non-combatant service, he will have the omission rectified in the ensuing Report?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): I will suggest to Lord Methuen that, so far as publication is desirable, mention of the part taken by. Malta in the War might be included in the next Report.
    Colonel YATE: Thank you.

    LEEDS TRAINING COLLEGE.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that it is over twelve months since the Report of the Inquiry into the Leeds Training College was received; whether he can now announce that the Leeds education authority has agreed to a scheme of reorganisation of the college; and, failing any agreement between the authority and the Board of Education on this reorganisation, whether he will publish the Report of the recent Inquiry into the affairs of the college?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): A revised scheme for the management of the college has been agreed between the Board and the local education authority. I will lay a copy of the Memorandum on the Table.
    Mr. KING: Does the scheme provide for the representation of authorities and interests other than the Leeds local authority—is a wide representation given to the governing body?
    Mr. FISHER: I think so.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (IRELAND), 1908.
    Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say if any elections, municipal or otherwise, will be held in Ireland under the provisions of the Local Government Act (Ireland) of 1908 during the coming year, 1918, as, owing to the postponement of those elections during this year, there is a doubt in the minds of many people as to whether those elections will be held or not during next year; and if he will make it clear as to what course the Government intend to pursue in this matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Provision for the further postponement for a year of local elections is made in Clause 2 (1) of the Parliament and Local Elections (No. 2) Bill which was introduced on Monday.
    Mr. JOYCE: So that the officials in Ireland will know that there will be no elections during the next year?
    Mr. DUKE: That is the proposal in the Bill.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DORISasked upon what grounds the Local Government Board on appeal have twice disallowed an old age pension unanimously granted by the local pension sub-committee to cormac Muldoon, of Ballyglass, county Mayo (No. 1559 in pension officer's register)?
    Mr. DUKE: This claim was disallowed on the ground that the claimant's means exceeded the statutory limit for the receipt of a pension. He was the owner of a farm of 16 acres of good land, which he assigned to an unmarried son, reserving board and lodging admittedly in order to qualify for a pension.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the pensions granted to asylum workers in Ireland is small and inadequate to support them at present owing to the increased cost of living; is he aware that the board of governors of the Maryborough Asylum are prepared to consider the question of granting a war bonus to their pensioners provided the Treasury will give a Grant in Aid and that no surcharge will be made by the inspectors of lunacy; and whether he will give an undertaking to this effect?
    Mr. DUKE: Pensions are granted to asylum workers in Ireland in pursuance of the provisions of the Act 9, Edwd. VII., cap. 48, and in some cases of the Act 53 and 54 Vic., cap. 31. Owing to the low rate of pay at which the local authorities are able to staff the asylums the pensions are, as a rule, small, and the asylum workers, in common with the rest of the community, are suffering from the increased cost of living due to the War. I understand that no representation has been made by the committee of management of the Maryborough Asylum as regards granting a war bonus to pensioners, and, so far as I am aware, there is no. statutory provision under which the Treasury could give a Grant in aid of such a bonus. The accounts of the District Asylums are audited by the Local Government Board auditors, in whom is vested the power of surcharging illegal payments. They exercise quasi-judicial functions, and I have no authority to direct them as to their decisions.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      FLOODS (IRELAND).
      Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary if he can see his way to introduce a short Bill to amend the Lough Erne Act, providing for the prevention of the annual flooding of thousands of acres of land, the consequent saving of crops, and increase in food supplies?
      Mr. DUKE: I am advised that this is a matter for a private Bill.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring in a Bill, to which there is no opposition, to safeguard those crops?
      Mr. DUKE: I am advised that this is a matter for a private Bill, but I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
      Mr. CRUMLEY: Thank you very much.
      Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, owing to the continuous rains of the past three months and partly owing to the stoppage of the drainage work commenced some time ago on the Owenmore River, in the county Sligo, hundreds of acres of valuable oat, potatoes, and hay crops have been destroyed by the flooding of that river; and, if so, will he say whether the work of drainage on the Owenmore will be resumed, so as to prevent a recurrence of these disasters during the coming year?
      Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his previous question on the 21st June, to which I have nothing to add.

      TILLAGE (IRELAND).
      Mr. HACKETTasked the VicePresident of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many acres of land Mr. W. P. Hanly, J.P., holds in each of the following townlands—namely, Annefield, Annesgrove, Cloneyross, The Hough (Clonaulty), and Lanespark, Thurles, county Tipperary; if Mr. Hanly complied with the Tillage Order in the past year; and, if not, what steps the Department intend to take regarding the default and to enforce the Order in respect of these lands during the coming year?
      Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture do not consider it would be in the public interest to furnish details in individual cases unless the necessity for the
      552
      enforcement of tillage has actually arisen. All proper steps will be taken by the Department to secure compliance with the requirements of the compulsory tillage provisions of the Defence of the Realm Regulations in cases of default.

    ARIGNA COAL AND MINERAL FIELDS.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that he received about six months ago a deputation consisting of Members of Parliament from the West of Ireland and others interested in the development of the coal and mineral fields of Arigna, and that he stated to that deputation that the project was receiving the careful consideration of his Department and of the Board of Trade, he will state now whether the Government have taken or intend to take any, and, if so, what, action to facilitate in developing the coal-field in question; and if he will inform the House whether the Government intend, for the purpose of helping this project, to construct or give facilities for constructing a line of railway from Arigna to Colooney?
    Mr. DUKE: I am in communication with various persons interested as to a possible means of improving the transit facilities for Arigna coal.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In view of the fact that this proposal has been under the consideration of his Department and of the Board of Trade for over a year, is the right hon. Gentleman not in a position to make a more definite statement?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot make any more definite statement than I have made. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have seen that consideration has been given to this matter.
    Mr. SCANLAN: May I ask whether the Government intend to do anything to develop the Arigna coal-fields?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot consent to be cross-examined on the answer I have given.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Then what the right hon. Gentleman has said means nothing.
    Mr. SCANLANasked whether the Government have adopted, or intend to adopt, any, and, if so, what, measures to

    553
    assist in the development of coal-fields in Ireland as a war measure to lessen the demands on tonnage space and to cheapen the price of coal to the poorer people in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: I have been asked to reply. The Government have undertaken the construction of one short railway for the service of an Irish colliery as a war measure, and I have at the moment proposals under examination with regard to others.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Are we to understand that one small line of railway for one colliery has exhausted the whole of the Government effort for Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member must read my answer, and he will have no difficulty in understanding what I mean.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I think I understand the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. KEATING: Can we have some hope expressed that other railways will be developed during the War?
    Mr. SCANLANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an expert from the Coal Controller's Department made an inspection of the coal and mineral fields at Arigna about a year ago on behalf of that Department; whether the expert has reported; and whether the Government have taken or propose to take any, and, if so, what, action to promote the working of the coal and minerals in the Arigna area?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): A mining engineer, appointed by the Controller of Coal Mines, investigated and reported upon the Arigna mineral-field. That Report, together with observations of the Controller of Coal Mines, has been forwarded to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for his consideration.

    SHERIFFS-PRINCIPAL.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the number of cases that came before the Sheriff-Principal of the shires of Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk was eleven and that the salary paid to such Sheriff was £750; and whether there is any intention of the Government bringing in legislation to consolidate Sheriffdoms in Scotland in order to economise in war time?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde):My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, to the latter part in the negative. Such legislation as is suggested by the hon. and learned Member would not be calculated to produce the effect intended by him.
    Mr. WATT: Would the right hon. Gentleman describe persistent exposure of evils which are protected by the Secretary for Scotland and the Scottish Office as a "vendetta"?
    Mr. CLYDE: If the hon. Gentleman asks me, I should describe his conduct in this matter as eminently well-described by that term.

    CRINAN CANAL.
    Sir JOHN AINSWORTHasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the Report of the Commissioners for the Crinan Canal for the year ending 30th April, 1917, and which was confirmed at the last meeting of the Commissioners, attention is called to the fact that numerous representations have reached the Commissioners as to the inadequacy of the existing canal and the need for the construction of an improved and modernised canal in substitution for it, and that attention is also called to the fact that the Commissioners have in previous Reports repeatedly called attention to the present condition of the canal, and that extensive repairs will have to be effected in the near future if the canal is to be maintained, even in its present condition, and that there is a constant and increasing risk of a breakdown which will involve the closing of the canal; and whether he will now take steps and consult with the Reconstruction Committee as to what action shall be taken to avoid this. danger and to put the canal in such a condition as to enable it to deal with modern requirements?
    Mr. CLYDE: My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. His attention has been called to the Report in question. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Secretary for Scotland's Department is not in any direct sense responsible for the canal, and he is not one of the statutory Canal Commissioners. He has already, however, drawn the attention of the Treasury to the

    555
    terms of the Report, and in any further dealings with the matter he will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
    Perhaps, as I am myself officially one of the Canal Commissioners, I ought to add, and may be permitted to add, that, with the contingencies—which, I fancy, have moved the hon. Gentleman to put this question—in mind, the Commissioners have arranged to obtain for the duration of the War a loan of some £7,500 for both the Caledonian and Crinan Canals, in order to provide against the possibility of such breakdown as the hon. Member has in mind.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the danger of the total collapse of the canal is imminent, and, under the circumstances, will not the Secretary for Scotland, and other parties interested, take an opportunity of seeing what can be done to remedy the condition of things at the earliest moment?
    Mr. CLYDE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the condition of the canal has been fully under the review of the Commissioners, and that the matters to which he refers are being paid careful attention to.

    CARLOS DE LA ESCOSURAS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an interned alien, Carlos de la Escosuras, has escaped from Reading Gaol and taken refuge at the Spanish Embassy; whether this man is still there; and what action he proposes to take?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This man escaped from Reading Prison, has taken refuge at the Spanish Embassy, and is still there. The question of the action to be taken in the matter is under consideration by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. KING: Has he not been there for ten days? Is it not time a decision was made?

    TAXI-CABS (LONDON).
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the inconvenience to the public caused by 2,500 cabs not plying for hire; whether,
    556
    when he made his recent decision to allow an increase in the initial fare, he had reason to believe that the result would be a strike of taxi-cab drivers; and what steps he is prepared to take to terminate the trouble, in the interests of the public, as soon as possible?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am aware that the taxicab drivers refuse to hire cabs except on the terms of obtaining free petrol, which some of the owners decline to give, and that in consequence a number of taxi-cabs are not in use, but the number of such cabs is far below 2,500. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As to the third part, I have no authority to intervene in this dispute, unless requested by both parties to do so. I may add that I understand that in the case of those taxi-cabs which are plying for hire the new arrangement is working smoothly, and no complaint has been received either from the drivers or from the public.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not a fact that the cabs which are plying for hire are cabs which are owned by the drivers themselves?
    Sir G. CAVE: Not all of them, I think.

    ELECTORAL REFORM (ALTERNATIVE VOTE).
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Home Secretary whether the draft Regulations recently issued in reference to the alternative vote are subject to modification; and, if so, whether he will take expert advice upon a scheme which gives to each candidate the full value of his second preference votes instead of the bottom one only as in the Regulations?
    Sir G. CAVE: The draft Regulations are subject to modification, but the opinion of the experts whom I have consulted is not favourable to the alternative scheme referred to in the question.

    PEACE PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the Government are taking any steps to deal with the propaganda in favour of a premature peace which is being carried on by means of leaflets and other publications?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir; the powers now vested in the Government for this

    557
    purpose have been freely used. Many thousands of these leaflets have been seized and destroyed, and in some of these cases the Attorney-General has sanctioned a prosecution. But most of the leaflets do not come to the notice of the authorities until after they have been partly distributed, and there is often a difficulty in ascertaining the authorship. Further, the penalty imposed by Statute upon the printing of these leaflets without disclosing the printer's name is inadequate in time of war, and some of them are distributed without the imprint required by law. In these circumstances the Government consider that additional powers are required. It is proposed, therefore, to make a new Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Acts, requiring every leaflet relating to the present War or to the conclusion of peace to bear the names and addresses of the author and printer, and to be submitted to the Press Bureau for approval. This Regulation will be submitted for approval forthwith.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government have now come to the conclusion that it is an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act to advocate Free Trade in this country, and whether they raided the offices of the International Free Trade League, which confines its activities entirely—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the opposition to peace comes chiefly from profiteers who are making money out of the War, and from their jackals?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the very pernicious action taken by hon. Gentlemen here calling themselves Pacifists with regard to peace, and will he deal severely with them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask why the Government cannot deal with these pamphlets by fair and open argument instead of hiding behind the police?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am dealing with pamphlets which infringe the law and must be dealt with under the law.
    General CROFT: Is it not a fact that precisely this same propaganda with leaf-
    558
    lets took place in Russia and Italy with the same appalling results, and will he take every effort to prevent it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for the Foreign Office.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: What will be the penalty for breach of the new Regulations?
    Sir G. CAVE: The penalty imposed by the Defence of the Realm Act is a heavy fine or imprisonment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman add to the Regulations a penalty for distributing the leaflets that have not the necessary imprint upon them?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is included.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Prime Minister stated in this House that the advocacy of peace by negotiation was not an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act, and have the present. Government changed that policy?
    Sir G. CAVE: That may be, but this Regulation deals with leaflets that infringe the Regulations.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the conviction of Stephen Alfred Chandler at Exeter for distributing a pamphlet issued by the Union of Democratic Control, the object of which was described by the mayor as being to shock the morale of the British people, to induce fighting men to stop fighting, to induce people to decline to serve, to break the nerve of the British people, and let the Germans win; and whether he will take steps to stop the printing and publication of such pamphlets at the source by dissolving the union in question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that Chandler was convicted of distributing a pamphlet which was printed and published by Arnold Lupton, and in respect of which Lupton had been fined £200. The latter part of the question, therefore, does not appear to arise in connection with this pamphlet.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: In view of the fact that in the first instance Mr. Lupton, who printed and published this pamphlet, only got a fine, does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it rather hard that a man who before the pamphlet was found to be illegal distributed it should get two

    559
    months' hard labour when the man who wrote and published the pamphlet only got a fine?
    Sir G. CAVE: This man distributed the pamphlet after Lupton was proceeded against.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: No; it was before.
    Sir G. CAVE: I understood it was after.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: If the right hon. Gentleman receives information to show that he only distributed the pamphlet before the case even came on in Court and destroyed the pamphlet the moment he knew that there was any question about it, will he reconsider the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am always willing to receive representations as to a sentence, but, of course, I cannot give any promise.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the pamphlet was issued by the Union of Democratic Control, would it come under the new Regulation the right hon. Gentleman is proposing?
    Sir G. CAVE: Certainly; all such pamphlets will come under the Regulation.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Have not all the disastrous results in this question come about through the speech of the Prime Minister in Paris?
    Colonel YATE: If I catch a man stuffing these pamphlets in my letter-box, can I have him arrested?
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will himself take him into custody.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the serious statement made by the Home Secretary at Question Time to-day, that the Government propose to seek further powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the Government in interfering with political propaganda and the steps they have announced to-day for the suppression of the advocacy of peace and the discussion of political policy."
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to
    560
    rise in their places, and, less than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the business of the day.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many paid officials are employed by the Committee of Employment of Conscientious Objectors; and what are their functions and their respective salaries?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on Monday last to a question by the hon. Member for Whitehaven. In addition to the office staff mentioned in that reply, the officers employed at the Committee's work centres at Princetown, Wakefield, and Knutsford number 57, 17, and 12 respectively, and the total salaries paid to them amount to £8,167, £2,319, and £1,257 per annum respectively. The great majority of these are prison officers, and their functions are to instruct, supervise, and control the men employed at the centres.
    As regards the men employed at numerous places outside work centres, these are supervised and controlled by their employers, who act without remuneration as the Committee's agents for this purpose. In three cases, however, the Committee pay remuneration to their local agents at the rate of 1s. per week for each man employed up to a maximum of 50s, per week.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the House to understand it costs the State something like £13,000 to manage these so-called conscientious objectors?
    Mr. BRACE: It costs the amount that I have quoted.
    Mr. KING: A great deal more than that!
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what is the total amount of money that has been expended, chargeable to State funds, in respect to the employment of conscientious objectors?
    Mr. BRACE: I can only state the gross amount of the payments made, not the net cost to the State after allowing for repayments due, and for the value of work done

    561
    at the work centres. The gross amount of the payments from August, 1916, to the 31st of October, 1917, is —92,306 17s. 11d.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he will state the present condition of health of Paul L. Gillan, a Sinn Fein conscientious objector, who was returned to prison some months ago from the Dartmoor Settlement; whether this man has refused work in prison; and, if so, what punishments have been inflicted upon him and are being inflicted upon him?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have asked for a Report about the man referred to, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    MEDICAL STUDENTS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of medical men and to the danger that the supply of medical men after the conclusion of peace may, for some years, be wholly insufficient; and whether, in view of this state of things, he will see that no bonâfide medical student entered before 1st November, 1917, is called up for military or any other service?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The outlook with regard to the supply of medical men, and the question of military service as it affects medical students, has been under my careful review. The general policy I have adopted is to aim at maintaining a minimum output of 1,000 newly-qualified medical men per annum. This year no improvement can be made. In 1918 and 1919 the output will be below the desired minimum, though, I hope, approaching it. Arrangements have already been made that students serving in the Army who have completed two years of medical studies, and who had begun their studies prior to 1st August, 1914, may claim to be returned to their studies. The hon. Member's suggestions will be carefully considered in connection with the general review.

  DEATH OF THOMAS ASHE
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary whether he has read the verdict of the jury in the case of Thomas Ashe; whether he will take steps to put an end to the practice of depriving a prisoner of
  562
  everything of comfort in his cell as a. punishment for infraction of discipline; whether he will give instructions that. dietary punishments should be stopped as mean and dangerous to health; and whether he will decline to authorise in future the practice of forcible or artificial feeding?
  Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first, part of the question is in the affirmative: to the other three parts in the negative. Forcible feeding is never used except in the last resort as a medical measure to, preserve the life of a prisoner who is. attempting to commit suicide by refusing, food.
  Major CHAPPLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between forcible feeding which requires force and artificial feeding which requires no force at all?
  Sir G. CAVE: It was artificial feeding.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case referred to, forcible feeding did not succeed in keeping, the prisoner alive?
  Sir G. CAVE: Of course I am aware of it.
  Major CHAPPLE: Is there any evidence that the feeding in this case was resisted?
  Sir G. CAVE: I know that there were special facts in this case, but that does not, relieve us from the necessity of saving life where we can.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is it not a fact that to, save life you destroy it?

  "BOLOISM."
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is inquiring into the allegations made by certain newspapers that Bolo spent money in this country to influence opinion; whether any of these newspapers have supplied him with the facts upon which they based their allegations; whether he has, inquired into them, and with what result; (2) whether he has observed that in France the examination of those alleged to have held corrupt and treasonable transactions with Bolo are confined to writers in and proprietors of jingo newspapers, financiers, and company promoters of a certain established reputation, and society ladies; and whether, in making his

  563
  inquiries here into Boloism, he will search in the ruts in which Bolo operated in France?
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Bolo, on behalf of the Pan-Germans, financed, to the extent of £16,000, a French newspaper devoted to promoting the demand for the annexation of the Soar Valley; and, in view of the fact that certain British journals have been supporting this propaganda, will he cause inquiries to be made in this connection when investigating the alleged activities of Bolo in this country?
  Sir G. CAVE: These questions refer to matters which are under investigation by the police, and it is obvious that if, at the present stage, I were to describe the course of their inquiries, I should only be assisting the enemy.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue inquiries in regard to the Jingo Press, seeing that Bolo financed the Jingo Press in France, and will he make inquiries in this direction here?
  Sir G. CAVE: I have given my answer to the three questions.

  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will now announce his intentions as to the Petroleum (Production) Bill; and whether, to meet the emergency and avoid opposition, he will proceed with the Bill, dropping the proposal to create royalties?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say whether income derived by landowners under the proposed Petroleum Bill will be subject to Income Tax, Super Tax, and Excess Profits Duty; whether the Bill is to be proceeded with; and, if not, in what way and on what terms petroleum believed to exist in this country is to be made available for the Navy and for industrial purposes?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that it would be better to postpone any statement on these matters until the Bill comes on for discussion.

  BRITISH CAPTURES.

    CONQUERED TERRITORY.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked what is the approximate total square mileage of territory conquered, or re-conquered, by British Armies since 1st July, 1916?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The total square mileage of territory conquered or reconquered by British Armies in all theatres since 1st July, 1916, is about 128,000 square miles. This figure is necessarily only approximate, as in some theatres of war no hard-and-fast line can be drawn between territory in enemy and British occupation on a given date.

    PRISONERS, GUNS AND BOOTY.
    General CROFTasked what are the totals of prisoners, guns, and booty captured from the Turkish Empire since 1st July, 1916?
    Mr. FORSTER: The totals of prisoners and guns captured from the Turks by our Armies since 1st July, 1916, are as follows:

    Prisoners

    30,197

    Guns

    186

    These figures represent the number reported up to the present, but the returns from the Palestine front are still incomplete. I will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT the other information asked for in the question as far as we have it.
    As regards booty, details have not yet been received from Palestine.
    The booty reported as captured in Mesopotamia includes:
    52 machine-guns.
    32 trench mortars.
    His Majesty's ship "Firefly" (recaptured).
    4 steamers.
    2 tugs.
    10 barges.
    2 steam launches.
    30 pontoons.
    21 engines.
    240 trucks.
    Several miles of railway track.
    Some aeroplanes and aeroplane engines.
    Large quantities of ammunition and rifles.
    In addition to large quantities of miscellaneous engineering material, clothing, equipment, and transport animals.
    General CROFT: Do those figures include 1,500 prisoners announced to-day?
    Mr. FORSTER: I could not say.
    General CROFTasked what are the total numbers of prisoners and guns captured by the British armies on the Western Front since 1st July, 1916; and what are the total number of prisoners and guns captured by British arms on all fronts since the commencement of the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total number of prisoners captured on the Western Front since 1st July, 1916, is 101,534. The total number of guns captured in the same period is 519. Since the commencement of the War the British armies have captured on all fronts about 166,000 prisoners and over 800 guns.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate that answer to the Prime Minister in time for his speech on Monday?

  IRISH CONVENTION.
  Major NEWMANasked whether Members of the Irish convention are under any obligation, implied or otherwise, to silence as to the proceedings or as to the form of government for Ireland which they may eventually recommend to this House for discussion; whether both for Press and for the ordinary individual a Regulation has been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act making it unlawful to publish any report or statement, or to describe or to refer to any proceedings of the convention assembled at the invitation of the Government; and, if so, will he say who is responsible for the licence accorded to certain English newspapers who are in favour of what is known as dominion self-government for Ireland to interview members of the Convention, discuss the probable outcome of the deliberations, and apportion in advance blame for a failure to arrive at a satisfactory finding?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen the publications complained of. The Regulation which was issued under the Defence of the Realm Act prohibiting the publication of reports of proceedings of the Convention has been, I think, generally ,observed.
  Major NEWMAN: Are these reports submitted to a censor before publication? Does the Irish Censor see them?
  Mr. BONAR LAW:I fancy that they are dealt with in the same way as other reports of this kind. They are not submitted to a censor, but if the Regulations are infringed notice will be taken.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are these papers receiving immunity because they happen to support the Government?

  HEREDITARY TITLES.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will bring in a Bill for the abolition of hereditary titles of all descriptions and for the restriction of legislative functions to representatives elected by the constituencies?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. LYNCH: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given up all democratic objectives?

  HORSE RACING.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he will prohibit horse racing in the United Kingdom, as contrary to the sentiment of the country in this crisis of its destinies?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Strong representations were made last year that a certain amount of horse racing was very desirable, in the interests of the horsebreeding industry, and in consequence objection has not been taken to a limited number of race meetings, provided it is possible for them to take place without interference with essential needs.
  Mr. LAMBERT: How many race meetings have been authorised or allowed by the Government?
  Mr. WARDLE: I could not say without notice.
  Sir J. D. REES: Would it be contrary to the sentiment of the country to maintain not the least of its important industries even at the present time?
  Mr. WARDLE: There are other more essential industries.
  General CROFT: Will the hon. Member give an undertaking that no legitimate

  567
  sports and recreations of the people unless they interfere with the War will be stopped?

  PRINCE PLESS.
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether Prince Pless, an alien enemy fighting on the German side, holds mortgages in this country on the estates of the late Colonel Cornwallis West, or whether he has acquired some part of these estates; and, if so, if the interests of Prince Pless have been taken over by the Public Trustee?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information that the Prince of Pless holds mortgages in this country on the estate of the late Colonel Cornwallis West, but inquiry has been made in regard to certain property which was alleged to belong to Prince or Princess Pless, and the information furnished by Colonel Cornwallis West to the Public Trustee was that the property in question was his own, and did not belong to the Prince or Princess. I am, however, causing further inquiry to be made in the matter

  LORD MAYOR'S BANQUET.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Petrol Controller to the Board of Trade or the new Petroleum Executive was responsible for the permission for guests of the Lord Mayor of London on the 9th November to use petrol; and why the official notice communicated to the Press on the 9th October requesting everybody to economise to the last drop was thus ignored?
  Mr. WARDLE: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Lord Mayor's banquet may, perhaps, be regarded as a somewhat special occasion, and the Petrol Controller, on a representation from the Corporation, and at the request of the City Police, decided not to object to the use of petrol for the conveyance of persons attending the banquet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of private motorists have voluntarily, in the national interest, given up their cars altogether; and will he see that no further extension of this kind is granted?
  Mr. WARDLE: I know a good many private motorists who have not given up their cars, as well as those who have done so.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is not an answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of those who have is enormously greater than the number of those who have not; and will he see that nothing of this kind is allowed to occur again?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that the in. formation in my possession is exactly the opposite; but I will make representations.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman has no information. on the subject?

  IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
  Colonel Sir NORTON GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that so many changes have taken place in the aspect of the War since the last Imperial Conference, he will consider the advisability of summoning a Conference to take place during the next three months?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think this suggestion is practicable. My hon. and gallant Friend understands how difficult it is for the Prime Ministers of the Dominions to leave their own work, but the Government fully realises the importance of keeping in the closest touch with them, and will be guided by their wishes as to time of holding the next Conference.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
  Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce any definite policy with regard to the adoption of reprisals against air attacks upon our unfortified towns, seeing that several air raids have been carried out with impunity upon London and the Eastern Coast since his announcement of the adoption of a policy of reprisals?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to, the previous statements on this subject.
  Colonel LOWTHER: Can the right hon.. Gentleman say why no reprisals have been undertaken on German towns, bridges, or forests as a direct answer to the two last, raids on London?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the newspaper reports, he will find that there has been air operations on German towns, but much depends upon the weather, and I think there is a danger that our airmen may undertake these operations at a time when they ought not to do so.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no airmen are withdrawn from more necessary work in order to carry out these raids?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said many times that the Air Service is used as our advisers consider best.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the number of cases of damage by raids to houses in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft which have not been settled; and if he will make inquiry into the case of No. 1, Marine Parade, Gorleston, where the ceilings were brought down four months ago and the damages were assessed at £60, and the amount has not been paid and the damages cannot be repaired because the Government surveyor will not agree to its being done, and loss and hardship is being caused by the unreasonable delay?
  Mr. WARDLE: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to various claims from Great Yarmouth in respect of damage by concussion, and these are being considered. Inquiry is being made as to the special case which is referred to in the question.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will agree to disputes as to the amount of damages payable under the aircraft insurance scheme to be settled by an arbitrator to sit locally or by an action in the County Court instead of by a petition of right in the High Court; and if he will consider if one of these courses could be taken, at any rate, when the amount insured does not exceed £100?
  Mr. WARDLE: Except at Great Yarmouth and neighbourhood, disputes between the insured and the assessors have been of rare occurrence, and have been settled in almost every case, after an opinion has been obtained from a second assessor, without further trouble. In the cases which the hon. Member has in mind the President of the Board of Trade would be prepared, in view of their special nature, to agree to these particular
  570
  cases, if not otherwise settled, being referred to an assessor appointed by, and on behalf of, the Government, with the concurrence of the insured, on the understanding that the insured accept the assessor's opinion as final.
  Mr. FELLThe assessor is to act as arbitrator?
  Mr. WARDLE: Yes, and his decision will be final.

  GENERAL SMUTS.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Prime Minister what Vote bears the expenses of General Smuts as member of the War Cabinet, and his staff?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: General Smuts is paid no salary as a member of the War Cabinet. One staff officer is paid from Army funds. The only expenses of General Smuts and his staff paid for from Imperial funds are hotel expenses, which are defrayed by the Government Hospitality Fund.

  PROFITS ON SALES (TAXATION).
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the instructions issued to Inland Revenue officials for their guidance in discriminating between sales of timber, whisky, and other stocks represented as of the nature or ordinary trading, and therefore coming under review for purposes of Income Tax, Super-tax, and Excess Profits Duty, and those represented as of the nature of capital and therefore enjoying more or less complete immunity from taxation?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No general instructions have been found necessary. Any case involving the point suggested by my hon. Friend is dealt with by the application of the Statutory principles to its particular facts.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a list, omitting names if this be thought desirable, of transactions involving sums of £10,000 and upwards in which the Government has bought blocks of timber standing or felled; and whether strict inquiry is made in every case and declarations taken from the parties selling as to whether the profits on such transactions represent taxable gains or not?
  Mr. WARDLE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It would not, I think, be in the public interest to give particulars of the transactions referred to. The Timber Control Department makes its purchases upon a commercial basis, and does not undertake any inquiries as to the liability of the sellers in taxation.
  Mr. CURRIE: Is no inquiry whatever made with reference to the question raised in the last part of this question?
  Mr. WARDLE: Not by me.
  Mr. CURRIE: Or by anybody else?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am not able to reply to that question.

  CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to appoint a Parliamentary or other Committee to examine into and report upon sundry schemes proposed for a capital levy, or conscription of wealth, in the event of the War being prolonged; and, if so, whether it will be an unconditional instruction to the Committee that money subscribed to National War Loans for the upholding of British credit and the defeating of Britain's enemies shall in no case be treated less favourably than money not so utilized?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is necessary to appoint a Committee on this matter. It is certainly not the intention of the present Government to discriminate, nor can I conceive that any future Government would discriminate, against securities representing wealth which has been contributed to aid the country in time of need and in favour of wealth which has not been so used.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to make any statement as to the prospects of the Education Bill, or to give any assurance that will satisfy the growing anxiety in the country that the Bill may be unduly delayed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this subject. The Government fully realise
  572
  the importance of this measure, and it is their intention, subject to the exigencies of the War, to carry it through Parliament as quickly as possible.

  EXCESS PROFITS TAX (REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of a number of speculators in real estate consisting of farm lands who for the last few years have realised profits by making private purchases from owners and afterwards offering the properties for public sale by auction and presenting the tenants with the alternatives of either giving enhanced prices for their farms or being turned out of their holdings; if the speculators in question are liable to pay Excess Profits Tax; and, if not, whether he will take steps to make them liable to pay on their excess profits as early as possible?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If the transactions to which the hon. Member refers amount to the carrying on of a business, the profits thence arising would be within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty; and should the hon. Member care to draw my attention to any particular cases which he has mind I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at an early date, he will lay a White Paper showing the course which the Government propose to take with respect to each of the recommendations contained in the first report of the Select Committee on. National Expenditure?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet able, to make any statement on this subject. and if the Committee intend shortly to issue a further Report, I would prefer to await its issue and to deal with the recommendations of both Reports as a whole. As I stated in Debate on the 30th October, an opportunity for discussion of the findings of the Committee will be found.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee is. not likely to issue another Report, at all

  573
  events for some few weeks, that further Reports may be issued from time to time, that the Committee attach great importance to the recommendations of the first Report, and that they are anxious to have the views of the Government upon those recommendations at an early date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If I could have had the opportunity I would have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend before answering the question. We are quite ready to take the course which he suggests, but up to the present I have not received replies from the Departments to which the Report has been communicated.

  CANADA (LORD NORTHCLIFFE'S VISIT).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the activities of Lord Northcliffe in Canada have led M. Bourassa, the Nationalist leader, to describe him as a brigand, he will state on what grounds the practice of nonintervention in the affairs of a self-governing Dominion have been departed from?
  Mr. MACMASTER: Before the hon. Member puts this question, may I ask whether there is the slightest basis in fact for the suggestion that Lord Northcliffe interfered in any way with the fullest rights and privileges of self-government in Canada; and, further, whether the. Leader of the House proposes to assume responsibility for the epithets that may be used in the Canadian general election?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I should like to say—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We had better have the answer first.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer also deals with the supplementary question. I do not know what the hon. Member means by intervention. Lord Northcliffe visited Canada on the invitation of the Canadian Prime Minister, and I know that his visit was most useful and that it was appreciated by the Dominion Government.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does not the fact that the activities in Canada of Lord
  574
  Northcliffe lead the Leader of the French Canadian party to describe him as a brigand, as reported in the "Daily Mail" itself, show that his activities have been interfering with the internal affairs of a. self-governing Dominion?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I do not think it proves that. I have not seen the statement referred to, and I do not think that any thorough observer would be justified in drawing such an inference.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the description of Lord Northcliffe as a brigand given by M. Bourassa?
  General CROFT: Is it not the fact that M. Bourassa is not the Leader of the French Canadians and does not represent Canadian sentiment any more than the hon. Member?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a fact that he supported the present Government during the last election?

  SHIPBUILDING (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
  .General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that numerous orders have been placed by neutral countries with British shipbuilders for construction after the War; whether these orders are placed at such advantageous terms that British shipping firms cannot be expected to successfully compete; and whether, in view of the danger that the replacement of British shipping may be seriously hampered, he will say what steps the Government intend to take to preserve the British slips for British ships?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir L. Chiozza Money): I am afraid that I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave to similar questions on 31st October and 5th November. Broadly, the present position is amply safeguarded and the post-bellum position is being most carefully considered by the Government. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend copies of the replies referred to.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the case of Private W. Martin, No. 5478, 3rd Monmouthshire Regiment, whose mother lives at 26, Waterloo Street, off Liverpool Street, Salford, whether Mrs. Martin put in her application for dependant's allowance so long ago as October, 1916, and, though her son has regularly paid his allotment, the mother has not yet received 1d. of Government allowance; whether several applications have been made to the pension officer at Palatine Buildings, Manchester, both by Mrs. Martin and by responsible people on her behalf, but these applications are ignored and nothing is done; and whether he will at once take steps to see that whoever is responsibde for this delay in the pension office at Palatine Buildings is at once suitably dealt with?
  Mr. FORSTER: This appears to be a very complicated case, and my inquiries are not yet complete.
  Mr. BARLOW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pension officer in Manchester admits that he received the claim in March last?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I know there has been a great deal of very regrettable delay. I am not sure whether the responsibility for the whole of it rests with the Pay Office or with the Pension Office. That is what I am trying to find out.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the delay on the part of the pension officers in assessing the amount of dependants' allowances; whether irritation is being caused throughout the country by these delays; and whether he will at once have inspectors sent round to the pension authorities to see that wherever gross and unnecessary delay is proved that the pension officer responsible be reprimanded or dismissed?
  Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am aware that from a variety of causes delay occurs in many of these cases, to the dissatisfaction of claimants, but I must demur to the suggestion that there is serious general delay on the part of pension officers throughout the country, the facts being
  576
  that on the 30th Septmber last—the latest date for which figures are available—the total number of claims in their hands was appreciably less than the number received during that month. The pension officers have done very good work in circumstances of great difficulty in connection with these claims. Cases of proved gross and unnecessary delay are very rare and are dealt with by the Board of Customs and Excise in the ordinary course of discipline.
  Mr. BARLOW: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that delays of six, eight, and ten months are very grave and unnecessary?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I should say that they are certainly grave, but before I answer the latter part of the hon. Member's question I should like to have particulars.

  STANDARD SHIPS.
  General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether it is the intention of the Government to build standardised liners; and, if so, whether he will give an undertaking that no such policy will be pursued until the evidence is undoubted that standard tramp vessels have been a success?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The policy of the Government is to build standard vessels of several types. The types at present approved include a vessel of higher speed than the ordinary tramp.

  ENEMY SUBMARINE WARFARE.
  Major CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give each week the number of lives lost by submarine sinkings?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It would be quite impracticable to give each week accurate figures of the number of lives lost in vessels sunk by submarines, as in the great majority of cases this information is not obtainable until a considerable time after the publication of the weekly statement. My right hon. Friend will, however, consult the President of the Board of Trade as to the possibility of publishing figures periodically in arrear.
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will favourably consider the advisability of at once offering a prize of, say, £100,000, to the inventor who discovers a sure and certain means of detecting, locating, and following the movements of a. submerged submarine before she comes within striking distance with her torpedoes?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have constantly under consideration methods of stimulating inventiveness in all directions, and this suggestion will also be borne in mind.
  Sir O. PHILIPPS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how very successful in the time of Napoleon was the offer of £20,000 made by the French Government for discovering a way of producing sugar other than from sugar-cane, and might not a similar offer prove successful in this ease?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry to say that, if I ever knew it, I have quite forgotten it. Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars.

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the disparity between the prices which had to be paid for the lands required for the formation of Immingham Dock and the valuations for rating of these lands at the time of purchase; and whether, in the event of lands being acquired for the proposed national shipbuilding yards, he will cause detailed records to be made and kept of the prices paid for the lands and of the valuations of them for rating purposes at the time of purchase?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty has not been concerned with the land acquired for the formation of Immingham Dock. The docks belong to the Great Central Railway Company. What we have done is to occupy some of the company's property, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Some little distance, however, from Immingham we have acquired land, part by agreement and part under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. With regard to the second part of 'the question, detailed records will be made and kept in the Department of the
  578
  Director of Lands of the War Office of all land acquired in connection with national shipyards.
  Mr. KEATING: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it a practice to see that any demand for a national workshop for any national purpose is subject to the Defence of the Realm Act, because of the large prices charged by landowners for their land?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We take possession under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations. If we purchase any land it would be under the Land Act.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of stocks for new construction which are being added to the existing shipbuilding yards, and the number of stocks which the new National yards will contain?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The construction of an additional thirty-three slips to existing shipyards has already been sanctioned, and further extensions are under consideration.
  It is estimated that an addition of front fifty to sixty slips will be made to existing private shipyards in all; and it is intended that the number of slips of the new National Shipyards will be from thirty to thirty-six.
  Mr. TERRELL: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the policy of the Government as to whether it is intended to continue to work the new national shipyards as a national enterprise after the War or whether it is proposed that they should be disposed of as soon as the present emergency is over?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am glad my hon. Friend has asked this question, as it enables me to define more closely, and to correct in some respects, the reply I gave yesterday to a similar question which he then put as supplementary to a question en the Paper. The necessity which led up to the construction of National Shipyards is essentially bound up in the urgent requirements for merchant shipping consequent on the present War, and until this emergency is over the Government is unable to give any definite assurance as to the policy to be pursued in connection with these yards after the conclusion of hostilities.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: With reference to this answer and the answer to the previous

  579
  question, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in referring to National Shipyards, he includes marine engineering works?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think not, but I should require notice of that question. I was dealing with the proposed shipyards.
  Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state, exclusive of the cost of land and compensation still under consideration, the estimated cost of any of the new national shipyards, and where it is proposed to erect them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have previously stated, the estimates for the cost of the national shipyards are still under consideration, and will be passed to the Treasury as and when completed. As regards the situation of the yards, sites for three of them have definitely been chosen at Chepstow, Beachley, and Portbury; and it is proposed to obtain the additional number of slips required by extending these yards, if it is found possible. The construction of the first three yards mentioned is now in full progress.
  Mr. TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can give the estimated dates when the four new national shipyards will respectively be ready to undertake construction work, and the estimated date when the first ship will be ready for launching?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The construction of the new national shipyards is not sufficiently far advanced to give an accurate estimate of their date of completion, but it is intended that slips will be available in the first yard for the laying down of keels in from three to four months, and that the first vessel will be launched in October or November, 1918.

  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

    HONG KONG.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the subordinate sterling-paid staff of the Admiralty employed in His Majesty's dockyard, Hong Kong, comprising foremen, inspectors, clerks, storehousemen, etc., are placed in an unfair position by reason of the rise in the exhange value of
    580
    the dollar; that in pre-war days the exchange value was is. 9d., giving approximately $11 for each £L of salary; whether the exchange value is now 3s. 1¼d. and still advancing, giving little over $6 for each. £1 of salary, approaching a 50 per cent. loss; and that some of the Admiralty employes in the yard are paid entirely in dollar rates, so much pay, so much colonial allowance, so much house allowance, each being a definite fixed sum in dollars; and will he consider the advisability of converting salaries or wages into dollars at a fixed and reasonable rate of exchange, say is. 9¾d. per dollar, the average of the Service rate of exchange prior to the War, and so place all Government employées on: the same footing?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Proposals for the payment of the salaries, in whole or in part, of dockyard staff and of naval officers and ratings at a fixed rate of exchange are now receiving consideration at the Treasury. These Admiralty proposals, however, involve a general reconsideration of the method of payment of Army officers and others in the Far East. A decision will be obtained at the earliest possible moment.

    SKILLED WORKERS (WAGES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the 12½ per cent. increase granted to skilled workers applies to skilled workers in the employment of the Admiralty; and what steps lie proposes to take in this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The award, as my hon. Friend is aware, was originally announced by the Ministry of Munitions for skilled time workers, engineers, and moulders on time work. Though it was not thus made applicable to the men in the Royal dockyards and naval establishments, we immediately proceeded, as we always have done in a similar case, to consider whether in equity it ought not to be made applicable to our men. There then arose a number of questions regarding the scope of the original award by the Ministry of Munitions. This has made it impossible for us to give the decision which would, I have no doubt, otherwise have been given. But on behalf of the Board, I am authorised to say that, whatever award is ultimately decided upon to outside classes of workmen will be made applicable to similar classes of workmen in the Royal dockyard

    581
    similarly situated, and such award will come into force as and from the date of its application outside. I hope the questions arising out of the application of the award by the Ministry of Munitions will promptly be settled. The moment they are we shall take up the application of the matter to our own employés.

  WAR SAVINGS (ALBERT HALL MEETING).
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many invitations were issued to delegates or others for the war savings meeting at the Albert Hall on 22nd October; whether those invited were informed at the time that their out-of-pocket and travelling expenses would be paid; and where the invitations were sent from?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Invitations were issued to the full extent of the reserved seating accommodation of the hall, namely, 5,500 seats, irrespective of the gallery, which was unreserved. Of these invitations 3,000 were sent to voluntary officials of 1,500 war savings committees, who were informed at the time that their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses would be paid. The invitations were issued from the office of the National War Savings Committee.
  I may add that in the opinion of all those who are responsible for the war savings organisation, it was very desirable that these voluntary workers should be given the opportunity of attending the meeting and other conferences on the work of the association, and that unless out-of-pocket expenses were paid it would have been impossible for many of those to attend who are rendering the most valuable service. I am sorry to say that the questions of the hon. Member have created strong feeling of disappointment in the minds of these persons, who have interpreted them as an unjustified reflection on their self-sacrifice and disinterestedness.
  Mr. BARLOW: Is it not a fact that an enormous amount of purely disinterested end, voluntary work has been done by these gentlemen to the great good of the State?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is precisely why I answered the question. We have been receiving from small contributors
  582
  alone something like £2,000,000 a week, and that money could not possibly be raised—it would cost too much—but for this voluntary assistance.

  COAL ,SUPPLY.

    PRICES AND DISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will send down at once a Commissioner in order that the control and distribution of orders for coal may be more equitable, and thus prevent social conditions arising which may be difficult to control?
    Mr. WARDLE: Arrangements already exist for obtaining information as to the amount of time lost at the different collieries, and this information is now being utilised for the purpose of securing the allocation of orders to collieries urgently in need of trade. The Controller of Coal Mines is arranging for the matter to be investigated in the district on his behalf.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the delay in the delivery of coal wagons back from the collieries is causing great inconvenience to small consumers, especially in some munition areas; and will he see what action can be taken to give greater facilities for transport?
    Mr. WARDLE: The railway companies are fully alive to the importance of quick transits to coal wagons to and from collieries. Investigations have shown that delays are principally due to the excess number of traders' wagons received at collieries, resulting in congestion in colliery and railway sidings and necessitating restrictions being enforced by railway companies on returning empty traders wagons. The whole question is being considered with a view to finding a remedy.
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information to give the House regarding the serious strike at Cowes (Isle of Wight), involving 6,000 men, mostly engaged on important Admiralty work and threatening the steam and railway communication between the island and mainland and other Government work, and if the strike is entirely due to the inability or delay of the Coal

    583
    [Captain D. Hail.]
    Controller and Shipping Controller to regulate the excessive retail price of coal in the island amounting to over £3 per ton?
    Mr. WARDLE: This matter has been brought to my notice by the Controller of Coal Mines. The problem is almost entirely one of sea freight, and the Minister of Shipping has been asked to deal with the question of freights. The Controller of Coal Mines has endeavoured to secure that more coal shall be rail borne to ports adjacent to the Isle of Wight, but, due to the absence of facilities at these ports for shipping coal, it has not been possible to achieve this.
    Captain HALL: Did not the Board of Trade hold an inquiry over six months ago and is this the best remedy they can now offer to help the islanders in this trouble?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think the remedy which has been suggested will be adequate provided the Minister of Shipping can arrange with regard to freights so that a reduction in price can be achieved.
    Captain HALL: Has not the Shipping Controller control of German interned vessels, and is he not charging most excessive rates to the wholesale coal-dealers for the use of those vessels?
    Mr. WARDLE: That is a matter the hon. and gallant Gentleman must put to the Shipping Controller.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: Is it not a fact that the price of coal in the island has gone up since the Coal Controller was appointed something like 10s. to 14s. a ton, although the rise in the actual amount received by colliery owners is only half-a-crown, and will the hon. Gentleman ask whether the Coal Controller could not give his attention to these various deficiencies of coal and not try to manage the whole coal business of the country from an office in London, which results in a large surplus of coal being distributed where it is not wanted?
    Captain HALL: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory reply I have received I shall raise this question on the Adjournment of the House.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view
    584
    of the mass of valuable information acquired by the Board of Trade and their Advisory Committee in the course of administering the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, and the winding-up of enemy companies and firms under the .Act, he will appoint a small Committee to collate and classify this information, with a view to developing British industries in this country and preventing the penetration and capture of such industries by Germans in the future?
    Mr. WARDLE: Steps are being taken to collate the information as to methods adopted by enemy companies and firms derived from the administration of the Trading with the Enemy Acts. I hope to have the benefit of the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for the Camlachie Division in the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the result of those investigations be made public?
    Mr. WARDLE:I cannot answer that question.

    MOTOR SPIRIT RESTRICTION ORDER.
    Sir MAURICELEVY asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that confusion has arisen in the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Motor Spirit Restriction Order (No. 2), 1917; and whether he will state what is the correct interpretation of the words, "the necessary household affairs," in paragraph 3 (a) (2)?
    Mr. WARDLE: I doubt if it be possible or expedient to frame a comprehensive definition of the words "necessary household affairs. "The words must be taken in their plain, ordinary meaning; but, in the present grave position with regard to petrol supplies, I hope that I may rely on the public to give the narrowest possible interpretation to the exemption.

    SILVER WAR BADGE (MERCANTILE MARINE).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any alteration has been made in the conditions on which the silver war badge may be awarded to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine to meet the cases of men who are incapacitated otherwise than by actual wounds received?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am glad to be able to announce that His Majesty has been pleased to sanction the amendment of the conditions governing the award of the silver war badge to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, so as to provide for its grant to officers and seamen who have suffered from illness or shock or strain, due to war conditions, or some disease resulting from employment on a ship on Government service in an unhealthy climate.

    Education (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether in view of the discontent among the national school teachers of Ireland owing to the barriers of promotion caused by the standard averages, more especially in the higher grades, and of the fact that the ablest teachers in Ireland are kept down by these averages, over which they have absolutely no control, he will now take steps to allay this discontent and unrest by recommending the abolition or, failing this, a substantial reduction of the averages?
    Mr. DUKE: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 23rd October.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the business for Friday and next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: To-morrow we shall take the Air Bill, and, if time permits, the Extension of Life of Parliament Bill and the Pensions Bill. I propose to move the suspension of the Five o'Clock Rule tomorrow, not with the idea that it will be necessary to sit late, but that we may with certainty get the Air Bill through the Report stage.
  On Monday, the first Order will be the discussion on the War Council, and, if there be time, we shall take other business, including that which is left over from to-morrow.
  On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we shall take the Representation of the People Bill.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: On what Motion will the Debate take place on Monday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is the National Insurance Bill to be postponed again over next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is postponed. We shall not take it on either of these four days. I do not know yet about Friday.
  Mr. CURRIE: Has it come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge that a meeting of solvent insurance societies is being held in London on Thursday of next week in order to consider this Bill, and could he say that the Second Reading will not be taken until they have been able to hold their meeting and discuss the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consider that. I was not aware of what my hon. Friend says, but we cannot keep on postponing it indefinitely.
  Resolved, "That this House do sit tomorrow (Friday)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order read for Consideration, as amended.
Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to move the recommittal of this Bill, in order that the House may have an opportunity of con-
614
sidering the Instructions given to the Commissioners in regard to seats in Ireland, and generally the whole question of Irish redistribution.
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman move to recommit the whole Bill?
Sir. F. BANBURY: The Government have given notice that they intend to insert in the Schedule a Clause providing for the redistribution of seats in Ireland. They have already appointed a Commission, who are proceeding with the redistribution of seats in Ireland. In these circumstances, as the Motion will be made on the Report stage, is it not in order to move that the Bill should be recommitted in order that the proposals of the Government may be made in Committee, where they can be properly considered, rather than on Report, where the House will not have the same opportunity of considering them as they would have if they were made in Committee?
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has given no notice of anything of that sort. He has moved to recommit the whole Bill. If his Amendment were accepted, the Bill would have to be gone through Clause by Clause. He has made no provision for dealing with the matter in question.
Sir F. BANBURY: If this Bill is recommitted it would be possible to put in such a Clause as I suggest, and to deal with that Clause.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member should have moved to recommit the Bill in respect of some particular thing. He has given notice of a general recommittal of the Bill, but he is now trying to show that it is necessary to recommit the Bill in order to deal with a particular matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: I want it to be recommitted in respect of Irish redistribution. There is no Clause in the Bill dealing with Irish redistribution, and I think it would be possible to recommit the Bill in order to insert a Clause of that description.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member should have moved in the ordinary way to recommit the Bill in order to insert a Clause dealing with something in particular. He has not done that, but has moved for a general recommittal.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is a little difficult., I do not know whether the Home

615
Secretary heard the observations I have made. Perhaps he will consent to the Bill being recommitted, and when it is recommitted we can deal with the question which I desire to raise.
Mr. SPEAKER: That will not have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman desires. We shall then begin at the beginning of the Bill and go through it all. The right hon. Gentleman desires to insert a Clause with respect to redistribution in Ireland, but he has given no notice of that.
Sir F. BANBURY: Am I right in saying that it is too late to remedy the Motion in that direction now? If it is possible to amend it I will amend it in that way in respect to Irish redistribution.
Mr. SPEAKER: There is no proposal before us or Clause dealing with Irish redistribution. The right hon. Gentleman should have prepared some scheme which he wishes to be inserted in the Bill. The first New Clause on the Paper (The Disqualification of Certain Persons who Refuse Military Service) should come as an Amendment to Clause 8. The same applies to the second New Clause (Disqualification of Persons who have been Interned). The next Clause (Persons Legally Employed in All Elections not Disqualified as Voters) should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. The next one (Interval Between Nomination and Poll) is dealt with already in Clause 18, and if any alteration is to be made, it should be moved as an Amendment to that Clause. The next New Clause (Franchises (Companies and Other Bodies) should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. The same applies to the next New Clause (Saving the Existing Livery Franchise in City of London).
Sir G. TOUCHE: In regard to the livery vote, the Chairman of Committees permitted that to be moved as a new Clause. I do not quite understand why it cannot be moved in that way now if it was permitted in Committee.
Mr. SPEAKER: My opinion is that it should come as an Amendment to Clause 1. Clause 1 is the main franchising Clause which sets up the provisions as to the enfranchising of men, and these men may get the franchise if they are added when we come to Clause 1.
Bill, as amended, considered

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

  NEW CLAUSE—(Right to the Use of Elementary Schools.)
  A candidate at a Parliamentary election shall be entitled, for the purpose of holding a public meeting in furtherance of his candidature, to the use at reasonable times between the receipt of the writ for the election and the day of the poll, of a suitable room in any public elementary school in receipt of an annual Parliamentary grant situated within the constituency for which he is a candidate.
  Provided that this enactment shall not authorise the use of any room used as part of a private dwelling-house nor authorise any interference with the school hours of an elementary day or evening school nor, in the case of a room used for the administration of justice or police, with the hours during which it is used for these purposes.
  A charge may be made to cover any actual and necessary expenses incurred by the local education authority, or by the managers of the school, in respect of the preparation of the room for the purposes of the meeting, and for warming, lighting, and cleaning the room.
  If by reason of the use of any room under this Act any damage is done to the school-house, or to the furniture, fittings, or apparatus, the damage shall be defrayed by the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the meeting is convened.—[Mr. P. A. Harris.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  A careful study of this new Clause will show that it is not a very ambitious one, but it contains a very sound principle. It will simplify the duties of managers of schools. Managers of schools always have to be asked for the use of the school building, and they are put in a difficult position in deciding what is a reasonable charge for the use of the building. They have the responsibility of safeguarding the interests of their subscribers, and in the case, at any rate, of voluntary schools, of the people who have contributed to the cost of the building.
  4.0 P.M.
  When a charge is made there is a tendency, to criticise the amount as excessive. An election should not be used as an opportunity of increasing the revenue of the school, but managers should be entitled to charge actual out-of-pocket expenses, and

  617
  any expenses caused by the alteration of the buildings for the purposes of a public meeting. There is no question that a school is the right place for meetings to be held. Licensed premises have always been specifically excluded from use as places for public meetings. Therefore, in country villages, at any rate, schools are the only places where meetings can be held. It is besides a sound principle to establish that part of the purposes of school buildings is to provide a place for holding meetings at election time. In the old days when a very large sum was allowed to candidates for election expenses the charge for school buildings was not a serious matter, but now when the amount is very much reduced, it does become important in large constituencies, where the population is scattered, that candidates should not mulcted in large amounts for the use of halls for meetings. In some constituencies where there are sixty or seventy villages which have to be visited, and this expenditure for places of meeting and the cost of advertising the meeting and of organisation have to be paid, it is very important if the amount now allocated for elections is not to be exceeded, that candidates should not be liable to find large sums for lease of buildings. The new Clause contains ample provision to meet all necessary cost incurred by the owners of the buildings.
  Major McMICKING: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I trust that the Government will accept this Clause. It is a most useful addition to the Bill under which election expenses have been so drastically reduced. In counties the figure is probably about half the figure that it was before, while at the same time the electorate on the average will be doubled. So, necessarily, in every direction economies will have to be effected in election expenses. To some extent that has been done by allowing the candidates one free postage, but it is also a fair thing to say that schools, which are mainly supported out of public funds, whether taxes or rates, should be in this country at the disposal of Parliamentary candidates for the necessary purpose of public meetings without any payment except out-of-pocket expenses. All contingencies are carefully provided for under this Clause which follows a Section of the Local Government Act of 1894, which enables these schools to be used for the
  618
  purpose of parish council and district council election meetings, and similar purposes.
  Major NEWMAN: If the Government accept this Clause they will be putting those who manage these schools in an invidious position. Every candidate will want to have the use of these schools because he will get it free of cost. At the present moment there is great competition for the use of public elementary schools. We all want to get them. There is only a certain number of these schools, and they are very hard to get when wanted, especially if the contest is in a county constituency. Therefore we badged the people who exercise authority over these schools. It is up to these elementary school managers to allocate these schools to particular candidates. That puts these people who have to make these decisions in a very delicate position. I know myself that in a certain number of schools those who are running the schools were against me in politics, and I found it hard to get the schools, whereas my opponent found it very easy. That is going to happen more in the future. We are going to have more candidates. They are going to be humbler candidates, men with less money to spend. In every division there will be at least four candidates for the seat. Of those probably two, or perhaps all of them, will be men looking to save every penny they can on the limit of election expenses under this Act. All this will increase the difficulties, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, and could not discover any argument against this Clause. Precaution was taken in drafting to meet all the objections which the hon. Member tried to raise, and if he gives a little more careful study to the Clause he will see that every question which he has raised has been met. We are not asking that managers should have to throw open their schools all the time to would-be candidates. The Clause limits it to the time after the writ is received. In existing circumstances, with the large reduction which has been placed on the amount of money that candidates may spend, these schools should be at the disposal of the candidates. The hon. Member says that managers would be in some difficulty in selecting the candidates to whom they

  619
  would give the schools. I take it that managers would grant the applications of those who applied first and arrange the dates as soon as the application was made. Under this Clause, if it shown that they are being used for some definite purpose in connection with their legitimate objects, then candidates cannot have them, but anyone who has had the difficulty of fighting a large county division with sparsely populated districts knows how serious this question is. Another point. We are not asking that the caretakers of the school should be called upon to do an amount of work—cleaning up, and all that—for nothing. We say let a fair remuneration be paid to the caretakers for the labour which they will be called upon to do if the school houses are opened. All we want is that remuneration should be fair and legitimate, and not—as I do not believe many managers would do, though some might—that there should be an extortionate charge made so that the candidate may be debarred from the use of the school. Precaution is also taken in this Clause to deal with the question of damage to the school, so that the candidate for whom the meeting is held would be responsible for damage, and would have to pay for it. This is a thing which is wanted by all parties in the House, and it is just one of those Clauses which may have been overlooked in drafting the Bill. I trust sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
  General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I hope that the Government will accept this Clause. As it is drafted the Clause may require some slight addition, because as it stands only one candidate may have the use of the room. It ought to be all candidates. Some arrangement will have to be made to see that all candidates have an equal chance. I am sorry that the promoters of the Clause did not put that in. I believe that the whole country is in favour of the principle of the Clause. Those of us who happen to be in one part of the country with one class of school may suffer, while those who are in another part with another class of school may have an advantage, but, taking all over the country, it is a proper proposal. I do not ask for any privilege for one part or the other, but it is a convenience to 'the public. Public money keeps up
  620
  these buildings, and the public have a right to the use of the schools when they want them for this purpose.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): There is undoubtedly, I think, a strong feeling in favour of this proposal. There are many parishes in large rural areas where there is no reasonable place of meeting but the school house. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education, as the guardian of these schools, and I find that he shares that feeling. The schools receive public money, and there should be no objection to putting them at the disposal of the public for this purpose, provided, of course, that they are available for all. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, there may be some difficulties about this Clause. There may be the case of a man with no possible chance of obtaining substantial support and who may never be nominated, or put the other side to the trouble and expense of a contest. Yet this Clause would give him the right to use the schools. But there is, as the House knows, a similar Section in the. Local Government Act of 1894, authorising candidates to use schools for the purpose of parish or district council elections, and I am told that in actual working no difficulty his been found in giving effect to that provision. Therefore, it seems to me that the advantages outweigh the obvious disadvantages.
  As the Clause is drafted, I do not think that this right is confined to one candidate. No doubt it may be somewhat invidious for managers to say which candidate shall have the use of the school on any particular evening, but it would be reasonable to hope that they will feel that they have a public duty to perform, and that they will act fairly by the candidates. I am disposed to think that somebody, such as the Board of Education, ought to have the power to decide in these cases if there is any dispute. It could be done very rapidly. In the Act of 1894 there is a similar Clause in that direction. I must reserve the right for the Government to propose, if they think fit, in another place, that a provision of that kind should be added to the Clause. I think that a slight Amendment is required to the Clause in order to throw on those using the schools the obligation of repairing and cleaning them, not only for the meeting, but for use as schools when the meetings are over.

  621
  That is not yet provided for by the Clause, and therefore if the House gives it a Second Reading, I shall move to insert after the word "room" ["room for the purposes"], the words "before the meeting," and after the word "meeting," the words "and after the meeting for school purposes."
  Mr.GEORGE LAMBERT: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very conciliatory speech he has made in accepting the principle of the Clause. I will not say a word in favour of it, because it has been accepted, and I do not want to delay the Committee. May I make a suggestion as one who has fought a good many elections in a very scattered constituency? Will it be possible for the Board of Education to be consulted in all these matters respecting applications for the use of schools? One knows that in the constituencies, when you apply to the managers of schools for permission to use the schools, in ninety-nine cases out of 100 it is granted, but, in some instances, there might be some obscurantist who would withhold consent. I do not think it would be possible for the managers to consult the Board of Education, because naturally in these matters rapidity is everything. I trust my right hon. Friend will consider that point.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I join in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his acceptance of this Amendment. One' thing I would like to make clear, and that is that school rooms shall not be available on the polling day. In a great many parts of Scotland the school is the polling station, so that it ought not to be used on that day for any meeting.
  Sir G. CAVE: No one would hold a meeting on a polling day.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: If the Board of Education has to deal with this question, I hope that they will consider it long before the election. There might be doubt as to the suitability of one room as against another, or there might be two rooms in one building, and an application for each of them, in which case it might not be advisable to have both meetings held at the same time. The central authority might be a long way from the locality, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some local body, the local education authority, the
  622
  county council education authority, rather than the Board of Education, might be trusted to do justice.
  Sir STUART COATS: As to these political meetings, to be held in schoolrooms, I think the cost should not be deducted from the Parliamentary expenses, and I would ask whether it is not possible to include town halls in the proposal?
  Mr. NIELD: I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he has considered the last provision in this new Clause with a view to some sort of deposit being made as a guarantee against damage that may be done. It is all very well to say that local government election meetings are held in the county council schools, or urban district or rural district schools, but in these contests there is never the same amount of heat that arises in Parliamentary elections, where politics are in issue. We are bound, I submit, to provide against contingencies. I have a very vivid recollection of addressing a meeting in mid-Devon, where brick-bats, very formidable brick-bats, were rained upon the roof of the building during the whole time of the meeting. It will be easily understood that the roof was not watertight after that meeting concluded. Therefore, it is rather a serious matter, and there is ground for the suggestion that some sort of guarantee should be given against damage that may be done. If the Board of Education will undertake to make good any damage in the event of the managers of the school being unable to recover, then at once my objection is gone; but the managers out of a grant, perhaps, of some £50 a year, in many parts of the country, are continually struggling to keep the schools going, the grants not being sufficient, and it does seem a serious obligation to put upon them, to leave them without the security which would be afforded by a guarantee against damage that might result.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In Scotland we have never had the slightest inconvenience, and no candidate at all has gone without the use of the schools. The use of them is very freely given to both sides. The hon. Member opposite raised the question about guarantees to the managers against damage to the school, and I should like to reinforce a very pertinent question put by my hon. Friend to the

  623
  Home Secretary, whether, in the case of a riotous meeting, which results in damage to the school, the damage, is to be part of the election expenses. The damage is not entirely the fault of me candidate, yet that damage might result in very serious and important expenses, and the question is whether the cost is to be part of the election expenses.
  Mr. LOUGH: I join with my right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Lambert) in thanking the Home Secretary for the way in which he has accepted this Amendment, but I want to protest against any reference being made to the Board of Education. It is obvious that the local education authority, who own and provide these schools, should be referred to, and the suggestion that it should be the Board of Education is impracticable.
  Sir G. CAVE: We will consider all these points.
  Mr. NIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on the question of a guarantee?
  Sir G. CAVE: That matter can also be dealt with.
  Question, " That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Amendments made: After the word "room " [" room for the purposes "], insert the words " before the meeting."
  After the word "meeting," insert the words "and after the meeting for school purposes."—[Sir G. Cave]
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move to leave out the words, "If by reason of the use of any room under this Act any damage is done to the school house or to the furniture, fittings or apparatus, the damage shall be defrayed by the person by wham, or on whose behalf, the meeting is convened."
  I should like to ask the Home Secretary what will be the position, supposing unlawful damage is done by a person who objects to the candidate, causes a riot, and does damage to the school. If the candidate, under these words, is to be bound to make that damage good, it seems to me there ought to be some provision which would remove from him the necessity to pay for the consequences of the unlawful acts of other people.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think, as between the managers of the school and the candidate,
  624
  the candidate ought to be responsible for the damage, by whomsoever it is done. Of course, if there are riotious proceedings and the school is damaged, it may be that the cost can be recovered in another way, and the candidate might have nothing to pay; but, if the school is injured, I think the candidate certainly ought to be responsible.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is not the obvious remedy to insure against this possibility of damage? The rate would be exceedingly small, whereas if the candidate were liable for the damage it might lead to very serious consequences, notably in the case of Labour candidates. Election riots are not unknown; it is possible that damage may be done to schools where meetings are held, and that damage might be a very considerable addition to the candidate's expenses. The Home Secretary rather suggested that the district or county in which the riot took place might be proceeded against, but the difficulty would be to find who was responsible. I throw out the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that insurance might be effected against such damage.
  Mr. GULLAND: Is it necessary to discuss this? Is not the school in exactly the same position as any hall, and whatever the law is with regard to the ordinary hall would apply to the school.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, " Provided that the cost of making good such damage shall not form part of the candidate's election expenses."
  Mr. PERKINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think that we can put the words in at this point. It should be dealt with in another part of the Bill.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Qualification for Membership of Local Authority.)
  A person shall be qualified to be elected a member of any local government

  625
  authority who is the owner of a freehold or leasehold property within the area of that authority.—[Mr. Gilbert.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this proposal is in order to preserve a qualification which a good many people have now and which renders them eligible to serve on local government authorities in London. By the Bill as it stands now that qualification will be done away with. For election to the county council it is necessary that a person shall be on the register of voters, and for a borough council it is necessary that the person shall be on the register of voters, or be resident in the particular borough council area. Under the existing law a person who held a freehold or leasehold of the value of £10 was qualified to go upon the local government register. We have a number of people in London on both sides of politics who perhaps are members of limited companies, but who are not qualified for the local government franchise. A good many of those people are interested in various phases of local government, and are anxious to take part in the various local government areas. In many cases they live outside. This particular franchise is allowed at present, and I hope we may have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and that they will allow the same conditions as exist now to exist under the new Bill in order that many people whom it is desirable should take an interest in local government may be qualified as now if they so desire.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to second. I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider this proposal. The difficulty arises under the Local Government Act of 1888, where a qualification was given to ownership of land. By owning land you obtained the right to be an elector. That right has been taken away both from Parliamentary and local government elections, and therefore there follows disqualification for membership of the local body. I am sure that no one wishes to curtail the number of men who can serve on local authorities. I know from my own experience that it would have that effect if something like this proposal were not carried. I remember very well when I was a member of
  626
  the London County Council I changed my abode from one part of London to the other, and I thereby lost my electoral rights for a time. The only way by which I could qualify to be a candidate at the next election was by purchasing a small property in London, which I hold, and by virtue of which ownership I was enabled to continue my membership of the London County Council. If it had not been for that I should have been unable to stand for election. I know that similar cases. have occurred. I can see no objection to allowing ownership of land to create a qualification for membership of the local authority.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher):At the present time owners are entitled to be registered and also entitled to be elected members of the local bodies. While the Speaker's Conference was of opinion that the ownership vote should no longer be continued, the Conference had not, I am sure, any idea in its mind to disqualify an owner from being in a position to stand as a candidate for one of those local bodies. The indirect effect of the action of the Speaker's Conference translated into this Bill is that an owner, if he is a nonresident, will no longer be qualified to sit on any of these important local bodies. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken pointed out that it is desirable rather to enlarge than to diminish the area from which we draw our choice of members of public bodies. The right hon. Gentleman himself was very nearly excluded from membership of that body of which he afterwards became so distinguished a member, and from which he draws so much of that learning which is so helpful to this Bill. I have known on more than one occasion admirably qualified persons who had no proper qualification by which they could enter an arena in which they were ultimately to become distinguished. I think the Whole House will be of opinion that this is an Amendment which we ought to accept thereby restoring to owners the old rights of allowing them to be candidates at the election.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Proposed Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next proposed new Clause (Interval between Nomination and Poll), in the name of the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), should come as

  627
  an Amendment to Clause 18. The proposed New Clause (Provision for Polling Stations in Large and Sparsely Inhabited Constituencies), in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire West (Mr. J. M. Henderson), should come as an Amendment to Clause 32. The proposed New Clause (Saving the Existing Livery Franchise in the City of London), in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), is a subject which I have already disposed of. The proposed New Clause (Votes for all Men or Women who have Served Abroad during the War), in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Major Hunt), should come as an Amendment to Clauses 1 and 4.

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

  (a) has the requisite residence qualification; or

  (b) has the requisite business premises qualification.

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

  (a) must on the last day of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency; and

  (b) must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises, or occupied business premises, in the constituency, or in another constituency within the same Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county, or within a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county:

  Provided that—

  (a) a man, though he may have been residing in premises in the constituency on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that he commenced to reside in the constituency within thirty days before the end of the
  628
  qualifying period and ceased to reside there within thirty days after the time when he so commenced to reside;

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

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

  (3) The expression "business premises" in this Section, means land or other premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business, profession, or trade, of the person to be registered.
  Where business premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, and the aggregate yearly value of the premises is not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers, each of the joint occupiers shall be treated as occupying business premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds:
  Provided that in a Parliamentary county not more than two persons, being such joint occupiers, shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same premises unless they are bon âd fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), after the word "constituency," insert the words "as the case may be."
  In Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), after the word "premises" ["business premises"], insert the words "as the case may be."—[Sir G.Cave.]
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), to leave out the words " a Parliamentary borough or Parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county," and to insert instead thereof the words " a constituency contiguous thereto."
  The Clause, as it is at present, appears to me to be rather wider than was intended. You find cases in which people who travel comparatively short distances

  629
  do not retain their qualifications, while others who travel long distances do retain them. I think it was not intended by the Speaker's Conference that the latitude should be so wide as to enable the voter to carry his qualification from any one part of the country to another. As the Clause stands I have got here some interesting cases of succession. For instance, you can remove from Northampton to nine other constituencies and preserve your qualification, while in Cornwall you can only move into one and do so. From the west part of Lancashire and Cheshire you can go as fas ar 100 miles and yet retain your vote. On the other hand, if a man removed from Manchester to Bedfordshire, he would lose his vote. There are many other cases of that kind, and I do not think that is the intention. Either this Clause does not go far enough or goes much farther than was ever intended. If it was to enable the voter to carry his qualification from any constituency to another in the United Kingdom, I could understand it. But when these anomalies can arise it is obvious that either the point has not been completely covered or that it has been covered to a far greater extent than was intended.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  This is an Amendment which I venture to suggest is really a very great improvement on the words in the Bill. As the hon. Baronet has pointed out as matters stand now it would be possible for a man to move 100 miles without losing his succession, and yet another man might move only a very few miles and lose his qualification. I do not think that that anomaly was intended at the Conference. I believe that what was intended was that the voter who moved to another place more or less in the same part of the country should not lose his qualification. The Clause does not exactly carry out that idea, but goes much further in a direction which would cause great injustice and anomalies. If the Amendment is accepted it will have the effect of greatly improving the Bill, and carrying out the intentions of the Conference.
  Mr. GULLAND: I hope that the Home Secretary will not agree to this Amendment. With a good deal of the speeches of the Proposer and Seconder I agree, and as to the suggestion that a man should have the right to carry his qualification from any constituency to any other, I think if the Home Secretary will accept such an Amendment he will probably find a large
  630
  measure of acceptance from the whole House—at least, judging by the speeches of the two hon. Members. We on this side will be delighted if he will put in such a provision. But the effect of the Amendment is not that at all. It is a restricting Amendment, and I think that on the Report stage we should not further restrict what we have agreed to. What was agreed to was a compromise between the larger and the smaller, and to go back and restrict the proposal to a smaller sphere from which a man can carry his qualification would be a great mistake. In Scotland, in church membership, where a member is disjoined from one church, he gets what we call "lines," which he takes to another church, and that is held good in the other church. One feels that when one has a qualification he ought to be able to take it to any part of the country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to this Amendment which would simply restrict us further.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I dare say the House will remember that in Committee we had a considerable fight on this question of successive occupation. All along it has been a very debate able matter with those who take an interest in these questions. Mr. Speaker's Conference came to a compromise on the question and their proposal was introduced into the Bill. There was a good deal of support for the view which has just been expressed by my hon. Friend that it would be better that successive occupation should exist from any constituency to another constituency so that a man might live three months in one constituency and three months in another and still be qualified. But other hon. Members like my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) did not desire any successive occupation at all; they wanted in fact to abolish it. The Committee very wisely, as I think, came to the conclusion that after all it was better to follow the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference, and accordingly I accepted the Bill as then framed. I take the same point again to-day. It is better to adhere to the compromise, and I hope on this Report stage the House will agree to follow the example set by the Committee. I, therefore, do not propose to accept this Amendment which, to a very considerable extent, would curtail the benefits conferred by Mr. Speaker's Conference with regard to successive occupation.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end of paragraph (b), to add the words, "or separated from that borough or county by water not exceeding at the nearest point six miles in breadth."
  This matter was discussed shortly on the Committee stage and was held over to Report stage. The point I wish to bring before the House is this: we have just agreed that a man should take his qualification to a contiguous county or borough. Now there are in many parts of the country constituencies that are separated by arms of the sea and there is no provision in the Bill that a man can take his qualification with him in such cases. I have looked carefully over the map of the United Kingdom and I find that there are in England and Wales sixteen cases and in Scotland eighteen cases where this occurs. Perhaps if I give constituencies on the shores of the Firth of Forth it will more clearly explain my meaning. The Amendment if it were carried would enable a man without losing his vote to go from these constituencies to other constituencies, namely, from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy, from Leith to Kirkcaldy, from Midlothian to Kirkcaldy, from Edinburgh to Fife, from Leith to Fife, from Midlothian to Fife, from Linlithgowshire to Fife and from Linlithgowshire to the Dumfermline Burghs. In every one of these cases there is a very large change of population continually going on from one side of the Forth to the other. In Fife you have a very large number of miners; so also you have a large number in Midlothian, and these men are constantly changing their places of work. As a matter of fact the inhabitants cross from one side to the other by the Forth Bridge every day. There is a large population and a considerable community of interests between the shores of the Firth of Forth, and therefore it seems to me it would be quite improper that the mere fact of water intervening should prevent these constituencies from being considered to be contiguous. I suggest therefore that where water intervenes the distance which should be laid down should be one of 6 miles, and I find that that would cover practically all the cases that exist round the shores of the United Kingdom. In Scotland in addi-
  632
  tion to the case of the Firth of Forth, there is the case of Caithness and the Orkneys, there are numerous cases on the Clyde, and there are cases on the Tay.
  In England you have cases on the Mersey, on the Bristol Channel, on the Humber, on the Thames, the Tees and the Tyne. I find measuring these distances on the map that 6 miles would cover them all, but any distance less than 6 miles would not do so. I understand that in certain Acts of Parliament, dealing with territorial waters, 3 miles from low water—that is to say 3 nautical miles—is the territorial limit. Therefore, I think it would be only fair that 3 miles on each side of these respective estuaries should be considered a reasonable distance to operate in these cases. I hope I have made the matter clear. Of course the Home Secretary may have some other way of carrying this out, but I do suggest that it ought to be distinctly stated in the Bill that these should be the limits. There may be cases—it is quite likely—where, for instance, the boundaries of boroughs or counties run to mid-channel so that the boroughs or counties are actually contiguous. I do not know that there is a sufficient definition in any existing Act of Parliament to cover this, but I am quite sure that unless some provision of this kind is put into the Bill there will be greater hardships experienced when the register comes to be made up and when in the case of an election a man goes into a polling booth and learns for the first time that he is not on the register because he happens to have crossed the estuary. Under the Bill a man may go from Cape Wrath to Kingussie, a distance of 200 miles, and still be qualified, but if he goes from Kirkcaldy to Leith he loses his qualification. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of my Amendment.
  Colonel GREIG: I support the Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. This is a matter which affects my own Constituency; it affects Greenock and Dumbartonshire and Greenock and Argyleshire, and many similar places where people are continually crossing over for the purposes of their employment. Unless this Amendment were adopted, men through changes of employment in these places would lose their qualification.
  Captain DOUGLAS HALL: I rise to support the Amendment, which is particularly applicable to the case of the Isle of Wight. There are dockyards both on the mainland and on the Island. People are continually going from one to the other, and it would be very hard indeed for them to lose their vote because they happen to change their residence, although they still are doing exactly the same kind of work.
  Sir G. CAVE: This is a rather difficult question. There are places in England which it would be somewhat absurd to call contiguous, but which would be covered by this Amendment. For instance, there are places in South Wales, Monmouthshire, and Cardiff, which surely it would be absurd to call contiguous to Somersetshire. They are, in fact, far from being contiguous. It is the old question whether water unites or divides. There is this further difficulty about the Amendment. It is true that, as my right hon. Friend said, in some places the boundary of a county may run down into the sea some distance from the shore, and where that happens on both sides you may find that there is more than six miles of water from shore to shore, and yet they will be called contiguous constituencies. I would much rather take somewhat less than six miles as the limit. I would not strongly object to three, and that would, I think, practically cover most of the cases where there is actual propinquity.
  Captain HALL: Would that cover the case of the Isle of Wight?
  Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend must know that better than I do. But it is very difficult to judge this matter by reference to particular cases. I would rather not accept the Amendment now, but if it is thought we ought to define it, I would rather compromise on three miles.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word " six," and to insert instead thereof the words " three nautical."
  I regret that I could not be in my place when my own Amendment on the Paper was reached, but I was engaged on public business elsewhere. I suggest it would be much better and more convenient to measure these distances by nautical miles, and if the Government are willing to accept the principle of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland), then in my opinion the limits should be
  634
  three nautical miles rather than six miles. Hence I move this Amendment of the Amendment.
  Sir A. BLACK: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  5.0 P. M.
  Mr. GULLAND: It is quite right, no doubt, that in England three nautical miles would cover all the cases which really matter, but in Scotland I am sorry to say it would not. I really would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bring to his mind, as I am sure he can easily do, the difference between the map of England and the map of Scotland. The map of Scotland is indented by many of these estuaries. I see the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has just come in, and I would appeal to him, because this affects him more than anybody else I see in the House. The three miles that the Home Secretary now offers would be no help at all to my right hon. Friend, because Kirkcaldy Burghs are more than three nautical miles across the Firth of Forth, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a large population which goes between the constituencies on the south of the Firth of Forth and those on the north. He also knows very well that six miles across the Firth of Forth would enable the electors coming from Edinburgh, Leith, and Midlothian to take their votes with them, but that three miles would be of no use whatever. That would happen also in the case of Caithness and Orkney, and I think it would be rather a pity to isolate Orkney and Shetland from the adjacent islands of Great Britain and Ireland. The three miles would also not cover some of the cases on the Clyde. It would cover the cases of the Tay, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, which areas, I may say, the Government are now utilising greatly for war work. There is a large number of munition workers, shipbuilders, and people of that sort, transferring regularly from one to the other, and I would appeal to the Home Secretary to recognise all the difference it would make. If people do not transfer from one side of the Bristol Channel to the other it will not affect them, and no harm is done; but I should be very sorry that any of my right hon. Friend's constituents should be deprived of this privilege.
  Sir C. SEELY: I think it would be rather hard that a man should be deprived of his vote for moving from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. I cannot speak with certainty, as I do not know the Portsmouth boundary, but I think it is more than three miles from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not want to be too hard in this matter, and I will accept the six miles.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  Colonel GRETTON: There is one matter which will clearly require further consideration. We have to decide sooner or later from what point these boundaries are to extend; whether we are going to take high- or low-wafer mark, or some other mark below the water. It will be a most difficult question to decide, and only rise for the purpose of drawing the Government's attention to the difficulty which will arise in order that it may be considered, and, if necessary, put right in another place.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the first paragraph (b), to insert the words, " A man representing, as hereafter provided, a company, association, trade union, building society, friendly society, or any other body of persons incorporated by charter or registered under any Statute, having the requisite qualifications shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary and local government elector, and references to a ' person' in this Act shall include a company or other body so registered. The board of directors, committee of management, or other governing body of any such company or other body may nominate a person being a member of such board, committee, or other governing body, or an officer of such company or other body, to exercise on behalf of such company or other body the franchises conferred by this Section, and such person shall be registered accordingly. Provided that such company or other body shall, not later than the 15th day of January and the 15th day of July in each year, have furnished to the registration officer in writing under the
  636
  hand of the secretary or other authorised officer of such company or other body the name of such person."
  I have this Amendment in manuscript dealing with what was down as a New Clause under the heading of (Franchises. (Companies and other Bodies)). You asked me, Mr. Speaker, to move it as an Amendment to Clause 1, and I propose to move it as a new Sub-section after the word " county " [" to that borough or county "]; and in a slightly altered form. It is an important Amendment because it deals with a large number of people who if it is not accepted will be disqualified. Rightly or wrongly, the habit has grown during the last few years, and is continually growing, of people in businesses of every description and all over the country—in England, Wales, Scotland, and, I think, also in Ireland—instead of conducting their businesses under their own name, or under the name of Jones and Sons, or Jones Brothers and Company—registering themselves as a limited liability company. The effect of that is that they lose their vote. I should say in nearly every case, certainly in the large majority of cases, these particular people are large ratepayers and large taxpayers, and they should not, I think, be disqualified from exercising the right to vote because they have taken advantage of an Act passed by this House, and approved of by this House, authorising them for the. purpose of their business to form themselves into limited liability companies. The effect of this Bill, and the chief desire of this Bill, was, as I understand, not in any way to disqualify for or to restrict the franchise, but to take every opportunity of extending the franchise as far as. possible. It cannot be denied, I think,. that the people whose case I am pleading are in every way fitted to become voters of this country, and the acquisition of these people would be a source of strength. to the electorate.
  I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment. I may point out to him that if he looks at pages 2,077 and 2,078 of the Amendment Paper he will see. my Amendment practically set out in words, and it is, of course, very much easier to follow if he can see it in writing than if he only hears it read. He will see that it gets. over some of the objections that used to be raised to giving the vote to companies. It used to be asked, and I think with a

  637
  good deal of reason, how, if you gave a vote to a company, you were to decide who was to exercise that vote? Was it to be given to the shareholders, to the directors, or to the secretary? I think my Amendment will provide the machinery for that purpose, and I venture to say that it is an extremely modest Amendment, because it confines the number of persons who may vote for any given company to one. It does not say that a company because it has a very large amount of capital and a very large number of shareholders, many officers, servants, and directors, shall be represented by a large number of people. It merely says, and the intention of it is, that any company shall be considered as one person, and that if a company fulfils the necessary qualification to entitle a person to become an elector that company shall have the right of nominating one person and only one person, and that that person shall have the power to vote as an elector. I hope the Home Secretary will very carefully consider the remarks I have made, and which I have confined in as short a space as possible, and that he will accept the Amendment. If he thinks that there are certain drafting Amendments I shall, of course, be quite willing to accept any which he thinks advisable, always providing that the principle of the Amendment is preserved.
  Sir G. CAVE: I quite understand the arguments which have been put forward by the right hon. Baronet who has moved this Amendment. The point is, of course, an old one, and we had a discussion upon it in Committee upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell). I have to repeat what I then said. We should by this Amendment create a new franchise which is not embodied in the Bill, and was not recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and I think we should have great difficulty in accepting that at this late stage of the Bill, especially after we have come to a decision upon it in Committee. Apart from that, however, there are certain objections to this Amendment. One effect would be that under the Amendment a company with a number of branches all over the country would be entitled to nominate a representative for each of those branches. so that you would give to a man who turned himself into a limited company the great advantage of being able to be represented in a whole number of constituencies all over the
  638
  country. There may be advantages in that result, but I am sure it will not be entirely satisfactory.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That would be got over by inserting such words as, " It shall only be qualified in respect of the head office."
  Sir G CAVE: I must deal with the Amendment as it stands. Another effect of the Amendment would be to bring politics into the boards of limited companies, and one can imagine the general. meeting of a limited company called to decide whether the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) should be added to the board or whether it should be the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him (Mr. Lough)
  Mr. HOLT: I am afraid, after what the Home Secretary has said, I cannot support this Amendment, but the speech of the right hon. Baronet, I think, has shown the absurdity of this business vote. The effect of the franchise given by this Bill is not to give two votes to the most important businesses carrying on in a certain town, but a second vote, under the pretence noted, to doubtless very worthy people, that is, stationers, hairdressers, and the like, who carry on business in the business part of each part of the town. Why they should have two votes and other men only one, I am afraid I cannot understand.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the words " have been " [" though he may have been residing "], and to insert instead thereof the word " be."
  I have two Amendments following this one dealing with the same point. The discussion we had on the Committee stage, and the compromise arrived at, met one of the difficulties, and left the Clause as it now stands. The situation has been complicated, not by the compromise offered, but because of an addition to the Clause. No doubt it was put in as a precaution, and is a very great precaution, against any jerrymandering or swindling about a person's qualification, but it is going to make considerable difference to the registration. I can imagine the party agents, whom we are trying to keep out so far as we can in these matters, regarding it as part of their duty formally to object to every new name on the register, in order to make it perfectly certain that

  639
  they shall make good their objection to the man whose qualification in regard to residence they have found not sufficient. That is not the sort of thing that we want to have done. It is most undesirable that objections should be multiplied. Although it is a little difficult to understand—for the whole thing is a little complicated, and I confess I am not very clear about it myself—residence for thirty days in a constituency before the end of the qualifying period should be unnecessary in, the case of a bonâa fide occupier of a house. My suggestions, I think, would bring about a satisfactory solution of a rather difficult registration difficulty. You might lose a little protection that is given at present, but you would set against that, if this and the two following proposals can be accepted, the fact that you get rid of the other difficulties that I have pointed out.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. GULLAND: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Baronet opposite has said in favour of his Amendment. I think, however, the point against it really is—and I think it is really a considerable point as I understand it—that he gives the privilege to the owner, or, at any rate, to the service franchise voter, but he denies it to the lodger. That is really the whole crux of the Amendment. He says that this is the privilege to be given to the men who is an owner, or a tenant, or a Service franchise man, but the hon. Gentleman makes no mention of the lodger. Therefore by this Amendment he penalises the lodger. I do not think that that was the intention of the Speaker's Conference, or of this House in Committee. We came to the conclusion that if a man was entitled to be on the register he could be on the register, whether an owner, or tenant, or lodger. I hope, therefore, the Home Secretary will not at this point make a distinction between the lodger and other classes of voters. These very restrictions were put in, if my memory serves me rightly, to safeguard the lodger vote; so that the lodger cannot come on unless he fulfils all these difficult qualifications. It does not seem to me to be fair at this time of day to take from the lodger the privilege given to others. In regard to what the hon. Baronet said about registration there are great diffi-
  640
  culties in regard to that in this Bill. But I do not think that the one he mentioned is by any means one of the greatest. I do not foresee the difficulty he brings up about the party agents. The party agents are not going to object wholesale to everybody. They are not going to get people off the register. They are going to give every facility to the people to get on the register. That is the whole idea of this Bill. As I understand it, the Amendment is a restriction, and 1 hope the House will not agree to it.
  Colonel GR ETTON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, it seems to me, has misunderstood, or mistakes, the purpose of this Amendment. The Bill as it stands makes it necessary for a qualification that there should be a residence in the constituency of thirty days within the qualifying period, with the proviso that the qualification shall not have lapsed. That entails that a man, or woman, should possess practically a seven months' qualification and not a six months' qualification. What this Amendment proposes to do is not to do away altogether with that qualification of residence of thirty days after the date on which registration takes place in January or July; it is a relaxation of the restrictions in the Bill. It is no use putting in the Bill something which will not be carried out, and which will prove cumbersome. The hon. Baronet has pointed out that an all-round general objection will have to be made to all these new names coming upon the register. That is a very objectionable method of procedure which entails a vast amount of work and causes a great deal of irritation I do not think that wholesale notices of objection of that kind ought to be served in order to carry out the provisions of an Act of Parliament. As regards the other proviso, the residence of thirty days before the 15th of January or the 15th of July, it is proposed to dispence with that particular qualification in the case of those permanently settled by ownership, tenancy, or by service in the constituency. There is no necessity to impose this restriction. My hon. Friend opposite proposes, and I think the House will agree, that there should be some check upon what may be called "swallow" or "fagot" voting. There should be a bonâd fide residence of thirty days in the constituency in order that the voter may qualify for his vote as a lodger. The lodger's possessions consist of what he has on his back, a pair of boots, and so

  641
  forth. He has not a permanent dwelling in any constituency. He is bound to dwell somewhere, but he may alter that dwelling at a week's notice, simply because that, for some reason or another, his occupation or the exigencies of his life cause him to move out of the constituency. It is also a fact that there are many persons of the criminal or semi-criminal classes who will be upon the register, and we do not want to make it easy for these persons to obtain their qualification. In this respect the Clause is of value.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment unless he is very well satisfied that it will be an improvement to the Bill. I dare say the House will remember that this provision was put in after a very lengthy and complicated discussion on the whole system of successive occupation. A person may come into a new division one day before the registration at the present moment, and nevertheless can qualify under the law of successive occupation. It was pointed out in Committee that that might be all very well under the old law where most persons would be held to have a more or less permanent possession in their tenancy or in their occupation, but that it would open the door rather widely to the new type of voter, namely, the voter who is now to qualify by residence. In view of that consideration, a certain compromise was arrived at, and I think it was upon the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Durham that this particular proposal was put in. There were Amendments, the House will remember, to do away altogether with the possibility of a man coming in at the last moment, however bonâd fide. I think an Amendment was down in the name of the hon. Baronet who spoke just now, that nobody should be entitled to claim successive occupation in any case unless he had been there a month before the date of registration. That, of course, would have hit very hardly indeed the bonâd fide people who come to reside in the new constituency without any intention of doing anything improper with the franchise. Therefore, the suggestion was put forward that, in the case of every person who came into the new constituency within thirty days before the registration day, his permanency in occupation should be tested by the fact that he had stayed there another thirty days after
  642
  that date. That was the reason which operated with the Committee when we were discussing this proposal.
  If we accept the hon. Baronet's proposition, a person who comes into a constituency as an ordinary resident will have to show, as I understand, that he has some definite right as a tenant of some place. and therefore my hon. Friend opposite is perfectly right when he says that we are giving this privilege of moving from one place to another and keeping the vote to those people who can show they have taken a house or the tenancy of a house. I quite admit the difficulty of it, and if the Home Secretary, no doubt having given careful attention to this, is advised that the proposal of the hon. Baronet is a better one than that in the Bill, I should be willing to bow to it, but I should rather deplore it, because I think you would find you would disfranchise a very considerable number of the working classes who would have come in within the last month before the date of registration, and although they had come in with the most bonâd fide intention of remaining there for the rest of the year, or for many years, they would be disqualified because it was shown that they were not, strictly speaking, tenants of the particular building in which they had come to reside. Therefore, my own inclination would be to urge the Home Secretary to adhere to the present system, although I quite admit it is not perfect.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Member who has just sat down said that there may be certain hard cases if this Amendment is carried. There must be hard cases where you have to provide for an evil, and in this particular case the evil which the Committee provided for was especially in large towns—an evil which might have very considerable results where unscrupulous party agents, or unscrupulous candidates, thought it might be possible to remove a certain number of electors from one constituency to another at the very last moment, and so unfairly influence the election. I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend desires to disfranchise lodgers as lodgers, but, unfortunately, the class of people who would come in and who would commit what, I think, everybody in the House is desirous of preventing, would be the people who would take a room. It would be very difficult for anyone to come in suddenly at the last moment and occupy a house. What would take place would be that a large number

  643
  of people would come in and take a room, and in that sense they would be lodgers. But it was not the intention of my hon. Friend to disqualify lodgers because they were lodgers, but merely to provide a safeguard against an evil which, I think, everyone in the House, including the right hon. Gentleman, considers is an evil which ought to be provided for.
  Sir G. CAVE: This question of the swallow voter, as it is called, has given the House a good deal of trouble. I confess I have never been quite satisfied with what we did in Committee, not only because of the circumstances in which the changes were made, but because I do not think we found the best possible solution of the difficulty. It is quite true that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment pointed out that under this proviso as it stands it is necessary for everybody to be objected to by party agents, and you would no doubt open the door to the very thing which all of us would desire to do away with if we possibly could. If my memory serves me, I said we would leave this matter open for the Report stage with a view to it being fully considered at that stage. That being so, I am a little disappointed at the form of this Amendment. I venture to think that the Amendments taken together do not provide a better solution than, or even so good a solution as, that which we have in the Bill. You still leave it open to a man to come to a constituency the last day but one, and to take a lodging there for a week, at the end of which he gets his vote. That is the very thing we want to prevent. It was the very thing the whole discussion turned upon. Therefore, with all respect to my hon. Friends, I think they have not yet found the right solution. I confess I am disappointed at not seeing on the Notice Paper an Amendment dealing directly with the point. If it had been proposed, say, to lengthen the period of one day to fourteen days or something of that kind, I would have asked the House carefully to consider that proposal. I put fourteen days for this reason: Take the spring register. The qualifying period runs up to 15th January. There are many persons who bonâd fide change their quarters at Christmas, and if you require thirty days' residence you would exclude those people who came in just before Christmas. If you make it fourteen days you would include those people and would not disfranchise the man who came in at Christmas, although a man
  644
  who came in after the 1st January would not be qualified for the vote. Possibly the point may be raised again in another place. I do not know, but, so far as to-day is concerned, I could not accept this Amendment, because I think it would destroy, although it does not intend it, the whole effect of the proviso. What I have said does not apply to the second Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be very glad to withdraw this Amendment. I only wish to confirm what my right hon. Friend opposite said about the intention of this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg leave to move, in proviso (a), to leave out the words "on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that."
  This would, at all events, obviate the necessity of objection being constantly raised against any new voter.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think the House might accept this Amendment. It does not alter the franchise at all, but obviates the necessity of having an objection in every case.
  Colonel SANDERS: Will the Home Secretary consider what the procedure would then be? How is the registration officer to know when he puts the man on that he is going to reside thirty days afterwards or not? Objection must be made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in proviso (b), to leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
  The object of this Amendment is to allow a man to let his furnished house for a period of four months without thereby losing his residential qualification. That is really only preserving the existing law. The Bill proposes to reduce that period from four months to three months. I venture to think there is no reason for that reduction; on the contrary, I submit there is every reason for keeping the four months. To reduce the period of letting from four months to three months as the period for preserving the voter's qualification would be really a very serious hardship upon many people who are in the habit of letting their furnished houses during the summer months. For instance, many people live at seaside resorts, and they go somewhere else for four months,

  645
  and let their houses furnished for that period. It is a serious hardship to them if, by so doing, they lose their qualification as voters.
  I think it is within the knowledge of all of us that four months is an exceedingly common time for which to let a person's house. If I may quote an opinion which I think may have some weight with my right hon. Friend, it is that of the late Home Secretary (Sir J. Simon), who is now serving with the Forces, who said that there was a great deal of force in this proposal, and he was very much inclined to support it. I agree that there is no object to be gained by making this a disfranchising Bill. Our object is to have this House elected by as many voters as possible, so that it will be as nearly as possible a fair representation of the opinion of the nation. On those grounds I ask the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: On the Committee stage the hon. Member for York succeeded in getting this paragraph put into the Bill to the effect that a man would not lose his electoral qualification if he were to let his house for three months during the six months period necessary for qualification. Four months was originally the period fixed in the Act, but the qualifying period at that time was twelve months, and not six months, as is now proposed. My right hon. Friend accepted the Amendment for three months in relation to six months' qualification, which was even more favourable than four months in relation to twelve months. Therefore, that was a considerable concession to owners of houses who wished to let for a portion of the qualifying period during which they were supposed to reside there. Really, there is nothing much in the point. I quite agree that we do not want this Bill to be a disfranchising or a disqualifying Bill, and we want as many people as possible to have a legitimate qualification. I would like to have got the opinion of the House as to whether three or four months would be preferable, but no strong feeling has been expressed on the point, and if the House would prefer four to three months the Government see no objection to it, although it is exactly one of those matters upon which the Government desires to have the opinion of the House. As at
  646
  present advised the Bill must stand as it is unless there is some further indication that it is the desire of the House that this Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter with my hon. Friend, but I think the general desire is to enfranchise as many as possible and disfranchise as few as possible. No doubt there are a considerable number of people who let their houses for perhaps four months in the year, and they must have some residential qualification. On the whole, I think we ought to be generous to this class, and the House will probably agree to accept the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope this Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. FISHER: As my right hon. Friends who have spoken voice the opinion of a large section of the House, the Government will accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question in regard to whether the New Clause (Persons Legally Employed in all Elections not Disqualified as Voters) comes in as a proviso at the end of this Clause? The Clause really says persons shall not be disqualified from voting, and not from being registered. I suggest that this proviso should come at a subsequent place in the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes; it ought to come in where the Bill deals with disqualifications.
  Sir GEORGE TOUCHE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:
  "Provided that such of the freemen of the City of London as are liverymen of the several companies and entitled to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament for the City of London shall be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors for that constituency.
  Provided also that any liveryman registered under this Section may exercise the franchise indicated by such registration only as an alternative to any business premises qualification to be registered under this Act."
  This question came up on the Committee stage under circumstances which were not favourable for its adequate discussion, and, therefore, I ask the House to grant me its indulgence in raising the question again, especially as I am doing

  647
  so by a Clause which contains certain modifications with a view to meeting the objections which were, raised in the earlier discussion. I do not propose to take up the time of the House with an exhaustive historical survey of the livery vote in the City of London, but perhaps I may briefly indicate its antiquity, as it is on the ground of historic continuity, in a large measure, that I am asking the House to accept this proviso. We have to go back to very early days to trace the origin of the livery vote for Members of Parliament. In the earliest days ward representatives were summoned to the Guildhall for purposes of election. Then the number and importance of the Mysteries or Guilds or Brotherhoods, as they were called, which began to be incorporated in the reign of Edward III., made them the most fitting representatives of the City interests. In or about the year 1375 the right of election of all City dignitaries and officers, including Members of Parliament, was definitely transferred to the City Guilds, or livery companies.
  Some time later the practice of summoning ward representatives was resumed, but in 1467 the masters and wardens of every Mystery of the City, "coming in their livery," were again summoned for election, and the right of the livery to vote has continued down to the present day. This has been especially recognised and confirmed by Act of Parliament, notably by an Act of Geo. I. in 1722, and in the later Reform Acts there were certain modifications with regard to residence. I think the preservation of the livery vote is not inconsistent with democratic reform. The City Guilds have been traditionally in favour of Parliamentary reform. They have been foremost in urging it in times past, and their attitude has not changed now. They recognise clearly that there is an urgent need for settling all these contentious questions about the franchise, in order that after the War the House of Commons may be free to deal with the many difficult problems with which it will be faced. We are all seeking a friendly settlement now, and for that reason we ought to be careful that any settlement come to, whether by majority votes or not, does not involve any unnecessary sacrifices. Full consideration should be given to this question of historic continuity. It is part of the price which those who prefer a mere arithmetical basis should be willing to pay for a large acceptance of their views.
  648
  I submit that the claim for the preservation of historic association is one which ought to be regarded with tenderness in all parts of this House. The House of Commons is the last place to which the City Guilds should appeal in vain, for they have been the champions of Parliament in the past. They have gone to the length of financing Parliament, and when they were strong and Parliament was weak they invariably threw their influence on the side of Parliament. They have always been against any encroachment on the liberties of the people. They petitioned time and again for Parliamentary reform, and they prayed for the creation of sufficient peers in order that the great Reform Act of 1832 might be passed. If any historic claim deserves consideration in this House, I think it is the claim of the City that the centuries-old right of the members of the City Guilds should not be swept roughly away.
  6.0 P.M.
  It is always a pity to break traditions when that is not a necessity of reform. Surely it is wise, while recognising the. need for change and development, to graft the new on the old, and to satisfy the desire for a broader basis, while preserving historic continuity. The ancient ceremonies and institutions of the City of London make it a place apart. They are all linked with the nation's history, and they help to make a fitting setting for the exchange of international courtesies which do so much to cement alliances. They provide a scene of action for national. appeals and international gatherings. Time and again since the War began the Prime Minister and other statesmen, both of this country and from the Overseas Dominions, have used the platform of the old Guildhall for the purpose of sending their messages to the nation. It is recognised in this Bill that the City of London is a unique constituency. It is a wonderful place for those who know its history. It is full of memories of the great past, and it is rendering patriotic service in the present day. It is the clearing house of the world. It is the buttress of the finance of the Allies; it is the home of countless War charities, of which it is a most generous supporter; and I think it can almost be claimed that it is the nerve centre of the War. A unique constituency deserves a unique electorate. It has got one now, and it has never abused that privilege. The vote is held by men who are thoroughly representative of the City's

  649
  interests. Then why should it be swept away, especially at a time when you are adding millions of electors to the electoral roll—a great many of them very inexperienced? Why should you grudge the continuation of a few votes held by people who are essentially representative of the interests of which the City is the centre? These votes are not widely distributed. They are not able to influence elections here and there. They are all centred in one constituency, which is admittedly a constituency of an exceptional character, and those who possess these votes to-day are admittedly fitted to reflect that character. They are to be swept away—not because of any direct attack upon the City: I do not think anyone in the House wishes to do that now—merely because a broad general basis has been adopted. No doubt, as regards the country generally, simplification was most desirable; but no rule of that sort should be applied absolutely blindly, especially in an old country like this. A new country has to proceed on a somewhat crude and arithmetical basis, but an old country should seek to combine ancient tradition and modern reform. The basis selected by the Speaker's Conference has been shown to be one which is quite capable of variation in special cases without destroying its democratic character. That is evident by the retention and extension of the University vote.
  If a vote is to be given anywhere on an educational basis, I think the City of London has a very strong claim. The City Corporation and the City Guilds have been pioneers in the cause of education. The Guilds have done and are doing a great work for education, elementary, secondary and technical. They did it long before the great value of education was generally understood. I do not wish to weary the House with a detailed account of all the educational activities of the City, but I many mention a few. The City Guilds, jointly with the Corporation, have established the City and Guilds of London Institute for the advancement of technical education, and they have endowed it. They have established Gresham College, with which the Mercers' Company is specially identified. The Corporation of London founded that splendid institution the City of London School and also the Freemen's Orphan School. The Mercers' Company, the records of which go back to the time of Henry II., has the Mercers' School at
  650
  Barnard's Inn, Holborn, and it founded St. Paul's School as far back as 1509. The Drapers' Company established Bancroft's School. The Skinners' Company have four schools under its administration: 1, the Tonbridge School, founded in 1553; 2, Skinners' School for Boys at Tunbridge Wells, founded in 1880; 3, Sir Andrew Judd's Commercial School, opened in 1888; and 4, a Day School for Girls at Stamford Hill, opened in 1890. Both in the past and in the present it will be observed that these City Companies are active in the cause of education. The Merchant Taylors' School was instituted in 1561. The Haberdashers' School, known as Aske's School, was founded in 1688. The Clothworkers' Company is the governing body of Mary Datchelar Girls' School at Camberwell. The Brewers' Company, "The Wardens and Commonality of the Mystery or Art of Brewers of the City of London," as it is called, founded Dame Alice Owen's School in 1613. The Leather-sellers' Company has erected a technical college, giving training in all branches of the craft, and has endowed a grammar school at Lewisham. The Coopers' Company's school was continued for nearly 400 years by the masters, wardens, and court of assistants of the Coopers' Company.
  I think that abbreviated record ought alone to satisfy the House that on an educational basis the claim of the City for the livery vote deserves special consideration. The destruction of the livery vote would be more than a break with tradition. It would alter the status of the Guilds; it would rob them of a recognised place in the scheme of public affairs, a place which they have possessed for centuries. These ancient Guilds are a national asset. They should take no small part in the reconstruction of our national crafts after the War. They are capable of doing great service. They are anxious to do it, and they are preparing to do it. Surely this is not a time when their status ought to be assailed even in an indirect manner. We are told that the vote is to be taken away as part of a compromise. The livery companies were never consulted on that compromise. It is very small satisfaction to Smith, when his rights are being taken away, to be told that it is being done by virtue of a compromise between Brown and Robinson. A great many of the livery voters do not even know that their rights are being assailed. Many of them are at

  651
  present serving their country at the front. One can imagine what their feelings will be when they come back and find that during their absence one of their most cherished privileges has been taken away.
  Although the Bill contains no compromise at the present time, so far as the livery companies are concerned, the Amendment which I am submitting does contain a compromise which the livery companies are prepared to accept. By a resolution of the great meeting at the Common Hall they authorised me to ask for the retention of the vote, not as it exists to-day, but simply as an alternative to the business occupation vote under the Bill. The total livery vote, eliminating duplicates, is, I believe, about 6,000. Probably two-thirds of these will receive the business occupation vote under the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted, the balance will go. The livery companies do not wish it to go, but they would rather let it go and be permitted to retain the historic association than have the Livery vote destroyed altogether. If what I ask for is granted, it cannot affect the general representation of the City in any way. All it will do will be to preserve the historic continuity. It is not open to any of the objections which have been fatal to certain Amendments with which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has shown a considerable amount of sympathy. It does not add to the number of the constituencies. It does not even add to the number of electors. All it does is to preserve the historical associations between the electorate and the ancient guilds. Surely we should keep some anomalies to link the present with the past. No question of politics is involved. It has always been the pride of the livery companies that no party politics are known within their halls. The liverymen of London, Liberals and Conservatives alike, ask this House of Commons, which is very jealous of its own traditions, to preserve their historic franchise as a symbol of the long history of the country. May I close my observations with a note from a voice which is always listened to with respect in this House and in the country, and which will carry much greater weight than anything that I can say. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has expressed regret at his inability to be here to-day, but he writes:
  652
  "I regret the proposal to abolish the livery vote and. hope that you will be successful in your efforts to. secure reconsideration of this proposal, for which I can find no adequate reasons. The democratic character of the House of Commons would not be diminished by the retention of a vote so intimately connected with the past history and present life of the City of London."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment moved in such an eloquent speech and in such well-chosen terms by my hon. Friend. I support the Amedment because it will prevent the disfranchisement of a very valuable, though it is true not a large, body of voters. It certainly does not alter the number of Members in the new House of Commons or conflict with any of the principles which we have heard discussed so often in connection with the Speaker's Conference. It simply asks for this vote as an alternative to the business occupation vote which is granted at the present time to the City and elsewhere. I am sorry to say that I am not a liveryman of the City of London, but I am and have been a residential voter of the City for thirty-five years and I am very proud of being a voter for such a great constituency. It is customary to refer—I think the hon. Member did refer—to me and my co-residents as being caretakers and porters and similar people. Be that as it may, speaking on behalf of my co-residents, and we are the only people who will be affected by this Amendment, I can say unhesitatingly that the liverymen as a body know more about the City of London and the great questions that affect the City than the residents of the City of London whose rights are preserved by the present Bill. There is no question of politics in this matter. Is it not important at the present time, if we can, to gain assistance from the liverymen? I look at the question from the point of view of the country rather than from the point of view of the privileges of the City. It seems to me to the advantage of the House and of the country to get the advice and the assistance and the interests of the liverymen of the City of London at the present time.
  There are two matters I have come up against in the City which are likely to come up in this House more in the future than in the past. The first is a matter which has been taken up largely by the municipalities. I mean the provision of playing grounds. You have in the livery companies people experienced in spending

  653
  money on these matters, and their experience will be exceedingly valuable when such matters come before the House in the future. The second point has already been touched upon, and it is the question of education. I am inclined to go a step further than my hon. Friend. He has dealt with the schools and colleges which the City of London has from time to time founded, a great, beneficent, and important work. The liverymen of the City of London have undoubtedly been foremost in assisting education of a more experimental type in recent years. Remember how they came to the assistance of that very useful branch of secondary education, the Polytechnic of London, and the assistance which they gave to the old Polytechnic in Regent Street, by which they enlarged its beneficent work. That has been exceedingly useful. From time to time the City Guilds have found the means for scientific research. It is of great importance that you should have some body which has the money to advance such research, which results in great benefit to the community at large. We are about to consider an Education Bill of great width and complexity. Some hon. Members have talked of the proposals in that Bill as if they were quite new. Many of them are not. Many of them relate to experiments which have been tried by means of money provided by the City Guilds. It is necessary that when that Bill comes on those who represent the interests of the City of London and those who have had experience of such branches of education and have spent money on them should be able to give us their assistance. As a voter in the City of London I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. The sentimental weight which attaches to a vote of this kind is a business asset of great value to this House and the country. I would ask the House not lightly to throw it aside, seeing that it does not depart from anything in the compromise arrived at Mr. Speaker's Conference, especially in the form in which it is now put forward. If the Government decline to accept the Amendment—I hope they will not—and my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
  Mr. SHERWELL: If Amendments to the Bill at this stage could be accepted on the ground of the eloquence with which they are proposed to the House this particular Amendment might easily find its way to a
  654
  place in the Bill. But I find it difficult to believe that, after what took place on the Committee stage of this Bill, the Government would to-day lightly be prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind. We have had a quite legitimate and very full statement of the benevolences and the philanthropic habits of the livery companies, whose members are to be enfranchised under this particular proposal. I am not quite sure how my hon. Friends, who moved and seconded the Amendment are prepared to carry that principle. Is it really to be seriously proposed to this House that we should enfranchise a man simply because he is associated with a company or corporation which very generously and philanthropically disposes in the public interest of funds, not personal to the members of the corporation or the company, over which it happens, by the accident of circumstances, historical and other, to have control? It is well known to every Member of the House that there is a large and, I am happy to believe, a growing number of public-spirited citizens who are every day bestowing large large sums of their own personal property in philanthropic, educational, and other directions. Is the House prepared to say this afternoon, as a matter of principle, that we are going to propose the enfranchisement of the philanthropic spirit? That really is the logical deduction from the arguments brought forward in support of this proposal. After all, the question is not one of the public spirit or the philanthropy of a particular individual or a particular set of individuals. It is a question of principle, namely, the grounds upon which you are to hold a man or a number of men entitled to exercise the vote. On the matter of principle, what becomes of this particular proposal? When analysed it amounts to a proposal to enfranchise a certain number of men—the actual number is quite irrelevant—who, under the principles and proposals of this Bill—and after all the provisions of this Bill embody certain agreed principles—are not entitled to the franchise. It is because I believe that the acceptance of this Amendment would involve a serious departure on a ground of principle, and a serious departure from the agreed principles upon which the whole of this legislation is founded, that I venture very strongly to express the confident hope that the Government will not, on the Report stage, overturn the decision arrived at on the Committee stage.
  Mr. DICKINSON: I very much regret that this matter has been brought up on this occasion. It was very definitely settled in Committee by the resolute demeanour which the President of the Local Government Board then showed. The Mover of the Amendment stated that in Committee it came on under unfortunate circumstances. It is quite true that it was not discussed in Committee very much, but that was because of the attitude of the Government. If there had been any other attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman there would have been a great deal of discussion, because a great deal can be said on both sides in this matter. The City of London has not been badly dealt with under this Bill. It retains its two Members. It is a City containing a population under 17,000 and an electorate which might be something between 20,000 and 30,000. In ordinary normal circumstances it would have been disenfranchised altogether. Yet the recommendation came up with unanimity from the Conference to continue the special electoral privilege of the City. I have great admiration for the City, and, personally, was quite willing to let it stand out in that particularly prominent position —indeed, a predominant position over all other cities in the country. But that recommendation was accomplished with conditions, one of which was that the livery vote should come to an end. The Resolution of the Conference is very clear on this point and goes to the bottom of the whole case. After recommending the two classes of electoral qualification, residence, and the occupation of business premises, the Resolution says:
  "The franchise based upon the foregoing qualifications shall be substituted for all the existing franchises, provided that the representation of the universities shall be maintained."
  Those of us who were in favour of that were willing to give the duplicate vote for the occupation of business premises, so that the business community should have rather more say in the affairs of the country than that to which their numbers would entitle them. We were willing to give the vote to the universities so that the educational community of this country should have rather more say in the affairs of the country than that to which their numbers entitle them. But we did not, we could not, and we will not, go further than that.
  Mr. DENNISS: Did you discuss the question of the livery vote?
  Mr. DICKINSON: Am I at liberty to discuss that question? My hon. Friend may be pretty well certain that if this proposal had been accepted by the Conference we should not have come to a unanimous decision on the question or the City of London. It is part and parcel of the system recommended by the Conference and the system adopted by the Government in tins Bill. The City of London does not stand alone in this respect at all. There are a great number of people in the country all of whom have been disfranchised by this Bill, and in whose support nobody has raised any voice. There are over 6,000 freemen and liverymen in the City of London, but there are over 21,000 freemen in various cities in the Kingdom. In some cities the freemen form a considerable portion of the electorate. In Norwich there are 800, in Nottingham 500, in York 1,400, and in Coventry over 2,000. My hon. Friend has to make a very special case in support of his proposal that the liverymen and freemen of the City of London should retain their rights as freemen whereas the freemen in other cities are to lose them. Why should these particular most worthy gentlemen have this separate privilege? I have nothing to say against the liverymen. The livery companies have had their moments of great repute and their moments of great disrepute. During the last twenty or thirty years they have done a great public work. But the individual members of these companies have no particular claim to any special electoral rights over anybody else. How do they become members? By servitude in certain cases; by purchase, I believe, in many cases, and by birth. They all have their ordinary vote under this Bill wherever they reside, or have an occupation of business premises. I see no reason why these individual gentlemen, excellent though they may be, should have this particular privilege.
  Moreover, it is a curious thing that when you look into the Amendment you cannot see what reason there can be for giving them the vote in this particular form. If I understand the Amendment, it provides that a liveryman in the City of London is to have his name on the register of electors in the City of London, but is not to vote in the City of London unless he has a £10 business premises qualification either there or somewhere else. As far as I understand the Amend-

  657
  ment, it means that every liveryman in the City of London shall be placed on the register of electors for the City of London, and, if he has a business occupation qualification in Epsom, he shall be allowed to vote in the City of London; but that if he has no business qualification in Epsom, or anywhere else, he is not to be allowd to vote anywhere at all. I do not see what advantage that is going to bring to anybody. It is going to give these particular individuals the right to choose whether they will vote where they have their proper qualification or in the City of London, but it does not give one of them the right to vote in respect of his qualification as a liveryman. It is a new proposal altogether. Every graduate of a university is given the university vote, and if he has a residential vote somewhere else he can exercise his second vote; but that is not going to be the position as I understand it under this Amendment. I hope this proposal will not be pressed. It was made the subject of a unanimous recommendation of the Conference and it was decided in Committee. If it is introduced on the Report stage it seems to me to be opening the door to a vast amount of difficulty, especially with regard to freemen in the other cities of the country.
  Captain BARNETT: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to what happened on the Committee stage of the Bill. I was present during those proceedings which impressed him as being so comprehensive. There were only eight Members present, including my hon. Friend (Mr. Touche) who made a very eloquent speech to empty benches. I followed him with a few halting sentences, and the matter was over in fifteen or twenty minutes, with no discussion whatever. To suggest that it was dealt with in any proper way or that the ancient rights, liberties and franchises of the City of London, which have existed for four or five hundred years, should be swept away in a desultory conversation of that kind is an insult to the intelligence of the House. We have been told that a great many freemen in the country are being disfranchised. That is true. That is the argument of compromise. I fail to see how there is any compromise in depriving someone else of his vote in Liverpool or Manchester and telling me I ought to be satisfied to be deprived of my vote. I am a very humble member of the Livery of the Worshipful Company of Turners. My purpose in
  658
  mentioning that is not one of ostentation, but to reinforce the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Touche), who pointed out the great educative work which is being done by the City companies. For years past the Worshipful Company of Turners has been teaching turning. It has been presenting lathes all over the country to the industrial schools. We have felt in our pockets to some extent, for one Worshipful Master after another has appealed to us to subscribe for lathes to be given to the industrial schools and reformatories throughout the country. We have also held exhibitions of turning. What has been the result of that? The art of turning, never more important than in this War, when munitions are so largely dependent on the skilful use of the lathe, is better known throughout England at present than it has ever been, and those men who were trained in the industrial schools and reformatories in the country to the use of these lathes have been doing yeoman work for the Ministry of Munitions. That is only one small illustration of the great and beneficient work of education which has been done by the City companies. It is not necessary to repeat the catalogue of the great schools which they have founded. Their fame has gone out into the land. When it comes to the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell) telling us that we are asked to enfranchise the philanthropic spirit, we are asked to enfranchise nothing of the kind. We are not asking to enfranchise people, because they give £20,000 to education or £5,000 to hospitals. We are asking the Government most strongly not to enfranchise City companies, but to leave them the old franchise which they have had for hundreds of years, a franchise which our Prime Minister, in my own hearing, swore six months ago to defend. We are asking for the maintenance of ancient rights which, we have been told, have never been abused. There is no reason why anyone should be disfranchised by this great measure. I yield to no one in my admiration of it, but I think it would be a great pity if it is remembered hereafter as a Bill which preserved the full right of voting to the conscientious objector and robbed the City of London of its ancient livery vote.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I hope the Mover of this Amendment will not press it. It was with a considerable amount of misgiving, and of reluctance as well, that we did not oppose the recommendation of the

  659
  Speaker's Conference that the City of London should retain two members. It has two members, but it is not satisfied, and I believe if, in another stage of the Bill, they got the liverymen included in the franchise they would not be satisfied, but would come forward with some further Amendment to give a dual vote to more people residing in the City of London and outside it. There are quite a number of towns and cities in the United Kingdom which would make the same claim. We recognise that the Bill is a democratic measure. We do not want to retain any of these old-fashioned claims to be on the register if we can possibly help it. I hope the Government will refuse to accept the Clause as moved. If it is inclined to accept it, we—I am speaking on behalf of the Labour party—shall have to consider whether we will move an Amendment to the Schedule with regard to the City of London retaining two members. It is going too far to ask the House of Commons to accept an Amendment of this kind. I fully recognise that sentiment plays a great part in the affairs of this country, but for goodness sake do not let us allow it to become sloppy sentiment, and I am afraid it is inclined to do that now.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I cannot share the regret of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) that the House is given an opportunity of considering this question—an opportunity which it has never had up to this moment, because when the question came on in Committee there was no discussion and no expression of opinion at all—and it is a perfectly sound constitutional view that when you have not an opportunity of raising a question in Committee you are bound, if you believe in your case, to raise it on Report. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech which appeared to me to disclose the existence of the extremest type of the Conference mind, which is wholly unimaginative. It proceeds upon a proposed verbal construction of the Conference, and having established, or sometimes invented, principles on which that Conference is supposed to have acted, you could always reject, according to them, any proposition to amend the Bill. You could say, "I was against the principle of the Conference," like the hon. Member (Mr. Sherwell), or you can say, "It is against the verbal text of the Conference," as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) said. From either
  660
  of those two points of view, of course, the argument is answerable. But if that is the real point of view from which to approach the Bill, why are we here at all? Why did we not vote for the Bill en bloc and say there is an, end of it? It has been admitted by everyone whose opinion is worth having that we are entitled to a certain extent to revise some of the textual provisions of the Bill in order to make them better and to make the franchise a better representation of the people in some cases than it is at present. I support this franchise—first, because it embodies a great historic tradition, and, secondly, and perhaps even more, because it has proved to be a most valuable franchise in itself. It has existed for 500 years. That in itself, according to some views, is no reason why it should be continued. It might even be urged as a reason for abolishing it. I am not sure that there are not murmurs which would indicate that that is the view of some hon. Members opposite. But in the case of a franchise which has existed for five hundred years it, at any rate, affords an opportunity of testing its value, and the test of five hundred years proves that this franchise has been well exercised. The history of the City of London in its Parliamentary and municipal aspects is, to a great extent, the history of civil freedom in this country. Who are the men who have sent these representatives to Parliament? Largely, though not entirely of later years, these very liverymen whom you now propose to disfranchise. That is one reason why you should continue it. Let me suggest another. These liverymen have large and substantial interests in the City of London and are representative of almost every branch of the finance, the industry, and the enterprise of the City, and their voices have a right to be heard when the City of London is called upon to express, through its representatives, its opinion upon great national questions.
  Let me suggest one other reason. In the City of London, and elsewhere no doubt, but in London especially, is the seat of great numbers of great commercial enterprises—joint stock companies, and the like. These joint stock companies, however vast their enterprise and however beneficent their operations, have no vote attached to them. Some of us think it is wrong. I do. But we are not proposing to alter that at this moment. What is important to bear in mind is that many of these liverymen are directors or occupy promi-

  661
  nent positions in these companies, and if you preserve the livery vote you give to these great associations which have done so much for the industrial position of this country a direct chance of their voice being heard when it comes to an election. That is a ground which in itself gives some reason for supporting this vote. But if there is no reason—and I cannot discover any—for disfranchising these liverymen, why should you disfranchise them? One of my hon. Friends made a very good point when he said it was a question of disfranchisement in answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who talked about it as an enfranchisement. When it comes to a question of disfranchisement, surely you ought to produce some adequate reason for it? Can there be or has there been any reason brought forward for that measure of disfranchisement, except that it would impinge against the dead uniformity, the far too great dead level of uniformity which, as I think, takes far too little account of historic traditions and distinctions which ought to be preserved and ought to be respected by this House when it comes to a measure of this kind. Under that dead level of uniformity many seats and franchises have disappeared, and now it is proposed to use that abuse of principle, if I may call it so, by saying that in no circumstances must you extend the franchise laid down in this Bill, however valuable the franchise to be abolished may have been and however historic or beneficent it may have been. I ask the Government to take account of these things and to concede something—it is not a very great concession—to historic traditions and to a great past, and in that way, without impinging upon any legitimate underlying principle of the Bill, or any basis upon which it has been recommended by the Conference, to improve the Bill and to preserve the enfranchisement of a body of voters who have deserved well of this country in the past.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, like the Mover of this Amendment and other hon. Members who have spoken in its support, has made a very attractive speech in favour of what I venture to term a very unattractive proposal. He and others have drawn upon our gratitude for the philanthropy and public spirit which has been shown, particularly in recent years by the City guilds, and they seek to turn that gratitude into votes. One of the great
  662
  virtues of the recommendations of your Conference, Mr. Speaker, is that it makes. for a simplification of the franchise. It sweeps away for the most part fancy franchises, and, among others, this very anomalous privilege of the franchise enjoyed by the liverymen of the City of London. As the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) has pointed out, if you restore the franchise to the liverymen of the City of London how can you refuse to do the same for other liverymen in other parts of the country? There is an Amendment on the Paper to-day proposing that the liverymen of Oxford should have their franchise maintained. If the present Amendment is passed, what answer can we give to my hon. Friend the Member for the city of Oxford - why we cannot accept his Amendment?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Are there any liverymen outside the City of London? There are freemen, but are there any liverymen?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The distinction is a somewhat fine one. They are persons who have exceptional franchises by virtue of holding certain posts in connection with the Corporation, or, in the case of London, in, connection with the guilds, and I think that the freemen of the city of Oxford would have great cause for complaint if this House, having accepted this Amendment, were to reject the next one. Similarly there are cases, as my right hon, Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has said, all over the country. There are 15,000 voters outside London who hitherto have had this. privilege. The hon. Members who have supported this Amendment have done it on what is termed historical continuity. Every anomaly can be defended on the ground of historic continuity. If we were to accept that as a basis for legislation we should still have an electorate such as. it was 100 years ago. The speeches which have been made to-day in support of this Amendment are really echoes of the speeches made in 1831 and in 1816, and I am afraid they must be dealt with in the same ruthless and stern spirit with which our predecessors treated similar ad miseri cordiam appeals to gratitude and goodwill when previous Reform Bills were before the House. When we refused only the other day to allow the eloquent plea of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butcher), on behalf of the ancient city of York, which was supported on very strong historic claims, and when we are proposing

  663
  to disfranchise ancient cities like Canterbury and Winchester, once the capital of England. we must steel our hearts and not allow this privilege to continue.
  The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said truly that the City Guilds in the past had been great benefactors to education. Is it really a reason because the Brewers' Company, which the hon. Member quoted, founded a school in 1617 that the liverymen of the Brewers' Company should have a special vote for Parliament in the year 1917? We do not even give a special franchise to the pious founders of the present day. A man may found an important school in any part of the country, but no one would think of giving him a vote for that reason. Why, then, should we give a vote to people who are but representatives in apostolic succession to men who centuries ago built schools which rendered useful service to the educational system of the country? If these liverymen are residents in the City of London now, they will have a vote by that residence, or, if they have a business in the City of London, they will have votes for their business premises. The only persons whom the hon. Member wishes to enfranchise are people who have neither residence nor business in the City of London, but who by purchase, or inheritance, or in some other way, happen to have a share in one of the City Guilds. They may be spectacle makers who know nothing about spectacle making, or cord-wainers who do not know what cord-waining is—I do not know—and yet they are to have a larger measure of political authority in this country than their fellow citizens Another hon. Member for St. Pancras (Captain Barnett) has been good enough to take a share in presenting lathes to reformatory schools as a member of the Turners' Company. As one interested in reformatory schools, I am most grateful to him for having done that; but that is no reason why he should have an extra vote for Parliament, admirable though his work for the reformatory schools has been. Having regard to these facts, I trust the House will adhere to the attitude which they took up in Committee. If this privilege is conferred it must necessarily open up the question of plural voting, to the continuance of which many of us agreed reluctantly on condition that all fancy franchises were done away with, and that
  664
  the plural vote was to be limited to the dual vote. That question will have to be reconsidered, to see how the matter stands, if this Amendment is adopted. For these reasons I hope the House will adhere to the decision arrived at.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I am extremely disappointed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I was hoping that when he rose to address the House he was going to use the great influence which he exercises over his Friends to say how utterly unreasonable was the resistance to this Amendment. I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have shown more imagination, and that that would have led him to show more sympathy to the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said—and I think his words were intended to convey something of a menace—that if this Amendment were accepted it would necessitate reconsideration of the whole question of plural voting. I could understand that threat if this Amendment proposed to extend in any way the plural vote. I could understand the right hon. Gentleman's allusion to the fancy franchise, and I could understand the opposition of hon. Members, if this Amendment proposed in any way to stray further in the direction of plural voting; but it does nothing of the sort. There is nothing in this Amendment which will add to the plural voting which has been already accepted in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that when we defended an Amendment of this sort on the ground of historical continuity, that any anomaly might be defended upon the same grounds. I would not defend a proposal in a Reform Bill on the ground of historical continuity or association if there was any sort of an abuse involved in it. I would not vote to bolster up anything which might be considered from the most advanced standard an abuse or an anomaly on the sole ground that it embodied some historical association. The reason why we wish this livery vote to be retained is, that while it symbolises of historical association, which I should have thought would have appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, it does so without in any sense bolstering up an anomaly or an abuse which upon any ground of merit anyone could object to.
  7.0 P.M.
  The hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches (Mr. Tyson Wilson) talked about the necessity for adhering to the principle of the Bill. Surely the hon.

  665
  and learned Member for York is right when he says that there is no particular object in establishing and maintaining a dull level of uniformity for itself alone. Uniformity and principle are all very well, and are perfectly right if they have some intelligible object, or if they embody something which is in itself valuable, but there is no intention in this Amendment of invading in any real sense the principle of the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman joins with others in saying that if this Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to resist similar proposals from other cities, that argument is of no weight whatever. There is not a man in this House, whether he represents ancient cities like Oxford, York, Winchester, or Canterbury, but would admit that great as are the historic traditions of those cities, they cannot be brought into comparison with the historic associations of the City of London. I defend this Amendment, and am willing to support it, if necessary, in the Lobby, entirely upon sentimental grounds, and I think it is because the sentiment is so strong, and because there is no other ground for defending it, that it ought to be accepted. When an hon. Member opposite, supported by the right hon. Gentleman, talks about the endowment of schools, Of the disbursement of money not being a good title to the vote, everybody absolutely agrees with that. Possibly it would have been better if these grounds had not been mentioned in the Debate; but I understood my hon. Friend the Proposer of this Amendment, and others who supported it, referred to the past dealings of the livery companies in matters such as education, charity, and so forth, not to show that those things in themselves entitled these men to the vote, but in order to show by the history of the companies the great part they have taken in the public life of the country, the great history which lies behind them, in order to induce the House, if possible, if it pays any attention to these considerations not to break that continuity, and to make what is avowedly an exception in favour of these companies, and to keep alive their ancient and honourable history. It is on those grounds that I defend this Amendment. There are hon. Members here who would like to destroy a franchise of this sort merely because it is ancient. I think that my right hon. Friend behind me seemed to display that attitude, and I
  666
  think that my hon. Friend the Member for York was within his right in speaking of my right hon. Friend as showing a very unimaginative mind in the matter. There are, of course, persons who from time to time, if they have to restore a building, would from the pure joy of the thing take down a piece of Norman stonework and replace it with corrugated iron, and, if the sole object is to keep out the wet, it is quite open to question whether corrugated iron is not the better material of the two. But those who have any regard for the beauty and picturesqueness of antiquity and history will be inclined, when they can do so without injuring the structure, to maintain what is ancient and beautiful. On those grounds, I support the Amendment, and I hope that the House will do the same.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: I do not know whether the House is aware of it, but, I think it was in 1883, there was a Royal Commission on the City livery companies, and the revelations of that Commission are still lingering in the minds of those who read them. It was clearly shown that with enormous revenues, amounting to many millions, a very small proportion of the money was properly expended. A hundred thousand pounds a year was expended on refreshments. The members of the livery companies have met and come to a decision on this question. I was wondering as to what they did at that meeting, whether it was before they had the refreshment or not. I would wish this fact to be understood. After the Report of the Royal Commission the City livery companies thought it advisable to a certain extent to reform themselves, and then they voted considerable portions of the moneys which they controlled for the purposes of education, and since that date a very large proportion of their revenue has been set aside for educational purposes, while a considerable portion of their revenue is diverted in another direction. Now we come to the question of the livery vote itself. The voters number 6,000 or 8,000 men who are not connected in any way with the various trade organisations to which they are supposed to belong. They handle the funds. Even if they handle every penny properly, they ought not to have such control, which belongs properly to the whole trade organisations of London—to the whole of London. I speak as a Londoner who feels that his money is being controlled by men who

  667
  have no right to control it. We are told that many of them have no connection whatever with the City of London. If they had any connection it would not be necessary for them to have this Amendment to give them the vote. The Mover of the Amendment said that about one-third of 6,000 would get votes, which at present they do not get, if this Amendment were carried.
  Sir G. TOUCHE: I said that about one-third of them would lose their votes.
  Mr. GLANVILLE: I am sorry that I misunderstood that point. Why give votes to these liverymen when they get votes in the ordinary way in the City? Nearly all of them are connected with the City. We have been told of the magnitude of the City of London. We all appreciate the position of the City of London in the financial world and in the Empire, but you have got in the City of London about 30,000 of them who will have a chance of voting in the ordinary way. Why should these liverymen be in any way brought into the question. They are an anachronism. They may have been all right 700 years ago, when they did not know where to get voters or how to get them. They are not wanted now, and they should disappear from our English electoral system. We have quite enough anomalies left in this Bill now. We have plural voting in all its glory. Plural voting is increased in some directions. We certainly .do not want the very worst type of plural voter to be left. I do not see why they should be trusted with votes when they cannot be trusted with public funds.
  Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment is very strongly supported, and there is a very strong feeling behind it. To begin with, it is an Amendment which comes from the City of London, to which all of us desire to do honour, and with which many of us have personal relations which we would not willingly break. I have the very greatest possible respect for the City Guilds. They have done year after year admirable service to education, charity, and other public causes in this country. The Amendment was recommended by the hon. Member for North Islington in a speech to which all who beard it listened with the greatest respect. My hon. Friend made the very best case that could be made for this Amendment, and I know that for a time some Members
  668
  of this House who until then had been disposed to take a different view were shaken in their opinion. There was much force also in the sentimental reasons urged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's in favour of this Amendment, and it would have been a real pleasure to me if, finding in this House a general assent to this proposal, I had been able myself to, agree in this case to an exception from the general scheme of the Bill. But we are not here for pleasure. I do not even hold my office for pleasure. We often have to sweep aside considerations of personal liking, and from time to time during the progress of this Bill I have had to harden my heart to some of my hon. Friends and refuse pleas which on sentimental grounds appealed strongly to me. I had to oppose the claims of the city of York and the claims of the county of London. On this Amendment also I find myself bound by the conditions under which we are working.
  I do not quote the Report of the Conference as binding us in every one of its details, and there are occasions when the recommendations of the Conference have been altered by general assent. But we are dealing here, in this Amendment, with one of the main principles embodied in the Report of the Conference, that in the new franchise system the three franchises which are to remain shall take the place of all other franchises. That has been the Report of the Conference expressed in terms which nobody could mistake, and with which the Amendment now before the House does not comply. If, notwithstanding that fact, we had found anything like a general assent in this House to this proposal, one might have taken a different view, but when we find Members strongly opposed to this proposal, when we find Members of the party opposite opposed to it, when we find the Labour party by their spokesman strongly resisting the Amendment and saying that if it were passed they would have to reopen the question, which I hope is closed, of the double membership of the City of London, then it appears to me that a serious position arises, and I do not think that that would be according to the interests of the City of London itself if we did accept a proposal of this kind. I doubt very much, as I read this Amendment, whether it would have practically any great effect on the list of voters for the City of

  669
  London. I believe that most of those who are in all essentials Londoners, have already under this Bill a vote for the City of London. The great bulk of the liverymen are business men in the City of London. They have got the vote already. It will not matter to them whether they vote as business men or a liveryman. Therefore, I do not think that this Amendment would make any large addition to the voters of the City. Many of those who would be added would not be City men in the full sense of the word. It cuts both ways, but to that extent it shows that we are not really refusing anything of any great substance.
  That brings me to another point. I find very great difficulty in construing this Amendment. I have read it more than once, and frankly I do not know what the proviso means. It says that the liverymen who are entitled to vote in the election of Members for the City of London shall be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors for that constituency. Provided that any liveryman registered under this Section may exercise the franchise indicated by such registration only as an alternative to any business premises qualification to be
  registered under this Act. That means, I take it, that every liveryman shall be registered, but that he shall not vote if he has a business qualification; and I really do not know—I am really not quite sure—how you are to enforce the proviso. How are you to tell, when a liveryman comes to vote, whether he has already voted for business premises in some other part of the country? It seems to me that this Amendment has not been fully thought out, and really is unworkable. Even if it were put in workable form, so that we could understand what it means, I do not think it would be possible to give any effect to the proviso. What my hon. Friend really wants is an alternative registration. However, I will not go into that, as it is not part of the Amendment. I hope I have not expressed any hostility to the feeling underlying this Amendment; but, having thought it out very carefully before to-day, and during the Debate, it seems to me that if I were to accept it I would be departing from the view which has guided the Government throughout the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 167.

  Division No. III.]

  AYES.

  [7.18 p.m.

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Norton-Griffiths, Sir J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  O'Malley, William

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. (K'ton)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Blair, Reginald

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Boyton, James

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Mid.)

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Tickler, T. G.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

  Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

  Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon)

  Marriott, J. A. R.

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Younger, Sir George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G.

  Fell, Arthur

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Touche and Mr. Rawlinson.

  NOES.

  Adamson, William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Currie, George W.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Ainsworth Sir John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Noel

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

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Doris, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Barnston, Capt. Harry

  Cheyne, Sir W. W.

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Clough, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Clyde, James Avon

  Edge, Captain William

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Falconer, James

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Finney, Samuel

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  MacCaw, William J. MacGaagh

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

  Fleming, Sir John

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Galbraith Samuel

  Macleod, John Mackintosh

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

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Macmaster, Donald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gilbert, .J. D.

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Glanville, Harold James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smallwood, Edward

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Snowden, Philip

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Millar, James Duncan

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Fred. E. (Dorset, E.)

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West),

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Hackett, John

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Grady, James

  Tillett, B.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Haslam, Lewis

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Parrott, Sir Jomes Edward

  Watson, John B. (Stockton)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Pease, Rt. Hon.Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Whiteley, Herbert James

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Keating, Matthew

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  King, Joseph

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Yeo, Alfred W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighe)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Rowlands, James

  Craig and Sir Edwin Cornwall.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

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

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

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

  Provided that—

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

  (ii) a man, though he may have been occupying land or premises in the area on the last day of the qualifying period, shall not be entitled to be so registered if, on objection being made to his registration, it is
  672
  shown that he commenced to occupy the land or premises within thirty days before the end of the qualifying period and ceased to occupy them. within thirty days after the commencement of his occupation; and

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

  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "land"["any land or premises"], to insert the words "of the yearly value of not less than five pounds."
  The present value for the land qualification is £10. The Bill as it stands proposes no value whatever. I think that I am correct in saying that this matter was raised in the Committee stage, and the Government was impressed by an argument then used. They felt it necessary to put some value on land, because the land qualification, without some limitation in value, would be an impossible thing. If this Bill stands without a provision of the kind I

  673
  now propose, a square yard of land, the right to set up a stall, the right to set up a hoarding with a foundation, would be a land qualification. That obviously is absurd; it cannot be intended. I could carry this point very much further, but I will not do so. At any rate, it cannot be intended that the land qualification shall not be a real qualification, but that it shall be a substantial piece of land, with premises attached. The matter really goes a good deal further. Unless some value is placed on the land there would be an unlimited inducement to make fagot votes, but nobody wants to do that because the local government voter becomes a Parliamentary elector also. But for a resident in a neighbouring constituency it would be possible to acquire some nominal piece of land just over the border, and thus obtain the local government vote for himself and the Parliamentary vote for his wife. That cannot be right or intended. There is no doubt that the Clause as it stands is very dangerous and is an invitation to make fagot votes. My proposal in no way interferes with residential qualifications. It is manifestly impossible to leave the Bill in the state in which it now stands.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to second the Amendment. In the Committee stage the Government promised to look into this matter, and I hope they will agree to some Amendments to meet our views. It is absurd to have no value at all.
  Mr. FISHER: This matter was raised in the Committee stage, and it was pointed out that if there was no value it would be quite possible to establish a great number of fagot votes by purchasing pieces of land or taking possession or occupation of pieces of land of really nominal value. The Government promised consideration to the question as to whether or not they should attach some value to the land which would give qualification for a vote. They came to the conclusion that they would be bound by the decision of the Speaker's Conference. In paragraph (31) (a) it is recommended by the Conference
  "In substitution for all existing franchises for Local .Government purposes every person who for a period of six months immediately preceding the 15th day of January and the 15th day of July in any year has occupied as owner or tenant any land or premises in a Local Government area in England and Wales shall be entitled to be registered and to vote as a Local Government elector in that area."
  The Conference attached no value to the premises and indicated nothing in the way of any restriction upon the amount of
  674
  land or the nature of the land or premises or the value of the land or premises, but simply said that any person who during the occupying period had occupied as owner or tenant any land or premises in the local government area should be entitled to be put on the local government register. This matter also affects the question of woman suffrage. Although I am very far indeed from saying that this will not give any opportunity to create fagot votes, I am very far from saying that, and there is a real danger of it, when we have to choose what course we will take as to whether we shall be influenced by the fear of the creation of fagot votes or more influenced by the rule of conduct laid down by the Home Secretary that when in doubt we should follow the Speaker's Conference. We have come to the conclusion in this case, as in so many others, that on the whole we had better adhere to the Speaker's Conference recommendation. But the Government are alive, to the importance of checking as far as possible fagot votes, and by an Amendment which will come later on we ensure that no more than two joint occupiers, unless they are bonâ fide partners, shall be entitled. So far we have met the case of the fagot voter, and we should like to meet it a little more if we saw any means of doing so without running counter to the very deliberate opinions of the Speaker's Conference. Having that in our minds, we are bound to ask the House to follow that advice and to adhere to the rule laid down that there shall be no value placed on the land in respect of which you may be able to obtain effective qualification.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: It is all very well to talk about the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference on this point, but how does the House know whether the Conference had this particular point properly before it? Many things have emerged, some of great importance, in the conduct of this Bill in which we were in a position of complete obscurity as to whether or not they were considered before the Conference came to certain conclusions. This is a case in which the right hon. Gentleman tells the House deliberately and distinctly that here is an opportunity for creating faggot votes and yet that we are not at liberty to deal with the matter and adopt safeguards. That is a perfectly absurd and monstrous position. We ought to be quite entitled to do so. We do not know, and no one apparently

  675
  can tell us, whether this matter was considered fully by the Conference. We have the present qualification of £10, and there are proposals to duplicate this husband and wife qualification. It may be a certain safeguard to limit the joint occupation to two people, but, on the other hand, it may be possible to break up the holding into small pieces. I do think it is a serious thing deliberately to pass a Clause of this kind with the full knowledge of what it may lead to.
  Mr. PETO: In view of what has been said, may I say what my memory is as to what happened at the Conference upstairs on this particular point? So far as my memory goes, the particular point whether it was essential to put in some small annual value was mentioned, but it was not considered in any way a vital point, and I think that it was one of those little details which we purposely left in a somewhat vague condition, or, at any rate, as to which we did not enter into the most minute detail. The words quoted by the President of the Local Government Board clearly indicate that it is left an open point, and the Conference does not say that it should be land of any value or a nominal value, but simply says" any land or premises." Of course, that could be interpreted to be land of the value of 2d. or of a practically negligible value. Certainly, from my recollection of our discussions upstairs, it was never intended that the land should have no value whatever. I cannot see myself why the Government in this matter should be so meticulous in their adherence to and interpretation of the recommendation of the Conference. I should have thought that the question was one absolutely open to the judgment of the House and the consideration of the Government.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I do hope that the Government will stick to the position they have taken up. The Conference deliberately adopted residence and occupancy, unqualified, as the basis of the franchise, and they deliberately excluded all other kinds of qualifications. The setting up even of a low value would bear hardly on large numbers of persons who occupy very small plots of land, and probably thousands of allotment holders would be deprived of votes if this limit of £5 were fixed. In that way a great injustice would be inflicted upon them. I quite agree that there is some danger of
  676
  fagot votes. I believe that the danger is very largely exaggerated. But would it not be possible to put in a provision that the claimant should have to prove bonâ fide tenancy to any plot of land? I am not a lawyer, and do not know how these things are done, but that seems to me to be a way to provide against bogus claims.
  Sir W. BEALE: I should agree both with the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) if I thought for a moment that there was any real danger of fagot votes being created by this Clause. I have been advised that owner or occupier means only occupying owner. If it were the fact that a man could have the vote without actually occupying, then there might be the danger of creating fagot votes. If he is to have a vote as owner without being an occupier, I should say there is some danger of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend. But my own view is that the vote can only be given to the occupying owner.
  Mr. FISHER: The words used are, "occupying jointly or severally as owner" and the qualification is given to the owner not as owner but as occupying owner. In my previous remarks I said there was some danger of the creation of fagot votes, but it is not a very great danger, and on the whole I think we had better adhere to the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
  Colonel YATE: Will a man who owns a plot of land in a cemetery be entitled to vote for that?
  Mr. FISHER: Would he be an occupying tenant?
  Colonel YATE: I am speaking of the case of a man who has purchased a piece of land which he intends to be used as a grave. Will you give him a vote as the owner of that land?
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that question to the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Colonel YATE: I understand that this Bill does not provide against that, and there is a danger of the creation of fagot votes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, after paragraph (b), to insert the words "the occupier of lodgings within the area of the yearly value, if let unfurnished, of not less than ten pounds."

  677
  This Amendment raises a rather difficult point. The Clause as it stands fixes no value whatever, and my proviso is intended to prevent fagot votes being instituted, especially in the case of the woman's vote. Nothing could be easier than to establish a lodger vote for local government purposes which would carry with it the wife's vote for Parliamentary elections. It is quite clear there ought to be some definite limit laid down in the Bill with regard to the premises to be occupied by the lodger. I think here we have a serious flaw in the Bill, and I, therefore, move this Amendment.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  As a general rule, when a man takes furnished lodgings he takes rooms more valuable than if he took unfurnished lodgings. It does seem necessary to protect against the creation of fagot votes by insisting on a yearly value. As to the right of a grave owner to a vote, he has only to sow cabbages on the top of the .grave and call it a garden to entitle himself to a vote, and, therefore, I think the jeers which greeted the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) when he put his question were hardly justified.
  Mr. FISHER: Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that the qualifications should be given to the owner or tenant. The lodger of course would be the tenant. The question was debated at considerable length in Committee, and a compromise was arrived at which suggested that the lodger should be strictly confined to one who took unfurnished lodgings, and nothing was said at Mr. Speaker's Conference as to the value of the lodgings. The qualification was to apply to unfurnished lodgings only. The Committee came to the conclusion that the unfurnished lodger should be entitled to the qualification without any value being attached to the unfurnished room. My hon. and gallant Friend now suggests that the room should be of the value of at least £10 a year, and we have to decide whether or not any value should be attached. In Committee it was agreed that mere occupancy of unfurnished lodgings should entitle the lodger to the Local Government franchise. There was nothing in the outcome of Mr. Speaker's Conference which suggested that any limitation of value should be attached, and in view of that fact the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words:
  "For the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, shall be deemed to be a tenant."
  I hope the Government will accept this Amendment for these reasons. A considerable number of people are living in houses the occupancy of which is treated as part of their wages, and to all intents and purposes they are just as much entitled to the Local Government vote as ordinary tenants of houses under a landlord. A considerable number of people are interested in this matter. An Amendment was moved previously this afternoon to give a man who already had a vote another vote. I was opposed to that. But in this instance we have men and women employed as caretakers at clubs and other institutions who, we submit, are fully entitled to the franchise. The party with which I am associated does not see why these people, who are to all intents and purposes, in the position of tenants of dwelling-houses, should be deprived of the local government vote. In connection with this, we have had representations from different parts of the country, and we are convinced that there is a real hardship here. I appeal to the Government to carefully consider the Amendment we have put down. We feel sure they do not want to do an injustice to anyone. If they are qualified to have a franchise they should have it, and the fact that the house is included in the salary, or wages paid to the occupant, places him in the same position as any other tenant. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are schools all over the country where houses are provided for the caretaker. In clubs of all kinds the caretaker lives on the premises and occupies rooms which, if rented, would bring in quite as much as a cottage. We have golf clubs where the caretaker is living on premises which, compared with those occupied by the ordinary working man, are simply palatial. Under this Bill these people will be deprived of the Local Government vote. I ask the Government to give this matter

  679
  most serious consideration. The Amendment would enfranchise a fairly large number of people who, to all intents and purposes, are equally interested with their fellow-citizens in securing good local government, and therefore I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: This question also was raised in Committee, and at the time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary could not see his way to accept it. But it is sometimes possible on reconsideration to give approval where, in the first place, it seemed impossible to do so. The hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson) has made out a very good case for giving the franchise to this particular class of person. They are school caretakers, or people who live in golf clubs or other clubs, or on the premises of philanthropic institutions, and their occupancy is considered in their wages. This class has no other chance of ever getting on the register; they have no other residence, they have no occupation outside, and they are not rich people, and therefore, unless the franchise is given to them in this way, they cannot get it at all. Yet they have exactly the same interest in good local government as any of their fellow-workers who have the franchise either as tenants or lodgers. I think, therefore, we all want this. As I have said more than once, this is not a disfranchising but an enfranchising measure to put as many on the register as are qualified—as many solid men, with solid interests, who are interested in the good government of the country and the local administration of the country—as we possibly can. If, therefore, the House is with me, I shall certainly accept the Amendment.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I will not delay the House, but I desire to say that this is extending to England the privilege which obtains in Scotland. I think the hon. Gentleman has been justified in moving his Amendment, and I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has accepted it.
  Colonel SANDERS: Before this Amendment is accepted I would like to point out that I think it ought to read, "For the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and
  680
  which dwelling-house," etc., etc. I think the word "which" should replace the word "the."
  Mr. FISHER: I think the language of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is perfectly intelligible. I am not going to say it is quite the very best, but I think if the House will leave it to the draftsman and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill they will see that we carry out the intention of my hon. Friend, although I think his words fully cover the case and indicate what is the law we desire to pass.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Ought not the Amendment to come in after the words "Provided that"? The Amendment has been moved to insert the words at the end of paragraph (b). It appears to me that the Amendment would really come in much better after the words "Provided that."
  Mr. FISHER: I am very glad to have your assistance, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then I will put the Amendment in this form: "After the words 'Provided that,' insert 'for the purposes of this Section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, shall be deemed to be a tenant.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, in paragraph (i.), after the word "word"["the word tenant"], to insert the words "owner shall not include any person who does not himself occupy the qualifying premises, and the word."
  The object of this amendment is to make paragraph (a) perfectly clear. It is thought by some of us who are interested in local government—particularly in London—that Clause 3 (a), as drafted, may mean that the owner can obtain a municipal vote for the same premises as the tenant. I do not think that is the intention of the Bill, and my object is to make it perfectly clear that the owner does not include the person who does not occupy the qualifying premises.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: I do not think this Amendment is needed in the very least.

  681
  The owner, in order to obtain the local government franchise, must be the occupying owner.
  Mr. GILBERT: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: Paragraph (ii.), leave out the words "on objection being made to his registration, it is shown that."
  Paragraph (ii.), at end, leave out the word"and."—[Mr. Hayes ,Fisher.]
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), who is absent from the House, in paragraph (iii.), to leave out the word "three"["not exceeding three months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "four," consequential?
  Mr. FISHER: I had hoped that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) would be here to move that Amendment, because this makes the law similar as regards local government to the law we have already passed and made applicable to Parliamentary government. That is to say, that the qualifying period is not broken by the fact that the resident lets his house for four months instead of the three months that we agreed to on the Committee stage. We have already accepted an Amendment to that at an earlier period.
  Further Amendments made: In paragraph iii. leave out the word "three" ["not exceeding three months"], and insert instead thereof the word "four."
  After paragraph iii., insert the words,
  "(iv.) Not more than two persons shall be entitled to be registered as joint occupiers in respect of the same land or premises unless they are bonâ, fide engaged as partners, carrying on their profession, trade, or business in the premises."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
  Mr. BOLAND: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "(iv.) The service of a notice to quit upon a tenant followed by a demand of possession shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have the effect of determining the tenancy so long as such occupier remains in the actual occupation of the premises."
  682
  The object of this Amendment is to prevent the prejudicial effect of the mere notice to quit, and also to prevent the destruction of votes by a great number of notices being issued in a wholesale way. At present, as I understand, under the law, if a notice to quit is given and a demand for possession is thereupon served upon the tenant, and if then the tenant does not leave but remains in possession, the landlord agreeing to his remaining there, the effect is that the vote has gone. I do not imagine that that is the object of this Bill. It should, on the contrary, really aim at preventing anything in the nature of a general disfranchisement. Nevertheless, a man would lose the vote in this case, because, although he was there the actual tenancy would determine in law, and he would be in the eyes of the law a trespasser. That is a very great hardship, and I submit that if the words I propose are carried it would do away with that hardship.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In that case would not the man still be on the register? Is there any necessity for this Amendment at all?
  Mr. BOLAND: I do not speak with very much knowledge on these registration matters, but my hon. Friend who is associated with me in moving this Amendment (Mr. Muldoon) is very well qualified on registration matters, and he advises that it is very necessary to have these words inserted.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This is an Amendment which will have, I think, very little practical operation, and such practical operation as it might have would be limited, so far as any cases can be foreseen, to Ireland. There are no doubt circumstances in Ireland where this action by a landlord towards a tenant should not have the effect of determining the occupation of the premises, and although it is difficult to see how we are to prevent the occurrence of such incidents as he has in view I am advised that there are no substantial reasons why the mere occurrence of a notice which may have been given with regard to rent in arrears, and a demand not followed by proceedings, should lead to a vote not being given and to the determination of the tenancy. I am not sure that the language proposed is the best for the purpose, and I suggest to the

  683
  hon. Member that he would secure his object if he added to the existing paragraph (iii.) the words
  "or by reason only of a notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house."
  If the hon. Gentleman will move his Amendment in that form, I will not resist it.
  Mr. BOLAND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the voter would be in any way disqualified. If he thinks the substance of my Sub-section is carried out in better form by the words he suggests I shall, of course, bow to his great knowledge in these matters and be very glad to accept them.
  Mr. DUKE: I think the words I have suggested are better adapted to carrying out the object my hon. Friend has in view, and to limiting the class of case dealt with.
  Mr. BOLAND: Then I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and to accept the words of the Chief Secretary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In paragraph (iii.), after the word "whole"["months in the whole"], insert the words "or by reason only of a notice to quit being served, and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house."—[Mr. Boland.]

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

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

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

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

  (2) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a university constituency if she has attained the age of thirty years and would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man.
  (3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man: Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property.
  Major HUNT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out from the word "elector"["registered as a Parliamentary elector"] to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words, "and to vote for any constituency in which she was born if she is nineteen years of age or over and is serving or has served outside the United Kingdom during this War under the Admiralty or War Office, and this shall be the only qualification necessary in these cases, and this right to vote shall continue for life."
  I move this Amendment because I think that the women who go abroad in this War to serve their country ought to have the vote on the same qualification as men. Everybody who has gone abroad to fight for us, or to help other people to fight for us, ought to have the vote; therefore I have made the age the same for women as the age for men. I have thought all along that this Franchise Bill should really be only a Franchise Bill for those who have served us in the War, and certainly they ought to have the vote for life. I do not know any hon. Member who will second my Amendment, but hon. Members, when they go down to their constituencies and are asked why women who have served their country abroad should not on the same terms as men be allowed to vote, will have a very difficult question to answer.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, c), after the word "premises"["in respect of the occupation of land or premises"], to insert the words, "of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds, or of a dwelling-house."
  The object of this Amendment is very simple. As the Bill now stands the local government qualification and the Parliamentary vote are not the same for men and women in respect of the occupation franchise. A man must occupy premises of the value of £10, otherwise he does not have the occupation vote. Under the Bill the woman is not in that position at all, and will get the vote whatever the value

  685
  of the premises in which she happens to be. It seems quite an absurdity for that to be so, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied as to the anomaly, and I suppose will remedy it.
  Colonel SANDERS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend seems to think that women ought to be placed on the same footing as men in regard to their qualification, and claim to be on the register. Those who followed the proceedings of the Speaker's Conference will realise that some method had to be agreed on by which only a very limited number of women should be placed upon the register. The Speaker's Conference, in considering the qualification of women, were actually governed by the idea that only that limited number of women would be placed upon the register, at all events, when we were considering the claims of women for the first time. My hon. Friend must remember that men have very easy means of getting upon the register compared with women. Here he picks out one case that shows women in a favoured position, and suggests that unless you attach the same value to the premises, the occupation of which makes their qualification, you will be putting them in a more favourable position than that of men. There may be much truth in that, but while there is truth in it, the Speaker's Conference must have had, and I am informed did have, that very purpose in their minds, and did intend that women should get upon the local government register in respect of premises to which there was no ascertained value. They laid down a very simple guiding rule by which women could obtain the vote in respect of premises to which there was no value attached. If I accepted the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, although under other circumstances it might be reasonable, I should be encroaching very much indeed upon the ground which is now occupied by women, and should be evicting women from ground which they would occupy if the Bill were passed as it passed through Committee of this House. I must take as my guide the Speaker's Conference and the decision of the Committee of the House. Although there may be something illogical in these proceedings, and something—
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Unfair
  Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend says "unfair;" but he must remember that we are
  686
  allowing men to retain their place upon the register in many cases which are wholly denied to women. The Speaker's Conference has limited the number of women who will obtain a place on the register. In view of that limitation, I do not think that men ought to complain if in one or two instances, in order to obtain some kind of rule by which women should get on the list, we do as the hon. Baronet has said.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not propose to press my Amendment, but I am not in the slightest degree impressed by the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has defended the proposal that women shall be put upon the local government register more easily than men on the ground that the Bill so provides. I am not at all sure that it does. If we look at the particular Clause, in the first Sub-section, we read:
  "(1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector if she
  (c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband to be so registered."
  The qualification to be on the register is to be found in Sub-section (3). We find:
  "(3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man."
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They cannot get on at all unless there is occupation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "or has passed such examinations as would entitle her to receive a degree if she were a man."
  The object of this is to deal with the position of women at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Bill provides that a woman is to have a university vote if she has obtained a degree, but it is well known that certain universities have refused to confer their degrees upon women, and we get this absurd position, that whereas the House of Commons has decided that women shall have votes under

  687
  certain conditions the governing bodies of certain universities have it in their power to deprive women of their votes. I do not think that is a satisfactory state of affairs, and I do not think it is one to which this House ought to agree. The object of my Amendment, which may not be very well drafted, is to provide that where a woman has had in substance the same university education and has passed the same tests as a man she shall be entitled to the vote, and it shall not be in the power of the university authorities, merely by reason of her sex, to deprive her of that vote. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment I hope they will accept some other Amendment which will effect the object aimed at.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It seems very strange that because a woman has not received a degree she should be deprived of a vote. Many women pass examinations very brilliantly, and some even distinguish themselves above the men with whom they compete, and yet these brilliant and highly educated women are to be deprived of the vote. It seems an absurd position, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. RENDALL: This Amendment is only in keeping with the spirit of the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the. Amendment, because by so doing he will be complying in the most complete manner possible with the Conference recommendation.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I hope the Government will deal with this Amendment with sympathy. I have always regarded it as a very monstrous injustice that women should go to universities, should pass through precisely the same educational course as men, should pass precisely the same examinations as men, and yet at the end of it all should be deprived of degrees which they would have had if they were of the opposite sex. I do not know on what grounds such an anomaly can possibly be defended, and it is a plain and obvious injustice such as that which gave to the Women's Suffrage movement a good deal of the bitterness that characterised it. Every woman who has completed a university course and passed her examinations, possibly taking a high class, who
  688
  thereafter finds herself not entitled to add to her name the initials B.A. or M.A., or whatever it may be, has a feeling for the rest of her life of rankling injustice. It was bad enough when this deprivation of her degree merely affected her right to vote in university matters, and deprived her of an honorific title, but when the franchise entitles her to a vote, it seems to me this anomaly should be ended once and for all. The Speaker's Conference particularly intended that university women should have the university franchise. Any university can defeat that by saying, "Yes, you women may have passed your examinations and completed your courses, but we shall not admit you as graduates; consequently you shall not have the Parliamentary franchise." I think Parliament ought to take cognisance of that, and see that its intentions are carried into practice.
  Sir W. BEALE: I feel very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter, but I see a very great difficulty. You cannot set up a registering authority to decide whether a woman has passed the proper examinations or not, and if you are to make the franchise dependent upon this sort of qualification, the university, after all, has to decide whether the qualification has been obtained or not.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The university itself is the registering authority under the Bill.
  Sir W. BEALE: I quite follow that, but the difficulty, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, is that they will not give the degree. Therefore I would suggest that some such words as these might be adopted: "or has obtained a certificate from some university authority entitled to grant degrees that she has passed such examinations as would entitle her to such degree."
  Mr. FISHER: If the Speaker's Conference had in their minds only certain women who passed certain examinations should be qualified to have the university vote, they were singularly unfortunate in the way in which they expressed their wishes, because they were most definite on the point. We have drafted our Bill on the decisions of the Speaker's Conference, and have endeavoured, under much difficulty in this House, to adhere to the decisions of that Conference. It is very distinctly laid down in the recommendation that votes should be limited to women who have a degree. I have the greatest

  689
  possible sympathy with my right hon. Friend. I think women who attend and go through their regular course of study at Oxford or Cambridge are amongst the flower of the women intellectually, and if those who are trained at more modern universities are considered qualified for the franchise, so far as those universities are liberal enough to give them a degree, at all events those who have passed through the perhaps stiffer course of Oxford or Cambridge, have proved themselves to be quite as—I will not say more —worthy of the vote, as those who have had training at the other universities. But we think it is extremely difficult to go beyond the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, which laid down that the degree is to be the qualification and not the amount of attainment or learning tested by examination.
  With regard to this particular Amendment, the words proposed would be very difficult of interpretation, I am informed, and it would be quite possible, if the authorities at Oxford or Cambridge were determined a woman should not have a degree, if they still took the old-fashioned view, so to conduct those examinations that they would be secure in their opposition. The position is not very satisfactory to myself, because I think the House will see from my observations that I am in very hearty sympathy with the desire of the Mover of the Amendment, and I think it would be very unfair, to say the least of it, and very prejudicial to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—for it to continue. When it is found that in the other eight universities which are to be represented in Parliament the qualification for a woman is the taking of a degree, I cannot help thinking that the university with which I was associated and which I love so much, and the great university of Cambridge will reconsider their attitude towards women, and will conclude that after all they are not going to have the women associated with their universities who have displayed such excellence in the course of their studies put into an utterly inferior position as regards the franchise compared with the women who will be the undergraduates of other universities. I think in any case that the force of public opinion would secure the aim which my hon. Friend has in view. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor myself will lose sight of this subject, and there is another place where the matter can be considered.
  690
  If we find that this form of words is not calculated to attain the end so many of us have in view we will consider whether some other form of words can be adopted. Communications can be made with Oxford and Cambridge, and there are Members of this House representing both Oxford and Cambridge who have the means of influencing matters. Before long the whole of this matter must be reconsidered, and. I cannot help thinking that the desire which so many of us have will be attained, I do not say immediately, but in time for the women who take their degree at Oxford and Cambridge to have the vote.
  Mr. ACLAND: I rise to say how very glad I was to hear the speech to which, we have just listened from the President of the Local Government Board, and it sounds as if he meant business. I agree that it is not quite easy now, and probably not possible now, to make this Amendment in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished representative of Oxford, has said that this matter will be brought to the notice of the authorities of Oxford and Cambridge. It would only be perpetuating a very great unfairness and would be little less than a serious anomaly that women should be not given a vote in respect of a university degree in these two universities just the same as in, other universities. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman did not shut the door to the consideration of this matter, and that he has promised that communications will be made in the proper quarter. Under these circumstances, I think it would be better not to press this Amendment forward now, in view of the hopeful direction in which the Government seem to be moving.
  Mr. HOLT: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the friendly way in which he has met this proposal. I understood him to say that he would communicate with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge before the Bill is finished with in another place.
  Mr. FISHER: We will consider the whole position in the light of these facts. in another place.
  Mr. HOLT: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Major HUNT: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "where she would be entitled to be so registered

  691
  if she were a man: Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property, "and to insert instead thereof the words "in which she was born, if she is nineteen years of age or over and is serving or has served during this War outside the United Kingdom under the Admiralty or War Office, and in these cases this shall be the only qualification necessary for registration and voting and shall continue for life."
  This is an Amendment with much the same object as the last proposal. Under the Bill the Government is going to allow the conscientious objector not only to have the Parliamentary franchise, but also the local franchise, while women who have gone out voluntarily with comparatively small pay are to have no voice in the destinies of their country at all. I would point out that these passive resisters not only refuse to fight themselves, but they have done their best to prevent other people from fighting. If there is any justice left in the House of Commons, I think hon. Members should at least insist on these women having the local government vote. I cannot help thinking that when it becomes known in the country how these women have been treated, and how these conscientious objectors have been able to get a vote and to get into Government employment on high wages, and have stayed at home while these women went out to the War, it will be greatly resented. You could not do without these women at the front. You cannot do without the women who help you in this great War, and yet the women who have helped you voluntarily and done their best, under this Bill are not going to have any say in the government of the country.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property," and to insert instead thereof the words "or where she is the wife of a man entitled to be so registered."
  This Amendment is rather important, and I hope the House will give it full attention. I may explain in a few words why I think it is justifiable to bring it before the House, even though at first sight it seems to conflict with one of the Clauses in the
  692
  Report of the Speaker's Conference. I have taken very little part in the actual discussions on this Bill, but my feeling has been to find what was the Report of the Speaker's Conference and then support it, because I felt unless that was done the Bill would not have a very good chance of passing. When I come to consider any suggested alteration, it seems to me very necessary to examine, first of all, whether it can fairly be considered to represent any essential balance of opinion on the Speaker's Conference. If something that one wants to alter is really an essential part of some other part of the Bill which one does not want to alter as being part of a balanced compromise, then it is not fair to fight, but when one comes to consider whether there should be any large extension of the municipal vote to women at all one finds that the question really was not referred to the Conference. This matter was brought up on the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend who is now on his way to India, and the Home Secretary said he could not accept the Amendment. The House was rather thin, and the subject was new. He said that the whole object of appointing the Conference was, if possible, to come to an arrangement on matters affecting elections to Parliament, and nothing was referred to them as to the local government franchise. I should like to submit that no one, even if his feelings in this matter be strong, can fairly claim that the opinion of the Speaker's Conference on something which, in the words of the Home Secretary, was not referred to them, can be regarded as an essential part of their recommendations on something which was referred to them. No one, I think, would claim on their behalf the right to bring in to their recommendations any view which they may have formed outside the matters within their reference. But the House, I think, will be willing to regard this from a somewhat wider outlook.
  The question of women's enfranchisement has passed into a wider sphere. The decision of the House of Commons on the matter was carried by a very large majority. That decision to confer upon women the rights of citizenship, as represented by the power of voting, was very widely welcomed by the nation as a whole, and the compromise that was arrived at in the Speaker's Conference with regard to the Parliamentary vote was thought to be very reasonable. That decision of the House was regarded not only

  693
  by individual women but by the organisations which speak for them as a really big and generous instalment of political power, and as likely to still any controversy on the subject for a very considerable number of years to come. That, I think, is still the general view. Let us try this experiment, even though some of us have our doubts as to its wisdom, in a way that will make it most likely that the women will settle down to the actual duties of citizenship, and least likely that there will be a continuation of agitation and discontent, or anything of that sort. We feel that women are to be trusted in political matters, not only because we are grateful for what they have done in the War, but because we foresee that the immediate years ahead of us are going very likely to be extremely difficult. There is going to be a time of great and rapid growth and development and construction. The next ten years may be far more vital for good or evil in our history than any other ten years that we have seen.
  We feel that married women represent the responsible and stable element in our community, and should have a real share and a real duty in fashioning our fortunes and moulding the lines along which we shall move during those very critical times. If one looks at it from that point of view and realises that subjects such as health, housing, education, employment, the use of land, temperance, control of prices and supplies of commodities, and things of that kind represent an enormous book on which perhaps several chapters will come to be written in the next five or ten years, and that on each of those great subjects the general lines of policy must be directed from the Imperial Parliament at the centre, but that each of them falls to be administered locally, then, if they are really to regard themselves as full citizens, these women ought to have a share not only in the formation of the central guiding lines of policy to be laid down by the Houses of Parliament, but in the administration of the measures that are passed. In moulding the general lines in Parliament we are going to ask the great mass of this stable element in our country, the married women, to have a share, but as the Bill now stands, unless this Amendment is made, they will be excluded from all share in administration and in the carrying out of the will of Parliament as expressed in Acts of Parliament regarding health, housing, education, employment, and so
  694
  on; unless, of course, they have technically an occupation, in which case they will come on the register in respect of their separate occupation. For the Parliamentary vote the married woman is to come on automatically, but for the municipal vote she is not to come on automatically at all. Is it not the fact that in the vast majority of houses in this country the woman is in charge of all those activities which centre in the home, and should not that give her some definite claim to a share through her vote in the administration of those matters which so much concern her. In many cases she is really far more truly the occupier than her husband, who is away all day at his work. Questions of maternity welfare, housing, food, and education come more closely home to her than they do to her husband, and she has all the opportunities of forming a definite opinion and taking a definite interest in the administration of those questions. Indeed, I have never heard any serious argument against married women being given a right to a share in local affairs.
  What are we likely to have during this very difficult time which lies ahead? These big questions and all sorts of others which we cannot foresee will crowd en the attention of Parliament. We shall want to go forward and the local authorities will want to go forward, some faster and some slower. They will want to be left with some latitude for experiment. They will want Acts or parts of Acts made permissive so that they may adopt them if and when they please. That principle of giving permissive powers to local authorities will be very useful and all the more useful the more crowded our time and the more great questions throng upon us, because when an Act is made permissive it is not so necessary to lay down here all the details. If women are excluded from all share in the municipal vote, how will they try to frame our legislation? This great mass of married women would surely say, from their point of view, quite rightly, that they cannot afford to leave anything to the administration of the local authority for in that they have no direct share as voters. They will say that in deciding the general lines of what Parliament is to do they get their Parliamentary vote, but they get no share in the local administration of what Parliament has decided. They will have to insist that the exact lines of what must be done by the local authorities shall be

  695
  laid down in Parliament. They will not be willing that things should be left to the local authorities to do in the way they like and when they like; they will say they must have everything laid down, cut and dried for them, in that body which alone they can influence by their votes. That will have two effects, both of them, I fear, unfortunate. First, that Parliament will tend to be over-burdened with matters which might be left to the authorities; and, secondly, that local authorities will be deprived of some of the initiative which, in matters of health, housing, education and so on, ought and could safely be left to them. That will be the tendency so far as the influence of the married women's vote is concerned, unless we give them the same powers in regard to local as in regard to the central elections.
  9.0 P.M.
  During the last few weeks those who have been watching have seen a very curious and interesting instance of the jealousy which authorities have of anything which they may think to be bureaucratic action by Government Departments. Their action has, I am sorry to say, to some extent held up the Education Bill which the President of the Board of Education has laid before this House. We do not want to have anything the result of which will be that this House and the Executive which depends upon this House will have to lay things down in such a cut and dried and exact way that the local authorities will feel that they are being bound by bureaucratic regulations or bureaucratic officials. It is very import. ant to leave the local authorities to feel that they are responsible for making these, matters of health, housing and education a success. The more we can keep out from our politics any force which will tend to get everything exactly regulated from the centre, because it is the centre they can control, the better it will be from the point of view of encouraging local authorities to do the best work. I have heard two suggestions as to the objections to married women having the municipal vote. First, it is urged that the women are not actually ratepayers. That question ought not to be looked at according to whether it is the husband or the wife who actually pays the rates. In a great many cases the wife has to do it. She is allowed so much money a week or a month and has to pay thereout what is necessary to satisfy the demands of both
  696
  the rent collector and the rate collector when they come round. Therefore one cannot pin an argument on the fact that perhaps in the majority of cases the man actually satisfies the rate collector's demands. Anything which is a general burden on the household is a burden on the woman, in the great majority of cases. even more than a burden on the man. A burden of that kind, such as the satisfaction of the demands of the rate collector, falls just as much on the woman. If the burdens go up, they affect the woman just as much as they do the man. In fact, if she feels that the higher the rates go the less. she will have for herself and her children and for feeding the family, she will surely be-every bit as careful to avoid extravagant expenditure by the ratepayers as her husband would be. Then, of course, it is often stated that the present woman's municipal vote is a rather unprogressive and an unintelligent one. That is very largely true and is almost inevitable, for the reason that at present you do not have any natural association of the women municipal voters. You never have a street in which every house, or anything like every house, is occupied by a woman municipal voter. You may have one in No. 1, another in No. 30 and another in No. 60, but they are few and far between, and there is no natural communication between them and no natural discussion of public affairs. You lack that community of sympathy and interest which will inevitably happen when you give every married woman, automatically, the municipal vote. If this Amendment were carried, four married women out of every five living in an ordinary street would be municipal voters and there would at once be something for them to discuss and work at, and instead of their voting being isolated, ill-informed and, perhaps, unintelligent, you will get that keenness and intelligence which springs from community of interest and work.
  As to the form of the Amendment, although I am moving it in the same form as that in which it was moved by my right hon. Friend on the Committee stage, if the Government thought that the House generally were in favour of accepting it or would leave it to the House to be voted on, I do not think that those who are promoting this change would mind very much what the form should be. Several alternative forms are down on the Paper from which the Government can select. It

  697
  might well be that the form next on the Paper would be the best, which adds to the Amendment I move the words "in respect of premises in which they both reside," so as to make it clear that the woman would only get her automatic vote as a wife in respect of premises in which she resides with her husband, and not in respect of his business premises, with which, of course, she has less to do. We thought it better to put down the possible alternatives and leave it to the Government to indicate which they preferred. On the merits of the matter, once we were certain, as we are, that it is not properly to be considered as bound by the determination of Mr. Speaker's Conference, we are clear that we ought to press the question. In conclusion, let me say this: Let us, in the time that is coming, clear the decks as much as we possibly can from questions of machinery. There is no doubt whatever that this Amendment represents very strong and very active opinion in the country. There is no doubt that, if married women are not admitted to the municipal franchise, they will feel that the gift of Parliament has been rather half-hearted. What they will do will be worse than that; they will set to work at once to agitate and organise for an amending Bill to be passed. We have a chance of putting the thing right now. We do not want amending Bills on this or any other matter which is only a question of machinery. We want to make the machinery of our local and central government as good as we possibly can against the time when peace comes, when all these tremendous social questions will press on the best brains and the best work that every man and every woman can possibly give to them. Any effort at that time given merely in trying to get machinery right will be effort wasted. The machinery ought surely to be put right now. It would be ten thousand pities if any women had to waste any time in trying to get an extra piece of machinery embodied in a Bill and then passed through Parliament into an Act. I have had hundreds of resolutions from all sorts of associations and societies of women who feel strongly on this matter.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean hundreds? I have never had one myself.
  Mr. ACLAND: I have. I do not say that the fact is owing to my position as an ordinary Member of Parliament. I
  698
  have been trying to find out what women thought about it. I really have received hundreds. But I do not claim that that has been the fate of everyone. This is a letter which I received this morning from the Richmond Committee of Organised Women. This is exactly symtomatic of what I have had dozens of:
  "That this committee of organised women representing the following seventeen societies, the Richmond Emergency Committee, the British Women's Temperance Association, the Richmond Board of Guardians, the Women's Liberal Association, the Richmond Women's Suffrage Society, the Girls' Friendly Society, the Women's Co-operative Society, the Infant Health Association, Richmond Central Aid, Mothers' Union Society, Richmond School Teachers, Independent Labour Party, the Mavis Association for the Care of Young Girls, the Salvation Army, the Young Women's Christian Association, the War Savings Association, and the Women Police urges the Government—"
  and so on—
  "to accept this Bill."
  Sir G. CAVE: Which Richmond?
  Mr. ACLAND: Richmond, Surrey. Does the Home Secretary really want all the most excellent representatives of all these most excellent societies to take up one moment of their efforts on a, question of machinery which may be put right now? Would he not prefer that they should get the machinery settled so that they can really tackle in their several ways the work that lies before them? I appeal to the House to look at this matter from a big standpoint, to clear it out of the way, to admit married women to a share in local, as they have in imperial affairs, and thus get the influence of women in our politics applied in the best manner and in a manner in which so many women are looking forward to being able to use it.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his favourable consideration. On the last occasion when it was considered there was considerable discussion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman was not prepared at that stage to pronounce a final opinion It was a thin House and he made it quite clear that the whole matter would be reconsidered on Report. Meantime there have been a very strong and favourable expressions of opinion throughout the country in favour of the Amendment. No doubt the great majority of the associations to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) referred represent women. That is a fact, however, which the House of Commons ought to take

  699
  into account, because in this matter when we are proceeding to enfranchise a large number of women and give them the Parliamentary vote we have indicated our desire that they should express their views and they are entitled to put clearly before us their views on a matter of this importance. But apart from the women's associations, speaking as a Scottish member, there have been a number of representations received from various bodies in Scotland interested in this matter, and there is a very strong feeling that it will be a gross injustice to the married women of the country if they are not allowed to exercise the local government vote, seeing that they are now being given the Parliamentary vote. I am glad that in this matter we have associated with us the hon. Member (Mr. Adamson), who represents the Labour party. Indeed, we have, supporting this Amendment, representatives of all sections of opinion in this House. On the previous occasion the speakers who supported the Amendment represented every section of political opinion, and there were very few who spoke against it. There are really only two substantial objections to this Amendment which are worthy of consideration. The first is that it might involve us in a breach of the compromise arrived at by the Speaker's Conference, and that it might, consequently, endanger the passage of the Bill, if the compromise were not adhered to. As a Scottish Member I feel that I have greater freedom in meeting that point, because the Resolution of the Speaker's Conference made it quite clear that the Conference made no recommendation with regard to the local government franchise in Scotland or Ireland. Therefore, so far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, there was undoubtedly no indication whatever given that the local government franchise was to be limited in any way.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: They made no recommendation.
  Mr. MILLAR: I think "no recommendation" indicates that the Conference did not come to any decision whatever on the question. That is the meaning I should attach to it. With regard to the previous resolution, which undoubtedly indicates the view expressed by the Conference, that a husband and wife should not both be qualified in respect of the same premises, after all the Conference is
  700
  mainly concerned with the question of Parliamentary representation—the terms of reference make that perfectly clear—and the question of the local government vote was only dealt with incidentally. I submit, therefore, that we are not acting in breach of the Conference proposals if we ask consideration of this Amendment at this stage. It is substantially a question of local government. We are not raising any controversy whatever with regard to the question of the Parliamentary franchise. The compromise is to be strictly adhered to, so far as the women's vote is concerned. With regard to the local government franchise, this Bill undoubtedly extends it in certain of its provisions, so far as women are concerned. The question of the extent to which women are to be added to the register is therefore one, really, which is perfectly open. But the real difficulty in which the House is being placed now lies in the adoption of the local government franchise basis for the purpose of conferring a Parliamentary vote upon women, and the suggestion that the local government vote should be refused to those women who are now being enfranchised. I submit that that is a situation which would lead to, very great misunderstanding and misconstruction outside this House. Parliament has not always acted with very great regard for what was logical, but it has endeavoured to avoid putting itself in any absurd position, which result would certainly follow unless this Amendment is accepted. The second main objection which was put forward and supported in certain quarters of the House was based on the ground that women ought to be treated on a different basis when you were dealing with the local government franchise, and that this ought to be limited to those who had a ratepayer's interest as distinct from the interests of those who have a Parliamentary vote. This point was put by the Home Secretary in somewhat curious terms, because, to quote his words, his view was that in dealing with a Parliamentary election you were dealing with "souls, or people, who have to be placed on the same footing as each other," while, on the other hand, when you were dealing with local government, "questions of actual ratepaying and local interests were of more importance than when you were dealing with larger questions." May I suggest that in dealing with the local electors you are also dealing with souls, and that you are dealing with bodies

  701
  as well, with men and women who are very closely affected in their bodily welfare and comfort by the local conditions which surround them, and I submit respectfully that in such matters married women have a very special claim to consideration.
  We have had complaints made that women have not exercised the municipal vote as they ought to have done. I think there is some foundation for that, but I think that if you put married women on the roll you are only affording a proper opportunity to those who at the present moment have the most important stake—I do not think I am exaggerating in putting it as high as that—in rearing children for the future, and who deserve every consideration in connection with the education and the bringing up of boys and girls to whom we look in the future for help in building up our Empire. I submit, therefore, that the claims of women, and married women particularly, ought to receive special attention. I do not propose to follow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) in mentioning all the various questions which are of special interest to women. There never has been a time such as this, when the control of so many matters in the domestic lives of the people has been so much placed in the hands of local authorities. Women, therefore, ought to have their claims in such matters as housing, health, infant welfare, and so forth, specially considered, and when the War is over those claims ought to continue to receive consideration. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. I am quite sure that it would cause very great disappointment and would lead to great annoyance on the part of many women who at this moment have proved their worth to the nation, if the Amendment were refused. On the other hand, its acceptance would result in nothing but good to the country, because we should have the benefit of women's assistance in dealing with the great problems of reconstruction.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: This is a very large subject to be raised in a thin House at this stage of the Bill. No doubt the arguments which have been used by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are worthy of consideration, and they have been extremely well put, but the position is wholly different from that of the Parliamentary franchise. As every-
  702
  one knows, the municipal vote is based on the payment of rates alone, and to the proposal at this late stage of the Bill that one of the unanimous recommendations of the Speaker's Conference should, for some reason or other, be disregarded, has not, I think, been made good by either the Proposer or the Seconder. They must have particularly good reasons for asking that that recommendation should be upset; but the reasons advanced have not been sufficient, in my estimation. Very often this privilege of the local franchise has never been exercised by women. I do not know why all this dust should be raised about the matter now. I hope the Home Secretary will stand by the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. He has done so almost invariably throughout, and I think that every unanimous recommendation which they have made has been accepted. I should be very much astonished if my right hon. Friend sees his way to accept this Amendment. I do not seem to have received any particular remonstrances in regard to this matter. There may have been one or two documents coming to me which I have not noticed amongst the voluminous documents I receive every morning; but I am not conscious of having seen any. I do not know that any individual in Scotland has written to me, so that if the demand exists in Scotland it is not very articulate. It is apparently made known in certain quarters, but not in others. I do think that to make an enormous change of this kind at this stage of the Bill in a thin House during the dinner hour is quite out of the question, and I trust the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Whether this proposal is right or wrong, it cannot be denied that it is an extremely revolutionary one. I do not know how many voters it is going to put on the local roll, but it must mean adding, if this Amendment is carried, a very large number of such voters. We have always understood that the proper qualification for a local government vote is that the person should be a ratepayer. If this Amendment were carried, you would be adding very largely to the number of people who not only do not pay rates, but who in some cases receive something from the rates, and those people might override the people who pay the rates. That may be right or it may be wrong. I am old-fashioned enough to think it is wrong, but whether

  703
  it is right or wrong, this is not the opportunity or the time to introduce an Amendment of that sort. The Speaker's Conference made no recommendation of this kind, and though I do not hold that it is absolutely necessary never in any circumstances to alter the agreement come to by the Speaker's Conference, yet I have supported the Government in their contention that in all main principles the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference should not be altered. In those circumstances I trust that my right hon. Friend will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. The memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir J. Younger) must be very short when he stated that he had received no representation on this point. During the Committee stage, when this same question was discussed, he, along with the other Members from Scotland, was approached by a very representative deputation, representing all shades of Labour opinion in Scotland. One of the questions that were pressed upon cur attention at that time was that which we are now discussing. When this Amendment came before the House in Committee it was supported by members of all political parties, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill used the same argument as has been used by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs to-night. He said he did not want to pronounce any final opinion in Committee on this matter,
  'but I certainly feel my responsibility and I do not think that it would be right, being in charge of this Bill, in so thin a House to accept an Amendment of this kind."
  I hope that we are not going to be put off a second time by an answer of that kind. Whether justifiable or not, that statement gave those who supported the Amendment in Committee some hope that it would have serious consideration on the Report stage, and I hope that, before the discussion is finished, we may be able to convince the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment has sufficient support to justify its acceptance. Now that married women are given the Parliamentary franchise no good reason can be advanced for refusing them the local government vote. The fact that they have been granted the Parliamentary franchise is a complete answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I think
  704
  that he used the expression that this was a revolutionary proposal. It is exactly the same proposal with regard to local government as you have already agreed to with regard to Parliamentary franchise.
  Mr. PETO: Is there any limitation of age in the proposal? Is it not women of any age over twenty-one, and not merely women over thirty?
  Mr. ADAMSON: This Amendment is asking for the same terms. I was pointing out that the proposal to enfranchise them for local government purposes is no more revolutionary than the principle which we have already adopted with regard to the Parliamentary franchise.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The fact that you have made one revolution is no reason why you should make another.
  Mr. ADAMSON: The only reply which it is necessary to give to the right hon. Baronet is that this involves no new principle. It is not a second revolution. It is simply applying to local government the same principle as that to which you have already agreed with regard to Parliamentary franchise. No section of our people is better qualified to exercise the local government vote than the married women of the country. They have the experience and knowledge that fit them to exercise this vote to greater advantage, not only to themselves but to the country, than many others who already possess the vote. The Bill, as drafted, imposes great injustice on the working - class married women. After all, it is the married-class working women who, in the main, will be shut out unless this Amendment is accepted. It cannot be said that they have failed to play their part in the great struggle in which this country has been engaged for the past three years. No section of our people has been called upon to make greater sacrifices. I know that possibly from more quarters of the House than one we may be met with the argument, which has been used by the right hon. Baronet, that this will largely increase the number of electors. But we have done that for Parliamentary purposes, and we shall not scruple to do it as far as local government is concerned. It is quite as important that the laws should be well administered as that the laws should be well made. No section of our people is better qualified than married women to take part in local administration. Only yesterday I had the privilege of introducing to the

  705
  right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a very large and representative deputation of women. I think that he will admit that they put their case before him in a very clear and convincing manner. Like many others, I have had many representations made to me in regard to this matter, and if the vote is refused it will be a great disappointment to these women. I hope that they are not going to have that disappointment. I am pleased that the House is beginning to fill, and I hope that before we take a vote we shall have such an expression of opinion as will convince the right hon. Gentleman that the time has come for this to be granted.
  Colonel GRETTON: We have had a most interesting discussion. Apparently the Government are willing to leave this very important matter to the decision of the House, though the absence of recommendations by the Speaker's Conference suggests that no change was intended in this direction. It does not appear to have been observed by any hon. Member who has addressed the House that all these women who are entitled to vote, because they are ratepayers, share in the extension of the franchise which results from the change of qualification which is common to men and women. There is a very large number of women, as well as a very large number of men ratepayers, to be added to the local register for the purpose of voting at local elections by the change in this Bill. This Amendment deals only with married women. Many Members who have addressed the House have wandered vaguely over the whole question, talked at large about women's votes, and treated the subject on the ground that married women should have the local vote equally with the Parliamentary vote. The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by reading a very lengthy communication from a women's organisation which had been communicated to him, and the implication naturally was that these women, who command a very large section of the votes in the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend (Sir G. Cave), were going to be hostile to him if he did not meet the demand of the hon. Member opposite. That is obviously the interpretation to be put upon the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman made.
  Mr. ACLAND: The only point I made was this: The women's organisation, I may say, are friendly to my right hon. Friend
  706
  the Home Secretary, us is everybody in this House, and I said that I felt sure that everybody would see that these associations and organisations of women do very valuable work in connection with maternity, welfare of children, and things of that kind, and the question with them is that they shall have an opportunity of tackling this social work with which they are so peculiarly qualified to deal.
  Colonel GRETTON: I am very glad to receive that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the organisation of these women, but I pass from that part of the question and come to the point as to what the result, between men and women, is going to be in this matter of the women's vote. It would appear to presuppose that there will be a sub-division of opinion between man and wife, and that the woman will have a particular point of view on municipal matters. The whole basis of the argument advanced in this House and outside is that women are not adequately represented by the votes of men. Hon. Members who support this Amendment obviously do so because they think that in certain directions women are going to be more effective than men, which means that there is going to be a very large division of opinion between husbands and wives on municipal questions; otherwise, husbands and wives would vote together, and thus toe men's votes would be reinforced, and would tend to overwhelm the women who are already assured of the vote by this Bill, as ratepayers, equally with the men, who are ratepayers. That is a dilemma which no one has endeavoured to face. I submit that when this question is closely investigated it will be seen that the only value of the vote will be where there is contention between husband and wife. There can be no other meaning in it. I urge the Home Secretary that he would be well advised to adhere to his Bill, and not to be moved by the clamorous resolutions sent to him by hon. Members to alter the Bill in this very vital and important particular. On this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has, against his own views, in numerous instances, adhered strictly to what he feels is the guiding principle of the Conference.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I support the Amendment, and wish to call attention to one or two points. In the first place all who support this proposal are perfectly willing to take it with the qualification as to age, as in the case of the Parliamentary

  707
  elector, namely, thirty years, so that there need be no difficulty of that kind. I was rather astonished to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) say that he had received no representations on this subject. For my part, I have received a great many, very varied and very representative in their character. I have received, of course, representations from a large number of women's organisations, and also from labour organisations, and the point which struck me from the resolutions from labour organisations was the feeling which they evidenced, throughout the country, that women should have both the municipal and the Parliamentary franchise. I have received representations from men of all parties in the State, and representing many different interests in the community. I myself have had a good deal to do with municipal affairs in my time, and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Mr. Adamson), that good administration is at least as important as good legislation. For my part, I think one of the defects of Parliament is that it does not quite appreciate in all cases that good administration is often a great deal more important than good legislation, and that administration of an imperfect law often yields better results than bad administration of the most perfect law that Parliament could pass. There is no doubt that subjects pertaining to social legislation are matters in which women are vitally interested. Maternity, the welfare of children, and that great subject which has engaged the attention of the Government lately, the question of public health, and the question of housing, which is going to be one of the problems to be dealt with immediately after the War—all these subjects appeal to women, whose point of view in regard to them differs from that of men, and in regard to which they possess a very different kind of knowledge from that of men. They have intimate knowledge of them and I think it is extremely important that we should have not only the intelligence of women, but the heart of women, interested in these questions, and that they should be rendered capable of expressing those practically in the determining of these great matters.
  What I find in all the representations made to me, not only from the women but from the men, is the great sense of the injustice of the illogical arrangement
  708
  by which the Parliamentary vote is to be given to women who are the wives of electors, and that the municipal vote should be refused to them. It strikes women as illogical and absurd. I think there is a good deal of force in what my right hon. Friend said in moving the Amendment, that it is extremely desirable, when you are for the time being settling the women's franchise, that you should settle it on a logical basis, and not on a basis of compromise which would leave a sense of injustice which is rather acutely felt, and which you could remove by the adoption of such a proposal as that contained in the Amendment. Women will feel that it is unfair and unreasonable that they should be deprived of the municipal franchise, for which they are at least as well qualified as for the Parliamentary franchise, and in which they have a more intimate interest, an interest which they feel very seriously. I do not think that there is any argument in saying that it is brought forward at a late period of the Bill. That is only an off-putting argument which has no validity. This is the last opportunity of dealing with it in this House, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not use that argument now, and I am sure he will not. We were all extremely gratified at the favourable manner in which the Home Secretary received the deputation which waited upon him to urge this matter. I think he is aware that there is a great deal of feeling in the country in favour of this Amendment. I know that that feeling is very strong in Scotland and in England also. I hope that he will be able on this occasion to give us a favourable answer. We are not asking anything which is contrary to a direct resolution of the Conference. We are asking a thing which I do not think it can even be pretended by my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) can possibly do any harm, and for a thing which is keenly desired by a great number of women and men also in this country.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: I do not think it is necessary really to add any further arguments on one side or the other with regard to this Amendment, and I simply rose to express my earnest hope that the Home Secretary will be in favour of accepting the Amendment. I am one of those who have, of course, received a great number of representations, particularly from all parts of Wales, upon this point. I can assure the Home

  709
  Secretary that the feeling in Wales is very strong in favour of the Amendment. If I may say so, I think we ought to go behind those representations to our own knowledge of the facts of the case, and the judgment which I formed on this question, being long ago in favour of woman suffrage and in favour of giving the suffrage to married women in Parliamentary affairs, is that I can see no reason why it should not be given to married women in municipal affairs as well. I agree with every speaker who has emphasised the fact that in reality this municipal vote from the woman's standpoint is quite as important, if not more so, than the Parliamentary franchise. As the Home Secretary will, I am sure, like to know what is the general feeling not only of those who happen to be in the House but in the country generally on the Amendment, I can assure him, speaking for Wales, of which I have a close knowledge, that Wales, at all events, will heartily welcome the acceptance of this Amendment.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I find myself in a somewhat different position from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken on this particular Amendment. I confess, speaking as one who has a most ardent and earnest desire to enlist the co-operation of all the women in the conduct of public affairs in this country, the matter does not present itself, to my mind, as quite so simple a matter as it appeared to present itself to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. After all, this particular Bill, in connection with which this Amendment is moved, is primarily and pre-eminently a Bill to extend the Parliamentary franchise. It seems to me in order to make out at this stage of the proceedings on this Bill a strong and unanswerable case for an innovation of this kind it is necessary to prove that there is a parity or a close resemblance in principle between the grounds upon which the Parliamentary franchise has hitherto been granted and the grounds upon which the local government franchise has been granted. Whether we may agree on the facts or not, it is the case that historically and in practice the local government franchise has been granted on quite other grounds than those on which the Parliamentary franchise has been advocated and granted in times past. My right hon. Friend (Mr. McKinnon Wood), in his speech just now, indicated what of
  710
  course was a very important fact, namely, that the advocates of this particular Amendment recognise the anomaly under which, if this Amendment were passed, certain ages of women would be qualified to exercise the vote in local government elections who were not qualified to exercise the vote in Parliamentary elections. He intimated that the promoters of this Amendment would be quite willing to accept a modification and to restrict the age of this franchise to thirty. I cannot help thinking that it is somewhat inconvenient in connection with an important innovation of this kind that this matter was not fully considered before the Amendment itself was proposed. I am bound to say I should feel myself extremely reluctant to grant the local government franchise to a number of women when similar women of a similar age qualification were not entitled to exercise the Parliamentary vote.
  I most fully and entirely sympathise with those who urge that in many of the problems of local government women have a very especial interest and concern; but, after all, may I point out that when it comes to the question of local legislation and local arrangements concerning such matters as housing, sanitation and the rest, the real work is to be done by those who represent the various classes in the community. It does so happen at the present time that, irrespective of this Amendment, it is open to women to be elected on local governing bodies. It is immensely more important that women should be qualified to act as members of local governing bodies than that women should be qualified to vote for the election of those particular bodies. I am bound to say, so far as I am concerned, the substance of that objection is entirely met by the fact that under present arrangements women are qualified to be elected as members of our local governing bodies. I am not altogether convinced by the argument of my right hon. Friend wjho has just spoken that there is no validity in the argument that a Motion of this kind should not be raised on the Report stage. I respectfully venture to express my own feeling that it is a practice to be deprecated that a very great innovation of this kind should be raised on this stage.
  Mr. WOOD: It was merely put off at the request of the Home Secretary because the House happened to be a thin House at the moment when it was under discussion in Committee.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I quite agree, but I am bound to regard with some disquietude the tendency to repeat discussions on important questions, very often involving revolutions in the procedure and method of government, on the Report stage. On the whole, while I should most cordially support any Amendment, if such an Amendment were proposed, to put women local government electors on precisely the same footing as Parliamentary electors, I feel great reluctance to support an Amendment which would, as the Home Secretary very justly pointed out to an important deputation, qualify as local government electors a large body of women on grounds which are not recognised in the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. McKinnon Wood) said it would be universally held to be illogical to refuse the municipal franchise to women while granting the Parliamentary franchise to them. I venture to say that that is an entire misconception of the position. The proposals at the Conference did not propose to refuse the local government franchise to women. Women who are ratepayers are left as they are at present as voters in the matter of the collection and expenditure of the rates. That is a totally different question from the Parliamentary franchise with regard to national affairs. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that women outside regard this refusal—although it is no refusal at all—as unreasonable and unfair. The main argument of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) was that if we had granted so large an amount of enfranchisement to women in respect of the Parliamentary vote, it was hardly common sense to deny them this small extension in the matter of the local government vote, and he could not see any ground on which the extension could be refused. It would be as well perhaps to point out what is the real difference between the two franchises. In speaking to the deputation yesterday, the Home Secretary said he had strong evidence that it was difficult to reconcile the proposal for giving the Parliamentary vote to married women while denying the municipal vote to the same class. As I understood the Debates upstairs in Mr. Speaker's Conference on this question, the two things were kept entirely separate for two reasons. The first was that we
  712
  were not immediately concerned with the local government vote, but with the Parliamentary franchise. In dealing with any change in the local government franchise we were influenced by the fact that in local government affairs the main consideration about which electors voted was the collection and expenditure of the rates, and therefore there was a broad distinction between the basis of the franchise—the right to vote in the two cases. I ask the House to consider what would be the effect of this Amendment if passed. It would enfranchise the wife of every local government elector, and that means that if women take a different view from men on certain matters, there would be a woman candidate run on a programme which might involve a vast expenditure of the rates, and the election might be carried mainly by women electors, the wives of ratepayers, who, in the vast majority of cases, might object to these large and expensive schemes. That is what would really happen, and I think a more unjust and unfair proposal could hardly be made than that you should give a preponderating vote to the people who do not pay the rates, so that they may run their own candidate in support of a programme involving expenditure to an excessive amount. I want to refer to just one other matter in this connection, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. McKinnon Wood) suggested that there was no specific recommendation from Mr. Speaker's Conference on this subject. But I find that in 31 (b) it is provided that the husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. A question debated before dinner was whether there should be any value qualification for the ownership of land, and on that point the recommendations of the Conference obviously left it open, but here we have a specific recommendation dealing with a specific point, that the husband and wife shall not be qualified in respect of the same premises. If hon. Members vote for this Amendment I hope they will not do it under any delusion that they are not voting in direct opposition to a specific recommendation on a subject thoroughly debated and considered by the Conference.
  Captain J. B. WATSON: I desire to support the Amendment in a few words. My first reason is that, like other hon. and right hon. Members, I have received

  713
  very strong direct recommendations from my Constituency asking me to take that course. Another reason is that for ten years I have been a member of a municipal corporation, and in casting my mind back over those ten years the thing which impresses me more than anything else is that this House and the Legislature has increasingly sent to local bodies many valuable and serious matters to be dealt with, and of all the matters so sent perhaps the most important, particularly at this juncture of our national history, is the question of infant preservation and child welfare. In that subject I have personally taken great interest. I have sat as Chairman of a Child Welfare Committee, and on that committee, which consists of about fifteen members, four or five are married women. Looking back over those ten years, I say that there has been no subject before us upon which the married women would not have been competent to vote, and upon which their vote would not have been very valuable. If it were only for this one subject of infant preservation I think that that in itself is sufficient to justify us in asking this House to grant a municipal vote to married women. For these reasons, stated quite briefly, I sincerely trust that this House will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I desire to support this Amendment on its merits. I am entirely in favour of the suggestion, because it seems to me that in matters which municipal authorities have to deal with, married women are most affected, and it is pre-eminently desirable that their voices should be heard upon them. I should like to point out one thing which has hardly been emphasised sufficiently, and that is that the proposal bears no party or political significance. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Labour party spoke very strongly and forcibly to-night on behalf of his whole party, and if reference be made to the Agenda Paper it will be seen that the six names attached to the Amendment are equally divided between the other parties in the House of Commons. The appeal is made consequently from the standpoint of all who are interested in this question. I too have been approached very urgently to support this Amendment on its merits. I look for the co-operation of women in the future far more than we have had it in the past both nationally and locally, and I sincerely trust it may be possible to secure
  714
  that co-operation by means of this Amendment. I honestly say that I have only one difficulty myself in coming to a final decision. I want to see this Bill carried into law, and I am not prepared to do anything whatever in the slightest degree to endanger it. Much, therefore, as I support the Amendment, my anxiety is to know whether there is any danger in that direction, and consequently I appeal directly to the Home Secretary, who has charge of the matter, in due course to express his opinion. I should like to be permitted to say on Report what I ventured to say in Committee, that no man could possibly have striven more justly and more courteously to carry out the wishes of the Speaker's Conference. We all recognise that from beginnig to end he has brought his mind to bear to understand, both in the letter and in the spirit, what the Conference proposed. He has striven his best to carry that out, and I believe he will try to do so now. He knows the feeling in the country, because it has already been presented to him. He knows the feeling in this House from all sections. There is a very earnest desire, which I sincerely trust may be responded to, that these married women may be allowed to have the municipal vote. I earnestly trust, therefore, that the Home Secretary, facing this matter with the responsibility on his shoulders, to carry out the wishes of the Speaker's Conference and not to depart from them, will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne), who made a generous reference to my services on this Bill, has made an appeal to me to say what view the Government take on this particular question. This is an Amendment of very great importance. The proposal is that the wife of a local government elector shall have a vote, not by virtue of her own ownership or occupation, but by virtue of her being the wife of her husband who is himself an elector. The effect of the Amendment will be to add a very large number—I suppose not less than five millions—to the register of local government electors. I say five millions, for whereas there are already, I suppose, a million women who are electors for local government purposes—and of course they have to be deducted from the addition to the vote—on the other hand, this Amendment gives the vote not only to women of thirty, but to women of twenty-

  715
  one who are wives of electors. It is, therefore, a very important Amendment indeed. I am certainly not going to bring forward the consideration which I advanced in Committee, that we are debating the matter in a thin House. This is not a thin House, and, even if it were, I think, as everybody then yielded to my argument that we should postpone this matter for definite decision on the Report stage, it is desirable for the House to consider and decide the matter to-day. Let us look at it carefully. I have never concealed my opinion that there is a, strong argument in favour of the Amendment, and that the argument that the wife shall vote for the election of a Member of Parliament, but that she shall not vote in a local government election, is a very difficult one to sustain. Even those who have for years opposed the giving of the franchise to women have, many of them, been in favour of giving women the municipal franchise. Many of us are, no doubt, impressed with the argument that it is desirable to make a clean job of it, and not to leave something behind for future consideration.
  I confess that these arguments weigh with me personally very strongly indeed; but, on the other hand, there is a view which Members have put forward, and which they have been entitled to put forward. They say, and say with truth, that this is primarily a Parliamentary reform Bill, and that it is not primarily a local government election reform Bill. On that view the question arises as to whether we should deal with this question in this Bill or whether it had better be dealt with on a future occasion. I am put, as I often have been, in this position on this Amendment. I must remember, and if I may say so the House must remember, that this is a compromise measure. We cannot have on this Bill all that we want. Time after time—I am sure I am within the recollection of the House—I have appealed to my Friends—if I may so distinguish them as the party with which I have always acted, for I think we have all acted together on this Bill—by saying, "You may be right, but, after all, this is a, compromise, and you must give in; you must abide by the compromise, and waive your own personal opinions." On this point—there can be no mistake about it—the terms of the compromise are quite clear. I do not
  716
  understand why my hon. Friend opposite expressed any doubt on the point. The Conference Report say this:
  "For the purpose of this Resolution neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification—"
  that is dealing with the local government register—
  "provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises."
  The words are introduced from the existing Statute; they were put into the Report; they are put into the Bill; and I cannot understand the argument that the Conference has not reported on this point, or that we should not in adopting this measure be running counter to the advice given to us by the Conference. I do not want to make a fetish of the Conference, but, after all, a compromise is a compromise, and when we get certain things we want and have to give up certain things we should also like, we must abide by the terms of the arrangement. I appeal to the House to remember that consideration. I know the views which hon. Gentlemen hold; I know with many of them how strong they are. Whether I share them or not is not for me to say on this occasion. My function time after time has been to call upon the House not in one direction or the other to press their personal views so as to break through the agreement, an agreement which I think will be of great benefit to the nation as a whole.
  Let me add some minor considerations. You have not, as to men, assimilated the Parliamentary and municipal franchises. Under this Bill—there is no Amendment in this respect, nor is one even suggested—they will widely differ, and, therefore, there is nothing so anomalous in the fact that as to women also you should leave a difference, although, I admit, a greater difference. Secondly, this Amendment, whatever the intention of the mover, does give the local franchise to women of twenty-one and not to women of thirty. There is no word in the Amendment that would have a different effect, and you are proposing to put on the local register a very substantially larger number of women than this Bill will add to the Parliamentary register. The House has always been good enough to listen to my views, although they are not bound to follow them; and I think that, having regard to the position in which we are, hon. Members ought to put their personal views and opinions

  717
  aside, while reserving their right to propose this important change in some future Bill. I think I am bound to say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment or depart from the position which they have strenuously maintained, that the compromise must be observed.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman places me in a position of very great difficulty. On the merits of the proposal I am entirely at one with the Amendment. None of the arguments against it appear to me to be valid, and the one point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made—that this would extend the municipal vote to women below the age of thirty, whilst the Parliamentary vote is only granted to women above that age—could and would be met by my right hon. Friend adding to his Amendment words to this effect, "and has attained the age of thirty years." The argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, that it is more important for women to serve on local bodies than to be electors to local bodies, is, I think, sound; but how can they get elected upon if they are not electors too? We find there are a most inadequate number of women upon local authorities, and the main reason is that the electorate consist almost entirely of men. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, that we shall have women voting for large increases of expenditure, is, I think, a very unlikely innovation. Undoubtedly, being by far the more economical sex of the two, their influence would be used in local elections in cutting down expenditure to what is legitimate and reasonable.
  An appeal has been made to the Speaker's Conference by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He says that the Conference has made a specific recommendation, in terms the interpretation of which cannot be doubtful, that the man and woman shall not be electors for a local government body for the same premises. It is true that the question of the local franchise was not referred to the Speaker's Conference, as he himself pointed out to the deputation that waited upon him. Still, the fact remains that the Speaker's Conference did make a number of recommendations relating to the local franchise in connection with women's suffrage and in other respects and that these arrangements were part of the compromise come to within the Conference. It is quite true what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said
  718
  that on many occasions—to-day was one of them—he has been obliged to ask the House to reject proposals moved by political friends of his, and with which he himself personally sympathised, because they were in conflict with the recommendations of the Conference. There have been many such occasions when he appeals to us to act in the same manner and to put aside our own personal desires in keeping the letter of the recommendations of the Conference, I confess, as I say, it is exceedingly difficult for me to ask my friends not to respond to that appeal—very difficult! However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will pursue this worthy cause to the end, and that when he comes to the question of proxy votes, which were not recommended by the Speaker's Conference, he will still adopt the same attitude, and when it is a question of dealing with the creations of large numbers of additional plural voters, which is not in accordance with the scheme of the Conference, that he will still adopt the same view. If I can understand from him that he will throughout the remainder of the Bill strictly adhere to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and not go outside them, unless there is a general body of consent in the House, then, I am sure, we shall, many of us, at all events consider it our duty to respond now to his appeal. I will press these points upon him. Are we to understand that we are to proceed strictly on the lines of the Speaker's Conference, and if some of us put aside our own predilections now, can we rely on the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to put aside their predilections when we come to other points on which opinion is divided, and when there is no general assent for departing from the recommendations of the Conference? I put that point specifically to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I hope it is not too late even now to make an appeal to the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision. He has said, and it may be he is right in saying, that this Amendment as it stands on the Paper cannot be accepted, but surely he could accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division (Mr. Dundas White), and which gives the municipal vote to the woman, who is entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector. That would meet the views of the hon.

  719
  Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) and others. The speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman is, to my mind, the gravest menace to our Parliamentary liberties, because he says, "I will support you in this matter, in which I do not believe, and I will assist you in getting the House to vote against their convictions on this occasion, provided you force the House on other occasions against their wishes." Surely that is a very disastrous precedent to introduce into our Parliamentary practice. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman, on reconsideration, will see that it was not a very wise mode of urging his point upon the Home Secretary, and I hope the Home Secretary will see the danger of falling into that trap, because later on, when he is going, as I understand, to leave the question of voting by proxy open to the House, he will be met by the right hon. Gentleman, who will say, "You would not leave this question of the women's vote to the House; therefore, you would not be acting rightly in leaving the question of the proxy vote to the House." I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, now that his eyes have been opened to the trap into which it is sought to lead him, to reconsider his decision.
  May I just put very shortly two points which appeal to me? The first point is that this House has, practically unanimously, decided that married women are to have the Parliamentary vote. I confess that to the plain, common-sense man, either inside or outside this House, it is impossible to justify the attitude of the man who says a married woman is entitled to have the Parliamentary vote, and to vote on all great questions affecting this country, and yet she is not to vote in municipal affairs. I try to put myself in the position of the plainest and most ordinary man possible—it is quite easy—to see if there is any justification for that attitude, and I cannot find any. That is not all. You have this strange position. The married woman who is living with her husband—as all proper married women are, and as all well-meaning husbands desire, and as always happens except in exceptional cases—would be deprived of this vote; but let her go and live away from her husband, from whatever cause, and obtain the residential vote, then she is entitled to vote in municipal affairs, while her worthy sister is deprived of this vote. That
  720
  is an anomaly which it is very hard to justify. Let me put one other proposition. Is there any class of the community who are and ought to be more interested in the kind of matters that come up for discussion on local authorities than the married women? Sanitation, education, the care of children, housing—one of the most urgent and pressing questions of the day which cannot be postponed—all of them come before the local authority and they are matters upon which the married women most of all are entitled to vote. How can you go to the married woman and say, "You can have a vote on matters affecting the Army and Navy and matters affecting the welfare of the country, but you cannot vote on matters which affect the welfare and happiness of yourselves and your children?" That is an impossible position, and I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman did not use one word of argument, and could not against the merits of this proposal. I have not heard a single argument against it, but in his desire to do justice to all parties he asks us to adhere to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. Surely that Conference is not going to enforce upon us a proposal in regard to which our intelligence revolts and almost every hon. Member who has addressed the House has spoken in favour of this Amendment. To refuse this proposal would be an abuse of the term "compromise." A compromise settles broad questions of principle, and with Mr. Speaker's assistance we have done this in a manner which will see the Bill through; but if the compromise is distorted in order to force an unwilling House to do something contrary to its convictions and to all argument, then we shall be turning that compromise into a farce. Surely in a matter which so vitally and deeply affects the prosperity and welfare of working men my right hon. Friend might give some further consideration to the matter, and act in a way which will commend itself to the general feeling of the House.
  Colonel GREIG: No doubt the attitude which the Home Secretary has taken up has been founded upon the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, in which it is said that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. May I call attention to the fact that, as regards Scotland and Ireland, the Speaker's Conference leaves this matter absolutely at large. Is it true

  721
  to say that if you give the married woman the franchise for local government she will be qualified in respect of the same premises as her husband As a matter of fact, she is qualified not in respect of her occupation of those premises, but because she is a married woman. That is the status she occupies, and therefore it is not in contradiction to the suggestion of the Speaker's Conference, which was only directed to the fact that for local government as a local government qualification she should be qualified and put upon the register as being in occupation of those premises. She is put on as the wife of her husband, who is a local government elector. Her status is in respect of her being a married woman. I think the right hon. Gentleman might very well permit the House to vote at large on this Amendment.
  Sir E. POLLOCK: The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has begged the House to remove an anomaly which, he says, will exist if this Amendment is not carried. It would be very easy indeed to find a number of anomalies which will still remain in spite of the good work which is being done by this Bill. One anomaly comes into my mind at once. I understand the claim is made for a married woman to have a vote for local government purposes by reason of her status. Supposing a married woman is the owner or tenant of the premises in respect of which the vote arises, she will be entitled under Clause 4, Sub-section (3), to the vote because she would have been entitled to be registered if she had been a man. Is it proposed that the husband is also to get a vote in respect of those premises by reason of his status? If not, you are creating a very curious anomaly. If a married woman is to have a vote by reason of her status, surely, in the interests of the domestic bliss which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just pictured to us so pleasantly, the man ought not to be left out. Surely we ought to remove the anomaly and give the vote also to the man by reason of his status. I want to point that out, because this Bill no doubt leaves a great number of anomalies. I do not believe that we are going to remove all the anomalies by passing this Amendment, and we are really going far beyond what was contemplated by the Conference. It would be very unfortunate if under these circumstances we adopted a different franchise, which really cannot be justified on the basis of equality between the sexes.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: The hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) scarcely did justice to the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cleveland Division (Mr. H. Samuel). If on account of the compromise a certain section of Members are to be muzzled in matters on which they have a strong opinion, then in other matters on which they have a strong adverse opinion, other sections should also be muzzled. The Home Secretary has not made any response to that suggestion. Some of us feel very strongly upon this point; and we would rather like to know whether he is quite definite in stating that the matter is not to be left open to the House. If he puts the muzzle on, I suppose we shall have to take it definitely that the muzzle will be left on in regard to all these matters which are settled by the compromise. The recognition of the wife's vote through the husband's qualification in regard to the Parliamentary franchise is of supreme importance to the nation, and I hold that it is quite as important, if not more so, locally. With regard to the argument that this is primarily a Parliamentary franchise Bill, of course the question was raised entirely because of the position of the Parliamentary franchise, but we are dealing to a certain extent with the local franchise, and the probability is that we are dealing with it for some years to come. Owing to what has happened, the position with regard to woman suffrage has ripened very much, and it becomes more and more anomalous that women should be capable of electing a Member of Parliament and incapable of voting at local government elections, while other women can sit upon local bodies I shall be very sorry if we are bound to let pass this opportunity of securing an act of justice to the family which might very well be taken by the House in view of the questions which will have to come before the local councils in the near future.
  Colonel SANDERS: I hope that the implication which was made by the hon. Member who has just sat down will not go unchallenged, the implication being that when the Conference was appealed to it was always at the expense of his party. That is very far from being the truth. On one occasion after another the Home Secretary has given up points, in regard to which I do not say I know, but I am very strongly of opinion that he was in agreement, in order simply to stick to the terms

  723
  of the compromise. I take, perhaps, the strongest case of all, that of the conscientious objector. Does anyone suppose that, if it had not been for the attitude of the Home Secretary on that occasion, the claims of the conscientious objector to the vote would not have been thrown out in Committee? I wish to protest in the strongest possible way against the implication made by the hon. Gentleman, and also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel), that appeals to make the compromise effective have gone against the party to which they belong. Absolutely the reverse is the case.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: May I be allowed to repudiate having made any implication of the kind?
  Colonel SANDERS: I accept the hon. Member's repudiation. On the merits of the question, I want to put it on a little broader ground than the decision of the Conference. In Committee there was what I might call a strenuous Debate on the whole question of woman suffrage. On that occasion the opponents of woman suffrage urged over and over again, "You say now that you are only going to this extent; that you are only going so far and no further. We do not believe you. We believe that, if this is once granted, you will only make it a jumping-off place to get still further concessions for the cause of woman suffrage." Surely it is up to those who on that occasion voted in favour of woman suffrage—I am one; I always voted for it, long before it became the popular cause it is now—to show that they are ready to abide by the exact terms of woman suffrage as it was then decided upon. Nothing has been more remarkable than the fact that when this very great change in our franchise law—the admission of woman to the suffrage—has come up on the Report stage, not a word has been said against the general principle. Its opponents in this House, and they are many, have not lifted their voices against woman suffrage at all. That being so, after having accepted the principle, it is almost a breach of faith that we should go back upon the compromise then decided upon. As to the actual merits of this proposal, I would only say that the importance of the whole thing is enormously exaggerated. As it stands, the husband can get on the register for the occupation of any premises,
  724
  however small their value may be. If he wants to give his wife a vote he has only to see that some small portion of these premises, on which there is no limit of value, is put in her name. It gives him a little extra trouble, perhaps, but that is the whole extent of the grievance, if grievance it can be called. The Bill is so framed that if a man wants to get his wife on, all he has to do is to create a fagot vote. Surely that is not worth making a fuss about. It cannot really be called a substantial grievance at all. I think the Home Secretary was perfectly right in adhering to the arrangement arrived at in Committee.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: The last speaker rather suggested that as the opponents of woman suffrage do not raise their voices upon this occasion we should be gratifying them if we did not try to carry this Amendment. Many of the strongest opponents of woman suffrage are to be found among supporters of the franchise for local government. I need only point to the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Arnold Ward), which is on the Order Paper as one of the supporters of this Resolution, to show that some of the strongest opponents of women suffrage have always argued that they should have the fullest equality with men in matters of local government. One of the stock arguments upon the question which has always been understood by the opponents of women suffrage, is that women should serve their apprenticeship in voting in local government matters and thereby attain to the exercise of the greater privilege and the greater power of the Parliamentary vote. I think it will be admitted by all that if we give the franchise to married women of the age of thirty—I take it there is no doubt the two franchises will be assimilated in the matter of age—we place ourselves in a position of absurdity if we say women are to vote upon the Army and Navy and foreign affairs, and all the matters of Imperial interest which have to be decided by this Assembly, and decline to extend to them at, the same time the power to vote in all matters concerning local affairs. I hope the House will not land itself in that absurd position.
  Captain O'NEILL: It seems to me it would have been better if the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) had not been raised. I am entirely of the opinion that you cannot

  725
  argue against the merits of this question. It seems to me unanswerable that if you are going to give women the power to vote on Imperial questions—Army, Navy, foreign policy, and all matters which are decided by the Members of this House—logically you must give them the vote for the smaller local government affairs. But I was very much impressed by what the Home Secretary said, and I fully realise that this is a matter of immense importance which possibly it is not desirable to deal with at this already late stage of the Bill in a House which, although not thin, is not prepared thoroughly and adequately to consider. I hope those hon. Members who accept the lead on this matter of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) do not wish it to go forth to the world that the only people who are in favour of giving votes to women in local government matters are the members of their party. That is not so at all. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) has spoken in the same strain, and I myself on the merits am clearly in favour of it. On the other hand, I hope that those hon. Members who look to the right hon. Gentleman as their leader in this matter do not wish it to go forth to the world that it is they and they alone who oppose voting for soldiers by proxy. I think it was most unfortunate that these bargains were bandied across the House in this way, "If you will give, up proxy voting we will give up this." I think it is most undesirable that a matter of that sort should have been introduced into this discussion. I feel convinced that there are many Members of the party to which I belong who are in favour of the principle adumbrated by this Amendment, and I believe, in fact I am certain, that there are many members of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs who are quite willing to see the soldiers get their vote by proxy.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: It is just because I do not in any way claim that the supporters on this question come from one side that I strongly urge the House at any cost to press this Amendment. I have been in this House for about ten years, and I have heard many Debates upon women's suffrage, but I hardly remember an occasion upon which all the opponents practically were not agreed that if you confine your attempt in the enfranchisement of women to municipal affairs they would make no opposition. We have our chance. What happens? We
  726
  are told by the hon. Member who spoke last that it is a most unsuitable moment to deal with this. Women have been told that for years. At every attempt at giving them the franchise it has always been a most unsuitable moment to deal with it. The Home Secretary said he would consider the matter between the Committee stage and the Report stage. He has considered it, and to-night you have a fairly full House, and you have the supporters of woman suffrage in the past and also its opponents, represented by one who has been a leader and has spoken again and again against woman suffrage, all agreed that we ought to extend the municipal franchise to women. You have the further fact that after the War we are going to embark upon the most tremendous task this country has ever undertaken in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of this country; and at that moment, when I should have thought that women more than any other time, quite regardless of the service they have rendered in this War, would have had a claim for the extension of the franchise, giving them every possible advantage that municipal power can give, we are solemnly told that the time is not ripe. Why? I understand that the reason given—I was not in the House—is that we are bound by the Speaker's Conference; we are bound by the fact that there was a compromise in the Speaker's Conference, and that we ought to stand by it. How far is that going to be pressed? The Clause to which I attach as much importance as any in this Bill is Clause 17, the first Sub-section which deals with the question of the alternative vote. I think the Speaker's Conference dealt with that, but when it came to be debated here it was left to the free vote of the House. I have not been able to understand why.
  Sir G. CAVE: That was not one of the unanimous Resolutions.
  Mr. HEMMERDE: I was under the impression that it was one of the Resolutions which we were told would have the support of the Government. I would like to know exactly where we are, and how far we are bound. The Speaker's Conference seemed to deliberately refrain from dealing with the question of the municipal vote for women. They did so for this reason, I imagine. It had never been a burning question. The House was

  727
  so overwhelmingly in favour of it that it never arose in a controversial spirit at all. How long are you going to leave it in that half-hearted manner? If you do not pass it now it will perhaps be another ten years before the women get put upon the register. We are a great deal too timid in the way in which we handle the question of women suffrage. In the rest of the British Empire there is no such limit of thirty years of age. In America, where they have given the vote to women, they have not limited it. The whole way in which we handle this question is quite unworthy of this House and of the crisis in which we stand. At last we have a chance of doing justice to women in regard to this municipal vote. I hope that the House will take the matter into its own hands no matter what is decided by the Government, and will at least do justice to the women in a matter on which we have all said again and again there is no opposition, and that we will not continue this absurd timidity which prevents us putting our franchise upon a democratic basis.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would ask the Home Secretary whether he cannot see his way to leave the House to decide this matter. My reason is merely that the House had to decide on the larger subject of women suffrage, the Government were good enough to leave every individual Member free to express his opinion in his own way, without putting on the Government Whips. Now, when we are dealing with what must be a matter of minor importance, I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is fully consonant with the precedent which he himself has set to allow the House to decide this matter without the intervention of the Government Whips. I need hardly say for my own part that I would be reluctant to vote against the Government if this is made an official question. But I feel quite sure that there is no intention of making this, which was not one of the terms of reference to the Conference—
  HON. MEMBERS: Yes it was.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, on the contrary, I have the exact words used by the Home Secretary, who, I think, has always been very fair in interpreting these matters:
  "The whole object of appointing the Conference was if possible to come to an arrangement on matters affecting elections to Parliament, and nothing was referred to them as to the local government franchise."
  728
  In these circumstances there is a fair case for asking the Government not to put on the Whips.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I support the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to the Home Secretary. If he is not prepared to accede to the appeal I would suggest that he leave the matter over until the next day set apart for the discussion of this Bill, with the object of consulting in the meantime the Leader of the House and the Government on the point. If he is not prepared to do that I would propose to him that he should adopt the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, and consider the advisability of accepting the Amendment, adding words at the end which raise the age to thirty years. If he would accept that Amendment to the Amendment I am quite certain it will satisfy a very large number of the working married women of the country. As far as the working married women whom I have come across are concerned they are more strongly, perhaps, in favour of the local government than the Parliamentary vote, and I cannot understand why you give the bigger concession and keep back the minor one. It is so ridiculous that I hope the Government will accept the suggestion which has been made or otherwise postpone the discussion until the next day set apart for the discussion of the Bill.
  Colonel Sir C. SEELY: As a strong opponent of women's suffrage, I appeal to the Home Secretary, at all events, to leave this question to the House. There is really no reason why we should give the Parliamentary vote and not the local government vote. The opinion of the Speaker's Conference has been quoted, and the recommendations of that body have been generally accepted in the country. I speak for my own Constituency, and I think I speak for the constituencies of many other Members when I state that we have, had no complaints and no letters relating to any subject connected with this Bill, except on this, in regard to which there has been a constant stream of communications asking us to give the women the local government vote on the same terms as the Parliamentary vote. I really think there is a misunderstanding of the whole opinion of the country on this point. As to the Conference, I do not suppose they paid much consideration to this subject, but, at all events, that ought not to stand in the way

  729
  of the real opinion of the House, and what is, I am quite certain, the great volume of opinion in the country.
  Colonel Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: I would point out that there is a very great distinction between the Parliamentary vote and the municipal vote. The former has for long been divorced from any real stake in the country, while the municipal vote is given to those who pay rent. The married man who pays rent, by this Amendment, would have two votes, because he would have the vote of his wife, who does not pay rent. There is a distinction between the Parliamentary and municipal vote.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to carry this matter over until Tuesday. It is too much to expect a decision at once. Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to carry the question over until Tuesday, and think it over in the meantime?
  Mr. BARLOW: I join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think it is very desirable that we should have a distinction as between the Parliamentary and the local government vote. I hope the point will be taken into further consideration.
  Mr. C. REES: There is a general idea or hope that the Home Secretary will take this into his very earnest consideration. The suggestion has been brought forward rather quickly, and at a late hour, and there has not been time to give it consideration. I would, therefore, suggest that the matter be adjourned until Tuesday next, so that there may be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to consider it. There is a strong and a reasonable probability that when we again take up the subject we shall be able to show that not only women should have the Parliamentary vote at thirty years of age, but that they should also have the local government vote on the same terms. There is a strong feeling in the House and in the country that the municipal franchise should be granted on the same basis as the Parliamentary franchise.
  It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  GREECE.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. LYNCH: Two nights ago I raised a question of great public importance and the Government adopted the device of counting me out, a practice to the disadvantage of the Government, not only in this House, but in the opinion of the country, showing its weakness in being unable to face fair argument. If they intend to carry out the same practice to-night I will return to the question again and again until I have made it clear not only to this House, but to the country at large, and throughout all the Dominions so that the Government will not gain by this miserable proceeding. I now proceed to the main argument. I propose to take the House over twelve months of modern Grecian history. On the 21st of January, 1916, a compact was entered into between the German Emperor on the one hand and King Constantine on the other, an elaborate agreement between the two monarchs for mutual support with terms carefully drawn up which signified that on the one hand King Constantine would not on any occasion employ the arms of Greece against Germany, but would do all that he could to defeat the military operations of the Allies as far as Greek soil was concerned—
  Notice taken that forty Members were not present—
  Mr. LYNCH: I shall raise this question until this cowardly Government is brought to the bar of public opinion.
  House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.